Discussion in 'Politics' started by WildBlueYonder, Feb 5, 2004.
Here's an interesting read:
Article - National Review
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
It was interesting, for me especially that America's persistent Vietnam ghosts still haunt. "Hanoi Jane" and other cries of American Supremacists are back. I'm sure we'll even hear that if not for dissent, we could have killed more than just 4 million Southeast Asians, and they would have finally welcomed America's cultural genius, good intentions, and global authority.
I would like to know more specifically than in passing smears, how Kerry, Fonda, and the thousands of other Americans who reached a conclusion that the Vietnam war was a mistake and a defeat for the USA, who endeavored to end the needless carnage on all sides, who made a stand to minimize damage of that senseless war to US interests- how they can be criticized from a standpoint of patriotic loyalty, for holding these now popularly-accepted opinions. Domestic opposition to the Vietnam quagmire saved American lives and credibility.
As we face America's inevitable and ignonimous withdrawal from the remains of Iraq after the many counterproductive sacrifices still ahead, we will need similar American moral courage and rational humility again. When it's time to pack in another grandiose "police action" turned horrific, we will again need a patriotic cross-section of America who will be politically mature enough to personally face difficult truths, and courageous enough to publicly confront the lies.
records were shown again ... yesterday so plz do not bs
they are gonna now ignore this ever happened and try to go on.
the thing is people in middle america do not forget when someone lies to them
nor take it lightly the more attacks are made and proven wrong the less people
will vote for a democrat in the next elections.
I watched the press briefing re-run on C-Span last night, and it was readily apparent that Scotty went in with four or five lines of response, and couldn’t vary from them at all, no matter what question was asked.
It was basically "This document shows he got paid on these dates, and you get paid for the days you serve, so he served. Oh, and got an honorable discharge." The press, to my unutterable delight, wasn't buying at all, and kept after him. I was frankly surprised he stuck it out as long as he did; he must have repeated each of his lines 12-15 times or more. I wish I'd taped the performance for posterity.
Yes, folks, that large screeching sound was an iceberg.
those payrecords seriously do not show anything about him being present.
I'm still scratching my head on this one. Why does McAuliffe want to play re-runs when he's got so much fresh material to use against Bush? This story is not going to play any better in the minds of voters than it did when it came out four years ago. It's almost as if McAuliffe thinks that he can reverse the outcome of the 2000 results by trotting this out again.
Tracking polls show that this sort of story almost never has the legs to seriously change the outcome of an election. Conversely, issues like the economy and jobs, war and diplomacy most certainly affect swing voters. Republicans have to pleased to see the Democrats avoiding the major issues and ranting about the NG service record. I'd say they will figure it out in a few weeks and drop it. In the meantime the dirt will continue to come out from under Kerry's fingernails as the microscope gets a singular object to examine.
Keep in mind, Bush is sitting on $150,000,000 war chest, and has spent a sum total of dick so far.
The big story is yet to come. What are people going to say when it comes out that the most recognizable, most popular athlete in the world is a Republican?
"Tracking polls show that this sort of story almost never has the legs to seriously change the outcome of an election."
Something is clearly being concealed about the President's military career, and it is not just about the liberalisms of champaign Guard units. If W's "missing" time turns out to have been specifically buried because of a carefully concealed shame, such as a serious substance abuse problem while in uniform, the consequences will be instantly pivotal. W has alienated many retired veterans, and with one or two credible and corroborated witnesses, the resultant media frenzy will make the Dean "Yeargh" seem like a sneeze.
Do you have another link? That one was a bit too similar to hold my interest.
Another false acusation shot down.
" 'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch"
" It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.
In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.
COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Thanks for the link, I thought it might even satisfy, until I had the pinko audacity to actually read it. Maybe Hanoi Jane hypnotized me, and as a result this smells like bullshit. Or maybe the following is why this dog won't hunt:
Col. Campenni asserts that this developing issue is an attempt by "Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard". That's not only false, but it is feigned indignance where obviously none is warranted. The nearest thing to slandering the National Guard are preposterous assertions that it is run like an informal club, with officers coming and going between commands and duty assignments at will and largely undocumented.
What is presently titillating journalists as irresistably as a naughty White House intern is the bizarre defensive behavior on the part of the Bush White House regarding what really should be an open-and-shut issue. By clumsily attracting suspicion, the Bush White House will now be relentlessly compelled to provide more specific and relevant information. We all know that these things are now Washington's most popular blood sport.
Col. Campenni has stated that GW Bush served with him in the 111th FIS in 1970 and 1971. He has inferred that being removed from flight status was an unremarkable process, requiring only that a pilot miss an appointment, and even more slickly, the Col. inferred that not just any USAF Flight Surgeon would be authorized to certify a routine physical, that it had to be sychronous with one's birthday, etc. Bullshit!
Col. Campenni did not serve with Lt. GW Bush during the period that is in question, of which there has been no information released regarding specific places, times, and descriptions of duties performed.
It is not too much to ask for the Commander in Chief, with any necessary help from his cabinet and, conveniently, the entire US Armed Forces, to provide the following details for the period in question from May 1972 until the end of his Guard commitment in November of 1974:
Duties Performed in 1973
Chain of Command in 1973
Reason for failure to submit to a flight physical, lack of which resulted in temporary suspension of flight status.
Reason flight status was never reinstated after returning to Houston for 7 months, with no Guard duty
Another Air Guardsman's Analysis
One last note- The Col. asserts F-102s did not fly in Vietnam. Well, lookiehere at some junk lying around Danang.
Just to throw another log in the fire!.
Just a random aside. A friend of a friend loaned the friend a copy of Molly Ivins' Shrub that ended up in my hands. I see why those books are popular. There's nothing new about Mr. Moore's remarks, nothing new about this story. Each new development is strikingly similar to Ms. Ivins' depiction.
What is new about this story, and what propels it, is that the Administration is apparently stonewalling. Either this Administration is repeatedly bungling their responses by not bothering to prepare much of anything to put the story to rest, or they are hiding something.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On the one hand, I agree with you, but I'm not surprised at the ripples and rumors of an expunged, sanitized, or even missing file. For some reason, I recall that earlier versions of the scandal ran into the same dead-end of not having really anything to go on, that the record terminated in the same Bush fog as everything else.
Personally, I think the current Bush stonewalling is smoke and mirrors. I'm trying to figure out what it is we're not supposed to be looking at. It would seem to me that either way, the present Bush strategy of dangling carrots to stoke the fires while sending Powell and McClellan on the offensive doesn't make sense.
If the records don't exist, you're only screwed worse the longer you wait. If the records do exist, then the stonewalling is intentional. And this is Bush, so he's not stonewalling on any general principle.
So the question to me is to wonder what it is we're not supposed to be looking at.
Recalling that Bush escalated his campaign against gays at the same news conference in which he accepted personal responsibility for the words in the 2003 State of the Union Address, and it worked. A great Roving Strategy, I admit. People focused on gays, not the fact that the president had finally admitted responsibility for incorrectly advising the American people and contributing to the rush to an ill-advised, ill-conceived war. Amazing.
I'm thinking this is all designed to draw attention from the 9/11 investigations. I mean, Bush apparently won't give information except at the stake of a legal argument he knows he'll lose--it's a bit like pulling teeth when "unprecedented cooperation" means the commission has to say, "Look, do we have to haul you into court for these or are you going to cooperate?" On top of that, the AP reports that the Kean commission is considering calling Clinton, Gore, Bush, and Cheney to testify regarding foreshadowing and possible foreknowledge.
So ... yet another empty scandal. I'm wondering what it is we're not supposed to be looking at.
Continuous and blatant red herrings can have a diminishing effect. The stonewalling in this story doesn't have the feel to me of an Administration wanting to play it out. W's political strategists surely prefer hyping distractions that do not reflect so poorly on the POTUS as this one does. Putting up White House shields so suddenly is not an indicator that the President's gurus are driving this, or that they are the least bit happy about it.
Regarding records and the lack thereof: Let's assume for a moment that something embarrassing lurks, or once lurked, in the President's service record, or that even absent dereliction, that sloppy illegal tampering once occured. Damage control would be far more difficult than it is in the case of containing classified information: For example, breaking ranks on the disparity between Iraq WMD intel and White House rhetoric can involve instant arrest and severe penalties for personnel presently under the obligations of security clearances. But inquiry into a service record is a very different kettle of fish. If any effort has been made to tamper with the President's service record, there will be multiple ways in which the attempt can break down under scrutiny. The controls on information for reasons of security and privacy are very different.
White House reaction to the resurgence of this curious issue leaves a distinct impression of fear, and I can't imagine why this would be an intentional strategy. Rather, they are possibly intent on hiding something. My wildest guess is that there was tampering for the Texas gubernatorial campaign, that far exceeds the seriousness of the lackluster duty performance on the part of a privileged young Lt GW Bush. The record tampering may have been sufficient for throwing the Texas press off the scent years ago, but now in the present, that local record tampering, and not W's lukewarm military career, is a much bigger liability should a serious inquiry be allowed to proceed any further. That's just my hunch.
I don't know if it's irrelevant to his presidency. I mean aren't the Republicans always jumping up and down and beating their chest like wild gorillas about the issue of this or that person's "Character"? Didn't they slam the hell out of Clinton because of his moral Character? Doesn't it say a lot about Bush's character that he just decided to ditch and not show up for duty?
I'll say one thing, this whole year long absence thing seems pretty indicative of his general work ethic. Did you know that he's taken more vacation time than any other president in history? Nearly half of his term has been vacation time.
Did you know that he's taken more vacation time than any other president in history?
it´s the time he spends in the white house that worries most of us Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it´s not important that he is a deserter , his work ethic isn´t important - it´s important that he is an idiot ( well ... the idiot son of an asshole ) who just makes trouble
Hmmm?,could have been the start of his cocaine habit?
I was stationed at Edwards AFB from Dec '74 to Oct '79, & I can name probably 80% of the people that served with me, including supervisors & some of the people in other units.
Exactly, Randolpho. And if you were now President, many would recall you in those days, and some would be eager to take a public stroll down memory lane- however mundane the memories might be, we're talking about recollections of serving alongside a future President of the United States. Because all Lt Bush's Alabama Guard era associates, whoever they were, can not have forever vanished along with the bulk of his service records, this story is not over.
Separate names with a comma.