Operation Chickenhawk: The Cowardly, Hypocritical College Republicans

So let me get this straight... The administration did not want a banner flying behind bush that read: "Mission Accomplished"... Yet they produced one, brought it to the ship, and gave it to the crew to hang up before Bush got there?

Don't you think, if the administration didn't want that to be behind bush, they would have not produced and paid for it?

Think GTech, seriously, please don't blindy follow a party...

 

What do you care? The only support you've shown for any soldier here are the ones fighting my country's soldiers.

When Iran illegally detained your country's soldiers last summer, you DEFENDED Iran and blasphemed your own country. Your one and only concern, was that it was an "illuminati" plot designed to go to war with your hero.

Don't pretend, AGS. While it's apparent the anti-war crowd here has absolutely no morals in what they will tolerate in someone, as long as they criticize Americans and the war, I won't give you the same pass they will.

 

I never said anything about the administration not wanting it. I've asked several times, but can't we keep it honest? I know honesty and "anti-war" don't mix well.

Who wanted the banner? Can we establish that? The ship's commander? Where is the local Kinko's shop to produce a banner on the ocean? Help me understand this.

 

Stick the President Savant in a plane and make a birthday banner for the boy.

That's your tax dollars at work.

Barry Goldwater is spinning in his grave.

 

You're right GTech. Bush has not equipped the US military with the means to make a purchase at Kinkos and forward it through the naval logistics framework to one of their prize ships.

 

Ok, so we're on the same page... The administration had no problem with a large banner behind bush that reads "Mission Accomplished"...

That's funny, I'm seeing quite the opposite...

Well, we atleast established that the administration didn't mind the banner being there... That's good enough for me

So because it was someone else's idea... The administration should accept no responsibility for producing, paying for, and transporting a banner that reads "Mission Accomplished" for display behind Bush?

 

You keep bringing up the same BS time and again GT.

I said I admired Ahmadinejad because he stands up to your terrorist lover Bush and his corrupt cabal hell bent on ruining the world.

Them navy peeps would not have even been captured if it wasn't for my dumbass ex PM Blair being a total lapdog for your terrorist lover Bush.

I am still trying to figure out that if there was a scumbag Democrat in charge of your country e.g Clinton in power whether you would be pro or anti in this utter BS war on terror.

That's an interesting conundrum that I would be interested in hearing your opinion on.

 

So you are admitting that facts don't matter? Only the message matters? Oh, the irony of that on so many levels!

What responsibility would you like taken? Whom should be excecuted or put behind bars for life, for a banner representing a ship has completed it's mission. I had no idea that was such a huge crime. I guess, for the "anti-war" crowd, it's a terrible crime that a ship accomplished it's mission!

Should we go ahead and call a special courts martial for the Captain? How about the crew? Damn Kinkos! Damn them to hell for not having the foresight to setup a shop on a US Navy vessell!

 

Your past BS, support of terrorists, admiration of men who called for Jewish genocide, open support of hamas, anti-America comments and virtually unbeatable attempts to absolve terrorists the minute a terrorist crime is committed wherever in the world, are important to me.

Admittedly, for some other "Americans" here, you get a pass for these things. As long as you hate GWB.

 

Logical fallacy: Ad Hominem?

 

Illogical fallacy: give a pass

 

Looks like we have those answers now. Looks like number 3 is yet another repeat in history.

What a shame.

 

It's pretty clear TK that Gtech wants the war to go on, because it gives him a patriotic erection, and helps ease his partisan guilt for voting Clinton.

Just so long as he doesn't have to make a sacrifice. As long as he doesn't assume any risk or take on any personal responsibility.

Chickenhawk.

 

I'm not denying anything... I'm more then happy to cite references on anything I post:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/20060821.html

I guess the president ranks lower then a colonel in your eyes though... Shame...

 

GTech, I'm withdrawing for the evening. I figured out why you won't serve, even though you wouldn't quote your post or state it again for the record. And I sympathize.

That don't ask, don't tell policy is wrong.

 

Quote: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley

"we were wrong" about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction


Bush acknowledges faulty Iraq intelligence

"President Bush accepted responsibility on Wednesday for going to war with faulty intelligence,...

“It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,”

But all these doesn't matter, ex-corporals are always right and know much more than a simple president or National Security Adviser.

 

I thought GTech claimed to serve two terms? If he did, I sure hope he achieved a higher rank then Corporal!

For quite a few reasons I was able to get my Sergeant within 3 years... I sure hope, for his sake, he was also an NCO...

 

He claims to be an ex-sergeant but I can't believe any army in the world to be so stupid to make someone like him a Sergeant but you know how military some times fu*ks up and it is possible that they have given him someone else's rank by mistake.

 

You mean he might have been exalted to "chief spud basher?"

 

If he really did two enlistments, one would assume 4 years each, he should have been an E6 (unless he messed up somewhere)...

I believe if he blindly followed republican rhetoric then, the way he does now, he probably would have done good in the pre-2003 army...