Gore Laments U.S. 'Abuses' Against Arabs

[BigBadBrian]

Gore Laments U.S. 'Abuses' Against Arabs
Feb 12 9:08 PM US/Eastern


By JIM KRANE
Associated Press Writer


JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia


Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.

Gore said Arabs had been "indiscriminately rounded up" and held in "unforgivable" conditions. The former vice president said the Bush administration was playing into al-Qaida's hands by routinely blocking Saudi visa applications.



"The thoughtless way in which visas are now handled, that is a mistake," Gore said during the Jiddah Economic Forum. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States."

Gore told the largely Saudi audience, many of them educated at U.S. universities, that Arabs in the United States had been "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

"Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's wrong," Gore said. "I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

On Iran, Gore complained of "endemic hyper-corruption" among Tehran's religious and political elite and asked Arabs to take a stand against Iran's nuclear program.

Iran says its program is for peaceful purposes but the United States and other Western countries suspect Tehran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"Is it only for the West to say this is dangerous?" Gore asked. "We should have more people in this region saying this is dangerous."

Several audience members criticized the United States for what they described as "unconditional" U.S. support for Israel, saying U.S. diplomats helped Israel flout U.N. resolutions that they enforced when the measures targeted Arabs.

Gore refused to be drawn into questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"We can't solve that long conflict in exchanges here," Gore said.

Also at the forum, the vice chairman of Chevron Corp., Peter Robertson, said President Bush's desire to cut U.S. dependence on Mideast oil shows a "misunderstanding" of global energy supply and the critical role of Saudi Arabia.

In his State of the Union address this month, Bush pledged to cut U.S. dependence on Middle East oil by 75 percent by 2025.

"This notion of being energy independent is completely unreasonable," Robertson said at the economic forum, which opened Saturday.

"I believe Middle Eastern oil can and must play a certain role in the system," Robertson said. "Saudi Arabia's massive resources will continue to promote international energy security and serve as a moderating force in balancing supply and demand."

Cherie Blair, wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, made a plea at the forum for women's rights, telling Saudi leaders that the dearth of women in the work force was "undermining economic potential" of the kingdom.

Irish President Mary McAleese urged Saudi Arabia to learn from Ireland's economic transformation, which hinged on opening the country to the outside world and ushering women into the workplace.

Link (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html)

[Nitro Express]

I feel sorry for all the people who died on 9/11 and their families. I'll never forget how the majority of the Arab world celebrated when that happened. They were dancing in the streets, selling Osama Bin Ladden action figures and T-shirts. It was one big party while a very small handful said they were sorry.

[Nickdfresh]

I feel sorry for the American citizens dying in Iraq in as War knowingly based on faulty intelligence...

[Angel]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
I'll never forget how the majority of the Arab world celebrated when that happened. They were dancing in the streets, selling Osama Bin Ladden action figures and T-shirts. It was one big party while a very small handful said they were sorry.

Actually, the dancing in the streets footage that was seen on tv has been proven to be previous footage of celebrations in palestine.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I feel sorry for the American citizens dying in Iraq in as War knowingly based on faulty intelligence...

This thread isn't about the Iraq War. It's about Al Gore being an idiot.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
This thread isn't about the Iraq War. It's about Al Gore being an idiot.

Well then, why didn't you vote him? You apparently love elected idiots...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well then, why didn't you vote him? You apparently love elected idiots...

I didn't vote for the father of the internet, but you did. :)

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Warham
This thread isn't about the Iraq War. It's about Al Gore being an idiot.

There is a double standard in this forum. When you are a card carrying liberal you can say what you want. When you are a republican you need to stick to the topic.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well then, why didn't you vote him? You apparently love elected idiots...

Actually, that's not true.....

He loves Supreme Court Appointed idiots.

[thome]

And to think, Al would speak out against his own country like this,
and he wanted to be my president ..two faced bastard!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by thome
And to think, Al would speak out against his own country like this,
and he wanted to be my president ..two faced bastard!

Well, it's pretty funny that BuSH has the illiterate trailer trash vote...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, it's pretty funny that BuSH has the illiterate trailer trash vote...

And John Kerry has the pseudo-intellectual pessimistic asshole vote, as demonstrated right here on this very forum.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
And John Kerry has the pseudo-intellectual pessimistic asshole vote, as demonstrated right here on this very forum.

Wow. Sounds like somebody is resorting to name calling. I though you were above that...

I'm deeply saddened and shocked...

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wow. Sounds like somebody is resorting to name calling. I though you were above that...

I'm deeply saddened and shocked...

I am not above it, you are a liberal dick.

[Nitro Express]

I did a study abroad in Israel while in college. Some of the worlds best scuba diving is in the Red Sea. Some of the best Red Sea resorts are actually in Saudi Arabia believe it or not. It's strict Islamic rules where women and men are sepparated and everything but they are posh resorts that are way better than anything the Egyptians have.

All I wanted to do was scuba dive and yes, the Saudis do that. Everytime I applied for a visa I was turned down flat. I even had a Saudi friend try and pull some strings for me but that was to no avail. But the United States at that time was letting in thousands of Saudis. Go figure.

[Nitro Express]

Hmmmm. Al Gore is a hypocrite. He wrote "Earth in the Balance" and said the internal combustion engine was the biggest threat to the earth. President Bush is a big oil guy but even he has given a slight nod to alternative fuels which means Gore should be at least giving some kudos, but instead he's with a Chevron executive sucking Saudi ass.

As I said before, unconditional support of Israel is a huge problem. Israel's days are numbered because the Jews haven't reproduced themselves enough and they are largely outnumbered by their Arab nieghbors. That place isn't going to last forever. There strictly isn't enough Jews and I don't think the rest of the world is going to risk world war to save them.

The middle east oil is the big card the arabs can play. Someone in the world is always going to want it. If not the United States, then China or India will as their economies and infastructer develop. We had a huge warning in the 1970's about dependance on middle east oil. We didn't do anything and now the same problem but bigger visits us again.

Supporting the Jews is one thing but the oil is a bigger problem. Cutting off the oil supply will ruin our economy when it spikes to $200 plus a barrel. The desperation to keep the oil flowing will cause a huge middle east war that can go nuclear and ripple throughout the world.

What the president should do is issue a huge challenge to drastically reduce oil consumption using new technologies. People thought JFK was nuts when he challenged the country to put a man on the moon by the time the decade was out. We actually accomplished that goal. I would say the middle east problem is bigger than the space race with the Soviet Union.

What better way to say fuck you to the middle east arabs than using our technological advancements to reduce the demand of their oil and make it worth less in the world markets. Obsolete oil would put them right back into tents in the desert where they can go back to fighting each other as we enjoy biodiesel, hydrogen, solar, clean burning coal power. Theres no reason we should have an energy crises in the United States. I would be willing to pay a little more to get off middle east oil.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, it's pretty funny that BuSH has the illiterate trailer trash vote...

Yeah, that's how you win elections.

That's something the Democrats STILL haven't figured out. You need to appeal to MOST of the electorate, not just some of them. :rolleyes:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah, that's how you win elections.

That's something the Democrats STILL haven't figured out. You need to appeal to MOST of the electorate, not just some of them. :rolleyes:

Except in 1992, 1996, 2000(popular vote), 2006, 2008(oops! Jumped the gun there)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
I am not above it, I'll suck a liberal dick.

[thome]

,maybe you need to stop defending the trash of america
clinton gore and kennedy, don't give a damn about you.

How many times do you want to patch this sinking ship the
so called Democratic Party before you say you've been lied
to by them, for the last time..?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wow. Sounds like somebody is resorting to name calling. I though you were above that...

I'm deeply saddened and shocked...

No, I decided I'd stoop down to your level for a day or two.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Except in 1992, 1996, 2000(popular vote), 2006, 2008(oops! Jumped the gun there)

Yeah, you guys have had TWO presidents in the oval office in the last thirty five years! Wow! What a record!

[lesfunk]

Are there any Politicians that the Saudis don't own?

[4moreyears]

Al Gore and John Kerry the past two Democratic Pres. Nominees. What a fucking joke. Gore is a traitor, should be shot. As the swift boat vets pointed out Kerry is a joke. No wonder why Bush won the last two elections.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
There is a double standard in this forum. When you are a card carrying liberal you can say what you want. When you are a republican you need to stick to the topic.

No, it's just that you fools constantly change the subject because you have nothing to say.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Yeah, that's how you win elections.

That's something the Democrats STILL haven't figured out. You need to appeal to MOST of the electorate, not just some of them. :rolleyes:

Or you could just scaremonger and cheat.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Or you could just scaremonger and cheat.

It is better to win them fair and square so there are no objections.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Al Gore and John Kerry the past two Democratic Pres. Nominees. What a fucking joke. Gore is a traitor, should be shot.

How is a GORE a "traitor," ass-licker?


As the swift boat vets pointed out Kerry is a joke. No wonder why Bush won the last two elections.

The ones that didn't actually serve with him. The ones that had a homoerotic gay-obsession thing for him, the way you have for FORD...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I decided I'd stoop down to your level for a day or two.

Yeah I noticed, usually, you're far beneath me...

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
How is a GORE a "traitor," ass-licker?



The ones that didn't actually serve with him. The ones that had a homoerotic gay-obsession thing for him, the way you have for FORD...

He put or vets in harms way with his mouth and became a commie sympathizer.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
He put or vets in harms way with his mouth and became a commie sympathizer.

Actually, it was LBJ that put our vets in danger...

He spoke the truth of what he saw in that shitty little war...

And by all accounts, he plastered a BP-40 carrying VC with 5.56mm from his M-16...

While BUSH was adjusting his nuts in his flight suit bravely defending Dallas air space against the North Vietnamese Air Force, or skipping duty all together...

[Warham]

Yeah, and Slick Willie was off on his National Lampoon's European Vacation®.

[Nickdfresh]

Can you go more than two-posts without mentioning CLINTON? Seriously...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Can you go more than two-posts without mentioning CLINTON? Seriously...

Nope. You'll just have to get used to it.

As long as you keep dogging Bush about his Vietnam service, I'll keep dogging every other former President's Vietnam service.

I figured after Dan Rather got embarrassed, you guys would have stopped harping about that. Just don't learn...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Nope. You'll just have to get used to it.

As long as you keep dogging Bush about his Vietnam service, I'll keep dogging every other former President's Vietnam service.

I figured after Dan Rather got embarrassed, you guys would have stopped harping about that. Just don't learn...

Um, it was actually related to the topic, or the post I addressed...

Your repeated "But CLINTON" threadjacking is just gay.

[Warham]

Bush vietnam service record wasn't involved it in either until you brought it up. This was about Al Gore being an traitor.

Stop playing games, Nick. :)

[Angel]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
I did a study abroad in Israel while in college. Some of the worlds best scuba diving is in the Red Sea. Some of the best Red Sea resorts are actually in Saudi Arabia believe it or not. It's strict Islamic rules where women and men are sepparated and everything but they are posh resorts that are way better than anything the Egyptians have.

All I wanted to do was scuba dive and yes, the Saudis do that. Everytime I applied for a visa I was turned down flat. I even had a Saudi friend try and pull some strings for me but that was to no avail. But the United States at that time was letting in thousands of Saudis. Go figure.

My brother lived and worked in Saudi for 8 years, mainly to pay for his underwater photography equipment, and you are correct SOME of the best diving is in the Red Sea, however, If I remember correctly, he said that some of the best Red Sea resorts were either in Yemen or the United Arab Emirates (can't remember which). The only way you can get a Visa to Saudi is for work, or to visit a relative who has been working there for at least one year - at least that were the rules at that time, I understand they have relaxed the rules somewhat since then.

He HATED going to the beaches, having to see the men able to run around and swim in speedos, while the women still had to remain under Burkhas.

By the way, if you want some of the BEST diving in the world, the Pacific Northwest is the place to be. :)

[Angel]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Um, it was actually related to the topic, or the post I addressed...

Your repeated "But CLINTON" threadjacking is just gay.

But CLINTON sold out all the cheap seats and now I have to pay the BIG $$$$ to go hear him speak next month... ;)




Okay, back to the topic now, I just couldn't resist.

:angel:

[franksters]

Originally posted by Angel
My brother lived and worked in Saudi for 8 years, mainly to pay for his underwater photography equipment, and you are correct SOME of the best diving is in the Red Sea, however, If I remember correctly, he said that some of the best Red Sea resorts were either in Yemen or the United Arab Emirates (can't remember which). The only way you can get a Visa to Saudi is for work, or to visit a relative who has been working there for at least one year - at least that were the rules at that time, I understand they have relaxed the rules somewhat since then.

He HATED going to the beaches, having to see the men able to run around and swim in speedos, while the women still had to remain under Burkhas.

By the way, if you want some of the BEST diving in the world, the Pacific Northwest is the place to be. :)

My Kinda people!!!!

speedo and burka...

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by lesfunk
Are there any Politicians that the Saudis don't own?


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Co..._17_06_JKE.html

February 17, 2006
Al Gore's Embittered Remarks
By Jack Kelly

Former Vice President Al Gore is bitterly disappointed he was not elected president. Periodically, he expresses his disappointment in ways that gives us reason to be thankful he wasn't.

The most recent was last weekend, when he traveled to Saudi Arabia to make a speech denouncing the United States. The occasion was the annual Jeddah economic forum, which is sponsored in part by the family of Osama bin Laden (which claims to have distanced itself from the family black sheep).

Mr. Gore has not disclosed how much he was paid for his words of wisdom. It probably is less than the $267,000 former president Bill Clinton was paid for speaking to the group in 2002, but odds are his fee was in six figures.

Whatever Mr. Gore's speaking fee was, his hosts likely thought it a bargain, considering what the former vice president had to say. The U.S. committed "terrible abuses" against Arabs after 9/11, Mr. Gore said. Arabs were "indiscriminately rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa and not having a green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just unforgivable."

According to the Arab American Anti Discrimination Committee, about 1,200 Arabs were arrested after 9/11. Of these, 725 were held on immigration violations, 100 on unrelated criminal charges, and 360 for possible links to terrorism.

The Census Bureau says there are about three million Arabs in the United States. The number "indiscriminately rounded up" after 9/11 is much less than one tenth of one percent of that number.

Mr. Gore didn't say what he thought was "unforgivable" about the conditions in which the Arabs were held, but his source probably was a June, 2003 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, or, rather, erroneous news accounts of the report.

The Los Angeles Times said most detainees were held for months without charges. In fact, only 24 were held for more than a month before being charged, and 59 percent were charged within three days, the IG report said.

Most Americans remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis, but Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten. He deplored the cancellation of "Visa Express," the expedited program without background checks through which several of the hijackers entered the United States.

In a footnote on page 492 of its report, the 9/11 Commission said Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attacks, told interrogators most of the hijackers he selected were Saudis because they had the easiest time getting visas. According to statistics gathered by the Government Accountability Office, before 9/11 only three percent of Saudi applicants were interviewed prior to being issued a visa, and only one percent were refused.

The Bush administration "is playing into al Qaida's hands" by subjecting Saudi visa applicants to special scrutiny, Mr. Gore said. "The worst thing we can possibly do is to cut off the channels of friendship and mutual understanding between Saudi Arabia and the United States," he said.

Some Americans think it would be worse to let into the country terrorists bent on perpetrating another 9/11.

The former vice president's speech attracted little attention from the news media, but drew condemnation from Web loggers who were appalled both by what he said and where he said it.

"Only Al Gore could come up with the idea of criticizing Bush for not sucking up to the Saudis enough," sighed law professor Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit), who had been a volunteer on Mr. Gore's 1988 presidential campaign.

"It is one thing to say such things to an American audience in an effort to change our policy...It is another thing entirely to travel to a foreign country that features pivotally for the war for our generation for the purpose of denouncing American policies," said "Tigerhawk."

One wonders what possessed the former vice president to say what he said where he said it. Perhaps he is so embittered by his narrow 2000 loss that he doesn't mind saying things helpful to America's enemies if they might be hurtful to George W. Bush. Perhaps he is desperate for money and will say whatever his paymasters want to hear in the hopes of garnering future invitations. And maybe he just isn't all that bright.

He did flunk out of both law school and divinity school.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Gore's remarks will not assist Democrats in persuading swing voters they can be trusted with national security... which may be why his remarks drew so little attention from the news media.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Bush vietnam service record wasn't involved it in either until you brought it up. This was about Al Gore being an traitor.

Stop playing games, Nick. :)

The post above me mention KERRY's service record as being an election issue. CLINTON wasn't in that one, or else he would have won. Stop storing your head in your ass WARPIG...

[Warham]

So what does Gore have to do with Kerry, Nick?

Gore didn't play himself up as a Vietnam War Hero®.

Clinton was a draft-dodger, or as liberals would say: 'an ardent anti-war activist'.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
So what does Gore have to do with Kerry, Nick?

Gore didn't play himself up as a Vietnam War Hero®.

Clinton was a draft-dodger, or as liberals would say: 'an ardent anti-war activist'.

Sorry, admittedly, the post I responded to was so stupefyingly dumb, I was struck confused and that maybe 4Moronyears was just astute enough to be talking about Kerry's testimony before Congress and casting him as a "commie-sympathizer."

I can't keep up with his statements on GORE, since Communism has nothing to do with any of this. It would be Saudi-felcher or sell out maybe. But the terminology of the uneducated thrown around is just really confusing...

Again, my bad, I'm just too smart to post here...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
So what does Gore have to do with Kerry, Nick?

Nothing, just like "commie-sympathizer has nothing to do with Gore...


Gore didn't play himself up as a Vietnam War Hero®.

No. He was just a military journalist like Pvt. JOKER...

He was never wounded and I doubt he saw much actual combat..


Clinton was a draft-dodger, or as liberals would say: 'an ardent anti-war activist'.

CLINTON was against the war, and refused to serve. He wasn't a draft dodger either, he didn't get called and received deferments...

And of course, BUSH was for the War, but used his family connections to take the Republican cowards way out, and joined the Nat'l Guard. so other people could die for his rhetoric and flawed beliefs, sort of like now...

[Warham]

Well, see, I find that it's better to serve in the National Guard than to out and out dodge the draft.

I find taking a hike to England a coward's way out, then claiming 'I'm against the war'.

Cop out.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Well, see, I find that it's better to serve in the National Guard than to out and out dodge the draft.
'
Not when you use elitest connections to get the position, and fly a plane that would never, ever be deployed to Vietnam since it was incapable of actual dogfighting...


I find taking a hike to England a coward's way out, then claiming 'I'm against the war'.

Cop out.

Taking a hike? He was a Rhodes Scholar.:cool:

When did he ever claim to support the abortion of Vietnam?

[Warham]

Yep, taking a hike.

Plenty of intelligent people have served in the armed forces. Clinton wasn't any better than any of them.

Let me get this straight. If George Bush had left the country for a year over to England, and then said he was 'against the war', you'd say he was alright in doing that? I doubt it.

I think what'd you say was that he was a 'chickenshit' for leaving during the War, and didn't have the gonads to wait around for his number to come up.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, taking a hike.

Plenty of intelligent people have served in the armed forces. Clinton wasn't any better than any of them.

But he wasn't drafted. BTW, have you served? Can we comment on your service?


Let me get this straight. If George Bush had left the country for a year over to England, and then said he was 'against the war', you'd say he was alright in doing that? I doubt it.

Actually, I would be amazed if he was...

But since he likes starting wars, I doubt that's very plausible... Though, some Neo Con philosophers were Marxists in college, during the 60's. I guess once a nihilist, delusional, ideologue always a nihilist, delusional ideologue...


I think what'd you say was that he was a 'chickenshit' for leaving during the War, and didn't have the gonads to wait around for his number to come up.

I think he was pursuing his education, much the same way that members of the upper classes used money and connections to avoid service. CLINTON avoided nothing, he wasn't drafted...

And Clinton never invaded anybody using flowery rhetoric. Though he once did consider invading IRAN...

[Warham]

You can avoid service without being drafted.

Clinton had pull back then.

You don't become a President of the US without having pull your whole life.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, taking a hike.

Plenty of intelligent people have served in the armed forces. Clinton wasn't any better than any of them.

Let me get this straight. If George Bush had left the country for a year over to England, and then said he was 'against the war', you'd say he was alright in doing that? I doubt it.


As a neutral on this I think that Clinton's position was more honorable.

Firstly it was a dumb fucking war and if you could get out of it you should.

Clinton managed to avoid it on a scholarship which is at least a meritocratic way out open to any American that worked his ass off academically. Bush avoided the war through the influence of his dad. And don't try and kid yourself that getting a few free flying lessons in the National Guard is in any way got something to do with serving your country in wartime.

Secondly it's to do with their actions afterwards. The US is peculiar amongst Western democracies in thinking that their leaders should have a military or psuedo military background but there is less hypocrisy in an ex lawyer being a hawk than a spoilt little rich kid whose powerful parents pulled strings and effectively used corruption to get him out of danger then imperilling the lives of tens of thousands in order to protect his families oil interests.

It stinks.

Even with our ludicrous monarchy head of state thing here at least the royal family usually sticks a couple of their kids in harms way. And they don't even have any power.

[Seshmeister]

If the US is a fair system why is George Bush president?

Is that the best the US has. The fucking best guy for the job out of 250 million? His dad being the ex president and ex head of the CIA is just a fucking 250 million x 250 million to one coincidence.

Or maybe it's just a spectacular gene line?

Gimme a break...

[Nitro Express]

Bush inhaled and Clinton didn't.

[Seshmeister]

Bush snorted.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
As a neutral on this I think that Clinton's position was more honorable.

Firstly it was a dumb fucking war and if you could get out of it you should.

Clinton managed to avoid it on a scholarship which is at least a meritocratic way out open to any American that worked his ass off academically. Bush avoided the war through the influence of his dad. And don't try and kid yourself that getting a few free flying lessons in the National Guard is in any way got something to do with serving your country in wartime.


Really? Perhaps you can explain that one to the men of the Air National Guard who were shot down over Vietnam. Doofus.

:gulp:Link (http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html)

[blueturk]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Really? Perhaps you can explain that one to the men of the Air National Guard who were shot down over Vietnam. Doofus.

:gulp:Link (http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html)

Bush has as much in common with the men of the Air National Guard who were shot down over Vietnam as Sammy Hagar does with David Lee Roth. Although I must admit that the Viet Cong never attacked Alabama while Dubya was flying around there wasting taxpayer money...:rolleyes:

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
Yep, taking a hike.

Plenty of intelligent people have served in the armed forces. Clinton wasn't any better than any of them.

Let me get this straight. If George Bush had left the country for a year over to England, and then said he was 'against the war', you'd say he was alright in doing that? I doubt it.

I think what'd you say was that he was a 'chickenshit' for leaving during the War, and didn't have the gonads to wait around for his number to come up.

Your personal boogeyman Clinton never claimed to serve honorably like Dubya tried to say that he did. Even the most devoted sheep have to admit that Bush's "service" is somewhat less than impressive.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Really? Perhaps you can explain that one to the men of the Air National Guard who were shot down over Vietnam. Doofus.

:gulp:Link (http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html)


LMFAO!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Really? Perhaps you can explain that one to the men of the Air National Guard who were shot down over Vietnam. Doofus.

:gulp:Link (http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/001023.html)

Were they flying F-102s?

(Or skipping weekend drill?)

I doubt it...

**Edit**

"We have established F-102s were in South Vietnam?" LMFAO! Bull-fucking-shit!! What units were there? How many? How many MIG kills did they have???

Horse shit!

[Warham]

The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the region as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.

USAF F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in both nations throughout most of the Vietnam War. The planes were typically used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. The F-102 was considered one of the most useful air defense aircraft in theater because it had the fastest response time of any fighter stationed in South Vietnam.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/f102_05.jpg
Rows of F-102 fighters stationed at Tan Son Nhut in Vietnam in 1969

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

[Nickdfresh]

They were withdrawn in 1969 too, since they were useless against MIG-17/19s and MIG-21s, something any pilot flying them would know... I'm guessing they were taught to run when faced with a nimble Soviet designed fighter, at least after 1968.

The F-102 was designed only as a continental interceptor to down Soviet nuclear bombers, and could not maneuver in a dogfight. It was useless in air to air combat against a fighter, due to the flawed USAF doctrine at the time that dogfighting was obsolete: the thing didn't even have a 20mm Vulcan gun on it! And the USAF had an 11-1 kill ratio in the Korean War, but this had dropped to less than a 2-1 air combat kill ratio during Vietnam, due to almost criminal incompetence of USAF generals and their "missile only" doctrine. But that's another discussion...


...USAF F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in both nations throughout most of the Vietnam War. The planes were typically used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. The F-102 was considered one of the most useful air defense aircraft in theater because it had the fastest response time of any fighter stationed in South Vietnam.

While the F-102 had few opportunities to engage in its primary role of air combat, the aircraft was used in the close air support role starting in 1965. Armed with unguided rockets, Delta Daggers would make attacks on Viet Cong encampments in an attempt to harass enemy soldiers. Amazingly, some missions were even conducted using the aircraft's heat-seeking air-to-air missiles to lock onto enemy campfires at night. Though the F-102 had not been designed for this type of combat, pilots did often report secondary explosions coming from their targets. An Aviation Week article of the period credited the 509th FIS, an F-102 squadron stationed in Vietnam, with destroying 106 buildings, damaging 59 more, sinking 16 sampans, and destroying one bridge during 199 sorties over the course of 45 days.

Ooooh! They did light ground attack with "rocket pods" (something I suspect was merely a test by the USAF to see how they were operationally). And one was shot down by a MIG-21 without any kills attributed to the F-102?????? Disgraceful!! (that's another discussion though).

Wow, if BUSH were a real pilot, he would have flown an aircraft that actually saw combat duty such as the F-4 Phantom, A-4, A-7, F-5, or the F-105 "Thud" Thunderchief... They were called "Thuds" as a short for thunder obviously, but the pilots who flew them swore it was the sound they made after being shot down by NVA SAMS...

And second of all, how many Air Nat'l Guard squadrons were sent to Vietnam? I could be wrong, but I read that ALL OF THE F-102s THERE WERE FLOWN BY REGULAR UNITS. Why did he not become a pilot in the actual regular US Air Force? Why go into the ANG at all? Because he was dramatically reducing his chances of seeing air combat over North Vietnam any way you slice it!


Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. Air National Guard pilots from the 147th FIG, where Bush was stationed, even served combat duty in Vietnam routinely under a volunteer program called "Palace Alert" from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for three to six months of frontline service. This program was instituted because the Air Force lacked sufficient pilots of its own for duty in Vietnam but was unable to activate ANG units since Presidents Johnson and Nixon had decided not to do so for political reasons. Thanks to Palace Alert, the Air Force was able to transfer much-needed National Guard pilots to Vietnam on a voluntary basis while not actually activating any ANG squadrons.

Oh, he could have gone to Vietnam had he volunteered, and according to a close friend, tried to...

Well, why not just join the regular USAF?

Nice, interesting CYA article though, the F-102 is barely mentioned in regards to the Vietnam War, largely because it was a shit aircraft based on very flawed thinking (but that's another discussion)...

From: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml

[Nickdfresh]

LOL they actually fired heat seeking AAM at VC campfires?:D

Hysterical!

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Warham
[B] The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted....

So what? Dubya wasn't worried about it.

Bush's military service in question – again
Records appear to show that the president failed to fulfill his duty to the Air National Guard
By Kit R. Roane

A new examination of payroll records and other documents released by the White House earlier this year appear to confirm critics' assertions that President George W. Bush failed to fulfill his duty to the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Most of the documents, which have been reviewed by U.S. News, and former military and Defense Department personnel, were released last February, when reporters raised new questions about Bush's service during the Vietnam War. After the release, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he considered the case closed and noted that, "these records I'm holding here clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard."

The White House also included a signed memorandum from the man who headed personnel matters for the Guard during Bush's tenure, certifying the administration's position. President Bush had "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," wrote Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel.

A recent examination of the records by U.S. News does not appear to support Lloyd's conclusions. Among the issues identified by the magazine:

The White House used an inappropriate–and less stringent–Air Force standard in determining that President Bush fulfilled his National Guard duty.
Even using this lesser standard, the president did not attend enough drills to complete his obligation to the Guard during his final year of service.
During the final two years of his service obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. Instead, he took credit for makeup drills he participated in outside that time frame. Five months of drills missed by the President in 1972 were never made up, contrary to assertions made by the White House.

The White House declined to respond to specific questions submitted by U.S. News last week, but today defended Bush's Guard service. "The president completed the necessary points to qualify for an honorable discharge. He fulfilled his obligation to both the Texas Air National Guard and the Alabama National Guard during his service there," says Claire Buchan, White House spokeswoman. "The president is proud of his service and is pleased to release his records and they confirm that the President served honorably."

For several experts contacted by U.S. News, how President Bush received his honorable discharge from the Guard remains a mystery. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary for Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs during the Reagan Administration, said it was apparent that President Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation."

"When I look at his records it is clear he didn't do what he was supposed to do," Korb says. "Since he didn't do these those things, he should have been called to active duty."

Bush became interested in the Texas Air National Guard shortly after graduating from Yale University and becoming eligible for the draft in 1968. According to his own account, he was told that the Guard was looking for pilots willing to go through the lengthy training required to fly fighter jets. Although he scored poorly on the pilot aptitude test, Bush received a high mark for officer qualities. Guard officials decided to offer him a slot, and on May 27, 1968, Bush signed up for a six-year military service obligation to the Guard, writing in his "statement of intent" that he planned to make "flying a lifetime pursuit."

At the time, Bush also was informed of the regulations that would govern his service for the next six years. In his "statement of understanding," he acknowledged that "satisfactory participation" included participating in "48 scheduled inactive duty training periods," and 15 days of annual active duty every year. He also acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty for two years if he failed to meet these requirements.

The public records on Bush's service show that for much of the first four years of his commitment, he appeared to do exceedingly well. Instructors noted he was an eager learner and showed a true interest in the Guard. At one point, Bush even expressed an interest in joining an elite Guard unit called the "Palace Alert," according to an interview with one of his instructors. The unit flew jets over Europe and the Far East, including, on occasion, over Vietnam, but Bush was turned down because he lacked the amount of flying experience the unit required.

As the Vietnam War began to wind down, however, Bush's performance began to slump, and his attendance at required drills fell off markedly. On May 24, 1972, apparently after already going there to begin work on a Republican Senate campaign, documents show that Bush asked for a transfer to an Air Reserve squadron in Alabama that had no aircraft or practiced regular drills. Although the Commander of the Squadron accepted his application, the Air Reserve Personnel Center cancelled the move, noting that Bush had not fulfilled his military service obligation and had to remain with what it terms a "Ready Reserve Unit."

In September, Bush applied to perform equivalent duty at a Ready Reserve Unit in Alabama. He was accepted. He was also told by the chief of the personnel branch, Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, to report to Lt. Col William Turnipseed, who would determine what scheduled drills he could attend. But there is no record of Bush attending the scheduled drills in Alabama during this period, and Turnipseed told U.S. News that he did not recall seeing Bush ever train with his unit. The same month he was accepted to Turnipseed's unit, Bush failed to take a physical and was grounded. On May 2, 1973, his superiors in Texas apparently could not locate him or identify records showing that he had trained; they were unable to evaluate Bush's Guard performance, his superiors wrote, because "he has not been observed."

It is these last two years of service that have continued to perplex the president's critics and provide a headache for the White House.

In an interview with U.S. News this week, Lloyd stood by his analysis and said he was sick of reporters dredging up the past. He put it this way: "I am perfectly content that Bush preformed his duty. I have seen the records. Could he have done better? Yes, but again everybody could have done better. There were people that didn't do near what he did, so I'm not upset about it."

After a reporter cited the Air Force regulations from the period governing how many drills had to be attended, when drills could be made up and how many months of service could be missed, an exasperated Lloyd added that if the entire unit was judged by such standards, then "90 percent of the people in the Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."

But others who have reviewed the records insist that the rules must be followed. "A regulation is meant to be complied with. Period," says Scott L. Silliman, a retired colonel who was legal counsel to U.S. Air Force commanders during the first Gulf War and now directs Duke Law School's Center for Law, Ethics and National Security. "It is there to be fulfilled, and it is meant to apply to everyone, whether you are the son of a prominent politician, or me. There is no sometimes we have compliance and sometimes we don't. That is a nonsensical statement and an insult to the Guard to suggest it."

There are two standards that apply to Guardsmen when deciding if they have completed their service each year. One standard is used to determine if the year's duty will count toward retirement and retention. The other, more stringent standard is applied to anyone with a military service obligation, as President Bush had.

But there are two main differences between the standards. One is the span of time used in the calculation and the other is the amount of service required to meet the obligation.

Retirement is calculated on a point system with each 12-month period beginning with the month of enlistment. In President Bush's case, that was May 1968. For Bush to count the year towards retirement, he would have had to earn 35 points of active and inactive duty and have completed a full year of service to gain an additional 15 "gratuitous points." The total necessary to count the year for retirement, therefore, was a minimum of 50 points.

Satisfactory service in the military, by contrast, is counted by looking at the number of training sessions attended through the fiscal year, which during Bush's service began on July 1 and ended on June 30 of the following calendar year. According to Air Force regulations from the time, to complete his military obligation, President Bush would have needed to attend at least 13 days of active-duty training each year and at least 44 sessions of inactive training–Unit Training Assemblies and equivalent training–during that same period.

This aspect of President Bush's service was first brought to the attention of U.S. News earlier this summer by Gerald A. Lechliter, a veteran Army officer who also served in the Marines during the Vietnam War. Lechliter provided an analysis of Bush's record to the magazine, and to The Boston Globe, which carried its account in today's editions. Although some guardsmen have disputed that the drills should have been calculated on the fiscal year, both the Air Force Manual and U.S. Code from the time confirm Lechliter's assertion.

Using this standard, Bush's records show that during the fiscal year of July 1, 1972, through June 30, 1973, Bush fell significantly short of this requirement to do inactive duty, obtaining only 36 points that year. He fared worse the following year, gaining only 12 points. Even if one uses May, the date of his induction, as the starting point in the points calculation, President Bush falls short of the minimum number of weekend drills required by his military service obligation his last two years.

When judging President Bush's Guard service by the simple number of points gained for retirement, it is clear that he didn't make the grade there either.

Lloyd certified that President Bush met this requirement for both the May 1972-May 1973 and May 1973-May 1974 retirement/retention years, saying that in each of these years President Bush managed to attain 56 points.

There are several problems with his calculation, the U.S. News analysis shows. One is that Lloyd failed to correctly calculate the points he determined Bush would have earned during the 1973-1974 retirement year. They only add up to 50, not 56. Asked about this, Lloyd said this was just a "typo." The Bush administration has never corrected the error.

More significantly, the calculations done by Lloyd appear not to be supported by the retirement/retention documents themselves. Lloyd says Bush received 35 points for active duty and for weekend drills during his last year of service, and received 15 gratuitous points just for remaining active in the Guard. But according to the final point-credit summary released by the White House, Bush was deemed eligible to receive only 33 points for service that year and was given only five gratuitous points because he was going on inactive status to attend Harvard Business School before completing his final year of service.

Asked about this discrepancy, Lloyd said that Bush would have received the other ten gratuitous points during the time he was attending Harvard. Lloyd said this was because President Bush could have still been called to active duty. But other Guardsmen and military experts disagree, explaining that the gratuitous points are calculated on a sliding scale, based on how much of the year a guardsman is participating in training, and note that guardsmen are not eligible to receive them when they are no longer attending drills.

Among those who countered this claim was retired Brig. Gen. John Scribner, who now heads the Texas Military Forces Museum. Scribner is no critic of President Bush. He gained notice last year when a fellow guardsman accused him of helping to destroy parts of President Bush's military file in 1997, a charge Schribner vehemently denied.

Even had Bush received the points, he still would not have attended enough drills to claim his final year for retirement, and his attendance fell well short of what was necessary under his military obligation. The summary, which allowed Bush to note any needed correction, was sent back to the Guard without comment on April 8, 1974. The White House did not produce any later documents showing a change in the number of retirement points given to the President.

Military experts and former Guardsmen said President Bush would have only been eligible to receive the additional points had he joined another Guard unit in the Boston area, as President Bush noted he was required to do on July 30, 1973, when he signed a Guard document stating so.

A look at how Bush made up missed drills raised other questions about his Guard service. An Air Force statute from that period maintains that all "substitute training" had to be approved in advance and had to be performed "within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after the regularly scheduled" drills. The statute also says that Bush was required to attend 90 percent of the scheduled drills and could miss them only if there was an event beyond his control, "such as illness or other personal hardship."

The Bush records contain only one document indicating that permission to make up drills was granted. That document contains the dates of drills he could attend; his payroll records show that they were then missed and made up still later.

In most cases, Bush used drills done prior to the missed drill to count for his absence. But in several cases, the makeups should not have been credited for payment because they fell well outside the prescribed time limit authorized by the Air Force, some experts said. The regulations themselves appear to show that they should not be credited either. For example, payroll records show that Bush was credited with training allegedly done on January 9, 1973, to make up for training he missed on March 10, 1973, just over two months later.

Despite the contradiction of the Air Force regulations, Lloyd says that none of this is a problem as long as Bush had authorization to do the make-ups. He adds that all records authorizing makeup drills would have been destroyed six months after the drill was completed. "He was paid" for the duty, Lloyd says, "so he did it."

Lloyd is equally dismissive of the five months of service Bush missed between May and September 1972. Bush had moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign during this period and was supposed to train with the Alabama Guard while there. But the head of the unit he was supposed to train with told U.S. News that he never saw Bush. This period also falls within the time frame–May 1, 1972, thru April 30, 1973–that Bush's superior officers wrote that they were unable to complete their evaluation of the pilot. Both President Bush and the White House have maintained that all of the missed drills were made up prior to Bush's honorable discharge. Payroll documents released by The White House indicate when Bush was making up specific drills, but U.S. News could not find any listed that were being applied to this five-month period of time.

Not everyone is concerned about the laxity shown to President Bush during his last two years. As Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr. a former director of the Air National Guard, pointed out, the war was winding down and Bush did a fairly good job his first three years. "One thing a commander is given is common-sense leeway, and I think that is what happened here," he said. "Here we had Lt. Bush not wanting to stay in the airplane and not interested in keeping up his status and wanting to be a full-time student. The commander probably said, 'I'll take that flying spot and give it to someone who will be an active participant.'"

Asked if he faulted President Bush for not following the regulations governed by his military-service obligation, Weaver said his only disappointment was that Bush had signed up to fly jets in the first place, adding that his training cost a great deal of taxpayer money. "If you're going to fly a high-performance airplane," he added, "then you need to be there flying it."

But others who have reviewed the documents say President Bush should have been treated more strictly. Eugene R. Fidell, a military law expert in Washington, notes that nothing in Bush's military file shows he received prior approval to miss any of the required drills. Under Air Force regulations, Bush was non-compliant with his military service obligation the moment he missed more than one month of weekend drills and by the third month he was in serious breach of his duty. "By then," Fidell says, "you should be thrown out of the program or, if there is a draft, called up for active duty."

James T. Currie, a retired colonel who is a professor at the Industrial College of The Armed Forces and the author of an official history of the Army Reserve, said that while the Guard had a reputation as being a "good old boy's club" during Vietnam, that didn't mean regulations shouldn't apply. "You make a commitment, and in return for what is a fairly minor inconvenience, you avoid getting drafted and sent to Vietnam, so I think the least you could do was fulfill the letter of that commitment," he said. "Clearly if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force, they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
The Air National Guard has often been ridiculed as a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. However, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in Thailand since 1961 and South Vietnam since March 1962. It was during this time that the Kennedy administration began building up a large US military presence in the region as a deterrent against North Vietnamese invasion.

USAF F-102 squadrons continued to be stationed in both nations throughout most of the Vietnam War. The planes were typically used for fighter defense patrols and as escorts for B-52 bomber raids. The F-102 was considered one of the most useful air defense aircraft in theater because it had the fastest response time of any fighter stationed in South Vietnam.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f102/f102_05.jpg
Rows of F-102 fighters stationed at Tan Son Nhut in Vietnam in 1969

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/history/q0185.shtml


Warham, how dare you slap these silly, dishonorable liberals in the puss with FACTS?

They denigrate Bush for mocking Kerry's military service, yet in turn that is what they are doing to Bush.

Nick tries to post some hogwash that he got out of Jane's Defense Weekly about how the F-102 was outdated when he knows damn well (as supposedly an ex-military man himself) that one can't pick and choose what one flies. Hell he was on the second team, er, I mean the Reserves, himself. He should know better. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Warham, how dare you slap these silly, dishonorable liberals in the puss with FACTS?

Which facts? The partisan article that tries to show BUSH as a mighty pilot since he joined the ANG, and theoretically COULD HAVE went to Vietnam? Yeah, right...


They denigrate Bush for mocking Kerry's military service, yet in turn that is what they are doing to Bush.

No. I degenerate right wing douche bags for doing so...


Nick tries to post some hogwash that he got out of Jane's Defense Weekly

I did? Everything I wrote was out of prior knowledge...

Go ahead, find whatever I 'got from JANES'...

Your full of red herring shit, as usual BRI...:rolleyes:

Even the article shows how ineffective the F-102 was, if it weren't, they have shot down a MIG. Apparently, it never did, did it? Yet, one was lost to a MIG-21. It was USELESS except for getting missiles close to bombers, much like the Soviet MIG-25... It wasn't really a fighter, not in the purest sense, it was an "interceptor."
How many documentaries on the History Channel are there about the F-102 in Vietnam? NONE!! The real fighting, and dying, was done using F-4 Phantoms, also an aircraft that had difficulty dealing with the smaller, more nimble MIG-21...

The only real equivalent we had was the F-5, which was also a cheap, very manuverable aircraft which wa actually slightly better than the MIGs. It's the "Red" aircraft used by "Top Gun" to simulate MIG-21s...

I LOVE THIS SHIT! I'M AN AIRWAR JUNKY!! JANES my ass!:mad:


about how the F-102 was outdated when he knows damn well (as supposedly an ex-military man himself) that one can't pick and choose what one flies. Hell he was on the second team, er, I mean the Reserves, himself. He should know better. :)

I was in the Army, not the Air Force. However, I had a brother stationed at Otis Air Station on Cape Cod, which flew the F-106 Delta Dart for many years until they got the newer F-15s or 16s...

And I'm not ridiculing BUSH's actual service, just the nature of where he chose to serve, evidently, not in combat, during a war. He can't "pick and choose" what he flies, but he sure "chose" the TANG over the USAF, dramatically decreasing his chances of seeing combat in Vietnam...

My personal experience in the USAR has only made this all the more apparent. I heard many stories of useless Nat'l Guardsmen who were senior officers and NCOs in the late-80s/early 90s that joined to avoid Vietnam combat, and were just plodding through to retirement...