English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

George Bush said yesterday that the US was wrong to pull out of Vietnam. Therefore he believes that more young Americans should have been sent to their deaths in an unwinnable war while he sat safe in the US drinking and playing around with women. How can this coward dare to condemn troops for coming home when he was too cowardly to fight in Vietnam himself?

2007-08-23 03:46:41 · 25 answers · asked by Sean D 3 in Politics & Government Military

25 answers

After watching him sit and do nothing, while he had his hatchet team (Swift Boat Vets for whatever) smeer john Kerry, a real Vet that actually enlisted and went to Vietnam and recieved several medals, nothing will surprise me.
Shame on all of the jackass right wingers that chimed in with this crap. These lies were totally debunked.
These people got mad at Kerry because AFTER HE SERVED AS A HERO, he denounced the war and helped bring and end to THAT MISTAKE.

The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy's official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.

Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, "on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies."[46] ABC News's The Note opined, "the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry's medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false."[47] Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial[48] stated, "Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false." The editorial argued this position on the basis that "Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation." On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: "An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar."[49]

The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O'Neill's charge that there "was little or no fire" that day; they said that the fighting was fierce.[50] SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke "in the presence of a Communist official",[51] but their account of enemy fire is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter[1][not in citation given] and by the American witnesses, including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day, Larry Clayton Lee.[52][53][54][55]

Jerome Corsi has said that a picture of Kerry's 1993 visit to Vietnam hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a gesture of "honor" by the communists "for his contribution to their victory over [the] United States",[56][57] and John O'Neill has stated that Kerry "is in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero. . . . one of the heroes who caused them to win the war in Vietnam".[58] The statement is also repeated in "Unfit for Command" (pp 167-174). However, Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard:

“ While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.
It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993. Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials

2007-08-23 04:49:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

He did want to go to Vietnam! Lieutenant George W. Bush volunteered for Palace Alert when he was with the Texas Air National Guard. That's the program which sent National Guard and air Guard personnel to the Indochinese Theater of Operations. Unfortunately, Lieutenant Bush had trained on a type of aircraft which had been superseded by a later type.
Over 50,000 National Guard and Air Guard personnel served in the Indochinese Theater of Operations during the Vietnam War.
Two officers of the National Guard were killed at the Pentagon when that plane hit the building on September 11, 2001. Where the hell do you sad-assed civilians get the idea that the Guard is an easy way out?

2007-08-23 05:39:46 · answer #2 · answered by desertviking_00 7 · 2 0

The answer to your smirking question will surprise you -- since you only think in the here & now, and have little life experience to draw from... he was a kid, then.

It's wasn't HIS idea, to do what he did in those years of his young life -- he had parents. Most kids his age, didn't want to join the military. His parents were connected, his father saw action in WWII and didn't want that for his son. THINK. It was the father that arranged the National Guard duty, yet moved him to a new State for it, so that his son would grow-up a little, and see some measure of responsibility. Remember, these are BLUE BLOOD wasps you're talking about -- who feel they have a higher-purpose. They are ABOVE what the Common Man does, and in fact - in this case, they're right.

Hate to say it, and I'm sure you can't see it.. but, GWB was different and it was borne out. He was a President in waiting, thanks to his father's connections with the GOP and Texas/New England. His father became President, due to those incredible connections... and circumstances of a HORRID Presidency of Bill Clintons' (seriously, now) made the election of GWB a cakewalk. It shouldn't have been, but that's the way it was.

The DNC didn't force Bubba's resignation (which would have shown a President Gore to America for at least a year & a half, and he would have been a shoe-in for Election!!). And, the DNC didn't support the campaign of Bill Bradley, generally turning the back for Al Gore (even with the stain of continuing the Clinton White House against him).

What do you expect?

2007-08-23 04:01:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

How can anyone ever claim BUsh was the worst when Buchan could be blamed for allowing the civil war to happen by his inabilty to act. You look at all of the scandals around Harding. Pierce was a joke he didnt even tell his wife he was runing cause he was afraid of her. Harrison lasted a about 30days. Jackson wasnt that bad his impeachment was more political. Coolidge led us into the great depression.Millard Fillmore failed to gain the nomination of his own party. Now iam not saying Bush was awsome or even good but people are so quick to say he is horrable that they dont even look into history, its almost like if it didnt happen in there life time it never happend. Open a history book most of what people hate Bush for other Presidents did the same thing. What about interning rthe Japs during WW2 sounds a lot like gitmo yet he is considered a great president what about the march of tears under jackson. People just need to read history before they judge.

2016-05-20 23:16:12 · answer #4 · answered by zofia 3 · 0 0

You asked two questions. In response to your first one, are you saying that GW does not have the right to state an opinion about the governments actions during the Viet Nam war? As an American, we all still have the right to voice opinions about anything we want, whether we were involved in it or not.

As for your second question, Bush never condemned the troops that went to Viet Nam, you must be thinking of John Kerry. But, being the lib that you are, I'm sure you just got your "facts" confused. But to you, a lie, a truth, what's the difference, right?

2007-08-23 03:57:16 · answer #5 · answered by Wayne G 5 · 5 2

I agree we should have not left Vietnam. I feel that if we would have limited the media and their exploitation of the conflicts in Vietnam and Iraq to better their pockets it could have been a different outcome. The Media is actually the ones prolonging the Iraq conflict.

2007-08-23 04:01:43 · answer #6 · answered by bulletbob36 3 · 4 1

Being in the Texas air national guard was no garuntee that you would not go to viet nam.

As a matter of fact, Bush's unit, the 111th fighter interceptor squadron was deployed to Bien Hoa.

Since when is joining the national guard a treasonable offense?

Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
September 20, 2004
Lt. Bush's opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Just like Lt. Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high performance jet fighter aircraft -- both of us realized our dream. I might have been just a dumb fighter pilot but I don't remember looking ahead (and I'm sure Lt. Bush didn't either) to what missions we could be assigned -- peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. (Contributing to the Air National Guard's Air Defense mission, Lt. Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102 -- the world's first supersonic all-weather jet interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.)

Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units we were assigned. Lt. Bush would have gladly gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed -- but the reality was that young Lt. Bush had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country's National Security interests. I guess you could say such decisions were above our pay grade. Lt. Bush's mission, as a squadron fighter interceptor pilot, was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States; for example, Soviet Nuclear Bombers. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s with Air Defense a high priority mission. Today our Air Defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists onboard.
...Cowards (or people who lack courage) don't take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying Fighter Interceptor Aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in the weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Lt. Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970, the Commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, called Mr. Bush, then 24, "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top-notch fighter interceptor pilot." "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," Colonel Killian wrote: "He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."

Flying these things requires the equivalent of a degree in aeronautical engineering.

2007-08-23 04:11:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

And what gives you the right to bad mouth him. How much time did you spend in Vietnam? A person can look back at history and see the mistakes that were made then form their own opinion, be it right or wrong. That is something you did here but you didn't have correct information.

2007-08-23 04:09:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 3

Vietnam was not unwinnable. We were in fact winning. It was not popular with young people because they were the ones who had to go fight this war. The war ended for the US when congress defunded the war. It did not end for Vietnam. It did not end for Cambodia. Millions more died because we did not fulfill our treaty obligations.
The President did not condemn the troops for coming home. He was condemning congress for defunding the war and breaking the treaties we had signed.
Many, many young men took deferments during the time of Vietnam. Most of these young men were wealthy. Were they all cowards? Was Bill Clinton a coward when he got his deferment and went to England and took part in peace marches? If you are going to condemn one of these young men for their actions during this time you must condemn all of them.

2007-08-23 03:58:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 3

He is a cowardly fool.

Heroes like John Kerry, who actually served over there, learned first hand what a disastrous mistake it was to go over there in the first place and courageously spoke out against it.

Fools like Bush and Cheney cover themselves retroactively with the flag and blather on about how "we" should have stayed there, but neither made any effort to go over there themselves (Cheney got FIVE deferments). Kerry signed up for it, Bush could've done the same.

To the Con dopes above, Clinton protested the war because he realized it was a fool's errand. He was totally right to do so.

58,000 soldiers lost and we didn't accomplish a damn thing. Not only did Communism not spread like wildfire through Asia, after the North Vietnamese won, but within a few decades, we restored diplomatic relations with them (Bush even had a friendly visit there last year).

2007-08-23 04:13:19 · answer #10 · answered by celticexpress 4 · 3 5

fedest.com, questions and answers