Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Not the kind of story they wanted to come out right before the convention, I'm sure...

"I'm very ashamed" The former Texas official who got George Bush into the National Guard apologizes for making sure that young men with important "family names" did not have to fight in Vietnam. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Jeff Horwitz Aug. 27, 2004 $|$ Another bombshell in the battle over Vietnam service that has been raging in the 2004 presidential race exploded on the Web Friday. In a video originally posted on the Web by a pro-Kerry organization in Austin, Texas, Ben Barnes, a former lieutenant governor of Texas, apologized for his role in getting a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard while young men who were not from prominent or wealthy families "died in Vietnam." "Let's talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush, and I know them both," said Barnes in the video, which was filmed at a gathering of about 200 Kerry supporters in Austin on May 27. "I got a young man named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard when I was lieutenant governor, and I'm not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. I got a lot of other people in the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do when you're in office, and you help a lot of rich people." "And I walked to the Vietnam Memorial the other day," Barnes continued, "and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam, and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been, because it was the worst thing I ever did, was help a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very sorry about that, and I'm very ashamed, and I apologize to you as voters of Texas."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...nes/index.html

he should've just made them commit war crimes in vietnam with Kerry. Then he could have a clear conscience.

Originally Posted by Cracka he should've just made them commit war crimes in vietnam with Kerry. Then he could have a clear conscience.

And the illogical right wing response that is based on facts presented by FOX news!

Thank you, Cracka

(And I just love the racial slur that you use as a user name, it adds an heir of respectability to your posts.)

Wait a second, I thought that it was disrespectful to bring up military service. Max Cleland himself said (and I quote directly from CNN.com)

"An attack on valorous service of a fellow American is wrong"

But hey I guess even a quarter has 2 different sides.

"An attack on valorous service of a fellow American is wrong"

Getting out of Vietnam by having your daddy get you into the national guard, and not even showing up for long stretches of time, is "valorous service"?

People like Cleland, Kerry, McCain, Bush Sr, Dole, what they did is "valorous service". They actually *fought* in an actual *war* with *real* bullets. They killed people, and were in actual danger of being killed. I'm pretty sure all of the above were wounded. Dole badly in a bomber I believe, Bush Sr while parachuting into the ocean, McCain's capture and torture, Cleland losing 3 limbs, and Kerry with mostly minor stuff.

Lots of rich people got their kids into the national guard, I don't hold that against him as much as I consider Kerry's experience a plus. But don't even try to compare the two. They are *not* the same thing.

Because of Kerrys experience he will not take us to war for monetary reasons, like Cheny did.

He will not devote his presidency to Halliburton and other greedy corporations.

I have poor eyesight. I would probably be classified 4-F, and couldn't do many jobs in the military. If I joined up during wartime, wanting to do what I could, and became a quartermaster or member of a band or strategy technician or something else that kept me from the front lines, does that make my service any less 'valourous'?
All the women who helped support the troops in WWI and WWII--was their service and work not 'valorous'?
If I joined the Navy because I liked the sea, rather than the Marines because I'm not so tough, does that mean I'm wasting my time?
I do agree, serving in combat does give 'props' as the kids say to those people who actually face enemy fire. Of course, indulging in war atrocities like Kerry admits to doing does somewhat dull the shine of that record; Lynddie England is currently in court for performing lesser acts than Kerry has claimed.

If we went to war for money, and since there's a lot of oil which of course is black gold, in the Middle East, why are my gas and power bills so high? What better reason to go to war? Religion? Hmm, that's what OBL and AlQaeda did. Defeat bad guys? Hmm, Saddam was a pretty bad guy, and he's been defeated; OBL isn't defeated, but he's on the run and hiding in hideyholes; 2400 of the 3000 core Al Qaeda members have either been killed or captured.

The Saudi Princes and OPEC control the oil prices.

We did not invade Iraq to get US oil, we invaded Iraq so Halliburton, a very rich US corporation, could get oil.

And EVERYONE who makes a contribution to the war effort (as long as they are doing it for the right reason *glares at Carlyle group*) does a valorous service.

And your gas bills are high because oil fields and gas fields are not the same, and your power bills are high because the US uses coal ower, and the power companies are price gougers.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla The Saudi Princes and OPEC control the oil prices. We did not invade Iraq to get US oil, we invaded Iraq so Halliburton, a very rich US corporation, could get oil. And EVERYONE who makes a contribution to the war effort (as long as they are doing it for the right reason *glares at Carlyle group*) does a valorous service. And your gas bills are high because oil fields and gas fields are not the same, and your power bills are high because the US uses coal ower, and the power companies are price gougers.

Do you have any idea how much more credible you would sound if you actually cited sources when you post?

For OPEC and the Saudi Princes, 11th grade geography.

And you really should already know how we use and abuse natural resources. I don't need a source for that, its not my fault you don't know jack shit about your utility providers.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla For OPEC and the Saudi Princes, 11th grade geography. And you really should already know how we use and abuse natural resources. I don't need a source for that, its not my fault you don't know jack shit about your utility providers.

I think you assume to much... in formal argumentation, those viewing the arguments aren't supposed to suppliment the affirmative or negative cases with knowledge they have... rather they are to judge soley based upon the information the debators presented to them.

I'm just stating that, in general, you are trying to state evidence without proper citation. Anyone who has studied formal debate would agree that the consistant use of that practice strains your credibility.

The fact that you can't pull up valid sources when questioned on them, and feel the need to insult and attack instead strains your credibility even further.

JSweeney, are you as bored as I am, to the point where we both troll the political forum?

Nah, I think I'm just on another one of my fool's errands... trying to instill some sense of decorum in the political threads.

First I tried to fight against people talking about piracy on the main boards, and then against people talking up thier "Walmart scams".

Of course, I hold out much less hope for instilling a sense of decorum in here than I did for those previous aims.

I think these boards need more love.

Or biting sarcasm, one of the two.

Originally Posted by PsyClerk I think these boards need more love. Or biting sarcasm, one of the two.

Way to live up to your custom rank, PsyClerk.

Originally Posted by JSweeney I think you assume to much... in formal argumentation, those viewing the arguments aren't supposed to suppliment the affirmative or negative cases with knowledge they have... rather they are to judge soley based upon the information the debators presented to them.

I made the assumption that, since the person I was replying to had refered to his bills, that he was a homeowner.

The second assumption was that being a gamer he would be between the age of 22 and 35, a statistical guess, which I used to make the assumption that he had taken a world geography class after the year 1986.

The fourth assumption was that, being a cheapass (gamer), he would have researched his utility companies, and would know that natural gas is uncommon in Iraq AND that the majority of his electricity is generated by coal.

From that line of assumptions I did not think that I needed to post google links to geography websites and power company websites.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla I made the assumption that, since the person I was replying to had refered to his bills, that he was a homeowner. The second assumption was that being a gamer he would be between the age of 22 and 35, a statistical guess, which I used to make the assumption that he had taken a world geography class after the year 1986. The fourth assumption was that, being a cheapass (gamer), he would have researched his utility companies, and would know that natural gas is uncommon in Iraq AND that the majority of his electricity is generated by coal. From that line of assumptions I did not think that I needed to post google links to geography websites and power company websites.

So then where's your proof that the invasion of Iraq was orchestrated to get oil for Haliburton? That's a fairly contraversial statement to be making without enough evidence to back it up.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&a...rlyle+iraq+oil

Find it yourself.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla And the illogical right wing response that is based on facts presented by FOX news! Thank you, Cracka (And I just love the racial slur that you use as a user name, it adds an heir of respectability to your posts.)

actually since kerry admitted that he committed war crimes, i dont think its an illogical response based on facts from FOX news... its more of a logical response based on facts presented by John Kerry.


sorry about my screen name, i didnt get the memo about having respectable screen names like "quackzilla"... i respect your screen name, b/c when i'm arguing with a self proclaimed "quack", i pay closer attention to what they say.

Originally Posted by Quackzilla http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=halliburton+carlyle+iraq+oil Find it yourself.

Those hardly show orchestration of a war by a company to bolster thier profit margin. Yes, they've benefited. Yes, some of the actions are questionable.

But to suggest " We did not invade Iraq to get US oil, we invaded Iraq so Halliburton, a very rich US corporation, could get oil." is ludicrous.

That search hardly turns up reputable sources.
Where are the well known and well respected journalists?
The well known and respected sources? Mainstream Media?
Government Reports? (I hardly think Democrats would stand idly by while Haliburton pulled the puppet strings of the Bush White House)

Reading through those sites, you are confronted with an endless assult of conspiricy theorists, suggesting just things as the Pope being concerned Bush may be the "Antichrist".

I'm sorry, but those sites reek of special interest, and seem to be authored by a bunch of people P.T Barnum would love to meet.