Texas Official Ashamed He Got Bush Into National Guard

MrBadExample

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
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/2004/08/27/barnes/index.html
 
[quote name='Cracka']he should've just made them commit war crimes in vietnam with Kerry. Then he could have a clear conscience.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='PsyClerk']I think these boards need more love.

Or biting sarcasm, one of the two.[/quote]

:)

Way to live up to your custom rank, PsyClerk. :)
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='Cracka']he should've just made them commit war crimes in vietnam with Kerry. Then he could have a clear conscience.[/quote]

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.)[/quote]


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.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=halliburton+carlyle+iraq+oil

Find it yourself.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Quackzilla']http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=halliburton+carlyle+iraq+oil

Find it yourself.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

How naive, ignorance is bliss.

Oh to be young again...
 
[quote name='dafoomie']
"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.[/quote]

Just because he was in the National Guard doesn't mean that his service was any less valorous. Do you even know what Bush did in the National Guard? Don't give me that crap about him not showing up either. He patroled the airspace around Cuba. Which, let's see, would have been at a very crucial time when the USSR was still trying to use Cuba to be able to attack us.
 
He was in the Alabama National Guard.

His unit patrolled the skies over Alabama, patrolling during a time when communists were percieved to be a great threat to the homeland.
 
Just because he was in the National Guard doesn't mean that his service was any less valorous. Do you even know what Bush did in the National Guard? Don't give me that crap about him not showing up either. He patroled the airspace around Cuba. Which, let's see, would have been at a very crucial time when the USSR was still trying to use Cuba to be able to attack us.

Please, give me a break. Bush himself doesn't even claim his service was "valorous" like veterans who were in an actual war.

Him not showing up is a valid point. The point is debatable, but it has not been completely proven or completely disproven.

Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, and was done training in 1970. He then flew training missions for 2 years, where two pilots would fly over the Gulf of Mexico, and practice being Predator and Prey. Bush asked to be reassigned to the Alabama National Guard in 1972 to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount, which in itself was fairly common and not an issue. In Alabama he did little or no flying, but did drills with the regular guardsmen, because they didn't have enough planes to accomodate him. In 1973 he left the Guard to attend Harvard Business School.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

The time in question is his time in Alabama. Not that he was transfered, not that he left early, not that he didn't fly in Alabama, all of which are legit. Did he show up for the drills with the regular guardsmen or not. I don't know the answer and most people here don't either. The article I cited defends Bush's record. But I won't make an issue of it right now.

What Bush did in the Guard does not come close to what people go through in a real life war. He was never shot at, he never had to shoot anyone. His life was never in danger, he never saw his friends die, and he never had to deal with the consequences of taking another man's life, even if they are the enemy. I don't fault Bush for it, but don't tell me that what he did was just as "valorous" as someone that served in a war. I consider people like Bob Dole, John McCain, Bush Sr., JFK, Max Cleland, John Kerry, politics aside, to be heroes for what they did for their country. Flying over the Gulf of Mexico once every week or two for a while, and drilling the required 50 days a year in Alabama, is not the same.

Oh, and about Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis ended in 1962. The Soviets after that time delivered military equipment to Castro, most of it in the 80s, but did not have a real military presence in Cuba. And Bush never patroled Cuban airspace, or anywhere else. Bush's flying experience was limited to training missions in the Gulf of Mexico.

Again, what Bush did, the awol issue aside, was not bad and not a negative against him. But its not the same as being in a war.
 
You also forgot to add that Bush was grounded from flying because he refused a physical that included a drug test.
 
Shit, meet Fan.

Sept. 1, 2004  |  The campaign battle over Vietnam War records is still raging, but President Bush may soon be the one answering uncomfortable questions about his past service. Ben Barnes, the former lieutenant governor of Texas, will finally break his silence and talk to the press about what role he played in helping Bush get a coveted slot in the Texas Air National Guard in 1968. Sources say Barnes has already sat down for a "60 Minutes" interview that will air a week from Sunday.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/01/barnes60minutes/index.html
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Quackzilla']http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=halliburton+carlyle+iraq+oil

Find it yourself.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

How naive, ignorance is bliss.

Oh to be young again...[/quote]

17236.jpg
 
[quote name='JSweeney']
17236.jpg

[/quote]

But if it exists it is neither a delusion nor a hallucination.

But paranoid schizophrenia can include denial...
 
bread's done
Back
Top