KelliJ

The 102's were sent back to the US in 68, the same year that Bush joined the ANG. There was no chance that his squadron was going to Vietnam. The Air Force started to pull F-102s out of southeast Asia in December 1969 and finished in May 1971. Bush finished his combat crew training on the 102 in June 1970.

And Bush did not have to join the Guard. He also could have easily sat on his butt behind a desk, but instead he chose a riskier option.

CHICKENHAWK, dear. CHICKENHAWK. Which is exactly what he is. I never said he wasn't. Pay attention and you would know that. Pay attention? Irony score 10/10. I challenge you to find a post I've made in the past 6 years where I called Bush a "coward". However, it's good to know that you consider Bush a CHICKENHAWK too. You also get an irony score of 10/10. I will answer your challenge the same way you answered mine in another thread...I will ignore it.

CHICKENHAWK, dear. CHICKENHAWK. Which is exactly what he is. I never said he wasn't. Pay attention and you would know that.

I never said you were a chickenhawk. I never even suggested it. In fact, i would argue against it since I am familiar with your posts here against the conflict in Iraq. As far as what i think you should have been doing....That was up to you. But if you didn't serve in any way, shape, or form then you have no standing to call Bush a coward for flying in the Guard. It was, as i said, far more military service than you.

Is there anyone in particular you are referring to?

I think Bubba fits far better..Bubba is as Bubba does Others have tried the Dyke thing.. which is soooo typical of the far right wingers here when they get all flustered and cant keep up... By the way.. its a good way to get banned... Last time...do not call me Bubba again. I do not like it and take it as a personal insult. That is another way to get banned. (You paying attention, Mods?) I am NOT a right winger as you think i am, nor am i a liberal like you. I'm about as moderate as they come and have voted for candidates from both parties as well as independents. I've watched your posts in other threads and this one holds to form. When you start to lose the debate you resort to insults. It must be doubly troubling when you deny Clinton being a chickenhawk and then provide a definition that fits him to a "T".

Unions are ok as long as they restrict their influence to worker safety and wages. They have no business telling management how to run the place or where to buy supplies and parts.

Where in your definition of chickenhawk does it distinguish between supporting a military action that was established before they took office or after? Clinton sent troops to Somalia....that is a fact. Clinton sent troops to Haiti. That also is a fact. Since I have told you twice I am not Bubba I must assume that you insist upon calling me that in order to provoke an angry response. That is called TROLLING and is specifically prohibited by the rules of this forum. How would you like it if I called you "Dyke"?

What kind of lame excuse is that? A lot better excuse than Clinton had for hiding from the draft. Or Bush. You still have no standing on which to call anyone who did serve in any branch of the military...NG or otherwise...a coward. As little as he did, it was far more than you and Clinton combined.

I had the same thought. I could even hear the music....

He also bettered himself by learning to fly airplanes. True! Let's see, what is more dangerous: Learning to fly supersonic interceptors with a possibility (even small) of being deployed to a combat zone....or learning to fly Cessnas, Pipers, etc. in the safety of a secured continent. Must be nice to pass judgement on others from behind the safety of a nice cushy desk. Just like Bush in the White House.

How is that relevant to the discussion on chickenhawks? Not even up to "feeble" as a diversion. ***So what we have is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Good job. What did you do in Korea? ***I've never been to Korea. If you are referring to the conflict during the 50s then I wasn't even alive yet.

Care to answer the question Professor? What did YOU do?

Uh, no. Bush Sr. is wholely responsible for our involvement in Somalia. If you want to talk about Clinton committing troops, go to Serbia for your example. I was using it as an example that Clinton did, in fact, send troops into harms way. It was by no means his only time. Let's not forget his fiasco in Haiti.

Then your view and mine shall continue to differ on that point. Straying from the facts are we? It is a FACT that he flew F-102 fighters. It's in the records. If you do a bit of checking (like reading the article I linked to earlier) you would know that his squadron was responsible for responding to any incoming Soviet aircraft that may have flown up from Cuba. Bush flew fighters in the NG. What did YOU do?

Then your view and mine shall continue to differ on that point. Why, are you a military pilot who knows differently? No, what I'm saying is that you feel it didn't take courage to fly jets, I'm saying it did. We differ on that point.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N48/somalia.48w.html Me thinks you should face the truth. GET IT ?

I would have to say I agree with you on that.

Then your view and mine shall continue to differ on that point.

WRONG.. Bubba.. not a CHICKENHAWK....by my and every definition I have read. How about you????? I told you once I am not "Bubba". How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you don't even show a modicum of respect for other posters? The definition of "Chickenhawk", as posted by you, included the following: "Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk; sometimes designated after a person's name by [c.h.]) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person actively avoided military service when of draft age". Bill Clinton sent troops into combat while he was president (remember Somalia?). He has never personally been in a war and avoided military service when of draft age. He meets every condition set forth in the definition YOU posted. How can you possibly say he isn't a "chickenhawk"?

Well, your opinion in regards to their self service actually agrees with mine. I'm still surprised you see Clinton's cowardice as being greater than wee georgies. He was never going to Vietnam. Never. And he was a wank pilot. Both their actions revolved around avoiding Vietnam. How can one be better than the other then? Flying a jet aircraft at that time...any jet, let alone a 102...was far from safe. Jet engines and supersonic flight were barely out of their infancy. Many pilots lost their lives when design flaws were unknown until a certain set of flight conditions were met and exposed those flaws. It still happens today. I respect Bush as much as anyone else who flew those beasts for having the balls to strap in and push the throttle forward. It is his disappearing act at the end of his military career that I view as cowardly. Clinton, on the other hand, has never been at risk of anything greater than a paper cut (or a jealous husband).

Kids! Just as I thought. Little evidence of that. Since you seem never to have heard the phrase, you could always try Googling it. You could try REMF too. Oh, I've heard the phrase before. Always from a sourpuss.

I happen to think the comparison is extremely relevant. While both were trying to avoid serving in a combat zone, Bush at least was in a position where he could have been sent. Clinton chose instead to completely avoid any service at all and, in fact, led protests against his country in a foreign land. I agree that it is hilarious that either was elected. my opinion differs from yours in that I feel both harmed their country for self-serving reasons. Neither had any business being President.

Kids! Just as I thought.