PDA

View Full Version : Bush's Last Stand


L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-29-2004, 11:22 PM
Bush's Last Stand

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/28_stand.jpg

September 28, 2004
By Steven Vincent

President Bush likes to think of himself as a "war President," who is "resolute," "steadfast," and "decisive." He also likes to compare himself to historical figures. His favorite is Winston Churchill who led Great Britain through the horrors of World War II.

I believe a comparison to a historical figure is appropriate but I think he is much more like a famous American military leader - General George Armstrong Custer.

Like George W. Bush, George A. Custer was born to a privileged family. He used his family's political connections to get into West Point, an institution of learning he was not otherwise qualified for. While at West Point, George did not distinguish himself among his 34 classmates.

His carefree attitude and joking demeanor did not sit well with the rigid requirements of military school life. He was often punished and, at one point, received enough demerits to be expelled. Someone was watching out for young George though and his demerits were mysteriously removed from the record, allowing him to continue.

Cadet George Custer graduated from West Point 34th out of 34, last of his class. He was nearly court-martialed for neglect of duties while still at West Point awaiting his commission but again, somehow, skated by without punishment - a now recurring theme in George's life.

Despite his poor grades and inability to grasp basic military requirements, George was given a plumb assignment in the military during the Civil War. The units he commanded suffered unusually high casualty rates even by the standards of the time due to George's arrogance, brazen aggression and disregard for his men's safety.

In late 1867 Custer was court-martialed and suspended from duty for a year for being absent from duty but he used his connections to, once again, skirt punishment and regain his standing in the military. General Phil Sheridan used his military power to excuse young George's youthful mistake and brought him back into a position with more power and authority.

George was a master of military politics and somehow worked his way up to Brigadier General at the age of 25, the youngest man ever to attain that rank. Gen. George was placed in command of a contingent of men to seek out "renegade" Indians who were holding up the "progress" of miners and other business venturers from gaining profit off of the unexplored lands. The Natives were portrayed as vicious savages intent on killing innocent American civilians though the majority of them just wanted to live their lives in peace in their homelands.

George's fate and historical fame were both wrapped up in an expedition to destroy the Lakota, Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians in Montana because of the wrongful association of all of the tribes in that area with the attacks by one tribe and chief, Crazy Horse. The U. S. government, in all of its wisdom, decided to round up, imprison or destroy all of the Native people in that area and they relied on their young, brash, arrogant commander to do it.

Riding with his men and two other brigades, the plan was to use overwhelming force to destroy the less well-armed and organized Indians. Young and boastful, George knew that this mission would ensure his fame, fortune and political future for all time and led his men into battle in spite of the intelligence he was getting from the field.

Though he was warned in advance by scouts that the Indians had a much larger force than was originally thought, he continued his march.

Though allied units commanded by far more experienced leaders fell behind and were not with him, he pushed forward, resolute.

Though he split his forces into three separate units, weakening them, he rode ahead, confidently. Though he went into battle with underwhelming force, he did so convinced of his ability to bring forth a glorious victory for his country and himself.

Convinced of his own superiority and leadership skills, George pushed valiantly forward into one of the greatest military blunders in U.S. history. The Indians, formerly opponents of each other, united against the vicious attacks of the U.S. military and thousands of former enemies combined their forces to attack George and his troops.

General George Armstrong Custer led all of his men, co****re, to slaughter. Not one soldier under his command survived his confident, resolute, and blindingly wrong blunder.

The amazing thing is, there are still George defenders who claim he was a great leader and military mind. In spite of evidence to the contrary, he will always, in some minds, be considered a brave patriot whose confidence, resoluteness, and conviction in his decision-making outweigh the ultimate result of his foolish choices.

But while there are many historical similarities between the two Georges, there is one glaring difference.

One George led his men into battle and faced the bullets and arrows of the enemy, donned the uniform and fought for his country, led his men from the front, and stood behind his choices personally and was forced to accept their fatal outcome.

The other is our President.

Pat Bowlen
09-29-2004, 11:28 PM
You make a compelling argument.

watermock
09-29-2004, 11:39 PM
What a line of crap.

Bush didn't run on a military platform whatsoever.

He ran on an education and tax cut platform. You people amaze me.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-29-2004, 11:46 PM
You make a compelling argument.

The parallels are absolutely stunning!

BTW, George W. Custer's most loyal little soldier, reporting for duty in post #3.
Hilarious!

watermock
09-30-2004, 12:10 AM
Bush's Last Stand

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/09/28_stand.jpg

September 28, 2004
By Steven Vincent

President Bush likes to think of himself as a "war President," who is "resolute," "steadfast," and "decisive." He also likes to compare himself to historical figures. His favorite is Winston Churchill who led Great Britain through the horrors of World War II.

This just might be the same Winston Churchill who warned that Hitler was building up WMD would it?

I believe a comparison to a historical figure is appropriate but I think he is much more like a famous American military leader - General George Armstrong Custer.

Like George W. Bush, George A. Custer was born to a privileged family. He used his family's political connections to get into West Point, an institution of learning he was not otherwise qualified for. While at West Point, George did not distinguish himself among his 34 classmates.

Let me explain something to you. Custer had an agenda. Iraq was not Bush's agenda. 9/11 propelled him to uncertain ground. Custer just wanted to go kill Indians. Bush didn't go last in his class either. Bush never went to West Point, he went to Yale, just like Kerry.

This is some idiotic 20 year old trying to rework history. It's hillarious

His carefree attitude and joking demeanor did not sit well with the rigid requirements of military school life. He was often punished and, at one point, received enough demerits to be expelled. Someone was watching out for young George though and his demerits were mysteriously removed from the record, allowing him to continue.

Now you are using Custer's behavior to describe the President.

Cadet George Custer graduated from West Point 34th out of 34, last of his class. He was nearly court-martialed for neglect of duties while still at West Point awaiting his commission but again, somehow, skated by without punishment - a now recurring theme in George's life.

Bush didn't go to West Point, neither did Kerry or Clinton. Yale/Harvard, Yale, Oxford.

Despite his poor grades and inability to grasp basic military requirements, George was given a plumb assignment in the military during the Civil War. The units he commanded suffered unusually high casualty rates even by the standards of the time due to George's arrogance, brazen aggression and disregard for his men's safety.

First, we don't have "unusually high casualty rates" from a historical standpoint whatsoever. I doubt we will be wiped out on some hill unless a nuclear weapon is unleashed, stolen by terrorists from the former USSR, which Kerry appeased constantly.

In late 1867 Custer was court-martialed and suspended from duty for a year for being absent from duty but he used his connections to, once again, skirt punishment and regain his standing in the military. General Phil Sheridan used his military power to excuse young George's youthful mistake and brought him back into a position with more power and authority.

And 1867 means what again? They wanted a madman to overrun the Sioux who had defied Washington. Your attempts at corrolation are insane. Sheridan was no angel.

George was a master of military politics and somehow worked his way up to Brigadier General at the age of 25, the youngest man ever to attain that rank. Gen. George was placed in command of a contingent of men to seek out "renegade" Indians who were holding up the "progress" of miners and other business venturers from gaining profit off of the unexplored lands. The Natives were portrayed as vicious savages intent on killing innocent American civilians though the majority of them just wanted to live their lives in peace in their homelands.

And that has a corrolation with a country that was run by Saddam? Where he started two wars? Imprisoned thousands, used WMD to gas thousands of innocents? It took a year just to dig them up, and there was a damn WAREHOUSE of bones.

George's fate and historical fame were both wrapped up in an expedition to destroy the Lakota, Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians in Montana because of the wrongful association of all of the tribes in that area with the attacks by one tribe and chief, Crazy Horse. The U. S. government, in all of its wisdom, decided to round up, imprison or destroy all of the Native people in that area and they relied on their young, brash, arrogant commander to do it.

And what does that have to do about George Bush other than the first name you dimwit.

Riding with his men and two other brigades, the plan was to use overwhelming force to destroy the less well-armed and organized Indians. Young and boastful, George knew that this mission would ensure his fame, fortune and political future for all time and led his men into battle in spite of the intelligence he was getting from the field.

If your saying that we have 200 men to hold a hill, that's pretty pathetic.

Though (sic) he was warned in advance by scouts that the Indians had a much larger force than was originally thought, he continued his march.

Though allied units commanded by far more experienced leaders fell behind and were not with him, he pushed forward, resolute.

I love the term "allied units" stuck in there. How incredibly ignorant to think his subliminal message wouldn't be seen as tripe. His "allied units" were disorganized and overmatched and overwhelmed. This is so funny.

Though he split his forces into three separate units, weakening them, he rode ahead, confidently. Though he went into battle with underwhelming force, he did so convinced of his ability to bring forth a glorious victory for his country and himself.

Totally irrelevant. Underwhelming force is the key phrase there buddy boy. I don't think we went to the river with an underwhelming force.

Convinced of his own superiority and leadership skills, George pushed valiantly forward into one of the greatest military blunders in U.S. history. The Indians, formerly opponents of each other, united against the vicious attacks of the U.S. military and thousands of former enemies combined their forces to attack George and his troops.

Well, it's certainly something some dipshiat Jr. College Teacher will buy and post on the internet. I'm actually LMAO

General George Armstrong Custer led all of his men, co****re, to slaughter. Not one soldier under his command survived his confident, resolute, and blindingly wrong blunder.

And the point is what? We have less than 1 percent dead, 1.5 percent injured.

The amazing thing is, there are still George defenders who claim he was a great leader and military mind. In spite of evidence to the contrary, he will always, in some minds, be considered a brave patriot whose confidence, resoluteness, and conviction in his decision-making outweigh the ultimate result of his foolish choices.

Now this child tries to tie it all together with a first name and delusionary comments when Custer was told to clean out the Black Hills for gold by Washington.

But while there are many historical similarities between the two Georges, there is one glaring difference.

One George led his men into battle and faced the bullets and arrows of the enemy, donned the uniform and fought for his country, led his men from the front, and stood behind his choices personally and was forced to accept their fatal outcome.

The other is our President.

There are no historical similarities you dimwit, other than a First Name. We didn't leave our artillary back at camp to ride light, we brought M1 tanks.

We didn't go in arrogant, we went in and conquered in 28 days.

We are not wiped out, we are in control with the new specter of suicide bombers. Or crazy injuns running thru the bush to be shot.

There is nothing historically acurate about this childs diatribe other than this, which he failed to bring up.

AFTER CUSTER WAS CUT DOWN WE WENT ON TO MAKE BIG BURGER OF INJUN.

He forgot to put the END OF THE STORY in there. Did we retreat behind the Missouri river and go to Paris for Peace Talks?

Guess what we did you dimwit. I'm not proud of it, but hey, it's your thread right?

We came back an annialated them. I find it totally amusing that this child forgets to mention it.

In fact, one massacre was right where Denver is now. Another was at wounded knee.

I'm sure this piece of trash got some idiot punk an A in his Political Science class. I went to Denver University where they actually taught reality.

Nice Try Dimwit.

BTW, It was called the Massacre of Sand Creek. And the Massacre of Wounded Knee.

So the next time you think we are walking away, and you want to lick Kerry's leg, (which you can't, he doens't have a leg to stand on, all you can do is attack Bush) call me back.

One other thing. Tell me a reason to Vote for the Traitor Kerry.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-30-2004, 12:17 AM
Monkey soldier in post #5

http://www.bartcop.com/chimp-corn.jpg

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-30-2004, 12:18 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/satan-cheney.gif

watermock
09-30-2004, 12:19 AM
I'm so impressed and surprised.

Mr. Cut and Paste has a cartoon.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-30-2004, 12:45 AM
http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-by.jpg

watermock
09-30-2004, 12:59 AM
I'm not sure what Juvinile Detention Center you graduated from LABS, but it's becoming more and more evident you respond with calculated, measured logic with monkey pictures.

It's not that important, I probably have spent way too much time responding from literal amusement and outrage.

I do have a qustion oh wiseman.

Don't you think it would be cool to just leave the country if Bush is reelected? There are lots of neato countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea!

Heck there are probably jobs in Brazil for a shoe shiner.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
09-30-2004, 01:11 AM
Have another hit...
http://www.bartcop.com/mmail-by.jpg
...of stupidity

watermock
09-30-2004, 01:22 AM
Wow. Double Post Cartoon. You have outdone yourself dimwit.