Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I thought putting on a flight suit and landing on that carrier was over the top (especially since Mr. Bush found himself too busy to join others of his generation in Vietnam).
Obama is humble compared to the day that younger Bush strapped himself into a fighter jet for the cameras.
When Bush dons a flight suit and pilots a F-22 onto an aircraft carrier bearing his dad's name he is called a national hero.
When Obama thanks the troops he is called a pompous, Muslim foreigner who is taking a "victory lap" and "spiking the football".
Why the double standard?
first the F22 is not a carrier jet, and cannot land on a carrier. second the F22 is a single seat fighter, and even if it was a carrier operated fighter, bush was NOT carrier qualified. the aircraft bush took to the carrier was an S-3B viking, and bush did not land the plane, but he did take a turn at the controls.
as for the "double standard" that goes on all the time with BOTH PARTIES.
Quote:
Originally Posted by clb10
If he was a pilot then why didn't he serve his nation in Vietnam?
Was he scared?
bush volunteered to go to vietnam, but he was turned down for two reasons;
1: he did not have enough flight hours to go on active duty
Bush was a joke. He went AWOL when in the reserves; was a coke head rich boy that failed at everything he touched.
dont forget that your golden boy obama has also admitted to using cocaine. as for going awol in the reserves, bush was never in the reserves, he was in the national guard, there is a difference, and as for going awol, that has not been proven except through forged documents.
Quote:
And class? Oh yeah, bush has class, LOL.
look around enough and you can find a photo of just about anyone that doesnt look good. nice try but you fail.
1) It would have been murder, not justice
2) It would have been the actions of a war criminal in a sovereign nation
3) Why did we kill not capture an unarmed man?
4) Why was Congress not consulted?
5) Investigate Halliburton, they must have something to do with it
1) It would have been murder, not justice
2) It would have been the actions of a war criminal in a sovereign nation
3) Why did we kill not capture an unarmed man?
4) Why was Congress not consulted?
5) Investigate Halliburton, they must have something to do with it
Hypocrisy...
What a self-serving straw man argument.
As an American, I was furious when Bush said to the interviewer asking about the effort to catch him, "I don't think about him much." Liberals, like all Americans, would have been delighted if Bush actually caught OBL but he didn't. All Americans should be delighted that Obama's Administration did catch him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
