About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media stressed that Clinton had avoided Vietnam service when he visited there, but ignored Bush's military service in reporting on his first visit

November 17, 2006 7:57 pm ET

70 Comments

At the time of President Bill Clinton's November 2000 visit to Vietnam -- the first by a U.S. president since the end of the Vietnam War -- numerous media reports noted Clinton's lack of service during the conflict, in many cases specifically referring to his having "avoided service" and noting that it was Clinton's first visit to the country. In contrast, network and cable news coverage of President Bush's recent visit to Vietnam as part of his trip to Southeast Asia has largely failed to note that Bush had never been to Vietnam, and no reports have thus far mentioned that during the Vietnam War, Bush was instead in the Texas division of the Air National Guard and requested transfer to Alabama so he could work on a Senate campaign. Both Clinton's and Bush's trips occurred late in their presidencies, and the merits of their military service were issues in the 1992 and 2004 presidential campaigns, respectively.

A few media outlets have juxtaposed Bush's current trip to Vietnam with his choice to serve in the National Guard during the Vietnam War. For example:

  • On the November 17 edition of NPR's Morning Edition, NPR White House correspondent Don Gonyea reported: "This is President Bush's first ever trip to Vietnam. As a young man, he secured a spot in the Texas Air National Guard, thus avoiding service in the war in Southeast Asia. Now he arrives here as president of the United States at a time of another unpopular war."
  • A November 17 Los Angeles Times article noted that Bush's arrival in Vietnam "was shadowed by an issue that was politically difficult for him when he first ran for president, just as it was for Clinton: the question of military service during the Vietnam War." The article added that "there was new attention to an issue that is politically painful for him in 2006: whether the Iraq war is turning into a new generation's equivalent of the torturous Vietnam conflict."
  • A November 17 Washington Post article noted that "as a young man," Bush "joined the Texas Air National Guard rather than serve in Vietnam."
  • Also on November 17, The New York Times noted: "There is little question that by signing up to be a pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, the risk was low that he [Bush] would end up in Vietnam as a 23-year-old."

As a July 28, 1999, Washington Post article reported, in May 1968, "at the height of the Vietnam War" and "12 days away from losing his student deferment from the draft," "Bush stepped into the offices of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Field outside Houston and announced that he wanted to sign up for pilot training." The Post article also noted that the National Guard "was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age." According to the Post, the Guard "usually had a long waiting list" and Bush "scored only 25 percent on a 'pilot aptitude' test, the lowest acceptable grade" but, noting that "his father was then a congressman from Houston," the article added that Bush "was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied." Further, Media Matters for America has noted that there is substantial and uncontested evidence to suggest that Bush did not meet his Guard obligations.

By contrast with the print media outlets and NPR, television outlets have ignored Bush's record during the Vietnam War. In their November 16 prime-time reporting on Bush's Vietnam visit, MSNBC and CNN ignored Bush's military service, while Fox News presented no reports on Bush's trip. While ABC, NBC, and CBS did not report on Bush's trip in their November 16 evening news broadcasts, their respective morning news shows did, but those also failed to mention the controversies surrounding Bush's military service. In addition, a Media Matters review of all three cable networks' coverage on November 17 up to 2 p.m. ET found no mention of Bush's past military service in their reporting on Bush's trip to Southeast Asia.

In contrast, numerous reports on President Bill Clinton's November 2000 visit to Vietnam pointed out that he had "avoided service" during the conflict:

  • A November 15, 2000, AP report by Walter Mears noted, "Clinton's exercise of [American economic and military] power, while having avoided military service in Vietnam, prompts some veterans to look askance at his visit. [Former Army infantryman Tom] Corey, vice president of the 50,000-member Vietnam Veterans of America, says he has exchanged letters with Clinton. His feeling from the exchange, Corey said, is that 'he probably feels the guilt and pain of not doing that, not serving.' "
  • On the November 16, 2000, broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, anchor Peter Jennings noted, "The president has just arrived [in Vietnam] and he'll have a full day of activities tomorrow." He added, "Bill Clinton opposed the war on principle and avoided service for himself."
  • In a November 17, 2000, USA Today article, State Department reporter Bill Nichols wrote, "President Clinton began his historic visit to Vietnam on Thursday with a quiet arrival ceremony and a motorcade into town that was greeted by tens of thousands of Vietnamese. Clinton is the first U.S. president to visit Vietnam since Richard Nixon in 1969 and the first to visit a unified Vietnam. As a young man, Clinton protested against the war in Vietnam and avoided being drafted for service."
  • In a November 17, 2000, Chicago Tribune article, foreign correspondent Michael Lev wrote, "The painful legacy of the war for America has meant a slow healing process that only now has created the opportunity for a U.S. president to talk about the war while in Vietnam. The fact that Clinton opposed the war and avoided military service makes it much more sensitive."
  • On the November 20, 2000, edition of CNN Sunday Morning, during a report by senior White House correspondent John King about the end of Clinton's visit that included an interview with the president, anchor Miles O'Brien asked King, "John, in the course of that interview, did the president share with you any of his personal thoughts? This had to be an interesting pilgrimage for him given the fact that he avoided service in the military during the Vietnam era and yet here he is, the first president to visit post-war."
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by oscar the grouch (November 17, 2006 8:05 pm ET)
         

      ignored coverage (4). Wow!!!!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by neonmauve (November 17, 2006 8:16 pm ET)
        1  

        i think the item is focused on the TV coverage. as in, hey, this print folks AT LEAST mentioned it, why not TV?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by neonmauve (November 17, 2006 8:17 pm ET)
             

          THESE print folks

          Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (November 17, 2006 8:19 pm ET)
             

          without research because MMFA did not provide anything about TV coverage of Clinton. So as of now, I have to go with what was noted above (5-4).

          Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (November 17, 2006 8:54 pm ET)
         

      I love that. He didn't do anything but show up, his father did everything for him. For every guy who had a spot "secured" for him, another guy had to go in his place.

      A lot of guys went into the reserves and the NG, but I've never heard of anyone being sworn in the day they applied.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by republichater (November 18, 2006 7:31 am ET)
           

        " The Post article also noted that the National Guard "was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age."

        So was the route to canada for the liberals who opposed the war. At least Bush joined and entered, unlike clinton who was a draft dodger and went AWOL to avoid vietnam.

        " the article added that Bush "was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied." "

        This may not actually be true, it simply says that the article says so. I suspect the article may be slightly tilted toward one political view. Perhaps mmfa should do their homework and actually check this "fact" before they print these inuendos or 'missinformation' as they like to call it.

        PS; Sorry I haven't had a chance to say this to you earlier, worrierking... happy Veterans Day, thank you for the service you did for your country and for protecting my right to complain!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by rms (November 18, 2006 9:00 am ET)
             

          How can you be a "Draft Dodger" and AWOL at the same time?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by neondesert (November 18, 2006 11:09 am ET)
             

          So was the route to canada for the liberals who opposed the war. At least Bush joined and entered, unlike clinton who was a draft dodger and went AWOL to avoid vietnam.

          So Bush was against the war, but too cowardly to oppose it overtly? Or was he for the war but too cowardly to actually fight? Or did he just think that he was too special to risk life and limb over there, that it would be better to let the lesser people go fight it instead? Perhaps he felt it best to remain behind to defend Alabama against an inevitable horde of invading Viet Cong?

          Sorry this was a bit off-topic, but I"m still amazed that there are people who are willing to cheer for a man whose character is judged against a baseline set by the "vile and dispicable" Clinton.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 6:03 am ET)
               

            Bush strongly SUPPORTED the war, just not his pamperred butt going anywhere near it. Clinton of course did NOT support the war and was NOT a draft dodger anymore than Cheney was they both got educational deferrment. Hater doesnt know what he is talking about which is normal for him

            Bush WAS sworn in the day he applied

            [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

            Bush had scored only 25 percent on a "pilot aptitude" test, the lowest acceptable grade. But his father was then a congressman from Houston, and the commanders of the Texas Guard clearly had an appreciation of politics.

            Bush was sworn in as an airman the same day he applied.

            What is even more relevant than when he was sworn IN was that he was striped of his flying status for not taking his MANDATORY physical which is a deriliction of duty.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by hogprint (November 20, 2006 4:31 pm ET)
                 

              But I admire your tenacity! I've shot this lie down so many times it's getting boring doing it.

              Solon Posted:

              "What is even more relevant than when he was sworn IN was that he was striped of his flying status for not taking his MANDATORY physical which is a deriliction(sic) of duty."

              """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

              It was not "dereliction of duty". There is no evidence of this.

              He WAS taken off of flight status. This does happen. His RL status would have dropped, but it WOULD NOT generate charges against him.

              Lastly, I've asked you to provide evidence of FEB paperwork in the past and you haven't come up with any.

              The challenge still stands. Find the paperwork. Prove the point. Until then you're piss'n in the wind.

              Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 18, 2006 1:22 pm ET)
             

          What plant did you arrive from. Joining and then running off to join a "Repubican Campaign" is a close to "Dodging" as actually crossing to Canada.

          Remember with "Daddy's" help the Natl Guard "Allowed" junior the leave to help with the campaign.

          Now how many other Natl Guards had the same option? Anyone with the last name "Bush".

          Report Abuse
    • Author by pjcarter (November 17, 2006 9:34 pm ET)
         

      Someone who avoided service or someone who got bumped up to the front of the line and then (allegedly) went AWOL. At least the guy who avoided service didn't start a stupid war that sent almost 3000 AMericans to their deaths as well as hundreds of thousands of people on the other side.

      I'm sure the Vietnamese appareciate the irony.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by leatherhelmet (November 17, 2006 11:57 pm ET)
           

        Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia and nobody died. It was amazing.

        Being in the guard still trumps protesting wars on foreign soil.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sams Computer (November 18, 2006 1:04 am ET)
             

          President Bush was cowering here at home while I was proudly serving our country in the Vietnam War. That doesn't trump anything.

          Many patriotic Americans like Clinton and Mohammed Ali were correct when they were brave enough to make a stand against the Vietnam War.

          I'm a highly decorated Vietnam War Veteran and I respect what the war protesters did. I do not respect what your Chicken Hawk President, who was a Chicken then and is a Hawk now. He was wrong to send our troops to Iraq, and I hold him responsible for the deaths of our troops there because first off, they shouldn't be there, and second he's to stubborn to fight a smart tactical war on terror.

          His stay the course policy has our poor troops being killed everyday like sitting ducks. His pack of lies got us into this mess and now he's trying to salvage his sorry legacy by sending even more troops to his huge mistake in Iraq.

          You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to defend this President. He should be impeached before he does anymore damage to our country.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by worrierking (November 18, 2006 7:03 am ET)
               

            I'm a Vietnam Vet too. I respect whatever anyone did back then. Whichever side they were on. I felt that the only ones who looked out for my best interests were those at home demonstrating against the war.

            Leather has been defending Bush's servive while insulting real vets like John Murtha since I started posting here. He won't usually respond. He's a drive by poster. He also thinks he speaks for all veterans. No one does. There are 3,400,000 million sides to the war in Vietnam. That's how many of us went. And GWB wasn't one of us.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by republichater (November 18, 2006 7:43 am ET)
               

            " President Bush was cowering here at home while I was proudly serving our country in the Vietnam War. "

            " Many patriotic Americans like Clinton "

            Going AWOL and being a draft dodger is patriotic? Hmmm, I'll have to think about that one. What part of patriotism says "I want to live free but don't want to actually pay the price... let someone else pay it for me."?

            " He was wrong to send our troops to Iraq, and I hold him responsible for the deaths of our troops there "

            Being attacked by terrorists, attacking back and moving the fight to where they move to is wrong? I think he is a smarter tactician than you are. YOU would have let the terrorists attack us then said, "hey, sorry we offended you. Please...take anything you want and kill anyone you want." Yeah, you're obviously a bright one!

            Report Abuse
            • Author by skeptical (November 18, 2006 9:02 am ET)
                 

              Do you actually read the comments here or juist throw out stupid comments.

              Also, do you know anything about history? What part of the Vietnam War made us free?

              Are you a vet?

              People here who haved served have given their opinion on Bush V. Clinton.

              If they think Clinton is more patriotic, who are you to question?

              As for your analysis of Bush's strategy, what has he done that is correct?

              If he had attcked the terrorists in Afghanistan and caught and killed them instead of leaving to go to Iraq, everyone would be supporting him, instead he ends the job early and goes to Iraq for what again?

              You are dumber than I thought.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Sams Computer (November 20, 2006 4:11 am ET)
                   

                Your post had some real interesting questions for the Republican-Hater-Chatter-Box. I'm almost positive you won't get any answers from Hater though. He may just be on the long list of Chicken Hawk Republicans that got our country into this mess in Iraq. You can talk yourself blue in the face with honest facts till the end of time. It won't have any effect at all on Hater.

                With the exception of Hater, I have the utmost respect for most of my Conservative friends, and that now includes Rush Limbaugh. I've never ever said anything nice about Limbaugh, but.......

                I respect him for admitting that he is sick and tired of carrying the water for a bunch of Conservatives that don't deserve to have their water carried. He said he's been Liberated by the election and the Democrats from having to carry that load anymore for people who don't deserve it.

                Rush is way out of step with the sour grapes and dishonest responses from the majority of his many Pundit Comrades. So I'm now on record for giving Rush a big thank you and a complement for telling it like it is.

                Hater has selected the correct name. I do believe his heart is loaded down with hatred. He clearly hates all the patriotic voters for kicking him out of power. I'm just concerned that the mandate of the voters will not be considered by GWB.

                When I was in the Vietnam War, supposedly to protect our freedom of speech etc, I knew it would include people like Hater and News Outlets like Fox News. I'm just so delighted the voters could see through all the smoke and mirrors. The message voters sent to the Republicans came thru loud and clear.

                Take Care Sam

                Report Abuse
            • Author by rms (November 18, 2006 10:40 am ET)
                 

              "What part of patriotism says 'I want to live free but don't want to actually pay the price... let someone else pay it for me.?' "

              You do realize, of course, that this attempted slam at Clinton also slams Bush, Cheney, deLay (the list goes on), don't you?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Sams Computer (November 20, 2006 1:04 pm ET)
                   

                Hater is attacking his favorite Conservatives, and this is not the complete list.

                The President and Dick Cheney, Karl Rove - Elliott Abrams - Paul Wolfowitz - Richard Perle - John Ashcroft - Dennis Hastert - Bill Bennett - Condoleeza Rice - Katherine Harris and Lynn Cheney.

                Rush Lumbaugh - Bill O'Reilly - Joe Scarborough - Sean Hannity - Ann Coulter - and many more right-wing Pundits.

                John Bolton - Ken Adelman - Jeb Bush - Tom DeLay - Roger Ailes - Brit Hume - Tony Snow - Alan Keyes - Kenn Star - Antonin Scalia - Ted Olson - Clareence Thomas - Andrew Card - Don Evans - Micheal Ledeen - Marc Racicot - Bob Barr - Newt Gingrich - Bob Dornan - Trent Lott - Phil Graham - Steve Forbes - Dan Quayle - Tim Hutchinson - Mitch McConnel - Don Nickles - Saxby Chambliss - Mark Souder.

                Pat Robertson - Jerry Falwell - Gary Bauer - George Will - Dennis Miller - Ted Nugent - Micheal Weiner - Matt Drudge and many more.

                Chickenhawk (politics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: ....Most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party.

                [link to en.wikipedia.org]

                This is a partial list of people The Hater is attacking. I'm not sure if I like to apply the ChickenHawk label to women but they were on the list too.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 18, 2006 1:42 pm ET)
                 

              Hopefully, for the FINAL time.

              IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICA BEING ATTACKED!!!!!!!

              Most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, which Bush and company has such a loving relationship with that we attacked Iraq instead.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mb (November 18, 2006 2:25 pm ET)
                   

                We could have done something great in Afghan. Frontline is running an excellent series- watch it. Sarah Chayes also has book out- She runs a NGO and business there. She gives a unique perspective bc she is the only one living with the population, she has many unique relationships- including with the US military. She notes that corruption is rampant because govt. workers are not paid a living wage and once you start demanding bribes its not like you stop until you can feed your family. Pakistan ISS (intelligence) openly supported the Taleban for years. ISS higher ups continue to support the Taleban in secret. Saudia Arabia funds militant madrassas in Wizeristan. The Taleban can cross into Afghanistan from the northwest frontiers at unguarded crossing points with ease. Pakistan is their de facto base, out of the reach of our forces. They openly train and recruit there. We tried to get al-Zarawhiri (sp?) there a few months ago. The hell fire missile killed 4 al-aqaeda members but also 14 women and children. The strike inflamed the region and Musharref called a halt to any further strikes. The pakistan army went in there and suffered 3000 casualties. They signed a peace agreementwith Taleban/open supporters of al-Qaeda. The Taleban leaders protrayed agreement as a concession/defeat of pakistani forces.

                Report Abuse
              • Author by republichater (November 18, 2006 2:36 pm ET)
                   

                No, but when the terrorists started setting up camp in Iraq, after the UN approved Saddam removal process, there was certainly reason to continue fighting the terrorists where they relocated to. Is that a problem? Didn't we fight the Japanese everywhere they relocated to, also, during wwII...and the nazis when they relocated?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by mb (November 18, 2006 3:26 pm ET)
                     

                  Zarqawi didnt come to Iraq until we created a power vacuum. There was no terrorist base until we created the parameters necessary. Al Ansar was in the mountain regions of Iran/Kurdish area as well as no fly zone. Saddam would have loved to take them out. As I recall we didnt collapse the phillipines and then have the japanese invade. We didnt collapse the French or Polish govts prior to invasions. You are comparing 3rd generation warfare ( armored warfare, maneuver, nation's entire resources brought to bear) to today's 4th generation warfare. This will be the new war. Small, autonomous groups chosing time and place of battle-IEDs, suicide bombs, ambushes- ie non linear attacks. Create chaos when your enemy needs to create order and law. Classic example of this is when we destroyed several bridges to hinder the insurgency movements which at the same created chaos for civilians. Hit and fade into civilian population. Exploit weaknesses. I could go on, but suffice to say that your comparison is ridiculous.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by greekfurnace (November 19, 2006 6:07 pm ET)
                       

                    I really get tired of these circular arguments... the bottom line, as you stated, had we not gone into Iraq in the first place... there would be no need to be in Iraq (in the first place). Such nonsense... why is that so difficult for these boneheads to realize?

                    Report Abuse
                • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 18, 2006 7:35 pm ET)
                     

                  Since when did Republicans respect ANYTHING approved by the UN.

                  You cannot hate the UN and still use them to justify your point of view.

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 6:11 am ET)
                     

                  There were no terrorist training camps in the part of Iraq Controlled by Saddam. There was one in the Northern Kurdish Autonomous region. The UN NEVER supported, okayed or in any way supported our invasion of Iraq. Your flights from reality are astonishing

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by republichater (November 19, 2006 11:40 am ET)
                       

                    " The UN NEVER supported, okayed or in any way supported our invasion of Iraq. "

                    It's painfully obvious you know nothing of what you're talking about. Why do you even post? You're facts are always wrong, you constantly belittle everyone who disagrees with your opinion and never provide any informative perspective to any of the debates that you participate in. How do YOU keep from being called a troll? You fit the bill of being the typical liberal, yet continually deny you have any type of agenda against non-liberals.

                    You seem to be a fan of wikipedia so here is the info you seek; [link to en.wikipedia.org] Now, please stop denying that there was no UN approval of action against Iraq and no terrorist connection in Iraq until you actually know what you're talking about. Being as far left as you are just seems to cloud your mind, try putting down the j long enough to come back to reality. Maybe you are the one who should stop drinking the kool-aid, as you so often put it.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by mb (November 19, 2006 1:32 pm ET)
                         

                      Hans Blix reported to UNSC that Iraq should have gave more detailed reports about there weapons programs, Iraq was not being forthright. Your link-"At this point, the US Administration asserted that Iraq remained in material breach of the UN Resolutions, and that, under 1441, this meant the Security Council had to convene immediately 'in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security'. Before the meeting took place, French president Jacques Chirac declared on March 10 that France would veto any resolution which would automatically lead to war. This caused open displays of dismay by the US and British governments. The drive by Britain for unanimity and a "second resolution" was effectively abandoned at that point. In the leadup to the meeting, it became apparent that a majority of UNSC members would oppose any resolution leading to war. As a result, no such resolution was put to the Council. " US, Britain and Spain believed they had UN authority, however the rest of the UNSC did not.

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 1:40 pm ET)
                         

                      Nor that once again you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. 1441 was in NO POSSIBLE WAY support for our invasion of Iraq. First its language Iraq would face 'serious consequences' that is not the language the UN uses to support FORCE that would be all necessary force. Second 1441 specifically said in its own language that THEY would 'remain siezed of the issue' and be the judge of what those consequences were. Bush started a security counsel resolution to authorize force and it wasnt even going to get a simple majority so he gave up. It is desperate and logic free to claim 1441 means the UN supported our invasion of Iraq

                      You have NEVER shown me to be wrong on my facts you only show that your capacity for self delusion is astonishing. I understand that you want the fantasies you spew here to be true but wishing wont make them true. Just because they are accepted on Planet Wingnut doesnt mean they have any connection whatsoever with REALITY. I urge you to stop mainlining the koolaid it is bad for your two remaining brain cells neither of which seem to be functioning at any reasonable capacity

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by republichater (November 19, 2006 2:51 pm ET)
                           

                        [link to www.un.org]

                        Keep continuing to deny, moron. Have you gadiated from preskule yet? I get tired of doing homework for you mentally challenged liberals. Who did all the work for you while in school? Have you put down that j, yet?

                        13.Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;

                        LIAMD

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by mb (November 19, 2006 3:34 pm ET)
                             

                          Legal/UN experts state that it is up to the security council itself, not its individual members, to determine how its resolutions will be enforced. 3 members were for war- Spain, US and Britain. The rest of the UNSC was against authorization for war. Who has history proved was correct in their judgement by the way? This was all stemming from the belief that Iraq had WMDs. What a joke that we have to argue these facts. I think you need to be sceptical of where you are gathering your "facts"

                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 3:53 pm ET)
                             

                          I said THAT in my rebuttal. Yes serious consequences, which would be WHAT? When the UN security counsel authorizes military force the language it uses is BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY.

                          Lets look at it from your own citation

                          By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                          Whic they DID further they were expected to give a full accounting which they claim they did. WE didnt like it but the UN security counsel didnt find the accounting to be in non compliance, they didnt authorize any invasion.

                          I notice you put 13 in but not 14 so HERE IT IS

                          ““14.Decides to remain seized of the matter.” <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                          Thats right folks as anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see the UN Security counsel decided to keep the final judgement on this one for themselves. Not ok US go ahead and invade if YOU dont like the way its going, but that they DECIDED TO REMAIN SEIZED OF THE MATTER. Their decision. Now unless your delusional state has you forgetting that we TRIED to convince the security counsel Iraq needed invading and FAILED, then only insanity can possibly have you claim that though THEY kept the decision for THEMSELVES in 1441 and they NEVER agreed to our invasion that 1441 AUTHORIZED the invasion of that the UN SUPPORTED the invasion. ITs amazing you can be so thick headed and accuse ME of being dumb. A reasonably bright ten year old would be embarrassed to make such logic free assertions. I am sure this goes way above your capacity for higher brain function which as far as I can see doesnt EXIST at all, but you really ought to give this up. It takes self delusion beyond even YOUR usual parameters.

                          You seem to like wikopedia here is what they say

                          [link to en.wikipedia.org]

                          In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences", which the majority of Security Council members argued did not include the use of force to overthrow the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council.[23] <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                          See that oh ye of little grey matter? Our own UN ambassador said directly, that is gave assurances that 1441 did NOT itself authorize force. Ok at this point even someone as mentally challenged as YOU can see you are just flat wrong that the UN did NOT support out invasion as the article cited itself says directly

                          Thus, the Coalition invasion began without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, which United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan regarded as a violation of the UN Charter.[31] (cf. The UN Security Council and the Iraq war) Several countries protested. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it was illegal."[ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                          I know you wingnuts want to keep arguing this but the only reason ANYONE argues it is as a figleaf for the brain damaged morons like you to repeat, it certainly has no reasonable argument to back it up. At BEST you can argue that it was somehow kinda authorized by the UN ( Which itself is arguable at best as I have shown) but since they refused directly to support it and said directly AFTER the invasion that they didnt support it then you are flat out WRONG by ANY reasonable definition of the word to claim it was supported by the UN.

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by republichater (November 19, 2006 7:44 pm ET)
                               

                            Your attempted strawman arguements have all been debunked in the past, why go through it again..."he said, she said...blah..blah" you've got a link to the actual resolution, read it.

                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 8:19 pm ET)
                                 

                              Is that the best you can do to a complete destruction of your silly attempt at supporting your ludicrous claim? Strawman? Do you even know what the term MEANS? It certainly doesnt apply to the thourough shredding I gave your silly assertion. I showed that our OWN ambassador to the UN and Britians ambassador to the UN 'in promoting Resolution 1441, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity", no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council.[23] '

                              This one point ALONE totally destroys your contention that 1441 is UN support for our invasion.

                              That was pathetic. For the prize of salvaging some slim shred of your self respect and credibility just admit you were wrong . We all understand, we all make mistakes sometimes. You were WRONG, and PROVEN wrong get over it. Strawman, that was pathetic.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by republichater (November 19, 2006 8:46 pm ET)
                                   

                                You showed nothing but a bunch of blather that comes from liberals daily. When you actually have a case I'll counter point it. Your liberalism is a danger to society, come to the table with something other than personal opinion.

                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 8:55 pm ET)
                                     

                                  You have been completely shredded. How in the world can you still pretend 1441 was UN support for our invasion when A) Our own ambassador admiitted it wasnt, gave assurances it wasnt to other countries in order to get support FOR 1441 and B) we couldnt get even a majority of the security counsel to agree with our invasion. You have been proven wrong. Your conservatism isnt a danger to anyone with the intellectual capacity of a banana. Its too weak to be taken seriously. Just admit you have been utterly destroyed it happens to all of us. You should have seen Lostlogic take me apart on a Hugo Chaves thread. It happens, no reason to get all stubborn. You are WRONG, its been shown beyond any reasonable argument, get over it.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by republichater (November 19, 2006 11:46 pm ET)
                                       

                                    NO! 1441 gave the US the authority to go into Iraq and you refuse to admit it. Giving some kooky liberal idea that because someone says something different that allows the total interpretation of the resolution to be changed. You have NO idea what you're talking about and I stand by what I say. The only thing you shred is your credibility, although you've done that soooo long ago it doesn't really matter at this point.

                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by solon (November 20, 2006 10:32 am ET)
                                         

                                      Are you really that obtuse or just committed to ideological blindness. Our ambassador to the UN and the UK ambassador to the UN are not 'someone' that is two of the representatives of the 15 member UN security counsel who MADE the resolution, they gave assurances to the OTHER members who were responsible FOR the resolution. So lets see, whose interpretation of the resolution carries more weight? Would that be the VERY PEOPLE WHO WROTE the resolution or some very dim bulb posting on a website? Oh yeah, why waste time listening to the VERY PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE RESOLUTION. We have a braindead wingnut he obviously knows a lot better than the people RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESOLUTION. It isnt about whether they are liberals, in the real world that isnt a refutation, it is about them being who WROTE the darn resolution. Look we understand you are desperate, we understand that on planet wingnut it is necessary for propaganda purposes that the resolution mean whatever you want therefore it becomes true for that reason alone. This however is NOT planet wingnut, this is planet EARTH. On THIS planet the people who WROTE the resolution are considered more credible about its meaning than a desperate and ignorant poster on a website.

                                      Whatever was CLAIMED no matter how weakly by this administration about 1441 however is NOT the issue. Not even whether IT makes sense, which it doesnt, what is at issue is DID the UN support our invasion. It is clear the UN did not accept this interpretation that is why the assurances given by our ambassador was necessary, it is clear by the way the SECRETARY of the UN called the invasion illegal that they did not accept it. What is clear beyond any possible dispute is the UN did NOT as you ignorantly claimed support the US invasion of Iraq. Keep spinning until the centrifugal force knocks you out. There is no way in the world you can show this, no one is buying such a ludicrous assertion. You are WRONG, flat out wrong, everyone knows it. Give it up.

                                      Oh by the way on Planet Earth restating your premise adds no extra believeability to it. Did you think there was some magic amount of times you could just CLAIM something and we would all say ok he said if five times I guess its true? It doesnt work that way in the world of non wingnuts. Forget about saving YOUR credibility it doesnt exist, you have made it clear you will just say anything no matter how ludicrous.

                                      Report Abuse
            • Author by mb (November 18, 2006 2:06 pm ET)
                 

              I beleive the right believes we can win this war by a force of will. The US govt believes it is a moral conflict that can be won with propaganda, the side that has the better propaganda machine wins. How many turning points have we reached? How many times have generals said we cant be defeated? How many times have we heard the insurgency is in last throws, or will be defeated? However in todays world with so much info available (most of us here dont read powerline) spin is quickly seen for what it is-deception. The consequence is that corrupt internal decisions are made based on this propaganda. Generals dont want to be seen as disloyal or lacking will. From John Robb "Facts are misinterpreted/misrepresented for marketing externally, these tainted facts are consumed by internal audiences, and bad internal decision making is the result". Further any criticism of the war is seen as aiding and abetting the enemy- if you are not with us your against us (For Christians this the opposite of Mark 9 - Jesus "for whoever is NOT against us is FOR us"). This only makes our allies our enemies. A good rule of thumb (the business world operates under this assumption) is that the best people dont work for you. But they dont work against you either, and if properly enticed could. I would support our effort there if there was transparency, truth and response to justified criticism. Instead I get stay the course, or terrorists will win if we leave. Also been told I root for terrorists to win. Bush is no strategist.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by jscott (November 18, 2006 7:06 pm ET)
                 

              You are a bit confused. "We" didn't chase the terrorists "into" Iraq. They FOLLOWED us there, according to 16 U. S Intelligence agencies. We are fighting "insurgents", Iraqis who want us OUT of their country. Only a very small part of the violence in Iraq is caused by "terrorists". They are a tiny percentage (5-7%) of the "enemy" in Iraq, but "we" are creating more and more every day. I figure you must be a "Fox News" watcher.

              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 6:07 am ET)
                 

              Who wasnt IN the service AWOL. Now BUSH was AWOL. Since Clinton wasnt IN the military it would be impossible for him to be AWOL from the military. Hater as usual doesnt know what he is talking about

              Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 1:25 pm ET)
                 

              Military misadventures like Vietnam and Iraq have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH MY FREEDOM cant you understand?

              Report Abuse
            • Author by dougsomers (November 20, 2006 2:32 am ET)
                 

              George W. was President in 1941, his response to Pearl Harbor would have been attacking China!

              Report Abuse
              • Author by republichater (November 20, 2006 8:37 am ET)
                   

                If Clinton had been president in 92 he would have attacked Serbia in response to the first WTC bombing.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (November 20, 2006 10:36 am ET)
                     

                  And he FOUND and prosecuted those responsible for the bombing and they are currently in prison, where is Osama again? Oh yeah making videos like he is auditioning for MTV VJ, living large and giving thanks to Allah and his pin up poster of his boy George W Gump

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by hogprint (November 20, 2006 4:58 pm ET)
                       

                    I haven't seen a credible VIDIO tape of OBL in four years. Can you point me in the right YOU TUBE direction? Linky danka.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by hogprint (November 20, 2006 4:59 pm ET)
                         

                      That would be VIDEO. Why don't we have an edit button on this site?

                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (November 20, 2006 5:12 pm ET)
                         

                      I seem to remember one the CIA thought was credible in 2004 just before the election now by MY math that is about two years.

                      Report Abuse
        • Author by pearlene_scott1602 (November 18, 2006 1:36 pm ET)
             

          Ethnic cleansing was what was happening in Yugoslavia at the time. We are the world's "superpower" and are "suppose" to lead by example. Killing people based on religon or ethnicity should be addressed by the "world superpower" right?

          Oh no I forgot under Bush and his "christian teaching" we are only suppose to get involved if they, (1) have WMD, (2) responsible for 911, (3) killed many Iranians with mustard gas (provided by Rumsfeld and the US at the time we were backing and financing Iraq) or whatever works best for them to spin at the time. I am sick of hearing about "Clinton this and Clinton that". If you hate him so much STOP using him as the barometer. JUDGE Bush on his own merit, I have. Grade FFFFFFFFFFF!!!!!

          Report Abuse
    • Author by mjh (November 17, 2006 10:13 pm ET)
         

      One more time s - l - o - w - l - y:

      Clinton avoided the draft through student deferments; he entered the draft lottery in Autumn 1969, received a high number {311} and was never called to serve [www.awolbush.com].

      Clinton was not, and is not, a "draft dodger;" this was rightwing spin that got repeated often enough during his '92 presidential campaign that it became accepted as truth . . . there is a subtile, yet clear, difference between "draft dodging" and merely "avoiding" the draft: in the former, one does something illegal, such as running away to Canada, to avoid compulsory military service . . . in the latter, one uses legal means such as student deferments {Shooter did the same.}

      In any case, it was Clinton's "doubts about the morality of the war and th Selective Service system that led him to abandon the ROTC concept and subject himself to a draft lottery. Only the luck of the draw - a high number - kept him out." [www.awolbush.com]

      In other words, Clinton had his doubts about the war; nevertheless, he felt if the war had to be fought, then EVERYONE, not just the well-to-do or the sons of those who were politically connected, should be subject to the draft, hence his decision to forego the ROTC or National Guard route and enter the regular military draft.

      Compare this attitude with that of Dubya, whose father got him into a cushy Texas ANG slot to avoid service in Vietnam, and apparently thinks a six year commitment means four years . . .

      Report Abuse
      • Author by LarryE (November 18, 2006 3:10 am ET)
           

        ...MJH for saving me the trouble of covering that same ground. (One nitpick: Going to Canada was not in itself illegal. Any illegality lay in failing to report for induction if/when you were drafted. That is, if you were drafted and instead went to Canada, your failure to accept induction was illegal, but your going to Canada was not.)

        As I've noted before, the right wing will simply tell a story over and over again no matter how many times it is refuted. Political usefulness, rather than truth, is the guiding principle.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by republichater (November 18, 2006 8:05 am ET)
           

        " Clinton was not, and is not, a "draft dodger;" .... . . there is a subtile, yet clear, difference between "draft dodging" and merely "avoiding" the draft "

        You liberals don't seem to know that "subtle" difference when it came to Bush using special freinds and Clinton using special freinds to avoid vietnam . You just attack Bush for his "served" service, while you make excuse after excuse for Clinton's proven and well documented draft dodging and being AWOL. [link to www.snopes.com] + [link to www.1stcavmedic.com]

        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (November 18, 2006 2:09 pm ET)
             

          Followed the links shown. Found all the allegations in the "table of myths" portion of link 1, but found that the bulk of the article was refutation of those myths, with the conclusion that Clinton was never AWOL, nor engaged in illegal activity vis a vis the draft. Link 2 again cited the exertion of influence to avoid the draft, but didn't appear to support accusations of illegality, either.

          Whose side are you on, here? Are you touting Clinton as a "pardoned felon", or "unconscionably lucky SOB"?

          Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (November 18, 2006 5:15 pm ET)
             

          Clinton opposed the War in Vietnam. George Bush supported the war, as did Cheney and most of the other chickenhawks. It's easy to support a war when it's someone else's ass on the line.

          No one went into the reserves or the NG back then with the expectation that they would be deployed to Vietnam. The only way I know that a reservist could have been activated into the full time military is for violating the rules. I know of a reservist who was activated for something far less than what Bush did. GWB's actions should have called for him to be activated, and he wasn't.

          Report Abuse
      • Author by republichater (November 19, 2006 12:58 pm ET)
           

        " In other words, Clinton had his doubts about the war; nevertheless, he felt if the war had to be fought, then EVERYONE, not just the well-to-do or the sons of those who were politically connected, should be subject to the draft, "

        And...which part did Clinton actually do? He used every connection he had to avoid military service then, when they ran out, he entered the draft alright, but refused to report and became officially AWOL (talk about big time hypocritical). I'm glad he felt that "EVERYONE" should be subject to the draft. The facts are out there, just because you refuse to believe them doesn't mean they aren't still facts.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by solon (November 19, 2006 2:28 pm ET)
             

          Is a CHAIN LETTER.

          [link to www.breakthechain.org]

          And its WRONG. Man you are lucky it isnt physically painful to be SO wrong SO often.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by mjh (November 19, 2006 7:22 pm ET)
             

          "and which part did Clinton actually do? . . ."

          Perhaps you need a reading comprehesion course . . .

          You keep insisting Clinton "went AWOL" . . . you CAN'T "go AWOL" unless you ARE A MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES.

          Clinton DID NOT BECOME A MEMBER OF THE ARMED SERVICES . . .

          due to the FACT that WHEN HE ENTERED THE DRAFT, HE RECEIVED A HIGH NUMBER AND WAS NOT CALLED TO SERVE.

          Got it now?

          Report Abuse
    • Author by joanl (November 17, 2006 10:58 pm ET)
         

      Bush can go AWOL and the media ignores it. But attacked Clinton for 8 years.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by leatherhelmet (November 17, 2006 11:58 pm ET)
           

        it's been ignored. CBS really ignored it.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by sasami (November 18, 2006 3:14 am ET)
             

          One network. One story. One piece of bad evidence that had little to no substantial bearing on the rest of the story. And the man lost the job he had held for over 20 years because of it.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by conleytgwinn (November 17, 2006 11:36 pm ET)
         

      C'mon guys, everybody has seen what happens when Bungle's ANG malfeasance is discussed on the air . . .

      Are you REALLY looking for another martyr?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 18, 2006 12:10 am ET)
           

        How 'bout a hero? Are we forgetting George W. Bush striding across the deck of that aircraft carrier with his mission accomplished banner?

        I think leatherhelmet will back me up- you never saw that wuss Clinton do that!

        Report Abuse
        • Author by conleytgwinn (November 18, 2006 1:12 am ET)
             

          In most of my comic books, the hero lives happily ever after. The hero gets the girl.

          Poor Dan Rather got the shaft, and an undeserved farewell to his position. He told the truth, whether or not the proffered documents were forgeries - even Bungle never came forth with a denial, knowing that those living witnesses might no longer support another outright lie involving THEM.

          Hero or martyr? Well, I will agree with hero, but there is substantial support for martyr as well.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by stilljl1442 (November 18, 2006 12:29 am ET)
         

      Clinton was received in Vietnam like a rock star compared to bush. No sense waiting for the msm to report any actual facts when it comes to the top moron in the WH.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mercado (November 18, 2006 8:37 am ET)
         

      Here's some little known facts about Gunga Din Bushs unsung, heroic actions during the "Siege at Firebase Montgomery". Bush while heavily sedated, in a Dentists chair for his monthly teeth cleaning, leapt into action as the Firebase came under attack from Viet-Cong Bombers from Hanoi !As the Viet-Cong began carpetbombing the secluded firebase,Bush fired up his Piper Cub Cadet and fought the bombers for 3 days and nights,only stopping to top off his 10 gallon fuel tank ,and re-arm his 45 . After almost 72 hours of continuous attacks the Viet-Cong Air Force flew back to Hanoi to lick their wounds. Bush was never recognized for his actions, as all his records were lost when a tusami hit the Texas National Guard Records Building just prior to the 2000 Elections. This reporter has interviewed some of the Viet-Cong pilots who participated in the attack,but the fear of going public, and being ostracized in Hanoi,has kept them from coming forward to this time.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Marker (November 18, 2006 8:52 am ET)
         

      Shrub supported the war in Vietnam and yet chickened out, pure chickenhawk to the core which goes right along with his Vice-President who had 5 deferments.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mercado (November 18, 2006 3:37 pm ET)
         

      HuntingtonBeachLefty, What I would give to be on Hannity and Colmes for three minutes,I believe that when I bitched slapped Hannity to his knees,and then give him a "Golden Shower", I'd be tazsered to death,but it would be worth it!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (November 18, 2006 5:31 pm ET)
           

        What an image, Cpl Frank! Horrible and hilarious.

        If you get the chance to do it, could you hang a "Mission Accomplished" banner behind Hannity?

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.