Larry David and Bush Defending US during Vietnam

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by CottonBowl'66, Feb 15, 2004.

  1. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
  2. Sourdoughman

    Sourdoughman TigerFan of LSU and the Tigerman

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2003
    Messages:
    12,229
    Likes Received:
    426
    and what did Bill Clinton do in that time also?

    Its funny that all this nonesense didn't matter when Bill Clinton and Al Gore were running but all of a sudden it has become an
    issue.:shock:
     
  3. DallasLSU

    DallasLSU Freshman

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,155
    Likes Received:
    19
    CottonBowl, since when did it become a requirement that to be President you had to serve in actual combat?????

    And good point Sourdoughman....seems odd that it was OK for Clinton to do it, but its not OK when Bush did it? That's really odd isn't it?
     
  4. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1
    When Bush played "dress-up" as a Navy combat pilot and landed on an aircraft carrier with a huge sign (ordered by his staff, BTW) that said "Mission Accomplised," and when Bush describes himself as a "war president" he himself made his service record an issue.

    When your president tries to identify himself with men and women who have gone into harm's way for political gain, he makes his own service record a campaign issue.

    You won't undertand that because you are just a lemming who thinks "Bush-good," "Clinton-bad." It is another reason why you are not worth responding to here.

    Bush himself made it an issue.
     
  5. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Freshman

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    And when Bill Clinton sent troops into Bosnia, Haiti, et. al, HE made HIS service record (excuse me, lack thereof) an issue.

    George Bush put himself behind the stick of a supersonic fighter.
    Bill Clinton couldn't even get on an ROTC uniform at SooeyU for
    the yellow streak down his back. There's absolutely no comparison.
     
  6. CottonBowl'66

    CottonBowl'66 Freshman

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    1

    No, there is no comparison. Bush supported going to war in Vietnam. He thought it was a just and noble cause. .....It was a just and noble cause as long as he DID NOT HAVE TO RISK HIS LIFE in it.

    It was a just and noble cause as long as SOMEONE ELSE RISKED HIS LIFE for George Bush. Bush supported the war as long as someone else fought and died in it, and he did not.
     
  7. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Freshman

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    And Bill Clinton avoided service because he didn't believe
    it was a "noble cause"? How convenient. Why not go for conscientious objector status? Maybe he was afraid he wouldn't be able to maintain his "political viability"?
     
  8. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Freshman

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    I suppose you have proof of this? Maybe George Bush served in the military because it was the legal obligation of all young
    men his age to do so. that doesn't necessarily mean that he supported the war.
     
  9. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    927
    i think lots of things are just and noble and it doesnt mean i want to personally do them.

    i do not want to go to iraq, but i respect those who do go, same with vietnam. is that so weird?
     
  10. G_MAN113

    G_MAN113 Freshman

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    3,386
    Likes Received:
    19
    The difference here is that you're under no legal obligation to serve. Bill Clinton was, and he ducked that obligation.
     

Share This Page