Monday, February 11, 2008

Weekly "Bush Twins in Uniform" Watch

It has now been 1353 days since Jenna and Not-Jenna Bush, the slacker offspring of Preznit Numnutz, graduated from college and they are still not in the uniform of the US armed services.

Why? Because they have other priorities. They are too busy partying down in Georgetown, Argentina and god-knows-where-else to show their support for the war by enlisting their chickenhawk-child selves into the military service, that's why.

And it's not just The Twins: ONLY ONE member of the extended Bush family has seen fit to volunteer for military service. Check out the Buzzflash analysis of the chickenshit Bush/Cheney extended family and see for yourself. There's even a photo taken in 2000 of the extended Bush family, complete with a whole lot of young fresh faces who seem to be of an age now to be eligible to enlist.

Little Georgie Bush, the son of Jebbie, has enlisted in the Naval Reserve. He's going into the Officer Training Program, preparing to be ... an intelligence officer. Okay, the obvious jokes aside, what are the chances he's ever going to see Iraq? Especially since he apparently hasn't actually even put on the uniform yet, even though he "enlisted" way last year.

And I see in the news that little Jenna has set a date to marry her boyfriend, one Henry Hager. Wanna bet that he won't be wearing a uniform anytime soon? Like ever? Unlike the husbands of the daughters of Lyndon Johnson, both of whom went into the service and were sent to Vietnam.

Bush and Cheney were cowards during Vietnam who sent other men off to die in their place. Now the next generation is doing its part, sending their own peers off to die instead of them.

Why can't the Twins be more like their royal counterparts in the UK? The British Royal Family, unlike the Bush Crime Family, has a centuries-long tradition of honorable military service. Prince Andrew was a combat helicopter pilot in La Guerra de las Malvinas (aka the Falklands War) and Prince Harry, until the decision was made not to send him, was on his way to Iraq as a cavalry lieutenant. But even though he's not on his way to The Sandbox, he's still in uniform.

Will the Bush Twins follow his example?

No, they will not. They are fucking cowards like their father and their Uncle Dick(less) Cheney.

Be sure to check out The Yellow Elephant blog, which asks the question "It's their war; why aren't they fighting it?"

BTW, the twins are also still not pregnant with their own Snowflake Babies. If they can't join the service, the least they could do would be to get themselves impregnated with a couple of blastocytes that would otherwise go into the garbage.

Remember what Farnsworth always says: Baste 'em, don't waste 'em.

22 Comments:

pepsiholic said...

Still no acknowledgement about McCain's son joining the military... why is that?

Farnsworth68 said...

Ah, but you are very wrong. Way back in early 2007, on this very same weekly feture, I wrote about Junior McCain joining the service. Do I need to keep harping on it? I don't talk about Jim Webb's son joining the military, either. Whattaya got to say about that?

pepsiholic said...

Soory bud, you are correct. I wasn't reading you back then.

pepsiholic said...

Unelected judges MUST follow the law, not establish it. Here's a good explanation:

Reinhardt's conservative Ninth Circuit colleague, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, holds a more literal view of the nation's premier legal document.

"If the text of the Constitution does not preclude the government's action, the judge must uphold it," O'Scannlain wrote in an essay about government property seizures, published on the website open-spaces.com. "He must do so even if the government's action is patently unfair or plainly inappropriate, for determining that something is 'unfair' or 'inappropriate' without an independent standard for fairness or appropriateness requires an exercise of sheer will. And the power to direct government action pursuant to one's own will is the power that a judge lacks."

pepsiholic said...

whoops, wrong topic

PJ720 said...

I am a 100% disabled veteran from Desert Storm and you dont see me ranting and raving like this idiot. Why dont you use your mind for something other than typical left wing name calling. The U.S. military is still a volunteer force and if the Bush twins do not want to volunteer it their choice not yours. I am proud to be a disabled veteran and proud of my service apparently you are not and I feel sorry for you. Maybe someday you will find a real timekiller instead of this vitriol.
PJ720tr

Farnsworth68 said...

blah blah blah yap yap yap.
If you don't like what I write here, then don't read it.
And as usual, nearly all of the supporters of Baby Doc Bush the Monkey Fuehrer, and the Illegal Invasion of Iraq MISS THE POINT of this weekly post.
I'd try to explain it in terms you could understand, but I don't think I can dumb down my vocabulary that much.
You either get it or you don't get it.

pepsiholic said...

"blah blah blah yap yap yap."

Lol Farns, I notice you say that whenever you get bitched slapped and can't come back with a reasonanle answer.

pepsiholic said...

And you can't explain it because it's just a stupid rant of yours... nothing logical about it. Wasn't Bush's father in WW2? What jet did Bush fly in TANG? What was it called? Was it the widow maker? Kerry served in VN... but it wasn't because he wanted to. He is quoted as saying that he decided to join the Navy after he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, and the draft board refused.

pepsiholic said...

I'd try to explain it in terms you could understand, but I don't think I can dumb down my vocabulary that much.

Farns, I'm a nuclear Chemist and I think that my IQ is probably higher than you and your wife's combined. So why don't you try.

Farnsworth68 said...

PH, sounds like you're a maybe a little ... defensive ... about that HUGE IQ. But that aside, I know that YOU already understand my point, even if you refuse to acknowledge that fact.
No, if you go back and take a look, that particular response was to anonymous poster pj720; aside from the special exception I made for you because you are just so darn entertaining, my general policy is to ignore anonymous posts, and I do that because I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
However, that said, Mr. 100% Disabled's post literally cried out for the "blah blah blah yap yap yap" treatment.

pepsiholic said...

Actually Farns, I don't understand your position. You seem to think that Bush has no credibility because he doesn't send his own daughters to Iraq.

OK, lets try this on for size. You have no credibility being against the Iraqi war because you aren't sending your kids/grandkids to Iraq to be human shields.

My position would be just as stupid as yours is.

Farnsworth68 said...

Okay, PH, I wouldn't be bragging about that big IQ if I were you, when you are in such denial about "understanding" my position.
Go back to my very first post on this topic and see if that sheds any light on it.
If not, then you are so far in denial that nothing more I can say will penetrate the dense intellectual smog that you are surrounding yourself with.

Pepsiholic said...

OK, I read it. I see that:
The husbands of Richard Nixon’s daughters did not serve in Vietnam.

None of the children of Ronald Reagan donned a uniform.

And the offspring of George Bush Senior? Well, we know about that already.

But what about Carter and the Clintons? Why were they left out? Did it have anything to do with the fact that they are demorats and you hold them to a different standards?

Farnsworth68 said...

Jeez, dude, you really DON'T get it, do you?
Carter and Clinton (note: NOT "the Clintons") were not warmongering assholes like the other Chickenhawks on the list, who were perfectly willing to send other people's children off to fight their wars but god forbid they should have to invest one of their own children in them. If Carter and Clinton had been, then they and their children would be there as well. Did you notice the absence of Gerald Ford and his children? No, you did not, because that would put a monkey wrench in your whole theory, that I'm excluding only Democrats.
And don't start in on Clinton's "war" in the Balkans or I'll fire back with Reagan's loss of 241 lives in Beirut in 1983, after which he "cut and run" and thereby "emboldened the terrorists", or his totally warrantless and opportunistic 1983 invasion of Grenada, on the excuse that a handful of American medical students "could be taken hostage", when in actuality, it was undertaken to divert the world's attention away from the Beirut bombing. And George HW Bush said about that bombing, that the US "would not be cowed by terrorists" -- yeah, some empty posturing that was, since the US made not a single retaliatory attack against those terrorists.
Jeez, PH, I'm really starting to get worried about your mental state.
But, to get back on point here, in case you need the whole thing spelled out in just one word, it's this: HYPOCRISY.
I have four children and as of now, four grandchildren, who are of an age to serve in the military. If I were an enthusiastic supporter of Baby Doc's misadventures in the Middle East, then I would myself be, if I did not encourage those offspring to enlist and fight in the war I supported, a hypocrite as well.
Especially if I were a top-drawer politician with a record of supporting and voting for those wars.

NOW do you get it????

pepsiholic said...

Wait... Clinton's warmongering is cancelled out by the Beirut peacekeeping mission bombings??? Give me a break! You have to do better than that Farns. Wasn't the peacekeeping mission authorized by the U.N.? Wasn't Bush one and two authorized to use force against Saddam? How about Clinton? Did he have U.N. permission?

Oh so the only one who had a truelly illegal war was Clinton...

Don't worry about my mental health Farns, I'm not the one that suffers from Bush Derangement Symptom: "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush"

Pepsiholic said...

Besides, everyone knows that liberalism is just a mental disease

Farnsworth68 said...

There you go again.
Nothing to say about the hypocrisy, PH? It's so typical of you to launch off into a sideshow, and you do this, as usual, to obfuscate the fact that you don't really have an answer. But to credit you, you did manage to stick in that "clever" wingnut-talking-point claim that "liberalism is a mental disease".
Jeez, you must have a different version of the DSVM-IV from mine. I don't see that diagnosis in my book.
But that doesn't surprise me, either.

pepsiholic said...

I don't see that diagnosis in my book. But that doesn't surprise me, either.


From your own link:

There have been five revisions of the DSM since it was first published in 1952. The last major revision was the DSM-IV published in 1994, although a "text revision" was produced in 2000.

When was Bush elected... ah... that would explain why it isn't in your book.

And excuse me but I think that Carter and Clinton's daughters not being included on your list is relevent.

I believe you are the one that's trying to mislead... you do that a lot when you can't defend your position...

pepsiholic said...

Liberals have an unhealthy fear of human differences, and yet also have a hatred of the "normal". For instance, they believe that people -- and by "people", they mean "you" -- are not capable of responsible gun ownership, because you just might go wild and shoot someone, controlled by something scary inside your head that you don't even know is there, and can't fix. They believe that you, if you ever had ancestors from Africa, are unable to compete on an equal basis with people of European descent -- nor can you females compete on the same level as males, nor any of you non-white-males compete with white males equally. They believe that you need to be helped, protected, given advantages, and consoled (with money) when you fail. They believe that you white males are full of secret hatreds that you don't even realise you harbor, and that you need to be trained not to express -- and if you DO express your "wrong" opinions, it can cause actual harm to others. Liberals believe that as children, you should all be taught that you are no different than anyone else -- no winners, no losers, no ranking, no grades, no pass, no fail, no punishments and no rewards -- and then want you to "celebrate your diversity". Is this not the sign of some kind of mental disease?

Rational people, uninfected by Liberalism, know that Americans have always been able to own guns, and only the crazies or criminals abuse that right -- and that banning guns would not remove those elements from society. Rational people know that skin color and ancestry are immaterial when it comes to intelligence and potential -- both distributed evenly throughout the human race. Above all, rational people know that LIFE IS NOT FAIR... that in any field of human endeavor, some people will rise above others, and that life is competitive. Why do Liberals want to cripple children by lying to them about life instead of preparing them for it? It's the sign of a mental disease. Do you wonder why school shootings have become so common? It's what happens when those coddled kids raised in an unrealistic world, believing that everyone's the same, get a bloody nose when they run into the reality that the good-looking football players get to date the cheerleaders, and they don't.

Farnsworth68 said...

So put your money where your mouth is. Do you want to bet that "liberalism is a mental disease" ever makes it into the book?
You can quote some jerkoff psychbabble nutjob (your Mariani) all you want, but show me any proof at all that any reputable shrink is gonna believe all that bullshit.
If I had the inclination, I could dig out some equally fatuous nutjob on the left to make the same kinds of arguments towards conservatives. But I won't, because that's not what this post is about.
And why only Carter and Clinton? Why not the Ford children?
And you still haven't shown me why the two Dem's children are relevant (note: It's spelled "relevant", not "relevent").
And finally, your argument that I send my family as some kind of "human shields" makes absolutely no sense. I don't want ANY Americans over there, including my own.
I think you're drifting off somewhere to the right of La-La-Land there, PH.

Farnsworth68 said...

Oh, and where's all this "Clinton warmongering" you have such a good time yapping about? Where's his "truelly" (note: "truly") illegal war?
Sorry again, dude, since I know you love to bash Bill Clinton, but the adventure into Former Yugoslavia (which I assume you are talking about) was strictly a NATO operation, approved by the UN. Clinton didn't arbitrarily and capriciously attack another nation that had not attacked us.
And Bush did not have UN approval to start the Iraq War. In fact, he stated publicly on several occasions that we wanted Saddam to come to the table, and if he didn't, then he would take the issue to the UN and somehow force the UN to approve an attack. Saddam didn't, Bush didn't, so the UN didn't, and the war started. And the reason for that is because Bushco knew that they would NEVER get UN approval for the invasion.
You have the word of no less a personage than the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, speaking about the invasion of Iraq, in 2004 said so charitably, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
I'm not gonna give you even a "nice try" on that one. As usual, you're being intentionally obtuse. Me, I'd give up on that. It's really not working for out for you.