Follow @theurbancountry on Twitter Find us on Facebook Subscribe to via e-mail Subscribe to via RSS
Follow @theurbancountry on Twitter Find us on Facebook Subscribe to via e-mail Subscribe to via RSS

Bush to Defend Military Service Again

Documents have been released that show that President Bush ignored a direct order from a superior officer, causing him to lose his status as a Texas Air National Guard pilot because he failed to meet military performance standards and undergo a required physical examination. (Yahoo – Link)

This will cause the White House to once again defend President Bush’s military record. I understand that a President needs to do his best to hide things that might tarnish his image to the public, but it seems Bush is doing this too often. He always seems to be changing his story, and altering his reasons for doing things. One might think he is attempting to cover up certain things, but this is just conjecture with no evidence to back it up.

During the build-up to the Iraq war, Bush stated many different reasons for going to war, and those reasons changed as new evidence was released. For example, when people started to realize that Saddam wasn’t a close ally of Al Qaeda, Bush started pushing more on the Weapons of Mass Destruction as reasons for going to war. When it became known that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, Bush started implying his reason is the war on terror, and Saddam employed terror in the past and needed to be removed.

A University Student named Devon M. Largio did a thesis called “Uncovering the Rationales for the War on Iraq: The Words of the Bush Administration, Congress, and the Media from September 12, 2001 to October 11, 2002.


This thesis outlines all the different reasons for going to war that the White House used leading up to the war. The thesis is not “Anti-Bush”; it merely details the reasons that the White House gave to the public for justifying going to war. It is quite apparent in this essay that the reasons changed many times over the year.

I suppose there are people working full time determining what the general public wants to hear, and the argument that will raise the moral of the public is the argument that will be pushed at that time. I do have respect for people that have a reason for doing something and sticking with it, regardless of public ratings. Bush did stick with one thing, the fact that he wanted to go to war, and he was going to do whatever it took to go to war, and he was going to do whatever it took to get the public to back him on his war. A lot of people respect the fact that Bush has a backbone and stuck with his word on going to war, but in this circumstance, I can’t agree with these people, as I have always thought the war was wrong, and the reasons for going into this war were wrong, and the deaths of the innocent people in this war is wrong.

Regardless of who gets elected in November, I believe both of them will stick it out until the job is done, but once the job is “done”, nobody really knows what that means. Does that mean a new puppet President gets elected? Or does that mean that a new dictator gets elected? Or will there be a civil war? Nobody knows the answer, and I’m afraid it will probably be a very long time before there is peace in that country; even long after the US pulls out their troops.

Leave a Reply