Being a military veteran, I look to the President as the Commander in Chief. Since the military personnel can given an Article 15 or Court Martialed for adultry and military leadership is "setting an example," I think the President needs to "set the example."
My complaint about Clinton was that if he could commit adultry while the military personnel "can't" (doesn't mean they don't) I didn't think much of him in that respect.
Now with Bush, I am thinking is he providing the proper leadership (as taught in military leadership training) like he should?
I was wondering if my fellow vendio RT posters could enlighten me as to Bush's leadership in terms of the military standards.
posted on July 10, 2003 04:42:46 AM new
My complaint about Bush is that if he could desert his post, twice, while the military personnel "can't" (doesn't mean they don't) I don't think much of him in that respect.
posted on July 10, 2003 05:04:08 AM new
Bush has shown that he is willing to do the right thing, I don't think you'll find much disagreement with the long term active duty.
Even at a 60% approval rating.... yes it is down, but it is still a majority
By bowing to peacenik pressure, we are now losing about one soldier per day... if would drop the "nice" and show the terrorists we mean busniess, I think things could settle down... Iraq is having a hard time of fielding police... little by little we are getting local governments back in place, we will prevail... and the economy will show some gainful improvement by October...
Clinton was too willing to open the purse...now with all of the false support gone, companies are showing they were not as strong as what they had told the government during Clinton's era....
Clinton made the house of cards... President Bush just has shown it for what it was... a house with little actual support... support that the Federal government should not be giving.
posted on July 10, 2003 05:05:52 AM new
Under the UCMJ, what is the maximum penalty for committing adultry?
The maximum penalty for desertion during wartime is Death.
The maximum penalty for desertion in the face of the enemy is Death.
While there exists no empirical evidence that Clinton ever committed adultry, there are reams of evidence plus thousands of eye witnesses to Bush's desertions.
posted on July 10, 2003 05:47:06 AM new
Twelvepole/Clarksville,
Isn't it pitiful that your knee jerk spin on Bush's blunders is always "Clinton is responsible", while Bush is held responsible for nothing. When, in your opinion does our appointed president's responsibility begin? After all, this is his third year in office.
The truth is that Bush has failed miserably as the Commander in Chief of this war against a small defenseless country in the mid east. He has lost credibility with the world and with his country.
Only a few weeks after he claimed that major combat was over, he said that we are still at war. Then, after saying that he's working on peace we find that Peace is Hell and that we are really in a quagmire like Vietnam. Is your head spinning yet?
posted on July 10, 2003 08:22:05 AM new
Twelvepole/Clarksville
Now, the adminstration's back is to the wall regarding the bogus information about weapons of mass destruction. There are only two explanations possible for these claims, lies or incompetence.
Bush, of course made an embarrassing atempt to blame his predecessor. Now, the spin will probably be silence when he finds that he can't blame the CIA.
What a waste...thousands of lives and wounded... billions of dollars...
posted on July 10, 2003 10:28:34 AM new
Deserting one's post is considered more harsh than adultry.
Adultry falls under Article 134.
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Maximum punishment
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 1 year.
Then there are other Articles that could apply for servicemembers. For instance, there is:
133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Maximum punishment
Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most analogous (similar) offense for which a punishment is prescribed in this Manual, or, if none is prescribed, for 1 year
posted on July 10, 2003 10:31:06 AM new
Helen, it used to be against (or maybe it still is?) AW/Vendio's guidelines to accuse posters of having more than one id, which you and krs were notorious for.
posted on July 10, 2003 11:12:46 AM new
He has not deserted anything... as long as he is President he is on DUTY why is that so hard for you people to understand... and guess what as President he can pardon and past transgressions... for anyone...
I would rather see a President lie to go and rid the world of someone like Hussein, than to lie about getting a BJ in the oval office...
I personally don't want to see it turn into Vietnam... but if he continues to try to please EVERYONE, that is what it is going to be... so Helen and company be happy that you got your "nice" war...
Oh and clarksville I think she is addressing us both, not accusing you of dual posting...
Well I would hope she is at least intelligent enough to figure that out...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on July 11, 2003 10:00:29 AM new
Helen has a long history of falsely accusing posters of having multiple ids, even when it was against the posting guidelines.
Before the requirement of credit cards, I could understand Helen's fear of multi-personalities, but now? Then again, maybe she did and does have multiple ids?
posted on July 11, 2003 10:14:24 AM new
There don't seem to be many guidelines left since the mods left. Even when the mods were here, many times it was other posters that clued in about multiple IDs long before the mods ever did.
posted on July 11, 2003 10:30:54 AM new
Furthermore, I can't understand your continuous, unprovoked harassment which is unrelated to the topic under discussion.
posted on July 11, 2003 11:03:34 AM new
ah, Helen, there were a couple of times that come to mind, a few years ago that you and krs had suggested a poster having more than one id, when they didn't.
Yes there were posters that would come in have a bit of a run of different ids. Once, a poster came in and posted with names similar to regulars' ids.
Your recent unwarranted accusations that twelvepole and I are the same is a prime example of this behavior of yours. Except now, you don't have your buddy krs to help you gang up on people.
posted on July 11, 2003 11:17:03 AM new
I don't care who posts with multiple ids really, and only have an inkly of one poster for sure who posts dually, but mostly in the EO,
However, austbounty, Bigcity and skylite post so similar it would be hard to tell them apart.
Who's being insulted being grouped with whom there clarksville?
I like Helen, dumber than dirt, but at least she stays and fights...
