Bush did better than Kerry at Yale

Kerry not so bright after all

Published on June 8, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

Kerry has finally started releasing some of his files that he had promised to during the campaign. For all the left-wing attacks on Bush's intelligence it seems rather ironic that Bush did better at Yale than Kerry did (even if barely). The good news is that Kerry did do well in one subject - French.

This isn't to say Kerry is dumb. But for some bizarre reason, left-wingers tend to believe that they are intellectually superior to conservatives and paint Bush out to be a "moron" despite no evidence to substantiate that.

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2005

Sometimes you wonder if people are making qualified statements of reality or opinion based ideas driven by jealousy and hatred. It's starting to sound that way, to me.

I thin kif you read his statements in the Laura Bush thread, you will see he has completely lost it. The truth laid bare.

bakerstreet

on Jun 09, 2005

Think you overlooked the fact that Bush outperformed Kerry at Yale, Col...

OH,wait, though. You aren't interested in alternatives. This is an 'anyone but Bush' thing, as always. Hell, clone Hitler, who cares, right? Anyone but Bush is an improvement.

Empty rhetoric ignoring the fact that people have to decide, and your Democratic bretheren don't offer anything better.

COL Gene

on Jun 09, 2005

I never said Kerry was a great choice. The issue for me is that we have a men in the White House that was a poor student, failure in business and did not meet his obligations in the military.He used drugs and boose and now he is failing to solve the issues that existed when he became President and has created new issues such as the defict and the harm he has caused the military. If we have a Draft it will be because of Bush and the Iraq War! For Four months in a row the Army did not meet its needs. They are 40% short. That can not continue very long!

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2005

For Four months in a row the Army did not meet its needs. They are 40% short

More Baloney!

Army Misses March Recruiting Goal
from American Forces Press Service

Apr 11 2005

By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample
WASHINGTON -- The Army fell short of its recruiting goals for the first part of this year, but the service is working to improve the situation, the Defense Department’s top personnel official said here April 5.

“We do not expect to see improvement in the Army recruiting situation during the traditionally challenging February-March-April-May recruiting season,” Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness David S.C. Chu told a Senate Armed Services subcommittee. For now, it appears that only the Army is having difficulty meeting its goals, he said.

Through February of fiscal 2005, “all services except the Army continued to meet or exceed quantity and quality objectives,” Chu said. Preliminary figures suggest the Army missed its March goal for active duty enlisted accessions by about 2,100 soldiers, he added.

Sponsored Links
Joining the Military
Free 2005 insiders guide to joining the Military. All you need to know.
www.military.com

Navy Reserve
Advance your career. Enhance your life. Learn more now.
www.navyreserve.com

Army Basic Training Guide
You can succeed in the US Army! Information for new Army Recruits
www.armybootcamp.com
Chu said the Army is “aggressively attacking” any potential shortfall through several “avenues of approach.” Those avenues include adding as many as 250 more active recruiters over the next 60 days and offering stronger incentives, such as increases in enlistment bonuses and the Army College Fund. Furthermore, the military plans to target advertising, “focusing on influencers, particularly parents,” he said.

“With the Army aggressively shifting resources to respond to recruiting challenges, we are cautiously optimistic that it will achieve its year-end recruiting and end-strength goals,” he said.

Chu also predicted recruiting woes for the National Guard and Reserve, telling the committee that the “first five months of this fiscal year, we are facing a very challenging recruiting environment in the reserve components.”

“The Army National Guard and the Army Reserve are at risk of falling short of their recruiting objectives,” he said.

Chu said Guard and Reserve leaders are addressing the shortfall of recruits in much the same way as the active component, through “aggressive use” of enhanced recruiting and retention incentives and large increases in recruiting forces.

He said the Army National Guard is adding 1,400 recruiters, for a total recruiting force of 4,100. The Army Reserve is adding 734 recruiters, for a total force of 1,774. The Army also is detailing 250 of its recruiters until Reserve recruiters can be trained.

Still, despite recruiting challenges, Chu told the committee that the Defense Department will reach its end-strength goals for the next fiscal year.

“We continue to work with Congress to achieve needed military pay raises and to develop flexible and discretionary compensation programs. We have every confidence that funding and policy modifications will be sufficient to ensure continued success in achieving authorized strength levels,” he said.

In the meantime, Chu said, to help the Army meet its end-strength numbers the service will have to continue use of the current “stop loss” program, which keeps affected soldiers in service beyond their scheduled discharge dates. “The Army will terminate stop loss as soon as it is operationally feasible,” he said.

In January 2005, stop loss programs affected 6,657 active soldiers, 3,016 Army Reserve soldiers, and 2,680 Army National Guard soldiers, Chu said.

He added that Army initiatives, such as increasing modularity, restructuring and rebalancing the active/reserve component mix, and stabilizing the force will eliminate the need for stop loss over time.

“Until those initiatives are fully implemented,” Chu said, “stop loss must continue if we are to meet strength, readiness and cohesion objectives for units deploying to Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.”

Don't look like 40% to me. looks more like 24% to me.

Last year, Army Guard recruiters fell nearly 7,000 short of their goal of 56,000 soldiers. This year, the Guard's recruiting goal is an even more ambitious 63,000 soldiers, in part to make up for the 2004 shortfall. But through January, four months into the recruiting year that began in October, the Guard had recruited just 12,821 new soldiers, almost 24% below its target for that period.

bakerstreet

on Jun 09, 2005

" I never said Kerry was a great choice."

No, you didn't. Nor do you ever acknowledge that a choice has to be made. You simply say that we shouldn't have Bush. Great. next election work to give us a palatable alternative instead of just grandstanding against the person you oppose.

Perhaps if you spent half the time you waste bashing Bush on promoting a candidate you approve of, there'd be someone else to choose from next election.

Andrew Powell

on Jun 09, 2005

Funny stuff

COL Gene

on Jun 09, 2005

The AP reported that the Army was 27% short in Feb; 31% short in March; 42 % short in April and the Army lowered their targets. After the May numbers and considering the fact the Army lowered their tragets, the real shortfall, from theit origional targets, is about 40% below the needs. If that trend is not reversed, a draft will be needed and it will be because or GWB

I did support a better candidate then Bush or Kerry- Sen. McCain but the GOP power brokers insisted on GWB. Last week there was a story on TV of how Bush and his GOP power brokers trashed John MsCain in 2000. What a sad way the Republican party is being lead today!

Texas Wahine

on Jun 09, 2005

Well, there's no question about who was the better looking student (minus the monobrow, of course).

enigmagnetic

on Jun 09, 2005

What about Nader, anyone know what his educational background consists of? What if he's the smartest of the three should he have been elected?

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2005

Here it is, in all its shameful, grammatically mangled, misspelled glory:

I was thinking of the "Bushes must gooooo!!!!!" one. But anyone will do.

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2005

What about Nader, anyone know what his educational background consists of? What if he's the smartest of the three should he have been elected?

Nah! He was too old.

drmiler

on Jun 09, 2005

#24 by COL Gene
Thursday, June 09, 2005

The AP reported that the Army was 27% short in Feb; 31% short in March; 42 % short in April and the Army lowered their targets. After the May numbers and considering the fact the Army lowered their tragets, the real shortfall, from theit origional targets, is about 40% below the needs. If that trend is not reversed, a draft will be needed and it will be because or GWB

So who are you supposed to believe? The AP or DOD which is where "my" info came from? Given my druthers it would be DOD BEFORE the AP every time!

Justice For Jews

on Jun 09, 2005

Bushe is an old man and should move over for a young sexy liberal like the beautiful JFK who was a complete saint!!!

bakerstreet

on Jun 09, 2005

Yes, by all means, dig JFK up and clone him. I'd laugh my ass off when he lowered taxes, opposed abortion, and fought gay marriage. God only knows the thrashing he'd give Ted...

Justice For Jews

on Jun 09, 2005

HE WAS A LIBERAL SAINT AND HAD HE LIVED RACISM WOULD HAVE BEEN ENDED IN AMERICA FOR EVERS!!!!!!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!