TXANG Debate Re-Igniting?

Last night, the Pentagon revealed that new records of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard have been found, due to a FOIA request. This morning sees a New York Times column (free reg. req.), and a detailed "reexamination of the records" by the Boston Globe. Tonight, 60 Minutes II airs an interview with the man who got Bush into the Guard (though my TiVo says otherwise for some reason).

Comments

60 Minutes Interview

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I thought that interview was scheduled for this Sunday night.

Re:60 Minutes Interview

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that interview was scheduled for this Sunday night.

I guess you thought wrong. The linked article clearly says tonight.

Re:60 Minutes Interview

[MoOsEb0y]

what if the linked article is wrong, eh?

Re:60 Minutes Interview

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone PLEASE tell me how to disable these @#*!ing politics stories from showing up on the front page?! :-(

I've ticked 'politics', 'republicans' and 'democrats' on the exclude list, and still is shows up! Aaaaaaaarrrgh! Stupid #@*! american politics! I _don't_ want to know.

Does this matter?

[JohnnyX]

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

What does matter to me is that they both support sending my family members in the Army to Iraq to fight a war we shouldn't be fighting.

The death toll for American soldiers just passed 1,000 and neither Bush nor Kerry will get us out of there. That's a lot more important to me than how Bush got into the Air National Guard.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...disgusted...

Re:Does this matter?

[Skyshadow]

This sort of thing always makes me roll my eyes, and I'm a Kerry supporter.

It seems pretty clear, though, that the back-and-forth of irrelevant campaign issues is just going to continue, and unfortunately I've got to assume that's because it's actually effective with a certain segment of voters. Given that, it suppose it *is* actually important for my side to wave this sort of irrelevant dirt around. Obviously, a "they started it" debate here would be futile, but once the mud starts flying it more or less forces both campaigns to engage in it.

There's only one solution: hunger for the day when the American public reaches a level of sophistication where they can (a) identify a fairly reliable and impartial source of information and (b) actually check the BS they hear against those. I mean, the vast majority of Americans are sitting on top of the greatest source of information in the history of history, but they're relying on politicians and sites like NewsMax to tell 'em how it is...

Re:Does this matter?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Umm- Kerry actually seems to have a plan...He's saying he wants NO American military in Iraq by 2008. I personally think that's WAY too slow, but I also understand that you can't just draft a half a million unemployed to join the 100,000 professionals in an effort to get them out safely either. At least, not and hope to have them trained in any less than a four year period.

Re:Does this matter?

[savagedome]

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

No. I agree with you. And so does Bill Maher!

No one has their shit together at 22. Now, outside of the basic fairness of placing George Bush in with all the other young men of his era who found a way to avoid Vietnam, I don't really care if our president showed up for all his National Guard jumping jacks in 1973. I don't care that there's evidence that John Kerry once very nearly met Jane Fonda.
We've all made mistakes when young and chasing a buzz. Bush blew off his calisthenics. Saddam gassed his own people. I bought the John and Yoko album where they just farted for an hour into a tape recorder!
The phrase, "youthful indiscretions" is redundant, because how many discreet young people do you know? No, the people you need to worry about are not the one who sowed their wild oats, but the ones who didn't. Michael Jackson had to wait until he was an adult to have a childhood, and I think we see how well that turned out.
Go back far enough in any great man's life and you will eventually get to the stuff he did or said before he was great or even a man. Don King started out life in Cleveland as a corrupt, murderous thug, but then - okay, bad example.
But the point remains, trying to define a person's current self by their past self is the worst kind of "gotcha." Our mistakes from the past are just that: mistakes. And they were necessary to make in order to become the wiser person we became.
You never got drunk and pissed yourself? Or sold drugs to school children? Or panicked when you couldn't get it up at a bachelor party and killed a hooker?
Hey, if only hindsight could come without having to mess up first. And believe me, I have the platform shoes to prove that one. But to exploit youthful mistakes for political gain is, well, let's just say, when you get older, you might look back and regret it.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a plan, that's a campaign promise.

Re:Does this matter?

[Elwood P Dowd]

This sort of thing always makes me roll my eyes, and I'm a Kerry supporter.

Same for everybody else.

That's why Clinton told him to stfu regarding his service in Vietnam.

Re:Does this matter?

[bhima]

I must say, the US election process is the most reported, this is looking more & more foolish here in the EU.

I am queried almost daily now on embarrassing topics such as this. Really I am at loss to explain that just because politicians are lying thieving bastards, and the political process is corrupt doesn't mean that there are a lot of reasonable Americans and a lot a very beautiful places to visit. Shame we have disposed of the reputation of moral, good people that we used to enjoy.

And before the republicans who are reading start to protest, The world is not just angry at Republican Americans they are disgusted at all of us.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Assuming GWB did in fact have strings pulled on his behalf to get into the TANG, at least in part for the purpose of avoiding combat in Vietnam (this much seems pretty solid; the latter half is in one of the official documents). Okay, it's pretty weaselly for someone to say he supports the war, to be able bodied, and then to avoid it. But it's not that big a deal. Youthful indiscretion, and not in the Henry Hyde sense of that phrase.

Now, ducking out of the service that was entailed by that commitment? Weaselier than the first bit, but not a deal-breaker as far as being President (I expect that to be a little more controversial, but what the heck, it's not the end of the case); you could chalk it up to a youthful indiscretion.

What you can't chalk up to a youthful indiscretion: his behavior in the present day.

The last time this came up, the current occupant of the White House asserted that he'd already released all the documents in 2000. That was false. They released 300 more documents, but there were still holes in the record. So then they "lost" some of them, but then found them again. All believable, if beginning to be a bit of a stretch. However, with all the available documents, there are still holes in the record.

Which, combined with the fact that nobody in the Alabama national guard at the time recalls having served with Bush suggests pretty strongly that there's something somebody doesn't want the general public to see in those missing records.

In other words, to all appearances, the guy NOW is hiding stuff. He doesn't have an explanation for why nobody remembers him. The story he wants to tell does not gibe with the official record (which, I hasten to point out to those bashing Kerry, are not written by the subjects of those records).

Re:Does this matter?

[DAldredge]

I don't see the rest of the world not accepting our aid money nor do I see them kicking our military bases off their soil. Funny how their principles go away when money is involved.

Re:Does this matter?

[KilobyteKnight]

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

Probably not. I'm sure there are others.

I, however, do think what someone did 30 years ago does sometimes matter.

I don't see anyone saying "Who cares what Manson did 30 years ago?". Heck, by your logic, anyone serving a life sentence should be set free after 30 years because it shouldn't matter any more.

Who cares if Kerry admitted publically to commiting war crimes 30 years ago? I do. It means he either lied for political purposes, or actually commited war crimes. Either way, I don't want him as commander in chief of the most powerfull armed forces the world has ever seen.

Who cares if the swift boat vets are telling the truth? We all should. Maybe all 254 got together and conspired to discredit Kerry. Maybe not. Either way we should find out. After all, 254 people who knew and served beside Kerry being so anti-Kerry should be raising red flags even if they are making it all up. Why would they do that? Why is there only one person that served with him that is on his side? We should find out. We should care.

But it is true that people can change. Thirty years is a long time. Even twenty years is a long time. Four months is a short time. Yet Kerry never mentions his 20 years in the Senate. Why do you think that is? He mentions his 4 months in Vietnam at every opprotunity, even making opprotunities where not logical connection exists. He implies over and over again that his four months is Veitnam qualifies him to lead this country. Apparently Kerry thinks what happened 30 years ago matters... as long as it's his version.

Was Bush AWOL 30 years ago? Maybe. Does it matter? Sure. It's not on the same level as an admitted war criminal, but it matters. However, there is nothing but a lack of evidence to back those charges up. A lack of evidence is not evidence. This AWOL thing is a handful of people saying "Yes, I too can not prove where Bush was 30 years ago". I couldn't prove where I was at 12:00 AM a week ago. Sure, I'm usually in bed at that time. Sure, not one remembers seeing me leave. Sure, no one remembers seing me anywhere else. But was I really in bed like I say? You can't prove a negative. If someone was watching my bed last week, and documented it at the time that my bed was empty at 12:00 AM last week, that would be evidence that I wasn't in bed. But I could have been on the couch. It doesn't mean I robbed the bank.

Did Bush's connections help him in avoiding Veitnam? That would say something about his character, except for one thing. His father was head of the CIA at the time. He couldn't have gone to Veitnam had he wanted to go. There's no way the US would allow the son of the head of the CIA to be in a war zone.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

GWB's father was not CIA Director until his appointment by Pres. Ford in 1976. Google some history before making up your own.

Re:Does this matter?

[bhima]

Boy, you really don't get it.

Many local communities are demanding that US military bases be reduced or removed (Japan, Germany & Saudi Arabia come to mind). US aid money has much more to do with American interests and American lobbyists, outside of Israel and Oil producing nations US foreign aid is limited and capricious. America can't buy good will anymore and it has lost the respect that was gained, after WWII, during the cold war.

It's obvious you should get out more and understand how the world views America: Only interested in Money & Oil and dangerous.

Re:Does this matter?

[Kick the Donkey]

Who cares if Kerry admitted publically to commiting war crimes 30 years ago? I do. It means he either lied for political purposes, or actually commited war crimes.

Kerry didn't admit to commiting war crimes... The stories he relating to the Senete Committee where related to him. Guilty of hear-say? Yes. Guilty of war crimes? No...

Re:Does this matter?

[jgardn]

I think the death toll is just another campaign ploy by the democrats. I'd be careful mentioning it, because you really are using their caskets as a device.

Why don't we count the number of Iraqi patriots who have died fighting insurgents and terrorists? They died defending their own country, trying to secure it to a point where they might actually get a free election. The insurgents and the terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent this.

Shall we count the innocent victims of terrorism and insurgencies in Iraq as well? We know for a fact that the insurgents and terrorists have killed far more Iraqi civilians than the Americans did. They are doing more damage to their own country than an entire army did in taking it over.

The real numbers to be concerned about are the 200+ school children and faculties murdered brutally by Al Quaeda operatives in Russia. Did you read Putin's speech? He has joined Bush in the pre-emptive doctrine. No longer is he going to wait to respond to terrorism. He is going to hunt and destroy every known terrorist organization within his reach.

You should also count the passengers and victims of the terrorist's insane attack on September 11, 2001. Count the ones who were working to support their families in the twin towers, count the firefighters and police men who knowingly went into a building that was collapsing, that knowingly climbed higher and higher while everyone else was rushing to get out. Count the fathers and mothers, and count the children that had no family to return to that evening. And count the member of the military in the Pentagon that were taken that day as well.

But don't forget the other victims of terror, both American and abroad, who have been murdered in the name of Jihad. The USS Cole, the marine barracks, the embassy bombings, the first trade tower attack, the bombings in Southeast Asia, the Phillipines, etc.

I say every one of those 1,000 soldiers who volunteered to give their lives are heroes. It's because of them that we are fighting terrorists in Baghdad and not Manhattan. It's because of them that I can sit here and even talk about them without worrying about someone walking into my office with a bomb strapped to his belt. Would I have supported Bush if I knew in 1 1/2 years later 1,000 of this country's bravest and most patriotic would give their lives to execute the plan? Hell yes.

Iraq isn't over until we have peaceful elections and stability. It isn't over until we have completed the transition from a people enslaved to a despot to a people free from terror. It isn't over until the seeds of democracy are planted in the Middle East. Iraq is our one hope to solve the terrorist problem and to bring peace and prosperity to that area of the world. If we succeed there, we can succeed in Iran, Syria, Libya, and surrounding areas. Democracy will spread like wildfire in that region, like it did in the civilized world 200 years ago.

Where will the terrorists turn for new recruits when all the people in the Middle East have a voice? Why will the blow themselves up when they can run for office or vote their conscience? Why would they hate America when America is one of their biggest and most profitable trading partners?

Re:Does this matter?

[b-baggins]

Which basically tells the bad guys exactly what they want to know: when they can hit Iraq hard without fear of American soldiers shooting back at them.

Only a fool publicly advertises military withdrawl plans when you're still engaging an enemy.

Re:Does this matter?

[b-baggins]

Read Kerry's testimony. He said that he, himself, was guilty of committing the same atrocities that he reported.

But even if he didn't commit them, as an officer, he was still guilty of war crimes by witnessing the acts and failing to either a) act upon them or b) report them up the chain of command.

Of course, the fact that all the atrocities he reported never existed outside of his fertile imagination is something that no Kerry supporter actually likes to admit, for obvious reasons.

Re:Does this matter?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually- every war up until Vietnam had an exit strategy of some sort. Vietnam and this one don't- which is why they both became such messes.

It takes a real fool to go into war without an exit strategy.

One thing you still don't realize about our current enemy though- they are death worshipers. They WANT the United States to stay engaged in Iraq for as long as possible. The longer the United States stays engaged in Iraq, the larger the chance of collateral damage. The more collateral damage, the more young men and women who lose family members to US forces. The more young men and women who are angry. The more angry Iraqis to join al Qaida. American Occupation of Iraq is the best thing that has happened to al Qaida recruitment since the Wahhabists took over the House of Saud. If we leave- they'll have to follow and find a new theater of operations to attack us in.

Re:Does this matter?

[Blankzoid]

I understand your point to be that you oppose the war (a view that I share) and that neither of the candidates reflect your position on this subject. However, to address your actual question: Does it matter what either candidate did 30 years ago. On the face of it, perhaps not. However, I would argue that president Bush has invited an examination of his military record for three reasons. The first is the willingness of his campaign machine to attack Kerry's war record. While Bush has generally avoided slinging this mud directly I think it can be fairly said that he is well aware that it is being done on his behalf and is at least tacitly endorsing this tactic. The Rove political strategy has a long history of taking the low road and I think it is fair that a candidate should be held to the same public scrutiny they seek to cast on their opponent. The second is that the Bush campaign has made a great deal of the straightforwardness, plain dealing and common touch of their candidate. If there are indeed clear signs of duplicity and privilege in the military service of president Bush this would speak directly to the assertions of the Bush campaign. Lastly, The general hawkishness of the current administration. The President undertook an increasingly controversial war. If the facts indicate that he took measures to avoid going to war himself, or that he was derelict in his duties as a guardsman, it seems to me that there is a legitimate question of hypocrisy. I don't mean to suggest that these issues should be of paramount importance to a voter. Many people will vote because they feel their candidate is most likely to implement policies they agree with. However, many voters are concerned with issues of character as well as policy. I think this is reasonable and wise in the correct proportion and I think it is legitimate to examine any part of a candidates history that may provide insight into their character.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we count the number of Iraqi patriots who have died fighting insurgents and terrorists? They died defending their own country, trying to secure it to a point where they might actually get a free election. The insurgents and the terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent this.

I completely agree with you. The Americans are the terrorists and the Iraqis want them out of their country. More attention needs to be paid to the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been injured and killed by these terrorists.

Saddam is long gone. Yet the terrorists are still there, installing a puppet government, imposing curfew, shutting down independent media, taking control of the country's natural resources, implementing gun control and bombing the place back to the stone age.

If I were an Iraqi, I'd be pissed too.

Re:Does this matter?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

I am of the opinion (feel free to disagree) that a person who has never served in the military should not be put in charge of it. This makes past military service relevant when it comes to choosing a president.

Re:Does this matter?

[DAldredge]

No, you don't get it. When the US said the where pulling troups out of germany the local communities shit their pants as those BAD Americans pump billions into their local economy. Just one of the bases in germany causes over 20,000 jobs to exist. S Korea also is concerned about our plan to pull our troops furthur south of the DMZ due the the effect on that areas economy.

Do you get this upset about France and their helping Irag (against UN agreements) build their oil industry and buy weapons? Or is that behavior ok as long as someone other than the USA is doing it.

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

First off, these "bad guys" are mostly Iraq's poor who see themselves as defending their hometowns and way of life (whether that's a realistic worldview or not).

Secondly, if the US is going to leave, *and they can believe it*, they have no reason to hit the US. All it could do is derail the exit of US forces.

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

The Saudis kicked us out. Also, local Iraqi leaders have several times been reported as refusing American money. Besides, our largest recipient of foreign aid is Israel - and they love us. :)

Lastly, in places like Iraq, the money often flows through so many channels (Pentagon->USAID->puppet leaders->tribal shieks->locals, or whatnot) that at each step it's not as bad as if the US tried to directly hand over cash using heavily armed soldiers.

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

What was it that Kerry did as soon as he got back, for which conservatives always try to eat him alive for?

Oh yeah, that's right: Speak in front of the Senate and try and get the US to change its military policies in vietnam!

He came back furious with what he saw, what US troops were ordered to do, and tried to change the policies. That's noble - and yet, you people never let him live it down.

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

Before you start getting this concept of the police and security forces in Iraq being anything other than thugs, let me give you a couple things from Najaf alone:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayP ri ntable.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/16/wirq216.xml&site =5 (police firing at journalists, trying to drive them out of the city)
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000810 .php (police kidnap journalists at gunpoint for a press conference)

(I can get you as many as you want)

We are not fighting "terrorists" in Baghdad. Are you completely unaware of who the Madhi Army is? They're the poor and destitute. They're from the slums of Sadr City, a densely populated piece of urban sprawl. The streets of Sadr city are draped in black; families place mourning banners outside their homes with the names of their loved ones that they lost, often praising them as having died "defending their country", and the streets are filled with them. They're poorly trained, but plentiful; there's no doubt that al-Sadr has at least 10s of thousands of people in the al-Madhi army, and that's just those who took up arms directly under him.

Fallujah is the same. Fallujah is now an islamic theocracy (unlike Sadr City or an-Najaf), because that is what the locals are like. Even western haircuts are banned - and the enforcers are all Fallujans. Those in control are the local clerics. They see themselves as defending their people, and their God.

Samarrah and Kufa are also out of US control currently, and run by locals. The US has been discussing a major operation to try and take back all of these centers. That'll be a bloodbath (for the Iraqis, but also a fair number of Americans) - I really hope they don't do it.

We're not fighting "terrorists" (although terrorists and tons of common thugs, have been taking advantage of the chaos; carjacking and kidnappings are rampant, and most people don't even bother going to the police). We're fighting nationalists. Even CPA-sponsored polls put al-Sadr as one of the most popular leaders in the country (and that would be like the US supporting Pat Robertson). Bush has a tiny fraction of the popularity as Chirac. Etc.

Planting the seeds of democracy? The US is now less popular in the middle east than ever before - is this going to help them convert to democracy? And heck, we're the ones arming most of the totalitarian regimes in the middle east to begin with! If all of the middle east suddenly became democracies, the first thing the governments elected would do was declare an oil embargo on the US and Israel.

"The civilized world"? You know, it's people who think like that who are the reason why we're hated in the middle east.

> ...and not Manhattan

Oh please. World terrorism has *Drastically* spiked upwards since the war on Iraq was launched - and not just nationalist-terrorism, either. Isn't the goal to *lower* it? You're certainly not going to accomplish that by driving our popularity in the middle east even *lower* into the single digits.

Anything you need a reference for, just ask, btw.

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

1) Are you aware that several people discovered their names on the list without their permission, and have stated that they completely disagree with what the group has said?

2) Are you aware that several of the people who knowingly signed the list later retracted, saying they didn't read it well first?

3) Are you aware that the very medals that the leader of this group has were due to being awarded them for heroism under fire in the same situation Kerry was in? And that several leaders in the group are on record previously praising Kerry for his heroism - sometimes even recently?

4) Are you aware that essentially every navy document from the time, including even the damage reports from the boats (which had bullet holes) has backed up Kerry's side?

5) Are you aware that of the people who actually *Served With* Kerry on his boat, all but one have voiced support for him (and that one is dead), and that of the surviving members, all but one are campaigning with him (and that one supports him nonetheless)?

6) Are you aware that the doctor who claims to have treated Kerry's wounds wasn't the one listed on the documentation as having treated Kerry, and that the doctor who did treat him affirmed Kerry's report of the wound?

Need I go on? There were only a handful of boats even present on the day, so your "254" number is just ludicrous. They "served with him" in the fact that they were in vietnam on swift boats at the same time that he was in vietnam on a swift boat. But even most damning is the fact that the head of this group was also in charge of several other smear campaigns in the past, including one against McCain (undoubtedly one of the reasons why McCain has come down so firmly against these ads).

About all that I can say that's good about them, is at least it's not the same people who did the "McCain fathered a black child!" race-baiting smear.

Re:Does this matter?

[KilobyteKnight]

GWB's father was not CIA Director until his appointment by Pres. Ford in 1976. Google some history before making up your own.

My mistake. Bush Sr. was US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time in question... then CIA director. My timing was wrong, but the net effect is the same - the government isn't going to put his kid in a war zone. Reference here. Before the Ambassador gig, Sr. was in congress. I take it you did google? And chose to ignore the parts you didn't like?

Re:Does this matter?

[jdavidb]

I agree with you that the war from 30 years ago does not matter. And I keep saying it constantly, but it doesn't seem to help. :)

I also hasten to point out, as I'm sure you already know, that Michael Badnarik is the ONLY anti-war candidate, given that Kerry recently stated he STILL would have voted for the war, even knowing what he knows today about the absence or presence of WMD's. I can't believe all the Bush-haters, who primarily hate Bush because of the war issue, would vote for Kerry, who is also for the war. Kerry is getting a free ride on this.

For me the race is between Bush and Badnarik, as the war is not my issue.

Re:Does this matter?

[KilobyteKnight]

Reply by the numbers:

1) Hadn't heard that one yet.
2) Nope, I haven't heard that one either.
3) Hadn't heard that either.
4) I've heard the exact opposite of that.
5) That doesn't jive with what I've heard either.
6) Nope. I've heard the doctor on record as having treated him doesn't back Kerry's story.

Could you site some sources, please?

Re:Does this matter?

[revscat]

Do you get this upset about France and their helping Irag (against UN agreements) build their oil industry and buy weapons? Or is that behavior ok as long as someone other than the USA is doing it.

You're a fucking liar and a tool. You buy uncritically accept any load of bullshit you hear from Sean Hannity and propagate it to spread the meme. People have repeatedly pointed out to you that the whole UN "scandal" was nothing of the kind, and yet you perpetuate it endlessly.

So screw you, dickcheese. If you have to resort to lies and Republican spin then you are either a pathetic hanger-on or a truly stupid invidual. Either way, go fuck yourself until you get find some morality and just a shred of decency.

Re:Does this matter?

[DAldredge]

It may suprise you, but I haven't defended Bush and I can not stand Shawn 'I Wrote A Book' Hannity. Please point out where I have defended either.

And, last time I checked the Oil for Food money diversion where still being check on. Nor has france explained how modern french weapons where found in iraq.

When you have to result to calling people names it just shows how weak your argument is.

One last question, what is your view on abortion?

Re:Does this matter?

[kaos_]

As long as the media doesn't fact-check what the candidates say, neither will the public majority.

The media is too scared to say any candidate is a liar. I feel this is a huge problem as to why the American public hasn't reached the level of sophistication you talk about.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck is with the conservative hangup over Kerry's record in Vietnam?

At least he fucking went. Bush had strings pulled so he could get a spot in the National Guard. Nothing wrong with that, lots of people did it. Only difference is, Bush didn't even make a decent attempt at fulfilling the relatively easy obligations that he had there. That's weak.

Cheney, in a similarly desperate attempt to avoid serving his country, got his wife knocked up and then got out of service on a deferrment. That's weak, too.

You guys who support these two and complain about Kerry's service? Lame, utterly lame.

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

1. http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts= 1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift- boat.inc

2. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08 /06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-20 04Aug18?language=printer
http://www.factcheck.org /UploadedFiles/Thurlow Citation.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil es/Thurlow Award Recc.pdf
http://www.iht.com/articles/534905.html

4. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/950 7779.htm (if you need more, just ask)

5. Have you seriously never heard of his "band of brothers"? I was just referring to the crew of his who was on at the time when Rassmann was rescued (incl. Rassmann himself); overall, he's campaigned with 12 vets that were on his boats (a good portion of the total).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2 18 42-2004Jul28.html

6) http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docID=24 3 (cites an LA Times article)

Additional:

http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/20040806 00 10
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh083004.shtml

Re:Does this matter?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I am of the opinion (feel free to disagree) that a person who has never served in the military should not be put in charge of it.

Okay, I'll disagree. ;)

Largely as an artifact of the Cold War, the President's responsibility as Commander in Chief has been blown waaay out of proportion to his many other reponsibilities. Look, the President is the Chief Executive of the United States of America. His decisions intimately affect the economy, law enforcement, education, transportation, health care, and damn near everything else that has a bearing on the everyday lives of Americans -- in many cases, much more bearing than a war on the other side of the world. So unless you want a President who has not only served in the military but has worked in all the other areas I listed above, and many others, as well, it's impossible to have a President who is personally qualified to make decisions about every aspect of governance. That's why Presidents have a Cabinet, and numerous advisers on just about every issue you can think of. And I say this as a veteran.

All that being said ...

This makes past military service relevant when it comes to choosing a president.

What makes it relevant, IMO, is that if a candidate served in the military, then the nature of that service says something about his character. Kerry served honorably, was decorated for heroism, was wounded multiple times in combat, and showed considerable courage when he returned from the war by testifying to its true nature. Bush, in contrast, first fled from a war he claimed to support, then feld the service entirely. (The word for this is not AWOL; it's desertion, because he never went back.) That is what the military service issue in this particular election should be.

Re:Does this matter?

[Zeinfeld]

]]This sort of thing always makes me roll my eyes, and I'm a Kerry supporter.
Same for everybody else.

The point of this attack is to shut down the Swift Boat Liars. Kerry is demonstrating that he will respond when attacked, not sit there and take it as previous victims of Bush smear campaigns have done - Dukakis & Gore.

Bush is going to try to keep up the smears and negative attaqck ads because that is absolutely all he has. He cannot mention any domestic policy success or anything that would normally be considered a foreign policy success. Starting wars is easy, finishing them is hard.

Bush clearly does not have what it takes to get us out of the quagmire he drove us into. Worse still he is intent on driving into more.

The problem with pre-emptive response is that once you have your military committed that is it, you cannot do anything more. So now that the US is firmly in the swamp of iraq everyone else, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, they all know that there is nothing more that the US can do.

Re:Does this matter?

[deanj]

France and Germany opposed the war in Iraq because they were selling arms to Iraq during that time. I hardly think that that gives the EU any moral authority over what America is trying to do, considering they were supplying Iraq with arms.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

The media is *paid* not to say either candidate is a liar.

Re:Does this matter?

[More Trouble]

Kerry is demonstrating that he will respond when attacked, not sit there and take it as previous victims of Bush smear campaigns have done - Dukakis & Gore.

Let's not forget McCain. Wasn't it cool the way Bush & Rove won the South Carolina primary? :w

Re:Does this matter?

[bhima]

Actually I don't care much about (using your example) France's involment in Iraq. Foriegn investment to build industry is a good thing, selling weapons is a bad thing. I'm not French, I am not approached daily by people objecting to French foreign policy. The vast majority of arms sales world wide are American manufacture (with Russia being a distant second) why voacalize objections to minor sales when the contry I'm a citizen of is the worst offender?Actually I don't care much about (using your example) France's involvement in Iraq. Foreign investment to build industry is a good thing, selling weapons is a bad thing. (It's not that complicated) I'm not French, I am not approached daily by people objecting to French foreign policy. The vast majority of arms sales world wide are American manufacture (with Russia being a distant second) why vocalize objections to minor sales when the country I'm a citizen of is the worst offender?

Sure a US military base brings lots of money to local governments it's one of a very few ways to get Americans to spend money: military action, natural resource extraction, and cheap labor exploitation (with the inconvenience of restrictive labor laws). Have you been there? The way you talk I doubt you've been out of the state you where born in. Why do you feel that you have the right to profiteer on (by the creation of) other people misery?

Re:Does this matter?

[bhima]

You're both right & wrong (in my view). America is the number one arms manufacturer and seller in the world. The US continues to develop, manufacture and sell arms and weapon technology that most of Europe has abandoned or will not sell. For example land mines, missiles and poison gas. As a consequence of this long term policy over 90% of the conflicts in the world in the last 2 years have been fought with arms either made or sold by the Americans, supplanting the temporary glut of soviet weapons available on the market after the fall of the Soviet Union

Worse, over the past 5~10 years various events have uncovered America's moral posturing and have effectively revealed a very different goal of American foreign policy.

You are right by in that no country has the right to "act moral" and sell arms at the same time but the Americans are making the most money by far.

Re:Does this matter?

[NateTech]

As one of my good friends put it...

"There hasn't been a President worth blasting his face into the side of a granite mountain for a long time, son."

Re:Does this matter?

[NateTech]

So nothing in your Free Market World ever fills in the gaps left by the U.S. leaving an area? No possibility for other good little Capitalists to show up and make a fortune?

Hint: If there's really a market for goods and/or services there that's not high-risk, the business people are already headed that-a-way. If we pull out and the local economy collapses it was being artificially propped up by us, from your tax dollar.

And if you were a true Conservative (look up the meaning of the word and the ideology) you wouldn't want us doing that.

Re:Does this matter?

[NateTech]

Was Bush AWOL 30 years ago? Maybe. Does it matter? Sure. It's not on the same level as an admitted war criminal, but it matters. However, there is nothing but a lack of evidence to back those charges up.

You apparently missed the news that new documentation about this was released under and FOIA request yesterday showing that Bush without a doubt, was AWOL.

Re:Does this matter?

[NateTech]

I love how he replied with sources and you disappeared.

Perhaps you could site YOUR sources now?

I'm doubting I'll see a response with sources in it, but what the hell -- I'll remain open-minded and laugh when I don't see any.

And cry when Follower Republicans who don't check their facts vote for their Hero, GWB because they believe the same unsubstansiated "facts" you believe.

Let's see your hand, bub. Or are you just bluffing like "All Hat, No Cattle, GWB"?

He hasn't made good on his campaign promises and is promising the same things (Tax Reform, Lower Taxes) again this time around... and he's had a Republican House and Senate to work with!

Completely ineffective at best, an amazing lier at worst. Better at fabricating truths than Clinton could ever possibly have been.

Clinton got caught lying about a blow job. Bush hasn't been caught lying about what he truly wants to do with the country.

Four more years of what? Nothing? The War is important but he's saying things like "Re-elect me and I will do *fill in the blank*" and they're domestic things he could have already COMPLETED if he were truly interested in doing them.

Re:Does this matter?

[NateTech]

"I think the death toll is just another campaign ploy by the democrats. I'd be careful mentioning it, because you really are using their caskets as a device."

I have heard that similar things were said about Vietnam once. It was before my time, but it sounds very similar to things I've read.

Iraq was about removing a dictator that GWB's father put in power when he was head of CIA. That's all. Cleanup of a family mistake.

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Are you aware that of the people who actually *Served With* Kerry on his boat, all but one have voiced support for him (and that one is dead), and that of the surviving members, all but one are campaigning with him (and that one supports him nonetheless)?

Wrong. Steve Gardner served on John Kerry's swift boat and is affiliated with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He has this to say on their web site:

"My name is Steve Gardner. I served in 1966 and 1967 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on Swift boats, and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour. The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying. I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him in a gun tub, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy... if a man like that can't handle that 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our Commander-in-Chief?"

-- Steven Gardner

You can read an interview with him regarding the story John Kerry has told about going into Cambodia, supposedly more than 50 times, including on the floor of the Senate, here on the August 10th transcript. The New York Post adds this:

The swift vets are also behind the anti-Kerry best seller, "Unfit for Command," which has already forced Team Kerry to retract his decades-old claim that he was sent on an illegal covert mission to Cambodia on Christmas 1968.

Kerry's own handpicked historian, Douglas Brinkley, told the Washington Post over the weekend that Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," backing up a key claim by the swift vets who say it never happened.

6) Are you aware that the doctor who claims to have treated Kerry's wounds wasn't the one listed on the documentation as having treated Kerry, and that the doctor who did treat him affirmed Kerry's report of the wound?

Not quite. The person who signed that was the Navy Corpsman assisting the doctor who treated Kerry:

Only a treatment record reflecting a scratch and a certificate signed three months later have been produced. There is no "after-action" hostile fire or casualty report. This is because there was no hostile fire, casualty, or action on this "most frightening night" of Kerry's Vietnam experience.

Letson agreed with Hibbard, in a statement the doctor gave us in April, that Kerry's injury was minor and probably self-inflicted:
"The incident that occasioned my meeting with Lieutenant Kerry began while he was patrolling the coast at night just north of Cam Ranh Bay, where I was the only medical officer for a small support base. Kerry returned from that night on patrol with an injury.
"Kerry reported that he had observed suspicious activity on shore and fired a flare to illuminate the area," Letson continued. "According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a firefight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.
"The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a grenade round at close range to the shore. The crewman who related this story thought that the injury was from a fragment of the grenade shell that had ricocheted back from the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury I treated.
"What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about one centimeter in length and was about two or three millimeters in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle," Letson

Re:Does this matter?

[bhima]

That is the so, so true!

Re:Does this matter?

[bhima]

Wow!

Hey man this guy may be delusional but let it get to you so much. Count to a hundred and then rethink your reply. Think he's spread falsehoods call him out, think he's ignorant tell him, but I think you owe it to yourself do it eloquently. Now if you're like me and sometimes post while drinking, well I completely understand, he is a tool.

this political section on /. will prove to be most contentious!

Re:Does this matter?

[revscat]

Point taken.

Re:Does this matter?

[joeyGibson]

Our problem is that he has made his entire campaign about his 4 months in Vietnam. I'd like nothing more than for Kerry to STFU about Vietnam, but he won't. Therefore his service is fair game.

As for Bush and Cheney's records, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when Clinton (a draft dodger) campaigned against George H. W. Bush (war hero) in 1992 and Bob Dole (war hero) in 1996, YOU were one of those guys saying that it "didn't matter who served and who didn't," right? Probably. Democrats can't see their own hypocrisy on this issue. But hypocrisy can only be pointed out when it's a Republican hypocrite, so what was I thinking?

Re:Does this matter?

[Rei]

1) Gardner is the *only* member of the group to actually serve on one of Kerry's boats, and of that, he only served for 2 months and two weeks. Compare that to the number of people campaigning with him who served on his boats, for much longer.

2) Want to hear what O'Neil himself has said about Gardner?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/31/dean.swiftboat .b ook/

3) Gardner, despite earlier claims, later admitted that he was not on the boat during the events that Kerry got his medals for:

http://www.dispatch.com/election/election-presid en t.php?story=dispatch/2004/08/06/20040806-A6-00.htm l

A glaring example of this was the rescue of Rassmann, in which he claimed that Kerry left and returned later, but then later admitted that he wasn't even there:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5552159

When Scarborough questioned him further, he said "I'm not going to deal with that. Because I wasn't there."

4) To quote MediaMatters' summary:

On the August 2 broadcast of Savage Nation, Gardner himself claimed that all of the wounds for which Kerry received Purple Hearts "were superficial wounds, and I mean very superficial, scratches. The very first one is the only one that I can actually attest to because I was there when that wound happened." But Gardner was not there when Kerry sustained that wound; as noted above, Gardner went on to admit: "I was not on the boat with him but I -- in the next three days following that, I was with him on the boat going to take our new position up down there on the seaward operations."

Three people *were* there that night. All of them back up Kerry's side.

> illegal covert mission to Cambodia

Hey, don't take my word for it - take O'Neill (the head of the Swift Boat vets)' word, to president Nixon:

http://www.kctv5.com/Global/story.asp?S=2221252

> record reflecting a scratch

False.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Person ne l_Casualty_Report.pdf

> no after-action hostile fire or casualty report

False. See above.

> that Kerry's injury was minor and probably self-inflicted.

Leston wasn't the doctor who signed the form. He's tried to backtrack and say that it was an underling of his that signed the form, but has provided no evidence at all. At the very least, it completely contradicts his claim that he was the only medical officer present.

> Some of his crew confided

None of his crew confided - see above. Of his crew who are active in politics, all but one person who spent 2 non-relevant months with him are campaigning for him.

> There were plenty of other sailors who got a chance to see John Kerry in action.

Funny - of the people who actually served on his boat (and thus verifyably knew him), only one, who served with him for a very short period of time, isn't supporting him. Did all of the people who disagreed with him just happen to work in other boats? What a quaint coincidence!

Re:Does this matter?

[Ohreally_factor]

Which is why I have lost a lot of respect for McCain, now that he is campaigning for Bush. I voted for McCain in the 2000 Primary because he seemed independent and not beholden to anyone. When did the Maverick become George's Bitch?

Re:Does this matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

why did your family sign up for military service?

if they didnt grasp the concept that military service will sometimes result in combat, danger and death i dont know what to say.

why shouldnt we fight for others.

i would rather fight for the lives of others than allow them to be slaughtered.

you probably equate military service with not having to pay for college.

How long until some Kerry news

[tdoane78]

Ahh, how many more anti-bush slanted views until we see some anti-kerry views. Oh wait, i'm at moveone.org...oh wait slashdot. -Tim

Re:How long until some Kerry news

[Kick the Donkey]

If you want an anti-Kerry point of view, just watch the rest of the American press...

Liberal media my ass...

Isn't it interesting

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That 258 Swifties remember serving with John Kerry in Vietnam- but NOBODY in Alabama can remember George W. Bush serving there the year he was supposed to be showing up for training while working on the Senate campaign of a family friend? Never mind that the grand majority of those Swifties seem to be lying about serving with John Kerry (what is the crew complement of one of those little boats anyway? Certainly NOT over 200!) but at least they remember him being there- which is more than can be said for W during his fornication & cocaine & alcohol days....

Re:Isn't it interesting

[FlimFlamboyant]

which is more than can be said for W during his fornication & cocaine & alcohol days....

You know, if you want to get in to character assassination, there's no end to what can be dug up on either side of the fence. You surely aren't under the impression that Kerry hasn't participated in many of the same things, are you? After all, he has already admitted to playing an active role in some of the "atrocities" committed by the "baby killers" in Vietnam. Would you rather have someone run the country who had a few too many 30 years ago, or someone who admits to have participated in war crimes 30 years ago?

I don't recall the left blowing up when the draft-dodging Clinton took office, so I don't see any justification for this being a major issue now. "Oh, but W is sending our people to die!" you say. And Clinton didn't (Somalia)? I'm more concerned with 2005 than the early 70's.

Yes, a man's history can, to some extent, define whether or not he is trustworthy. But there's plenty of stuff that has come up in very recent history that I think can be used to make a more accurate assessment of where they are today.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that the Swifties didn't serve with Kerry because they weren't in the exact same boat is just plain stupid. The Swiftees never claimed to be in the same boat with him. They commanded and served in boats that were with Kerry's boat. You don't have to serve in the exact same boat with Kerry to have served with him.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[EnderWiggnz]

> "Oh, but W is sending our people to die!" you say.
>And Clinton didn't (Somalia)?

Yep - Clinton didnt - they were placed in Somalia by GHWB, in Dec 1992, before clinton was sworn in.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[FlimFlamboyant]

Yep - Clinton didnt - they were placed in Somalia by GHWB, in Dec 1992, before clinton was sworn in.

Right you are. But he left them there until it became politically unpopular to do so (the massacre of October '93). Then he puts our troops in danger again in Kosovo, and Iraq. So we have two "draft-dodging" presidents (W only being suspected of doing so by the left) who have both sent our troops in to harm's way. If you're going to scrutinize Bush, you should at least be honest and put your own party under the same level of scrutiny.

Now let's assume for a moment that you guys are correct, and Bush DID dodge the draft. Well guess what? The only difference between Bush and Kerry was that Kerry tried to do the same thing, but failed.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You know, if you want to get in to character assassination, there's no end to what can be dug up on either side of the fence. You surely aren't under the impression that Kerry hasn't participated in many of the same things, are you? After all, he has already admitted to playing an active role in some of the "atrocities" committed by the "baby killers" in Vietnam. Would you rather have someone run the country who had a few too many 30 years ago, or someone who admits to have participated in war crimes 30 years ago?

Given the war we're currently engaged in and who we're fighting- the guy who actually knows how to commit war crimes without being tried by the international tribunal is WAY preferable to the guy who had a few to many and was arrested for cocaine possession in Texas. You must be under the impression that I'm the typical anti-war lefty- I'm not. I know that the only sure way out of the War on Terror at this point is genocide- shouldn't we have somebody in office who has actually done it?

I don't recall the left blowing up when the draft-dodging Clinton took office, so I don't see any justification for this being a major issue now. "Oh, but W is sending our people to die!" you say. And Clinton didn't (Somalia)? I'm more concerned with 2005 than the early 70's.

So, after all these years, the lie of the 1990s Republicans comes out- Character only counts when our side has more than the other guy.

Yes, a man's history can, to some extent, define whether or not he is trustworthy. But there's plenty of stuff that has come up in very recent history that I think can be used to make a more accurate assessment of where they are today.

You mean like the answer to the question "Is the war on terror winnable?"

Re:Isn't it interesting

[Marxist Hacker 42]

(W only being suspected of doing so by the left)

True or false- Bush joined the Air National Guard to defend Texas during the Vietnam war?

Now let's assume for a moment that you guys are correct, and Bush DID dodge the draft. Well guess what? The only difference between Bush and Kerry was that Kerry tried to do the same thing, but failed.

Not quite the same thing- Bush was way too stupid to ever get an educational deferment in Paris. His grades weren't good enough. That's a huge difference between Kerry and Clinton's method of avoiding the draft and Bush's from my point of view- Clinton and Kerry worked hard at school to avoid the draft by their own ability, Bush would have been sent by his parole officer to the draft board if it hadn't been for daddy pulling some strings.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[EnderWiggnz]

applying for a deferrment, and accepting the rejection, volunteering for dangerous duty, and then being named to a presitgious admiral's assitant position.

vs.

getting daddy to pull strings to get you into a champagne squadron, not fulfilling your duty, and losing flight status.

yep - completely the same.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[crmartin]

Given the war we're currently engaged in and who we're fighting- the guy who actually knows how to commit war crimes without being tried by the international tribunal is WAY preferable to the guy who had a few to many and was arrested for cocaine possession in Texas.

You know, he may have a point.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[FlimFlamboyant]

You mean like the answer to the question "Is the war on terror winnable?"

Well, I guess you could say you answered your own question earlier in the post:

I know that the only sure way out of the War on Terror at this point is genocide- shouldn't we have somebody in office who has actually done it?

That's why this war is not "winnable" in the traditional sense; because we're fighting a movement (a radical religion, really), rather than a nation.

Re:Isn't it interesting

[Marxist Hacker 42]

That's why this war is not "winnable" in the traditional sense; because we're fighting a movement (a radical religion, really), rather than a nation.

One way to win is to destroy all of your enemies. But my point with the question is that even Mr. Bush seems rather unsure of the point- during the RNC he gave three interviews that gave three entirely different answers to that question. And it's not the first thing he's waffled on- Offshore Outsourcing is another issue. His administration, up until this week, was all for Offshore Outsourcing as being good for America- now he's running adverts in Oregon that basically adopt the Kerry position of removing the tax break for companies that offshore and fight to actually bring back American jobs (I wonder if that means he's now willing to rescind MFN status on Singapore and Chile?)

Re:Isn't it interesting

[Rei]

You mean, the *officially ordered* war crimes that he came back and *spoke in the Senate trying to stop*, something that you conservatives tend to eat him alive for doing?

It matters to one class of person

[CrazyJim1]

The people who care about Kerry's past would care about Bush's past. Kerry's past got slammed, so all these people go to Bush. So they slam Bush's past, so these people may go back to Kerry. Its not about your vote here.

Re:It matters to one class of person

[neitzsche]

People's party affilliations really don't change easily. Something petty like this is just that; petty. I doubt anyone will admit their vote was swayed by this issue after the election.

I strongly agree with your notion that it's not about our votes. Indeed, it is about effectively refuting the mud that started slinging, so that this petty issue does not sway someone who might somehow be undecided.

Most of the undecided are the uniformed. They are uninformed usually by choice, due to apathy.

The majority of voters that are "informed" are informed only by mainstream media. That is a sad fact.

Re:It matters to one class of person

[elwinc]

I don't care what Bush or Kerry did 30+ years ago. However, if either of them have recently lied in a signifcant about their past, then that tells me something about their current character, and I care about that.

The swift boat stuff was all concerned actions 30+ years ago. Did Kerry tell recent lies about those actions? I don't think so -- all the fact checking I've seen supports Kerry and says the swift boat gang are liars.

Did Bush lie recently about his National Guard service? It appears he did. It appears Bush never completed his NG duty, and continues to claim he did. It also appears Bush is deceiving us somehow about what he did in Alabama. It also appears Bush engaged in a coverup, using his powers as governor of Texas to "cleanse" his record.

Now these aren't big lies Bush has told, but they're lies. And the coverup is a bigger deal. Both the coverup and the lies speak about Bush's character. Since Bush has made his character such an issue in the campaign, the lies and coverup matter.

Re:It matters to one class of person

[Kurrurrin]

And Kerry never lies either. Ask how his Christmas in Cambodia was...

No Cowboyneal option?

[CrazyJim1]

www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA

Does this really matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anybody else more interested in how the candidates propose to deal with current issues, rather than questions about stuff they did thirty years ago?

Re:Does this really matter?

[Farmer Jimbo]

Dude, that's crazy talk!

Re:Does this really matter?

[paRcat]

No, that's my brother, Crazytalk. We're all a little worried about him.

Re:Compare

[MarsDefenseMinister]

So let me get this straight. You're living in the liberal capital of Texas, you're a musician (long-haired FM type), a game programmer, a fan of science fiction, a Buddhist, and a former BBS operator? And you support GW Bush?

That's an anti-matter explosion just waiting to happen.

For those too lazy to read the article...

[keiferb]

He let his pilot's certification lapse because of a skipped medical exam, was only in the middle of his class academically, and missed some sort of critical readiness drill.

Re:For those too lazy to read the article...

[NateTech]

As a pilot, I can say that I've NEVER met a single pilot, either military or civilian who would let his or her medical certificate lapse unless they were a) never going to fly again anytime soon, or b) unfit to pass a flight medical.

I let my flight medical lapse after I ran out of money for flying. Since that's not the case with a military man, I have to question - Why would a pilot in the Air National Guard let the most basic requirement for flight lapse unless he were simply not going to do the job?

He wasn't lazy - he willfully terminated the #1 requirement of the job.

Professional pilots today take out INSURANCE policies against losing their Flight Medicals. A missed medical grounds you instantly and immediately.

Re:Compare

[evilmousse]

or is it..
gwb is lying about jfk's service
jfk is seeking documentation of gwb's service

personally, i could care less. i'll stick to
looking at past voting records and stated intention
of future policy.

-g

I think it matters, and here's why

[jamie]

I would think that a man who'd seen combat, in all its ugliness, served honorably, and then returned to civilian life and spoke truth to power about the horrors of war would be less likely to mislead the country into unnecessary war.

Doesn't that seem logical? Isn't that corroborating evidence for the whole tragic arc of the last two years?

Kerry supported giving the President the authority to initiate the war in Iraq. That's not the same as launching the war. When Bush and his campaign say that Kerry "voted to go to war," they are lying.

And yes, Kerry may have to deal with the aftermath of Iraq in the same sticky, deliberate way that Bush will. There's no easy way out; that's why they call it a quagmire. But re-electing Bush gives him four more years to invade more countries unnecessarily. When I read the transcript of John Kerry speaking to the Senate in 1971, I can't help but feel that this man is more to be trusted with our troops than a man who spent the early '70s "boasting about how much alcohol he had consumed the night before."

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[JohnnyX]

Kerry supported giving the President the authority to initiate the war in Iraq. That's not the same as launching the war. When Bush and his campaign say that Kerry "voted to go to war," they are lying.

Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.

The war was a mistake. Still is. Why should I vote for a candidate who can't see that? Why should I vote for a candidate who can't even give a cogent answer to his own question from that 1971 Senate testimony?

"How do ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" - John Kerry

Kerry's answer? He hopes to get our troops out by 2008. That's not an answer.

Michael Badnarik's answer?

"Thirty years ago, John Kerry asked 'how can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?' It was a good question. His answer, and President Bush's, seems to be that you don't -- that you just let the killing go on and on rather than admit the mistake and put an end to it. Bush says 'stay the course.' Kerry says he hopes to have the troops out four years from now. I say 90 days, and only that long because it takes time to move troops out of hostile territory safely, displacing by echelon and providing mutual security." - Full Story

I know which answer sounds better to me.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...support our troops, bring them home...

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[TamMan2000]

Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.

No, he supported giving the authority to go to war, and said that in hindsight he still would.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[Merk]

Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.

Brainwashed by the republicans, are you? He never said he supported the war. He said he voted to give the president the authority to go to war, and he would do it again. I know, it's really hard to pay attention to little details like that when there are all kinds of shiny things around, but it's important, so try. If you read the text of the law that Kerry voted for, it's very explicit. It doesn't say "We vote to attack Iraq", it puts conditions under which the President is given the authority to attack Iraq.

Some of the more illuminating bits of this law include:

...

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

...

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

...

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

so - you're accusing the united states navy of... lieing?

alright - since we're in the realm of baseless personal attacks, i'll just cut to the chase and get down and dirty with you:

Laura Bush is a prostitute

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[jamie]

I don't think Clinton ran on a platform of being faithful to his wife, and yet...

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[mabu]

There are 250 swift boat vets who served with Kerry (that doesn't mean the same boat...that means the same group of boats. You know what the guy 10 feet away from you on the next boat is doing) who say that Kerry did not serve honorably, showed extreme cowardice, and lied to get his medals, all the while filming documentaries about how heroic he was for future campaign material.

Yea, right. It's amazing you people believe this BS.

Two hundred and fifty of THESE GUYS.

Columbus swift boat vet angry about letter

By LINDA HALSTEAD-ACHARYA
Of The Gazette Staff

COLUMBUS - Swift boat veteran Bob Anderson of Columbus is ticked.

It bothers him that Sen. John Kerry's swift boat history has become such a political hot potato. But he's even more irritated that his name was included - without his permission - on a letter used to discredit Kerry.

"I'm pretty nonpolitical," the 56-year-old Anderson said Tuesday. So, when he found out last week that his name was one of about 300 signed on a letter questioning Kerry's service, he was "flabbergasted."

"It's kind of like stealing my identity," said Anderson, who spent a year on a swift boat as an engine man and gunner.

The letter, which was posted on the Swift Boat Veter-ans for Truth Web site, claims the Demo-cratic presidential candidate has "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that (Vietnam) war."

The letter also criticizes Kerry for trying to change his image from a critic of the war to a war hero.

"After reading the letter," Anderson said, "it kind of got under my skin. I had never come across a situation where someone used my name without my support or approval. It's not a very comforting feeling."

What's worse, he said, he disagrees with the letter.

"Had they asked me to use my name, I wouldn't have allowed them to," he said.

Anderson, a 1966 graduate of Chinook High School, describes himself as a naive Montana kid who was smacked by the reality of war soon after arriving in Vietnam in 1967.

"It's not a very pleasant way to grow up," he said.

He served on a swift boat about the same time Kerry did. However, the first time he met Kerry was during a reunion of swift boat vets in Norfolk, Va., in March 2003.

Anderson said he cannot dispute or verify Kerry's experience. In fact, he's forgotten much of his own.

"You remember the simple things," he said. "The rest is what you don't want to remember."

He does, however, support Kerry's right to state his opinion.

"We say we're protecting democracy. That's why we go to war. As Americans, we can have our opinions, right?"

Anderson can vividly recall the last day of 1969, when his boat was attacked.

"The thing I remember before we got hit was the grass dragging on the sides of the boat - the canals were so narrow," he said. "I can also remember the smell of napalm."

Anderson's boat was about the fourth boat back in a string of 10. He describes the scene as an Armageddon. Fellow swift boat sailor Bob Wedge was so badly wounded, Anderson doubted he would survive.

"That boat was like a slaughterhouse that day," he said. "He (Wedge) just about bled to death before we got a tourniquet on him and the chopper got him."

Wedge, who lost a leg, was flown home. Thirty-four years passed before the two met again. Now they find themselves on the same side of another conflict.

Wedge, 60, of Mesquite, Nev., said his name, too, was on the list - and he's mad.

"This is the fourth or fifth time someone has called me or e-mailed me in regard to signing this damn letter," he wrote in an e-mail to Anderson. "I don't agree with it and want no part of it and especially don't want my name on it."

Both men have tried to contact the Swift Boat Ve

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[I(rispee_I(reme]

It is terribly convenient that these "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" wait until Kerry runs for president to unleash their irrepressible outrage at his dishonorable actions.

That said, I think all politicians are people who are too lazy to work for a living, so they cloak themselves in civic duty while they steal from the working public. Make your own choice about who to vote for, and remember it is irrelevant if it contradicts the enclave known as the Electoral College.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[meta-monkey]

No, I'm accusing Kerry of lying. Kerry wrote the Navy's reports, or the reports were based off false information provided by Kerry.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[EnderWiggnz]

>Kerry wrote the Navy's reports, or the reports were
>based off false information provided by Kerry.

and what, praytell, is your evidence of this, that is so strong that it should overturn 30 year old official government records?

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[cpeterso]

I guess if Kerry skirts all responsibility for the Iraq war if he voted to give the President the authority to go to war. If someone authorizes another's actions, I believe the authorizer is demonstrating approval and should share responsibility.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[benna]

I know that, and you know that but thats just too complicated for most of the population. It would have been much smarter politically to just say that he would have voted against the war if he knew the intelegence was bad and that the bush administration neglected to talk about the significan minority views in the intelegence community. Personally I wish he had voted against it in the first place, deep down he probobly wanted to but feared the political consequences. Just goes to show one shouldn't base their votes on the upcomming election.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[benna]

Honestly the whole thing is a farse. Only congress is supposed to have the authority to declare war. Congress abdicates its responsiblity when it passes a resolution like this. Besides which the war powers act already includes provisions requiring all sorts of notifications of the congress about wars. I know nobody ever fallows that law but its there, so the Iraq resolution was from a purly legal standpoint, pointless. From a political standpoint I disagree with the war it self, but thats not what im trying to say here.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[YrWrstNtmr]

I would think that a man who'd seen combat, in all its ugliness, served honorably, and then returned to civilian life and spoke truth to power about the horrors of war would be less likely to mislead the country into unnecessary war.

This is exactly the profile of JFK.

Decorated Commander of a river patrol boat.
Wounded in action and gets the Purple Heart.
Saves a wounded crewmate from drowning
Accomplished Senator from Massachussets

A man like that would never lead us into another useless war. He's seen too much.

Oops...wrong JFK. Thats John Kerry's hero, John F Kennedy.

The man who led us into Vietnam.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

When I read the transcript of John Kerry speaking to the Senate in 1971, I can't help but feel that this man is more to be trusted with our troops than a man who spent the early '70s "boasting about how much alcohol he had consumed the night before."

If you feel that John Kerry is trustworthy because you read that transcript, you should read Vetting the Vet Record and spend some time at wintersoldier.com. You might have second thoughts.

Re:I think it matters, and here's why

[Spoticus]

I would think that a man who'd seen combat, in all its ugliness, served honorably, and then returned to civilian life and spoke truth to power about the horrors of war would be less likely to mislead the country into unnecessary war.

Yep, I saw a quote the other day that sums things up rather succinctly...

"Two dozen people running the Iraq war from the White House and, outside of signing execution orders, the only one to ever kill a man is Bush's fucking wife."

Example of the problem with American politics.

[Skyshadow]

Here we have a prime example of why this sort of irrelevant debate comes up in the first place: The seemingly willing lack of sophistication of the American voter. Of course, this exists on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn't make it any less destructive.

It is damaging to our system of government to have people voting based on a bumper-sticker understanding of the issues. Take your rather bizarre belief that Kerry, his boatmates, the Navy and everybody *but* the SBVFT are lying about what happened in Vietnam. Obviously, you couldn't believe this slander if you'd bothered to research any of the evidence -- the first hand accouts, the Navy's records, the previous statements of some of the SBVFT who have suddenly changed their stories -- instead, you're selectively choosing to buy into it because it happens to fit your harshly partisan views.

Elections are about ensuring that the USA remains in the best hands possible, not about always having your guy win and the other guy lose. To that end, it's your duty as an American Citizen to seek out and use the facts rather than swallowing the vicious lies of those who cynically disregard the truth.

Opposing war is not automatically unpatriotic. Supporting a certain candidate is not unpatriotic, despite what you might think. The true failure of patriotism is you blowing off your fundemental obligation to our political system to vote in a thoughtful, well-considered way -- that's more harmful to the United States than any asshole living in a cave in Afghanistan or a palace in Baghdad.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[Remlik]

"Take your rather bizarre belief that Kerry, his boatmates, the Navy and everybody *but* the SBVFT are lying about what happened in Vietnam. Obviously, you couldn't believe this slander if you'd bothered to research any of the evidence -- the first hand accouts, the Navy's records, the previous statements of some of the SBVFT who have suddenly changed their stories --"

Really?

First hand accounts: There are at least three different stories told by Kerry himself about his own actions in Vietnam, none of them line up with any other first handers, and most are 180 degrees off. Several other first-handers have changed their stories in the last few weeks as well. Who do we believe is telling the truth?

The Naval officer who's signature appears on Kerry's star doesn't remember ever issuing the commendation. What? The Navy lie!?! Thats unpossible.

We haven't been able to look at the records of these events because Kerry refuses to release his military records to the public.

The SBVFT have opened themselves up to heavy litiagtion should they acutally be lieing.

So tell me, whats more believable, that 200+ people are willing to risk their good names, and possibly fortunes to get Bush elected, or Kerry is hiding somthing?

Until the records come out, and the investigations are completed we'll never know.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[Politburo]

Until the records come out, and the investigations are completed we'll never know.

Until the records come out? Look what you said in your own post:

The Naval officer who's signature appears on Kerry's star doesn't remember ever issuing the commendation. What? The Navy lie!?! Thats unpossible.

Somehow I doubt you'd be saying this if the records supported your version of the story.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[surferdwa]

We haven't been able to look at the records of these events because Kerry refuses to release his military records to the public

Not sure who you've been listening to, but Kerry has released his records.

They have been available on his web sight in pdf for several moths now:

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military _records.html

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[metrazol]

First off, you must've missed a few key points about the military.

Commanding officer doesn't remember signing a medal award? Wow, guess the 10,000 others must've confused him. The figure you're thinking of was at the theater level, not John Kerry's personal CO.

If you look at the stories of Kerry and whatziz name who was on the third boat, they match. Mine explodes, gunfire, ambush, shoot out, people getting pulled from water, etc.

The story that's divergent is Thurlow's and the SBVT's. Thurlow was IN THE RIVER for the entire engagement. He was fished out near the end .(note, that's like, 10 minutes of treading water max, but mustn't have been fun...)

Also, they jab at Kerry over this ONE shoot out. Not, you know, all the other times he risked his life. Just one that was a mad house on water and an SBVT was actually at, unlike the rest of the SBVTs who, as Jon Stewart pointed out, "served" with Kerry just as Bob Dole "served" with Generals Patton or Montgomery. Sure they were in the same war, but they weren't exactly next to each other.(Though didn't Dole get wounded in Sicily?)

The SBVTs are a tool of the Bush admin ala Willy Horton and "Rock us!" Dukakis. Maybe not in the same office, but definitely trading resources. That's so far from kosher it's comparable to a pork and crab po'boy.

Now, the issue with the records is just silly. You really want his KP reports and an inventory of how many socks he was issued? Who cares? The commendations are out for everyone at the event in question. They all line up pretty well. They were never questioned until the SBVTs decided that they were no good soldiers who lied and acted cowardly, but ya know, with John Kerry, 'cause he was like, totally there...in Vietnam...on the other side of the country...

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[Remlik]

"Somehow I doubt you'd be saying this if the records supported your version of the story."

What the hell does that mean? The records (that we have so far) do support me. If all these vets are lieing why doesn't Kerry just release the rest of his military records and show the whole world the "truth." Why doesn't he do that? Why let this long drawn out charade go on any longer if in fact he can prove all of the swifties wrong?

What is the point of making yourself look like a complete fraud if you know your not, and have paper to prove it?

He doesn't have the paper, he's lied so many times he probably doesn't even know what the real truth is. All he can do now is try and surround himself with people willing to backup his lies (also without proof) and claim that Bush is slinging mud.

I call bull shit, now show me the hand he's holding face down.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[EnderWiggnz]

right - the records are out, they've been vetted several times already, and Kerry is clean as a whistle.

if these asshats question the official navy records regarding jfk's medals, they question every vets medal, too, because - maybe they didnt deserve them either.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[jefu]

"So tell me, whats more believable, that 200+ people are willing to risk their good names, and possibly fortunes to get Bush elected, or Kerry is hiding somthing?"

I find both believable. The Republicans certainly have a rather patchy record of honesty and I'm not sure how much I trust Kerry. But given a choice between them I rather think I'll prefer someone who may have (to put in a rather geeky metaphor) has edited his memory a bit sloppily over a group that seems to be willing to groupthink themselves into what looks like deliberate lying.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[toddhisattva]

You are an example of the amazing gullibility of the left, blithely accepting whatever garbage the Democrat bullshit factory a.k.a. "the Press" hands you without a second, or even first, thought.

To quote Paul Tsongas, "do your goddamn homework!" Google all sides of the stories, read things you disagree with, challenge your assumptions.

For instance, I assumed "if Kerry's war record is good enough for the U.S. Navy, it's good enough for me." Then I started doing my goddamn homework....

you couldn't believe this slander if you'd bothered to research any of the evidence

The more research I do, the more I'm convinced Kerry is a liar. His own stories do not match each other.

How did memories of Cambodia get seared in Kerry's memory? Probably from watching "Apocalypse Now." Anyway, here he's been caught telling a whopping hell of a lie.

Then there is his infamous testimony before Congress, much of which was taken from Jane Fonda's "Winter Soldier" propaganda festival. Real men took torture to avoid signing false confessions. John Kerry proffered false confessions to Congress, just to enhance his standing with political leftists.

Increasingly, John Kerry has only his little band of brothers corroborating his stories. Scores of veterans have gone on the record to correct Kerry's lies. Sample chapters are widely available.

Kerry has his eight veteran supporters. Hundreds of veterans who served with him remember him as a pathetic coward who inflated his war record so he could hurry home and spread shit about them.

It is very easy for a rich man like J. Forbes Kerry to buy off his small crew. A million bucks each and they'll be his whores forever!

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[b-baggins]

Um, I'm listening to Binkley, who did his Biography and the Chicago Tribune, both of whom state there are some two hundred pages of records which HAVE NOT been released. I'm also looking at the Defense Department which states that Kerry has NOT signed form 180 authorizing full disclosure of his military records.

All we have is John Kerry's word that all the records on his website are all the records they are. We already know Kerry lied about being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968. Why should we believe what he tells us about the records on his website?

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[EnderWiggnz]

We already know Kerry lied about being in Cambodia in Christmas 1968.

bullshit - the gentleman who made that claim - John O'Neill, an operative created by Nixon specifically to discredit Kerry, told Nixon that he himself was in Cambodia:
---
O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.

O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.

NIXON: In a swift boat?

O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
---
link

It was found on THE WATERGATE TAPES - the gift that keeps giving.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

>The records (that we have so far) do support me.

no - the records, absolutely, positively do not support you.

but, i'll tell you what -

Laura Bush is a prostitute - the records support me. She's never denied that she's a 2 bit crackwhore.

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[EnderWiggnz]

let me start off with this: you're insane.

How did memories of Cambodia get seared in Kerry's memory?

the same way the memories of being in Cambodia were seared into John O'Neill's memory - as evidenced when he told Nixon that he was in Cambodia, and the thing is caught on tape, thanks to Nixon!

Isnt it amazing that after all these years, the Watergate tapes are teh gift that keeps giving?

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[joeyGibson]

Man, that Nixon was one prophetic guy! He "created" John O'Neill specifically to discredit Kerry, in the event he ever decided to run for President? Amazing! I wonder why, if he was so prescient, he couldn't see the impending disaster of Watergate...

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[Remlik]

Right, you and all the other Kerry supports think his has, too bad its not true.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/ 20 /171506.shtml

Re:Example of the problem with American politics.

[legirons]

"Um, I'm listening to Binkley, who did his Biography and the Chicago Tribune, both of whom state there are some two hundred pages of records which HAVE NOT been released. I'm also looking at the Defense Department which states that Kerry has NOT signed form 180 authorizing full disclosure of his military records."

Because now is a good time to distract voters from any of the issues which affect them, by giving them 200 pages of what will surely become conspiracy theory, to discuss to death in the next few months?

C'mon, you saw every single newspaper and radio station waste 3-4 days just discussing those two sheets of paper on the Bush letter. Give them a folder full of documents, and they'll never get around to asking who's the best person to run the country. It'll just be nitpicking over typewriter fonts, for the rest of the election campaign, and at the end, people will realise (or maybe not) that they don't have enough information on who's the best candidate.

Brilliant editor of a 'tech' site

[gmhowell]

Hey, genius, the reason your TiVo doesn't mention this is because the guide is not constantly updated. Further, who knows when the last time your guide was updated.

I bet you complain when professional sporting events aren't magically taken care of by your TiVo.

Blatantly political....

[heldlikesound]

Yeah, I understand that this was posted in the politics section, but when this section was announced I assumed we'd see stories about voting records on Spam legislation, Patriot Act news, and maybe a story or two about the candidates preferred computing platform, but this is just purely political BS. There's nothing tech about it, and reminds me of watching the stupid news on tv. Shame, shame.

Re:Blatantly political....

[Usquebaugh]

Welcome to the new red neck /.

Re:Blatantly political....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I understand that this was posted in the politics section, but when this section was announced I assumed we'd see stories about . . .

Not me. I just hoped there was enough stuff here to keep the political comments out of the tech articles.

Re:Blatantly political....

[phauxfinnish]

The poster did refer to his TiVo. Whats not tech about that?

Re:Blatantly political....

[Phaid]

Is it just me, or is it impossible to filter out the politics section?

I went into my Preferences, on the Home Page, and checked that I wanted to gnore the Politics, Democrats, and Republicans topics under Exclude Stories from the Homepage. And yes, I hit Save. Nevertheless, these stories keep appearing.

Re:Blatantly political....

[pudge]

Un-check "section collapse" or whatever it is called.

The exclusion not working is a bug, it will be fixed. In the meantime, don't collpase sections.

Re:Blatantly political....

[Cy Guy]

Not me. I just hoped there was enough stuff here

You might want to stop by PLASTIC's Politics Section for a more matured (and generally maturer) Slash-type discussion site on Politics.

Form 180

[DAldredge]

Why won't Kerry sign a Form 180 to make all his military records public?

What is he trying to hide? After all, he is the one who has been running on his military record.

On the topics of politics.slashdot.org, why isn't it more balanced and why aren't real political matters being covered?

Re:Form 180

[Planesdragon]

Why haven't you submitted a political article?

Re:Form 180

[DAldredge]

Every article I submit is killed (Like the one on Howards Dean's Internet ID plan)just like I no longer have mod privilages due to griping about the /. editors.

Re:Form 180

[Anonymous Coward]

Try submitting a story that makes it through the editors, then give up and post on K5.

And why are you asking these kinds of dumb questions here?

Re:Form 180

[EnderWiggnz]

all of kerry's records are public, dave. kerry has nothing to hide. his records were not "accidentally destroyed while trying to preserve them". he has a helluva lot more to show for his time in service than a couple of cavities.

how dare you question a man's service who has earned - yes, EARNED - three purple hearts, a silver star, and a bronze star with a V.

the attacks on Kerry's record bear no relation to reality, and i'm sorry that you bought into the lies on this good man.

as for balance - i'm sorry dave, but reality isnt balanced.

the reality is, that GWB is a coked up fratboy who hasnt worked a day in his life, got daddy to pull strings to get him in a champagne unit, and then didnt have the decency to show up. christ, we've got reports that the man did coke at camp david as late as 1993!

so, screw you and your balance. its time to be exposed to the Truth.

Re:Form 180

[DAldredge]

This is a two part response.

Why doesn't Kerry run on his record in the Senate? Could it be that he hasn't done anything that matters in his 16+ years in the Senate?

---000---

John Kerry's biographer today called on the presidential candidate to release his military records and warned a Navy investigation into his medals could prove to be the "death knell" of his campaign.

In the past, Kerry has said he could not release some documents because of contractual obligations to Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty." Brinkley said he has no contractual claims to any of the papers.

"Clearly some of these military records should be made available to the press," he said on Steve Malzberg's WABC New York radio show today.

Brinkley also said that if the Navy investigation reveals deception in connection with Kerry's medals, it could be the "death knell" for Kerry's campaign. Professing uncertainty about what to make about the Swift Boat Vets' claims, Brinkley said: "Right now it's unclear. So we have to just wait to see what all this adds up to."

"Is it sloppiness, is it purposeful intent, is there an easy explanation for it?" Brinkley wondered.

The Pentagon ordered an official investigation into the awarding of five Vietnam War decorations to the Massachusetts senator.

The London Telegraph says the inquiry is being carried out by the inspector general's office of the U.S. Navy.

"It is the responsibility of all personnel to correct errors in official records," a Navy spokesman told the paper. Another official said privately: "There's a feeling that it's time to deal with this thoroughly, once and for all."

As WorldNetDaily reported last week, the Department of Defense informed Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England of a formal request to investigate alleged military code violations in Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star award.

The request was made by the public-interest group Judicial Watch after news reports revealed Kerry's campaign website displays a document listing a "Silver Star with combat 'V'" even though the combat "V" device is never given with the nation's third highest award for heroism.

Also, there are three citations for the award, with the third, issued more than a decade after the event, bearing the signature of former Navy Secretary John Lehman.

Lehman, however, says he had nothing to do with the citation.

"It is a total mystery to me," he told the Chicago Sun-Times. "I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me."

The Telegraph says Lehman endorses the investigation of Kerry's awards, stating the relevant records need to be "thoroughly researched and the facts established."

Kerry's campaign is firing back, calling the Navy probe an expensive waste.

"The facts are clear," Kerry adviser Michael Meehan told the Telegraph. "The Navy awarded John Kerry the Silver Star, a Bronze Star with Combat V and three Purple Hearts. This is a waste of taxpayers' dollars and the Pentagon's time, especially during wartime."

Though Judicial Watch is hoping for a report before the Nov. 2 presidential election, the Navy thus far is remaining silent on any timetable.

Jerome Corsi, author of "Unfit for Command," the New York Times No. 1 best-seller by Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, told WorldNetDaily he considers the Judicial Watch complaint "an important and serious investigation."

"We believe the secretary of the Navy will validate the charges we've made in 'Unfit for Command,'" he said.

In a letter responding to Judicial Watch's complaint, the inspector general of the Defense Department, John R. Crane, cited Section 8(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, which states "the IG of the Department of Defense shall expeditiously report suspected or alleged violations of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), to the Secretary of the military department concerned or the Secretary of Defense."

Re:Form 180

[DAldredge]

k5 is worse, I get tied of defending my use of the word American against the idiots who think that USian is a word. ;->

Re:Form 180

[EnderWiggnz]

you're quoting WND, which is not a reputable news source, and I reject your argument based on you using a poor source.

---
what the hell is getting a 180 going to prove? how many he was issued from the quartermaster? how many socks he didnt return?
---

kerry will run on his senate record, as soon as he destroys all credibility of W regarding national security.

Re:Form 180

[DAldredge]

What is wrong with bush's national security record ? If kerry is going to run on his record in the Senate why did he spend so much time at the convention talking about Vietnam?

If their is nothing to hide in his records why doesn't he sign the form? Signing the form would put all the rumors to rest about his time in the military. He brought the damn thing up, and now that people have questions about it, he wants to sweep it under the rug.

url:http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfil es .asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html& Path=NYS/2004/09/02&ID=Ar01702?

Kerry's Bit Of Colored Ribbon

By THOMAS LIPSCOMB Mr. Lipscomb, the founder of Times Books, was the publisher of Admiral Zumwalt's best-selling book, "On Watch."

Senator Kerry no longer has a problem with just the 35-year-old recollections of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that are questioning his military records. He now has to deal with the United States Navy.
Mr. Kerry's campaign Web site, which may be viewed at www.johnkerry.com, lists a Silver Star with a Combat V on his DD214. This form issued by the Department of Defense summarizes a serviceman's career. It is always signed and authenticated as accurate by the individual, in this case Mr. Kerry. But according to a Navy spokesman it is "incorrect."The Navy has never issued a Combat V at any time for the Silver Star.
This is a serious issue. The chief admiral of the Navy, Jeremy Michael Boorda, committed suicide over questions raised about his right to wear a Combat V by Newsweek magazine in 1996. Boorda stated in his suicide note to his sailors that the questions raised about those he wore caused him to take his life. And that was only a Bronze Star, not the Navy's third highest decoration.
At the time, Mr. Kerry told the Boston Globe that Boorda's conduct was "sufficient to question [Boorda's] leadership position....If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value and self-esteem and your sense of how others view you."
The Navy also questioned the listing on Mr. Kerry's Web site of a DD215 form listing four bronze campaign stars for his service in Vietnam. According to its records, the Navy credits Mr. Kerry with two campaigns.That is sufficient for the wearing of the Vietnam Service Medal for one campaign bearing one campaign star for the additional campaign -- not four.
Perhaps most puzzling of all is Mr. Kerry's display of a citation for his Star signed in 1986 by the Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman. Mr. Lehman, who recently completed his service on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, finds this "[a] total mystery. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me."
No one knows who provided the additional flowery language concluding, "Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...." Well, someone certainly did.
In a statement to Fox News's Major Garrett, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan explained that Mr. Kerry had lost the first two citations for his Silver Star and had asked the Secretary of the Navy to provide a new one. Leaving aside the unprecedented appearance of three separate Silver Star citations on Mr. Kerry's Web site all containing different language signed by three different people, this explanation makes no sense at all.
Veterans lose citations all the time.They simply ask the appropriate military records office to send them a replacement copy, and it does. There is no mystery to this standard procedure that requires the intervention of the Secretary of the Navy.
A legal watchdog group, Judicial Watch, has issued a statement, which may be read at www.judicialwatch.org, that reads, "Kerry should remove [the] Silver Star citation from his internet site pending review by [the] U.S. Navy." It raises other questions about the Web sit

Re:Form 180

[EnderWiggnz]

and now you're using the nysun, a newscorp rag. i guess that its better than newsmax...

> What is wrong with bush's national security record ?

aside from 9/11 happening on his watch? or is it his attacking a country that had nothing to do with that tragedy? or maybe its because we're playing nice with the two big bad guys, saudi arabia and pakistan.

or, maybe its because he listened to rummy, and misplanned the invasion of iraq, and put in too few men to get the job done.

or maybe its the missile defense system that doesnt work, and wouldnt stop teorrirst attacks.

somehow, george is trying to portray recklessness and mismanagement as bravery, and taking care of national security.

>If their is nothing to hide in his records why
>doesn't he sign the form?

here's a better question - why couldnt george have the common decency to SHOW UP? you've got one guy who's ass was actually on the line, and the other who's nose was on the line.

and somehow, you're smearing a man who has served this country faithfully for over 30 years.

Re:Form 180

[DAldredge]

WTF has Kerry done. Please name 5 major things he has done in the senate, and by done I mean thinks he stated.

And why do you keep bringing bush into this? Not one have I typed the name Bush nor have I defended him.

Re:Form 180

[EnderWiggnz]

* head of Iran/Contra investigation
* head of BCCI Investigation
* w/McCain - POW/MIA Vietnam investigation
* Helped Normalized relations with Vietnam
* helped get 100,000 cops on the street.

and that - is one helluva lot more than bush did before he got "elected" president.

the vast majority of kerry's good work was in the "oversight" role of the senate over the exec branch.

as for why i keep bringing in bush...

as per clinton, removing an incumbent is a 2 step process:
1) convince people of the need to fire the incumbent.
2) convince people that your guy is better.

john kerry is not here to defend himself, he is here to finish george bush, and hopefully the rest of the bush dynasty while he's at it.

Re:Form 180

[DAldredge]

* head of Iran/Contra investigation
Nothing really happened as the result of that investigation.

* head of BCCI Investigation
Few of the changes suggested made it into law.

* w/McCain - POW/MIA Vietnam investigation
He helped close the major investigation. John Kerry told me in Bangkok, Thailand in the early 1990's. When we spoke of what action to take on POW's said; "We are not going to war over these people."

* Helped Normalized relations with Vietnam
NOW that is something to be proud of, he helped normalize relations with a country that just recently killed hundreds of christians because of their religion. "Hundreds of Vietnamese Christians killed at Easter -13/4/04

An estimated 400 Christians have been killed during peaceful and prayerful demonstrations by Christians in the Central Highlands of Vietnam.

On Saturday 10 April up to 400,000 Vietnamese Christians, from the Degar people, gathered in several Vietnamese cities to demonstrate against the government's refusal to allow them to follow the Christian faith freely.

"

* helped get 100,000 cops on the street.
And only provided funding for 3-5 years then leaving it up to the cash straped states to continue funding them.

I notive that most of those where join things, has he done anything major on his owm?

Re:Form 180

[elmegil]

That's an attitude and approach that's going to win LOTS of debates. I thought the big argument against the right was that they were intolerant bigots, but you right there demonstrated that the right has no monopoly on stupid dittoheads. While you started out good about the records being public, all the "screw you" rhetoric completely destroys your credibility. Idiot. :-)

Re:Form 180

[Anonymous Coward]

Where have you been? Debate is as dead as journalism. Your mom might say that it takes two people to have a fight, but what she neglected to mention is that it only takes one to deliver an ass kicking. The assumption your mom bases her wisdom on, is no longer valid. Society at large will not enforce fair play with draconian reprisals.

This is the new standard of discourse, adapt or die. And thank you Reagan. Maybe I'll be around long enough to see integrity die.

Re:Form 180

[Anonymous Coward]

When Bush landed in a flightsuit under a banner that proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" delaying an already far extended carrier and their families another day, HE started running on his military record. When his "good buddies" and advisers blatantly lied and belittled the service of not one but multiple people who'd not only served (as opposed to cowering under the protection of a family friend, or behind a wife) but did so with valor and distinction, he ran on HIS military record.

Bush brought this all on himself. All the venom Kerry has endured, having spilled and shed blood for his country, George Bush should recieve ten fold. He's a coward who spends the lives of better men cheaply. The lies to mold their suffering into his glory. And where *I* come from, THAT is UnAmerican.

Re:Form 180

[NateTech]

Kerry served. Both in Vietnam and in the Senate.

GWB didn't serve. Either in Vietnam or in the Senate.

If Kerry's required to open his military and voting records for the public to browse through during this election, then let's be fair and open all of the financial books of Bush's companies, whether public or private since he left the ANG.

Kerry may have made mistakes for 30 years, but he made them in public. GWB's mistakes are hidden and he likes it that way.

Re:Form 180

[EnderWiggnz]

* head of Iran/Contra investigation
Nothing really happened as the result of that investigation.

If by "nothing", you mean 14 convictions....

* head of BCCI Investigation
Few of the changes suggested made it into law.

except that the suggestions were put into effect post-9/11 with the PATRIOT act.

and as a side note - if attacking Iran becomes a point in this election, look for Kerry to hang the entire Bush Family evil empire out to dry. He absolutely knows where the bodies are buried.

John Kerry told me in Bangkok,

John Kerry told *you* ???

* Helped Normalized relations with Vietnam
NOW that is something to be proud of, he helped normalize relations with a country that just recently killed hundreds of christians because of their religion. "Hundreds of Vietnamese Christians killed at Easter -13/4/04


well, at least the united states isnt killing thousands of muslims in iraq, for their religion.



* helped get 100,000 cops on the street.
And only provided funding for 3-5 years then leaving it up to the cash straped states to continue funding them.

congress can only fund programs for 24 months.

So wait?!?!

[wbav]

The punishment is 24 months of active duty? Send him to Iraq. Let him clean up the mess. Some time in the line of fire may make him think twice before taking over countries.

Re:So wait?!?!

[Phillup]

He'd somehow figure a way to get his time a "commander-in-chief" to count instead...

past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[Bad Boy Marty]

And that is why it is so important to know what a slacker or what a liar a presidential candidate is. Given what we now know about our current (acting?) president's devotion to his military service, how can he possibly be permitted to be our commander-in-chief?

Oh, and the other guy is also unsuitable to hold public office, for hosts of other reasons.

Remember: it is only those who are least suited to hold elected office that are stupid/corrupt enough to even accept a nomination.

I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries. (In discussions with many folks many years older than myself, it has been strongly suggested that the last such candidate was John F. Kennedy. I'm not convinced, but I concede the possibility: he certainly kept his religion out of his politics better than any US president since.)

Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[bandy]

he certainly kept his religion out of his politics better than any US president since

Well, Nixon certainly didn't let his Quaker beliefs get in his way...

Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[CrimsonAvenger]

I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries.

I really, really, really do NOT want a President who is going to "improve the quality of life" for every US Citizen.

Actually, I can't think of much of any one thing that could be done that would accomplish that.

Lowering taxes? No, the Big Government types wouldn't like that.

Raising taxes? No, the Small Government people wouldn't like that.

Universal Healthcare? Free Market types would be upset. As well as doctors, nurses, and whoever had to pay for it.

Free Beer for everyone? The Teetotallers would be left out?

A chicken in every pot, and a car in every driveway? That would offend the vegans and the Greens.

And on, and on, and on.

(In discussions with many folks many years older than myself, it has been strongly suggested that the last such candidate was John F. Kennedy. I'm not convinced, but I concede the possibility: he certainly kept his religion out of his politics better than any US president since.)

Many folks older than you are still fondly reminiscing about Saint John the Kennedy. Note that he didn't offer to do something to improve the quality of life for every US citizen, but rather to allow every US citizen do something to improve the quality of life of the government. And Vietnam. Remember that? Kennedy sent the first troops in, as I recall.

Realistically, all Presidents want to improve the quality of life of every American citizen. Problem is that their definition of "improved" and your definition (or mine) don't necessarily match up.

Clinton apparently thought that the Assault Weapon Ban would be a good thing for all Americans. I happen to disagree, having read the text of the law. You, on the other hand, might very well believe that ugly rifles are evil, and should be banned.

Bush apparently thinks that letting it lapse would be a good thing. I happen to agree with that, since I don't think there is anything intrinsically evil about an ugly rifle. Some of you, no doubt, will disagree with that move.

Same with everything else. Propose something to "improve the quality of life of every US citizen", and a large minority (or large majority, perhaps) will think you are an unmitigated ass for even considering making this heinous change to our way of life. And most of the rest won't think you are going far enough....

Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[NateTech]

I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries.

Our best chance of that is finding a President who will fight the real war going on in the world, the Economic one. The one we're presently learning how to lose as a Nation to our own Corporations who have gone multinational and have no loyalty to their home country other than asking investors to pay for their overseas expansions.

10 Nobel Prize winning Economists endorse the Kerry campaign.

10 Texas Oilmen endorse the Bush campaign.

Which do you think stands the better chance in the real world?

Bush promises "if re-elected" he will reform Tax law in our country. But he's had four years with a Republican House and Senate and hasn't done so.

Bush claims he gave "the largest Tax cut in history" but I see that it was all given as Taxable Income, with its own line-item to add it back in to next year's taxes, therefore lowering its effectiveness by approximately 40% for most citizens. And Citizens without children, who are already taxed at a higher rate, were given a much smaller refund than their peers.

Corporations already have the largest tax benefit in the U.S. - they're taxed AFTER expenses. You and I aren't. The Republican Party doesn't care about giving the "Average American" a tax break at all, they care about protecting tax benefits the owners of the corporations that fund their campaigns already have.

Or they'd have already PASSED legislation to change it. They have the power to do it and have had for almost four years.

I keep wondering why Republican voters aren't asking why Republicans really aren't truely Conservative anymore. My best guess is that they already have the majority of the wealth in the country and are simply playing a protection game... keep the people thinking you're cutting taxes and lowering the size of government while twisting government to protect the sizeable assets already owned by Republicans.

That's about as un-American (to use their phrase they like to use) as it gets.

Of course, smart Republicans *or* Democrats who simply study the numbers just go about their business, enjoying the low risk of corporations and building their assets. While the world worries about "jobs" and people are happy to be employees of their Corporations.

Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[NateTech]

Actually Kennedy motivated people to make their own lives better, instead of claiming to be a Saint. Thus, people remember him fondly as the person who was their leader.

Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[CrimsonAvenger]

Never said he claimed to be a saint. Claimed people of that generation generally treat him like one. Probably because he was killed.

And just how did he "motivate people to make their own lives better"?

The Cuban Missile Crisis? Which I remember because my father was on alert for that whole period.

The decision to go to the Moon? Good decision, but it was going nowhere in Congress till he was killed.

Saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask instead what you can do for your country"? Not sure how motivational that is, but my answer is "Ok, and nothing."

Was this the last period when AMericans trusted their government? Doubt it seriously. There was a moderately widespread belief that Johnson jiggered election results in Texas to give St Jack the win. And picking your baby brother for Attorney General looks a lot like nepotism from where I sit. Or were there truly no lawyers in the US more qualified that Robert Kennedy? Somehow, I doubt it.

My own opinion is that the last time we trusted our government was WW2. And a strong case could be made for 1860 as an alternate date - just before "these United States" became "the United States".

Re:past behavior is a predictor of future behavior

[NateTech]

Interesting comments. All I have to go on is media on the Kennedy thing, as he was dead long before I was alive. Thanks for your input.

What Wrong With Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen this from both sides of the aisle:

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

"Misspoke" is apparently a euphemism for "lied." (Oh, and Dan, it's "have misspoken.")

Enough of this Canned BS...

[PipianJ]

I've heard both sides say both opinions, that he did meet his requirements honorably and that he did not. But without seeing the records and requirements first-hand, how the hell are we supposed to believe either side's "analysis"?

As far as I'm concerned, both sides smell of rot on this issue, until I can decide for myself instead of having the decision made for me by the media.

The problem...

[Fished]

The problem, as I see it, is that the media continually goes into "feeding frenzy" mode over these Alabama allegations, while failing to seriously engage with Kerry's war records. Where's the Associated Press's suit to force the release of Kerry's Vietnam records? And, frankly, where is the furor over Kerry's apparently fictitious "Christmas in Cambodia?"

The bottom line is that, at worst, Bush dodge the draft - and we already knew that - and then blew off his national guard service - if you didn't already know this, you should've. On the other hand, it appears from his own statements that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 - a claim he made from the senate floor in 1986 and has made many times before and sense.

Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats.

Now, I'm not much of a Republican. I will probably vote for Kerry. But I am disturbed at the way in which the mainstream media has failed to cover questions regarding Kerry's war record compared to this silliness about Bush's National Guard record. When they've covered the Kerry question at all, it has been coverage questioning the relationship between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat ads. They have ignored everything but the question of Bush '04 involvemnt. I would really appreaciate some responsible coverage of the Christmas in Cambodia issue, but I've been unable to find it.

Re:The problem...

[jamie]

...where is the furor over Kerry's apparently fictitious "Christmas in Cambodia?"

... it appears from his own statements that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 ...

Holiday in Cambodia, by Fred Kaplan:

It is a twisted state of affairs that George W. Bush's most avid surrogates are trying to make this election turn on the question of whether Lt. John Kerry was or was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968...

It is certain that by this time, the United States had long been making secret incursions across the border...

...the evidence indicates he did cover those 40 miles: He was near (or in?) Cambodia in the morning...

Re:The problem...

[Artemis]

You do realize that desertion from the military can be punishable by death don't you? Of course this punishment hasn't been done in any sort of recent memory, but it is definitly taken seriously.

Re:The problem...

[NateTech]

"Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats."

Sorry that may have been true many years ago, but I do believe it was CNN that caught Fox News correspondants and camera crew shouting "Four more years" at the Republican National Convention. "Fair and Balanced" my ass.

Re:The problem...

[NateTech]

I would have settled for a Dishonorable Discharge for him, so the last four years of broken promises and "talking points" could have been avoided.

Re:The problem...

[Kurrurrin]

Yeah, you're right. Its hard to make it fair and balanced when its one network on one end of the teeter totter and 3 or 4 on the other.

Re:The problem...

[NateTech]

Could you site some real research that proves this "media is left" myth within the last four years?

I'm seeing books published about the outrage that is Fox News, but I'm not seeing similar books or information about the others.

Of course, I take everything with a grain of salt, but Fox is definitely on a mission -- the others just lean. Fox falls over themselves to be on the Right.

Re:The problem...

[Kurrurrin]

I won't deny that they are pushing hard to the right. All I'm saying is that point and shout about it when all the others are leaning the other way. Shucks, a diversification of opinions in the news. I guess I'll never know what to think, now.

Re:The problem...

[NateTech]

And all I'm saying is there's a lot of rumors that the other side is leaning the other way and opinions, but no studies or factual publications saying that. Thus, Fox is probably WAY out to the right, and the others are mildly left.

O'Reilley is the sickening one... "No Spin Zone" my ass. ;-)

Re:The problem...

[Kurrurrin]

No spin zone indeed. They do make the news feel like a top sometimes. ;)

Re:Compare

[JabberWokky]

How about a coffeehouse modern folk musician, works in the newspaper industry, a fan who hosted a Science Fiction radio show, a member of a Wiccan coven (but primarily Discordian), a former BBS operator, marched for gay rights, worked security at an abortion clinic, a director of a Rocky Horror Picture Show cast, *and* I live in Davis, CA, likely the most liberal town in America.

And I voted for Bush in 2000 - in Palm Beach County, FL. And likely will in 2004.

It's simple: I hate the neocons as much as anybody else, but I think the Republicans, when they are inevitably stripped of the neocon religious right (see Arnold's speech at the RNC for what the party will be in 10 years), is where the country should be. I think Bush is thouroughly mediocre, and Ashcroft is downright bad. But I dislike the Socialistic and racist/separatist tendencies of the Democrats.

The Republicans seem to be moving in the right direction, and since I believe issues such as gay marriage will inevitably come to pass, I will try to keep them in power and let society mature socially.

Basically, people with a Libertarian or socially liberal, fiscally conservative bent can either wish that there was a Libertarian party with a chance of getting elected, or they can hammer on one of the other parties. As far as I can tell, the one that is salvageable is the Republican party. A good chunk of the religious right has left already. Pull the neocons out of there, and it's 90% there.

--
Evan

Not so.

[Fished]

You're missing some important points here.

1. Kerry's testimony regarding atrocities in Vietnam was widely reported and even televised. Many Vietnam Veterans were quite angry about this - which is perhaps why they remember him.
2. Swift boats are pretty small, and only have a crew of about 6 men (i.e. less than Kerry has in his "band of brothers." However, they operated in squads with several boats each. The Swift Boat vets have never claimed to be on the same boat, but they have claimed to be in the same squad, and this claim appears to be true. No question but that many of them had the chance to observe Kerry in action. Whether they tell the truth is another matter.

Re:Not so.

[EnderWiggnz]

you are completely mischaracterizing kerry's testimony, as well as the nations, and veterans mood at the time.

nobody was "for" Vietnam in 1971. there was a huge backlash against this unpopular and worthless war. stating otherwise now is dishonest.

Kerry represented a large group of vietnam vets, and presented their stories to congress. He spoke Truth to Power. He was a decorated war hero that came back and spoke against the war he took part in. He spoke Truth.

As for the Swift Liars -let me say that I have extreme reservations against a group that is formed by a Nixonian creation.

For chists sakes, O'Neill - the head of the Swift Vets makes several appearances in the damn Watergate tapes with Nixon! You think that this man is after "truth"? You think this man has any credibility?

Re:Not so.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Kerry's testimony regarding atrocities in Vietnam was widely reported and even televised. Many Vietnam Veterans were quite angry about this - which is perhaps why they remember him.

True- ok, that counts for the other 240 some vets.

Swift boats are pretty small, and only have a crew of about 6 men (i.e. less than Kerry has in his "band of brothers." However, they operated in squads with several boats each. The Swift Boat vets have never claimed to be on the same boat, but they have claimed to be in the same squad, and this claim appears to be true. No question but that many of them had the chance to observe Kerry in action. Whether they tell the truth is another matter.

Ok, granted.

Dividing the Slashdot community

[SilentSage]

It deeply saddens me that Slashdot has reduced itself to this kind of sensationalism. Slashdot used to be a forum to discuss technology issues. It now seems to be increasingly driven by some sort of self destructive need to divide and alienate vast portions of the slashdot community. The mere fact that slashdot has a political articles section that posts these kinds of stories, let alone the fact they make it to the front page, is indicative of its impending demise as the leading technological discussion board and information site on the internet. When most open source communities take themselves too far down the divisive path that slashdot is clearly headed they simply fork. Forks always hurt the community overall and this is what I believe will happen to slashdot. We will divide ourselves into a hundred little "slash clone" sites according to our individual beliefs, each one with a sliver of the community at large. Our community will be less diverse, our voice not as loud and our influence diminished. This will be a sad day if our community allows it comes to pass.

Re:Dividing the Slashdot community

[orthogonal]

Slashdot used to be a forum to discuss technology issues

Friend, you can ignore politics, but politics won't ignore you.

Technology is all about politics: copyright law, patent law, outsourcing, regulation of the wireless spectrum, requirements for "broadcast bits", use of technology to support (or defend against) the police state or rampant corporatism.

Hell, model rocketry has been effectively outlawed to protect us against "terrorism".

Clinton tried to outlaw cryptography.

And Bill Gates would love to establish crippling insurance or certification requirements to stamp out hobbyist GPL projects.

Sure, ignore.

The more you ignore it, the quicker it'll affect your life.

In World War II, Woody Guthrie wrote on his guitar, "This Machine Kills Fascists".

What's written on your computer?

Re:Dividing the Slashdot community

[Blankzoid]

Respectfully, I must disagree. So far, I am finding the new section refreshing. It seems to me, that there is a fairly wide spectrum of political views here combined with a generally high level of discourse. Not perfect by any means of course but five minutes at say CNN.com's message boards will leave you gasping for air under the weight of the invective and partisanship displayed by most of the posters. Slashdot posters, so far, are keeping a little further above the fray on balance. I understand your point about watering down the focus of the board but I feel as if the inclusion of a separate politics section strikes an appropriate balance in this regard

What about Cheney?

[torpor]

... and how is it that he's managed to do so much to America's War Machine, without having ever served ... ermm ... make that actively done everything he possibly could to stay out of action ...

It's worth reading some of the opposing views

[crmartin]

On Kerry's medals.

Bush AWOL: Case Closed

It might be interesting to look at Ben barnes, who claims he helped Bush get into the TANG in 1968, as Lt GOV of Texas. The only problem being that Barnes was not sworn in as LT GOV until 1969 -- in May '68, when Bush was sworn into the Guard, Barnes was actually UN Representative to Geneva.

The LA Times and CNN investigated these exact allegations in 1999, and concluded there was nothing to them.

He's also a major Kerry contributor and lost his position at Lt Gov in a stock fraud scandal..

Re:It's worth reading some of the opposing views

[jamie]

Yes, he misspoke, saying he was Lt. Governor when he did not attain that post until later. Do you seriously think that means his entire recollection is made-up?

And yes, the media exonerated Bush in 1999. Since then, disclosure after disclosure has turned up new evidence. Do you think you will be wiser to ignore new facts of the past five years?

In any case, his interview tonight should be very interesting to watch.

Re:It's worth reading some of the opposing views

[crmartin]

Do you seriously think that a guy in Geneva has that much pull? Or that one of the three R congressmen in Texas -- at that point completely dominated by the D's for like 100 years -- had all that much pull?

Or that the LA Times story that investigated and discounted barnes in 1999?

Loo, all I said was "read the opposing material too". But, yes, I do think that if a guy

- claims he did something as Lt Gov six months before he was actually in the office,

- is a major Kerry backer,

- is a crook whose political career was ruined by scandal (propelled by Republican investigations),
- has been refuted by a major liberal paper,

- is repeating allegations that he's been shopping for six years,

- and has been quoted in so many words saying that no Bush actually asked for help, then yes, I think his reliability as a source at this point is a little questionable.

Re:Compare

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure all of the U.S. Military records indicate John Kerry was correctly awarded all of his medals. Also, Kerry's records have actually been released for public viewing. Isn't it suspicious that all these ppl questioning his record now, were silent 35 years ago?

As for W's record, there is certainly a dirth of documentation from the military; any information provided about W's record is drastically censored.

Personally, I think the REAL American is the one that fought for his country.

Kerry.Slashdot.Org

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you guys just drop the pretense, start Kerry.Slashdot.Org and be done with it.

You refuse to post positive stories about W (I've submitted several), and you refuse to post stories about Venuzuelas voter fraud using electronic voting (where the votes were PROVEN rigged...)

You're obviously not interested in political debate, you just want your candidate and ideology to get an edge in an obviously tight race. Certainly isn't wasn't "worthwhile" doing this when Kerry was ahead of Bush, but now that he's 10 points behind... Ooh, maybe we should discuss politics because this is an important election. Fine. But label it as such.

You're doing a greater disservice to your website and its namesake by spending your karma on your own personal ideology and ego's than a forum for TRUE debate and discussion throughout the rest of the world. (Yeah, like we'll ever see the Russia, China or British flag on politics.slashdot.org)

Re:Kerry.Slashdot.Org

[benna]

I don't want to argue on the rest of your points as I don't think politics.slashdot.org has been around long enough to make a judgement (though I do think slashdot does generally lean more liberal in its other sections) but the election is veuzuela was a fair one. Carters group and others did exit polls and they matched the official results. The opposition claimed they won by a huge margin. Theres no way the exist polls were off by that much.

Re:Compare

[Phillup]

Basically, people with a Libertarian or socially liberal, fiscally conservative bent can either wish that there was a Libertarian party with a chance of getting elected, or they can hammer on one of the other parties.

I haven't picked either party... I alway vote for gridlock.

That means, this year I'll be voting democrat. They could run Hitler... I'd still vote for him.

I simply don't want congress and the executive branch ran by the same assholes.

You mean like Clinton?

[the_skywise]

How about John Edwards military record? Oh wait... he doesn't HAVE one because he didn't even sign up for the National Guard...

Re:You mean like Clinton?

[NateTech]

Bring Edwards into it and we'd better talk about Cheney, then.

Let's start with his blackmail comment from yesterday threatening the public with more terrorism if they don't vote for Bush.

There's leadership for ya... threaten the public and give no reasonable solution for the problem. As well as no updates on the promise to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

This is ignoring the fact that

[OverlordQ]

The Boston Globe cannot be trusted.

Re:This is ignoring the fact that

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, isn't it possible that the cameras didn't pick up the boos?

Remember the Dean scream? Check out the videos here.

It's the Dean scream, from a camera in the crowd. You can barely hear him scream. And with the all of the official press footage of that moment in Iowa, you barely notice the crowd.

Re:Compare

[meta-monkey]

Ummm...no. Kerry did not release all of his records. He released some of his records, but not all. Bush released all of his records. What's in the rest of Kerry's records? I'd like to know.

The problem with the Navy's records about Kerry's medals is that most of them were awarded based on Kerry's own after-action reports, and the contents of those reports don't jive with what the swifties remember happening. Why did they not bring this up before now? Because they didn't know about it. Do you think they read their peer's after action reports? Of course not. They've got better things to do. Even if they grumbled about a medal or something, what are they really going to do? From their thinking at the time, in the grand scheme it doesn't mean much. Seriously, put yourself in their shoes. You see a jerk who doesn't deserve it get a medal (heck, assuming you even know he GOT the medal at the time...remember, they'd wear their medals on their combat fatigues) do you a) make a huge stink, demand an investigation, and risk alienating the people you need watching your back in war, or b) grumble about it, and move on with trying to stay alive in a stinking jungle?

Consider, for instance, if you want to high school with George W. Bush. You had maybe one or two classes with him, but weren't friends. You never talked, but you saw the way he acted in class and towards other students, and thought he was a jackass. All the while, he's writing fibs in his journal about how "terr'rist kill'rs" attacked the school one day, and he commandeered a lunch cart rolled around killing every last one of them with plastic sporks. You were slient about all this. Forty years later, W. runs for president, using soley this experience as his qualifications for the presidency. "Vote for me, 'cause I kill't terr'rist kill'rs with a spork 40 years ago!" You speak up and say, "Hey, none of that happened!" Why did you wait forty years to challenge these obsurd statements? Oh yeah, because you didn't know about these lies forty years ago, and they didn't matter until he tried to run for president!

There is no dirth of documentation from the military about W's record. There are a few missing pay stubs...that's all. It's a paperwork snafu from 35 years ago. My wife was in the Army for nine years. Having seen what goes on there, I'm not surprised that the air force reserves might have misplaced a few pieces of paper. On the other hand, here are 250 people who served in the same squad as Kerry, saying Kerry lied about his service in Vietnam. Nobody's claiming W lied about his service in the guard...just that there are a few missing pieces of paper. Oh, and it should it be noted that the guy who supposedly "got W into the gaurd" so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam is a partisan democrat.

Defenders of Bush wanted

[jamie]

As of a few minutes ago in this discussion, there have been many people attacking Kerry, a few who attacked Kerry while offering support for Bush, only two who offered any proof that Bush had met his service obligations... and no one who simply provided a factual defense of Bush's record.

Anyone who'd like to walk us through the facts that support Bush, without simultaneously smearing a decorated combat veteran, would be a breath of fresh air.

(The two who linked to this Byron York piece from March, thank you. But (a) that piece is from March and much new information and analysis has come to light since then, little of it favorable for Bush; (b) it admits that the documentation shows Bush simply didn't serve from May to September of 1972, which is the whole point. The one fellow who says he saw Bush during that time, John Calhoun, is less than reliable and the pay stubs contradict him. Apart from that, the best that National Review can do is to quote people who say it's possible Bush was there, but they don't remember seeing him. Faint praise.)

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[Quinn]

Bush didn't open his RNC speech with "reporting for duty." Kerry did. Kerry wants Vietnam to be an issue, so we make it an issue that he won all those legitimate purple hearts, but that he did it by requesting them himself and never spending a day in the hospital, and spending less than a season in Vietnam. John Kerry is an asshole.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[crmartin]

The notion that Bush necessarily had any obigations in Alabama is a basic mistake. As long as you persist in making that basic mistake, you're going to be confused.

Now, with that said, there are a few little points tat ought to be noted:

John Calhoun remembers Bush in Alabama, and Bush's dental records from Alabama have been found and discussed in the Washington post.

But .. I thought "no one remembers Bush in Alabama"?

Oh, wait, the guy who does remember Bush is "unreliable".

But what about his dental records?

The usual comeback is that this proves Bush went to the dentist but not that he was on base.

Except that the dentist was on base.

And how is it that Ben Barnes' story -- "I helped Bush into the Guard as Lt Gov ... six months before I was elected" -- is any more believable now than it was in 1999? It's not like someone has discovered new records saying Barnes really wasn't in Geneva and was LTGOV after all.

As usual, the real answer is read both sides and then think for yourself.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[mtaco]

ER, well, I did that in my "terse answers" post, but I think we were simultaneously posting.

As far as May to September goes, the main thing you're missing is that you don't understand National Guard service when you're on inactive duty.

However, if you've ever seen the "1 weekend a month" ads, then you know the answer. If you're on inactive duty in the NG, you have to show up for 28 days. (Yeah, I know 2 times 12 is 24, but if the government could multiply we wouldn't have a deficit.) It's perfectly reasonable for Bush not to show up for May through September as long as he showed up for 28 days total. No conspiracy or favoritism needed.

Was his last year in the NG stellar? No, but he did the job in a service that's for part-time soldiers, full-time civilians.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[crmartin]

Oh, just saw something else: the DoD managed to dig up another piece of paper (from 30+ years ago) -- a pay stub from the time he was supposed to have been in Alabama.

This is, no doubt, one of those pieces of "new" information.

It shows that Bush drilled outside of Texas at least once in the interval in question.

(Before it even comes up, let's put a stake through one more point: no, you're not AWOL of you miss drill. That's not how the Guard and Reserves work, because everyone knows it's a part-time job. You have to get enough drills to make up your year's time, and no one disputes that the records show Bush did so.)

So now we've got dental records, pay stubs, and personal recollections. Does that satisfy you?

No, didn't think so. Military records should be completely and absolutely correct -- if you're Bush -- but little errors like a combat V unauthhorized by statute and never awarded are just typos in Kerry's.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[fmaxwell]

So now we've got dental records, pay stubs, and personal recollections. Does that satisfy you?

No, it does not. I want a significant number of people who served with Bush in the the Alabama Air National Guard to come forward and say so. I want them to recount stories of his service with them.

Getting dental records shows that Bush was willing to get his dental work at taxpayer expense, not that he fulfilled his obligation. What's next? A receipt from the PX for a case of beer to "prove" that Bush served? No one is claiming that Bush was unwilling to take pay when he failed to serve. I'm sure that he was, just as he was willing to take favors from daddy's friends to avoid going to Vietnam.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[jamie]

I think you misread. The new information shows that Bush was missing from an active alert mission on Oct. 6, 1927. And as that linked story says, "The records show his last flight was in April 1972, which is consistent with pay records indicating Bush had a lapse of duty between April and October of that year." I think you also misunderstand what's being debated. His trip to the dentist in January 1973 doesn't prove that he performed required drills between April and October of 1972.

Furthermore, when you hint that it was OK for him to miss drills, it suggests you didn't read today's Boston Globe story:

Lawrence J. Korb... said Bush could have been ordered to active duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that obligation in two successive fiscal years.

Bush did skip drills from April-October 1972, pretty much everyone agrees. The Bush campaign's response is to point to John Calhoun, who is not a credible witness, and to suggest Bush made them up later. The Bush campaign has basically said that the fact he wasn't dishonorably discharged proves everything was fine. But he didn't make them up according to regulations:

Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

The penalty for missing those drills -- like the penalty for walking off the Houston base without permission, and the penalty for (it is starting to appear) going to Cambridge without permission -- was being bounced from the Guard into an involuntary 2 years of active duty in Vietnam. But that never happened. As the Globe says, that suggests his superiors were willing to look the other way:

''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.

So, regarding April to October of 1972, you have no dental records, you have no pay stubs, and you have a personal recollection from someone who can't keep his story straight and contradicts the available evidence. On the other hand, nobody else who was there remembers seeing him during that time, including people in his small unit who were actively looking for him, the records show he had to make up the drills he missed during that time (after regulations allowed), and, again, we have "pay records indicating Bush had a lapse of duty between April and October of that year." This isn't rocket science. It's pretty clear he just didn't bother to show up, and his superiors let it slide -- presumably because of his family name.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[jamie]

It's perfectly reasonable for Bush not to show up for May through September as long as he showed up for 28 days total.

Perhaps that's true now, I don't know. But according to the linked Boston Globe story:

Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[mtaco]

Yeah, here's where all this starts to degenerate into details which is where the media gets lost.

Before I respond to this detail, let's step back and look at it this way. He's accused of not showing up. Obviously he did. We could quibble about the details of whether those days were "creditable" or not, but that's kind of a pointless detail.

Most of the NG-knowledgeable websites I've read about this issue say that this training flexibility is typical in the NG, that the NG has to adapt to part-time soldiers, full-time civilians who may have other commitments.

1973 is the "Alabama" period, so if he was training in Houston, then he made a special trip to do so. Almost anything in any service is subject to the commander's discretion, and generally, commander's don't hassle people about this stuff.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[crmartin]

Then you're a fool and ignorant to boot. Look, he was in Alabama for three months. He wasn't a member of the Alabama Guard, he was being allowed to drill with them as a courtesy. He would have shown up for between two and six days, and he would have been told to sit somewhere and stay out of the way. he couldn't fly, and he wasn't in the chain of command. If he's been an enlisted man they'd have him sweeping floors or something, but you don't do that with officers.

And it's 35 years ago.

So what you're insisting on is that there be a "significant number", which is more than the one whose office he sat in, to remember J Random Texas Officer being there 35 years ago.

Not to put too fine a point on it, given that there is documentation that he was there, this level of "proof" is nuts.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[crmartin]

The new information shows that Bush was missing from an active alert mission on Oct. 6, 1927.

Actually, 1927 was a little bfore he was born.

But yeah, he was missing from an activve alert mission in 1972. In October.

When was he in Alabama?

October 1972. (Also September and November.)

So what you've got is documentation that he wasn't in Texas in October 1972, and other documentation that he was in Alabama in October 1972.

A big part of the issue here is just plain dumb ignorance. Guardsmen don't necessarily have to be at every drill, and may miss it because of work, or travel, or having the 'flu that weekend. If you miss a drill weekend, you're not AWOL. ALL THAT HAPPENS is that if you don't make up the time by the end of the enlistment year, you don't get credit for it.

Bush did make it up, and was honorably discharged. If he hadn't have made it up, he'd have received a "general" discharge.

now, try thinking about the level of evidence you guys are demanding: it's not enough to have documentation, AND personal recollections, AND consistent records between Alabama and Texas -- because (according to another one of you ninnies) you can believe Bush would be willing to take money for drilling even though he didn't attend.

On that basis, you can't prove that Kerry was ever in Viet Nam, either: after all, all those records and personal recollections of him could be mistaken. Plus, Kerry's records of his time in service, his biography, and his records of his sSilver Star are contradictory (three citations, each differing in wording, under three different signatures.)

Notice I'm not saying Kerry wasn't in VN, by the way. I'm just pointing out that you're setting a standard of proof so stringent that you're merely guaranteeing, vacuously, that Bush could never meet it.

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[fmaxwell]

Look, he was in Alabama for three months. He wasn't a member of the Alabama Guard, he was being allowed to drill with them as a courtesy. He would have shown up for between two and six days, and he would have been told to sit somewhere and stay out of the way.

So who told him to do that? Who did he report to? We're talking about a base with 25-30 pilots total, some of whom were expecting him to show. As one of them who served in the Military from '59 to '84 said:

"I'm sure I would have seen him. It's a small unit, and you couldn't go in or out without being seen. It was too close a space."

he couldn't fly

Gee, that could be explained by his refusal to take his required flight physical. From the analysis of the records by Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel:

Bush was grounded by verbal orders on August 1, 1972, for not
taking his flight physical. On September 5, 1972, the 147th FG
commander published written orders, confirming the grounding. On
September 29, 1972, official written orders issued by Major General
Francis S. Greenlief, Chief, National Guard Bureau, confirmed the
grounding, and, most important, ordered Bush to "comply with
para[graph] 2-10, AFM 35-13"; paragraph 2-28, AFM 35-13, says the
following: "The officer suspended will acknowledge in writing that
he has received the orders indicating the time and date of receipt
according to paragraph 2-10b." Walter V. Robinson (Robinson) and
Francie Latour (Latour) in "Bush's loss of flying status should have
spurred probe," Boston Globe, February 12, 2004, first noted this
requirement. There is no document that shows Bush ever complied
with this notification requirement, however. Robinson and Latour
went on to cite two generals about the seriousness of Bush's failure
to take his flight physical and the duty of the commander to
investigate the reasons for his failure to take it.

Admit it: Your boy had daddy's friends pull strings to keep him out of Vietnam, didn't fulfill his obligation in the ANG, and then has spent the last few years trying to cover it up, with stories of destroyed records and paid liars who later claim that they "misspoke."

Re:Defenders of Bush wanted

[crmartin]

More: Chicago Sun Times

American Times

Read them.

Make your own decision.

Think for yourself.

Trying to come up with Terse Answers

[mtaco]

I noticed that everything has been moderated low in this discussion, maybe if I'm terse I can get moderated high. Here goes.

Facts:

Bush served for 5.5 years in the TANG. 4 years of those were on active duty, because you don't learn to fly planes one weekend a month.

Only the last year (1973) is in dispute, when he was on inactive duty and was living in Alabama.

National Guard rules:

1. Remember the "one weekend a month" ads? Well, its not every month. Its really 28 days/year you have to show up when you're on inactive duty. You can do it in batches.

2. If you're in a different state while on inactive duty, you can show up at the local NG place and do your service there. They won't have "extra" planes for you to fly, though. This rule makes sense if you think about it, people in the NG have day jobs.

Add all these up, and basically, his last year, Bush did his minimum number of days he had to do early in the year, and then didn't have to show up after that. His time in Alabama mostly involved sitting around being bored, because a fighter pilot without a plane is like lips on a chicken.

The Texas Air National Guard discharged him early, basically because all the National Guard units were stuffed with people.

So this is just election year FUBAR.

Re:Trying to come up with Terse Answers

[gothzilla]

If it were that simple to explain, Bush would have explained it this way a long time ago. A lack of simple explanations and a lot of dodging says there is a lot more to the story that we don't know about.

Re:Trying to come up with Terse Answers

[Anonymous Coward]

...except that no one remembers him there...

And there were several people LOOKING for him there...If he had served 28 days in a batch he would have been noticed.

Re:Trying to come up with Terse Answers

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: It cost about a million dollars to train W. to fly fighter jets.

Fact: W. refused to take his medical exam in Spring '72 and was grounded. He bailed on his commitment.

Fact: Bush said, in a TV interview in February, that he would release all of his available military records.

Fact: As of today he still has not done so. Flip flop.

USA Today reference (now I get to hear that USA Today is liberal and biased. Why is it that anything which refutes conservative talking points is biased?)

Re:Trying to come up with Terse Answers

[mtaco]

You're assuming that:

1. The media is going to take the time to understand how the national guard works. Not!

2. That the media actually cares about the "truth". More controversy, more viewers, more money. Every article about every candidate is always spun towards controversy.

3. That the media is as smart as me, so they're able to put it in such simple terms. Not! :-)

If you want to argue this, 3-4 people have come forward saying they remember him, and Bush signed the Notorious Form 180 releasing ALL his records. I don't think he's dodged this at all. The press has asked him for proof, which he did his best to provide about something that happened 30 years ago.

Here's a long answer. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york20040218084 0.asp

PARENT IS NOT OT

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is a very coherant reply to the GP. And on the topic of the grand parent.

on JFK

[russeljns]

I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries. ...it has been strongly suggested that the last such candidate was John F. Kennedy.

JFK didn't avoid "meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries". Cuba and Vietnam come to mind. Anticommunist meddling is still meddling.

As for his religion, he kept that as quiet as possible due to the widespread fear at the time that he would be taking orders from the Pope. There used to be a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment in this country.

Re:Compare

[JabberWokky]

I really can't disagree too much with that. For anybody who doesn't agree with either party (and can't get the "Rah, rah, yay team!" blind follower thing going), it's a difficult thing to chose. Attempting to keep the power out of one party isn't a bad idea.

--
Evan

Lots more republicans here than I though...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, is the graduating class at Georgia Tech like 300,000 now?

Lots of 760 Math 520 Verbal responses here.

Good thing you guys only get to vote once.

Vive la difference!

[JohnnyX]

Ah, the critical difference between voting to let the President go to war and voting for the war itself. How could I have missed such an important distinction?

Maybe it's this quote from the Post that has me confused:

"Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."

I guess I thought authorizing a war was the same as voting for it. My bad.

Badnarik Last Anti-War Candidate Left Standing

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...voting Badnarik...

Let's not forget this..

[mabu]

There are many issues regarding Bush's records that aren't being made available. The military service issue is probably trivial compared to this:

Justice Department Says It Can't Share Lobbying Data Because Computer System Will Crash

By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer
Published: Jun 29, 2004

Source: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBDP9DE2WD.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is offering a novel reason for denying a request seeking the Justice Department's database on foreign lobbyists: Copying the information would bring down the computer system.

"Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating," wrote Thomas J. McIntyre, chief in the Justice Department's office for information requests.

Advocates for open government said the government's assertion that it could not copy data from its computers was unprecedented but representative of generally negative responses to Freedom of Information Act requests.

"This was a new one on us. We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them," Bob Williams of the Center for Public Integrity said Tuesday. The watchdog group in Washington made the request in January. He said the group expects to appeal the Justice Department's decision.

Many Justice Department computer systems, especially at the FBI, are considered outdated. The FBI is spending nearly $600 million to modernize its antiquated systems.

The Center for Public Integrity sought information about lobbying activities available under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, a 1938 law passed in response to German propaganda before World War II. Database records describe details of meetings among foreign lobbyists, the administration and Congress, and payments by foreign governments and some overseas groups for political advertisements and other campaigns.

"What they're asking for is a lot, and it's not something at this particular point in time we have the technical ability to do," Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said Tuesday.

McIntyre explained in a May 24 letter that the computer system - operated in the counterespionage section of the Justice Department's criminal division - "was not designed for mass export of all stored images" and said the system experiences "substantial problems."

"It sounds like incredible negligence for an agency that is keeping public records to keep them in such a precarious condition," said Stephen Doig, interim director at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University. "I've never heard the excuse that making the equivalent of a backup copy would somehow cause steam to rise out of the computer."

The government said an overhaul of the system should be finished by December and copies should be available then.

Paper copies of records still are available for review four hours each day for people willing to travel to Washington, the Justice Department noted. Williams said the index available to researchers there is at least 12 months outdated, "which kind of renders it useless."

Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered federal agencies in October 2001 to review more closely which documents they release. Ashcroft's policy lets officials withhold information on any "sound legal basis." Under looser policies issued in 1993, agencies could hold back information to prevent "foreseeable harm."

"This is an administration and Justice is an agency that does not go out of its way to make information available to the public," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center.

It half matters

[dfenstrate]

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

Hey, did you know senator Kerry was in vietnam?

seriously, it would matter less if Kerry wasn't running almost entirely on his vietnam service and skipping his 20 years in the senate entirely. The entire democratic convention was spent talking about what happened 30 years ago, painting Kerry as the nice little war hero. Or trying.

Problem is, real heros don't proclaim they're heros at every turn.

Kerry doesn't run on his 20 years in the senate- which would be most relevant- because he'll get nowhere on it. His votes on defense, on taxes, on many issues were consistently the type of positions that would play very poorly with at least half of america. His campaign knows this, which is why you never hear about it from the dems or the media. It also doesn't help that his twenty year history of being a complete and utter peacenik contradict any talk now of seriously protecting the United States from any threat that may be out there.

Bush, on the other hand, is running on his past four years as president, not on being in the ANG 30 years ago. Perhaps his Air National Guard service is not much to brag about, but that is precisely why he isn't doing so.

Kerry made his vietnam service the centerpiece of his qualifications. The scrutiny of his service is therefor justified.

Making an issue of President Bush's service 30 years ago does seem rather pointless, as he's never mentioned it, and we have four years of his presidency to judge him on, which should be more than enough to decided if you want him again.

Kerry's 20 years in the senate is also enough to judge him on, but he made the vietnam service scrutiny a legitimate issue all by himself.

Re:It half matters

[MillionthMonkey]

Kerry made his vietnam service the centerpiece of his qualifications. The scrutiny of his service is therefor justified.

The Swift Boat attacks were always coming, whether Kerry "made Vietnam an issue" or not. Kerry's mistake was not preparing for it sooner.

Re:It half matters

[NateTech]

Kerry doesn't run on his 20 years in the senate- which would be most relevant- because he'll get nowhere on it. His votes on defense, on taxes, on many issues were consistently the type of positions that would play very poorly with at least half of america.

And well with the other half. And GWB wouldn't survive a single term in the Senate, now would he? Where's his 20 years of service to America? Oh yeah, running companies into the ground. Great man, there.

Kerry survived 20 years in the Senate because he knew when to compromise and when to be tough.

Bush, on the other hand, is running on his past four years as president, not on being in the ANG 30 years ago.

No he's not. Did you listen to his speech? "If you elect me I will..." He's running on promises he still hasn't delivered from his first campaign -- and he's had a Republican House and Senate. Therefore he's either lying about his goals, or completely ineffective at them. Take your pick.

And let's not forget that GWB took great pains to dress up in a flight suit and stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, mocking the very job he did so poorly at 30 years ago. At best, he deserved a Dishonorable Discharge which would have tanked his first run for the Presidency before it even got started.

Re:It half matters

[dfenstrate]

Where's his 20 years of service to America? Oh yeah, running companies into the ground. Great man, there.

Actually, last I knew he was governor of Texas. And again, you have his last 4 years as President to judge wether or not you want to hire him again. He is running, incidentally, largely on the activities of his last term. Not on his ANG service.

No he's not. Did you listen to his speech? "If you elect me I will..." He's running on promises he still hasn't delivered from his first campaign -- and he's had a Republican House and Senate. Therefore he's either lying about his goals, or completely ineffective at them. Take your pick.

Hey, he's been pretty busy the last four years. Crushing two regimes, getting that trashy medicare prescription drug benefit passed, tax cuts, etc. Sure, he hasn't delivered on all his promises, but you can't deny he's done alot. Wether you like what he's done is another matter, but he's been doing something. That's more than enough for me to give him another shot at the rest that he wants to accomplish.

And let's not forget that GWB took great pains to dress up in a flight suit and stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier, mocking the very job he did so poorly at 30 years ago.

Poorly? What's your basis for this statement? Give me a link to scans of his military performance records. Moreover, one photo-op morale boosting trip to an aircraft carrier is a far cry from Kerry's "I was in vietnam" every other breath.

You can't, cause you're just making shit up.

At best, he deserved a Dishonorable Discharge which would have tanked his first run for the Presidency before it even got started.

Again, provide some proof. What I've read suggests that he fulfilled his commitments, though somewhat irregularly, it was permission from his commanders.

Moreover, Bush is not running on his military service, but has released his records. Kerry is running on his service, and has not released the records.

Re:It half matters

[dfenstrate]

Kerry's mistake was not preparing for it sooner.

Prepare? How? He's already fessed up that he was never in cambodia and his first purple heart was (unintentionally) self inflicted. There's two of the SBVT major points right there.

How can he prepare for attacks on his record that are true?

Re:It half matters

[NateTech]

Ah yes, Governor of Texas. It'll be fun when Kerry's camp decides to finally play hardball with that one. Last I checked the State was bankrupt after that, and history is repeating at the National level now. Deficits? GW's your man for those, for sure. He's real good at those. Something a true Conservative would never do.

Crushing two regimes was not something he promised to do, and I'm talking about the promises. I'm appreciative that he took Saddam out of power, since his dad rigged the Iraqi elections and put the scumbag in there in the first place, but he's killed 1000 American soldiers cleaning up after his Dad's fuck up.

One photo-op to an aircraft carrier that cost the taxpayers HOW much? Kerry served and proudly states it, even if his service isn't "good enough" for some, but Bush didn't serve with any type of distinction or honor and then blows his own horn by standing on an aircraft carrier that I paid for?

The proof of GW's irregular service was on the front page of my newspaper this morning, so I'll assume it's probably also in the original article at the top of this thread and in your local newsprint too by now.

Most of his paperwork has mysteriously disappeared, but every new document that comes out paints a worse picture.

Kerry's not "making shit up" when he said he was shot at. George is when he stands on a carrier in a flight suit though -- making up a pretty picture for you to believe in that has no basis in fact.

Bush is not running on anything but sound bites, talking points, and false promises, Kerry's running on a lifetime of service to his country and possibly an over-zealous portrayal of that service.

But even without ANY awards, he's still been shot at for his country, and shot back, and GW hasn't, and avoided it via his family priveleges. How do all the GW fans seem to miss that point?

So you quickly said, "No GW hasn't met his promises, I'm willing to give him another try" and then jumped back to the military service thing -- Kerry served, GW didn't. That's the bottom line there.

The current real world war is economic, and GW and his advisors have NO idea how to handle that battle. Ten Nobel Prize winning economists are voting for Kerry. We're fighting the War on Terror and losing our money to fund it to China.

Rattling the military sabre is exactly how the Soviet Union went bankrupt. And their problems started in Afghanistan, even! Amazing how history repeats. When the people have no jobs and no hope is when they revolt against the Government that's sending all their money to buy tanks. Seriously -- it's the same path. We can either learn from history or repeat it. There's no "glorious victory" at the end of a War on Terror, because it never ends.

Re:It half matters

[dfenstrate]

The new documents that came out this morning are already highly suspect:

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting or high-end 1st generation word processing systems.

I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively.

UPDATE: Thanks to all the readers who have written regarding this post. Several have pointed out that the Executive line of IBM typewriters did have proportionally spaced fonts, although no reader has found the font used in the memos to be a familiar one or thought that the an IBM Executive was likely to have been used by the National Guard in the early 1970's. Reader Monty Walls has also cited the IBM Selectric Composer. However, reader Eric Courtney adds this wrinkle:
The "Memo To File" of August 18, 1973 also used specialized typesetting characters not used on typewriters. These include the superscript "th" in 187th, and consistent ' (right single quote) used instead of a typewriter's generic ' (apostrophe). These are the sorts of things that typesetters did manually until the advent of
smart correction in things like Microsoft Word.
UPDATE 2: Reader John Risko adds:
I was a clerk/typist for the US Navy at the Naval Underwater Systems Center (NUSC) in Newport RI for my summer job in 1971 when I was in college. I note the following with regard to the Killian memos:

1) Tom Mortensen is absolutely correct. Variable type was used only for special printing jobs, like official pamphlets. These documents are forgeries, and not even good ones. Someone could have at least found an old pre-Selectric IBM (introduced around 1962). Actually, I believe we were using IBM Model C's at the time, which was the precursor to the Selectric.

2) I also used a Variype machine in 1971. I fooled around with it in my spare time. It was incredibly difficult to set up and use. It was also extremely hard to correct mistakes on the machine. Most small letters used two spaces. Capital letters generally used three spaces. I think letters like "i" may have used one space. Anyway, you can see that this type of machine was piloted by an expert, and it would NEVER be used for a routine memo. A Lt. Colonel would not be able to identify a Varitype machine, let alone use it.

3) US Navy paper at the time was not 8 1/2 x 11. It was 8 x 10 1/2. I believe this was the same throughout the military, but someone will have to check on that. This should show up in the Xeroxing, which should have lines running along the sides of the Xerox copy.

4) I am amused by the way "147 th Ftr.Intrcp Gp." appears in the August 1, 1972 document. It may have been written that way in non-forged documents, but as somone who worked for ComCruDesLant, I know the military liked to bunch things together. I find "147 th" suspicious looking. 147th looks better to me, but the problem with Microsoft Word is that it keeps turning the "th" tiny if it is connected to a number like 147. And finally......

5) MORE DEFINITIVE PROOF OF FORGERY: I had neglected even to look at the August 18, 1973 memo to file. This forger was a fool. This fake document actually does have the tiny "th" in "187th" and there is simply no way this could

Re:It half matters

[NateTech]

Kerry's head is up his ass and everyone knows it. There's been all sorts of terrorist attacks across the world this past week, and we need a president who will meet this shit head on. Bush already has, twice over.

Let's see - how'd he do that... by attacking the wrong country?

The terrorists are in Afghanistan and coming into our country via Visas issued by Saudi Arabia... and we're stuck in the middle of a civil holy war in Iraq?

Osama, who Bush swore three years ago to "smoke out" is nowhere to be found, but we have detainees from 44 countries locked up in a military base off-shore so we don't have to give them due-process. We're a laughingstock to the world, because we don't even follow our own rules -- "All men are created equal" unless you are Muslim and shot at someone in Iraq... in that case, you're imprisoned in an island jail away from our shores for life.

Sounds like Commander in Chief has his head up and locked about what makes the country great. It's not the military power, it's the damn Constitution you redneck hick!

Comparing Kerry's 20 year Senate voting record -- where one MUST compromise to survive for 20 years -- to Bush's 4 years as the head of the Executive Branch is an apples to oranges comparison and always has been.

If Bush had bothered to serve in a legislative position for 20 years, he'd have a similar voting record -- or he wouldn't have lasted 20 years. Instead he was Governor of Texas and was hated and ran the state bankrupt, and before that he ran various companies with friends. Badly.

He's a good old boy with not a shred of brains. C average in school. Eager to be the Big Man on Campus, but not eager to speak fluently in his own native toungue or learn diplomacy.

Kerry's "wishy-washy" voting record could be said about any long-term Senator, including Republican ones. Even McCain jumped the Party Line fence when he voted too far one way too often and needed new buddies. (And I like McCain.)

GWB is All Hat, No Cattle when it comes to a real PLAN for the economy, and the War on Terror is a nice diversion to the real War -- the economic one that we're losing.

In the shooting war, Bush looks like a hero. In the economic war, Bush is a zero, and couldn't come up with an economic plan that WORKS if it shot him in the ass and knocked him off a swiftboat. Or an aircraft carrier. Or whatever toys he likes riding around on these days while he's on VACATION every few months.

He's the epitomy of super-rich clueless trust-fund babies, and has not a clue what life is like as a worker-bee in America. The widely touted "Largest Tax Cut Ever" wouldn't even pay one month's rent for the average American.

I had a vacation once - four years ago. And a year without a job in the middle of that four. I'd say it's time for the President to work a little harder to deal with BOTH domestic and overseas issues. Anyone whining that he's "been too busy" is full of shit... he's the President of the Goddamned United States and can sail a Navy, move an Army, and DELEGATE anything domestic he REALLY wanted to get done to ANYONE in his sight. He didn't. Therefore, I assume his agenda is a lie. He never intended to do anything about the economy that would truly help it, because he and his advisors do not know how.

Everyone who says, "Bush is a known entity" is fooling themselves... this will be the SECOND TERM... he will have ZERO reason to care about public opinion this time around, and his special interests paying for him to be in office (read: pulling the strings via Cheney) will have incredible power over him this time.

Re:Compare

[Wubby]

I see it boil down very nicely into this comparison:

Throw out the medals, the pay-stubs and the contriversal stuff. What do you have left:

W - helped into guard (low score, jumped to head of line)
K - volunteered for army

W - was part-time airman stateside
K - got shot at

W - flew planes over peaceful countrysides
K - saved lives of some soldier(s) in a fire fight

Purple Hearts, conflicting reports and missing records be damned. These are undisputed facts. The rest is just spin!

All this BS about medals is hypocracy. Kerry went, Bush didn't. Kerry saved lives in a crunch, Bush got dental work. What are we trying to compare here? Maybe Kerry didn't deserve all medals he got, but he deserves more than Bush.

And a little thing I've been wondering:
Why does an NorthEastern schooled boy from Connecticut have a texas accent when no one else in his family does?

ya know... i'll disagree...

[EnderWiggnz]

"They were never questioned until the SBVTs decided that they were no good soldiers who lied and acted cowardly, but ya know, with John Kerry, 'cause he was like, totally there...in Vietnam...on the other side of the country...

actually - every single election, kerry has lead with "i'm a highly decorated vietnam vet", and every single opponent has tried to attack him on that, and ended up losing.

its like he leads with his (large) chin, and dares his opponents to sucker punch him.

Re:Compare

[DavidTC]

I know:

Kerry deserved two Purple Hearts instead of three? Somehow I'm having troubling getting upset there. There are thousands of stupidly awarded medals in the war, and thousands of non-awarded medals that should have been awarded. And purple hearts, despite what people seem to think, are not incredibly important. You can legitimately get one by spraining your ankle while running from enemy fire. It's not a frickin congressional medal of honor, people.

Kerry might have stupidly hurt himself in the war by operating a genade launcher incorrectly? Hey, you have to give him points for operating one incorrectly and managing to live. I'd probably blow myself up. Luckily for him, we're not electing him to operate a genade launcher.

Kerry used a somewhat dubious injury to escape Vietnam early, and then spoke out against it? So...he willing went into a war zone, saw it wasn't all that he was promised, and managed to get out early? You know, I can't actually condemn that, either.

I can't even condemn draft dodgers, so I certainly have no problems with people who walked in and realized this was some heavy shit and used every means at their disposal to get out. And he didn't just walk away, either, he thought the war was wrong so he did something about it. (And, I'm rather baffled at this 'war crimes' stuff. I thought everyone knew the US did some pretty horrible things during that war? Do we really want to start rehashing the fact US soldiers raped and tortured people during that war?)

OTOH, I can't really condemn Bush from escaping into the National Guard, although I can condemn him from using his family connections to not even bother to show up.

And, of course, all this is crazy, because the assaults on Kerry's military record have almost no basis in fact.

Re:Does this matter? --- BZZT wrong

[elwinc]

>> given that Kerry recently stated he STILL
>> would have voted for the war,

Actually, what Kerry said is that he still would have voted to give the president the authority to go to war. That's rather different. Especially when you put it in context with what that authority means. As Kerry has pointed out, the president can go to war without Congress's vote. As Kerry has pointed out, Clinton went to Bosnia without Congressional authority. As Kerry has explained, the purpose of the authority is to try and give the Senate some influence over the war decision.

Re:Compare

[toddhisattva]

You're living in the liberal capital of Texas, you're a musician (long-haired FM type), a game programmer, a fan of science fiction, a Buddhist, and a former BBS operator? And you support GW Bush?

It's called "thinking for myself."

I find nothing contradictory about any of this. Living in Austin, I get to examine liberals close up and personal. I know what is wrong with them, I blame it on Rousseau.

BTW, I've never had long hair because it requires maintenance and gets caught in machinery. Also, I describe myself as a fan of Tibetan Buddhism -- I am not a Buddhist because I have not taken refuge vows.

I think George W. Bush's actions in Central Asia are more likely to result in a free Tibet than whatever position Kerry is taking on Central Asia this afternoon. I am of course concerned by George W. Bush's uncle being heavily invested in China, but since Tibet will be free when Peking is free, it is much better to support an American capitalist than an anti-American communist mouthpeice like John Forbes Kerry.

There is no safer way to study the operational art than with hardcore simulation and discussion with military professionals. By learning the art as best I can, I can evaluate for myself the situations in Bactria and Babylonia, instead of relying on Duh Press. (A bug in my exostocin prevents enlisting, so I contracted to the U.S. Army radlab for four years.)

And why would anyone be surprised that a Science Fiction fan would be non-leftist? I mean, starting with (or even before) Orwell's critiques of socialism, SF has a long history of political criticism. But "Sci-Fi," that Hollywood garbage, is of course all bent over leftwards. I am not a fan of Sci-Fi movies.

Given what Ronald Reagan did for electronic communication with his bustup of AT&T and SDI programs, I'm amazed that any BBSers ended up leftist!

To say I am a supporter of George W. Bush is perhaps overstating it. I am not a fan of "faith-based" anything, I hate both country and western music, and I can say "nuclear" correctly. I am a supporter of George W. Bush in the War on Terror, because if we retreat it will invite more attacks.

In this I break with dogmatic Libertarians who are unwilling to grasp the fact that this is a new kind of war, a war without declared combatants, a war that does not fit the nation-vs-nation pattern of civilized warfare. The Libertarian Party's nonviolence doctrine, that it is immoral to initiate the use of physical force, cannot and should not be extended to nations which harbor terrorists.

Harboring terrorists IS violence. Therefore, I support George W. Bush against Michael Badnarik.

My point exactly

[Merk]

You did make the mistake that authorizing the war and using that authorization were the same thing. They're not. To claim they were the same would be the same thing as claiming that handing someone a loaded gun is the same thing as shooting someone in the head.

While you may disagree with Kerry's position (and I happen to disagree with it too), there's a vast gulf of difference between saying "Ok, you can wage war, but only as a last resort under this limited set of conditions" and saying "Open fire". I happen to mostly agree with Badnarik's position, though I wouldn't describe him as an "anti-war" candidate -- just an "anti-this-war" candidate.

Re:My point exactly

[Derek Pomery]

I doubt there are many people who are purely anti-war.
The LP holds to defensive wars with the approval of Congress.
Most Libertarians I know are fans of the Zero Aggression Principle which is a close parallel too.
No situation is clear cut, but there aren't many who try the convoluted logic that turns the latest Iraq war into a defensive action. (well, the Republicrats do, and to some extent Kerry tries the same)

Re:My point exactly

[Hub_City]

Let's put it this way: Everyone agreed, at the very least, that Saddam was hiding *something*.

The President threatened Saddam, but that threat would have been toothless unless he had the authority to back it up. Congress is in charge of that authority.

You're a lot more threatening with a stick. Kerry (and the rest of Congress) gave Bush that stick. They expected Bush to use it responsibly, and he hasn't.

Re:My point exactly

[Merk]

Right, and rather than give the inspectors time to find out what exactly Saddam was hiding, Bush decided to swing the stick.

Who knows if France and Germany would have ever agreed to attack, but their last position was "We should give the inspectors more time". It wasn't exactly an outrageous suggestion. Bush got impatient and decided that meeting a timeline he had created was more important than going in with allies, so he attacked.

Re:Compare

[MarsDefenseMinister]

You forgot one thing: your amazing personal super-powers don't include genetically enhanced joke recognition.

Yay, rush

[Merk]

Just by mentioning his name, do you know how low your credibility drops?

So you're saying that Kerry did think it was a good idea to fund the war properly? Gee, haven't the republicans been saying for weeks that Kerry didn't want to fund the war, and didn't want the soldiers to have body armour?

In August 2003, the war was in full-swing. Once the war has started I'm not at all surprised that Kerry would want to spend what it takes to keep the soldiers safe. Even a strongly anti-war person would have to be insane, stupid or cruel to vote to cut off funding once the war has started. They might argue that those funds be used to extract the troops as quickly as possible, but voting against funding them as much as necessary would mean abandoning them.

Funding a war that's already in progress is not the same as starting that war. If you think it is, well I guess you don't speak English.

Re:Yay, rush

[Remlik]

Rush didn't make the quote Kerry did, it was merely his network that allowed it to be heard, somthing CNN or MSNBC would never have the journalistic guts to do.

The point is Kerry is all over the place for and against the war depending on who he's talking to, and what he believes the popular opinion is.

"Even a strongly anti-war person would have to be insane, stupid or cruel to vote to cut off funding once the war has started."

Kerry did exactly this.

"Funding a war that's already in progress is not the same as starting that war. If you think it is, well I guess you don't speak English."

No matter what he says today Kerry voted to give the president the ability to go to war, then he voted to not support the war, but is quoted on a TV interview saying he'd spend as much as it takes to win the war. I speak and understand english fine, its what I'm hearing that has me confused.

Nice try though.

Re:Yay, rush

[Skjellifetti]

No matter what he says today Kerry voted to give the president the ability to go to war, then he voted to not support the war, but is quoted on a TV interview saying he'd spend as much as it takes to win the war.

There were two votes on funding the war. The Democratic version required that spending for the war be matched by new revenues to fund it. Kerry voted for this version. Bush threatened a veto and the Republicans voted against it. The Republican version had no provisions for revenues, only for spending. The Republican version also contained a $20 billion provision for Iraq reconstruction with no plan for how it would be spent. The $20 billion was given to Bush with no oversight provisions. It seems eminently sensible that the rich and even the middle class could give up a little of that tax cut we got in exchange for body armor for our troops rather than just pay for it with the Federal charge card. We have now spent nearly $200 billion on the Iraq fiasco. That is one of my major objections to the way in which Bush is conducting this war. War demands sacrifices from every one of us, not just those few with the guts to join the military. Of course Dick "I had other priorities at the time" Cheny will never understand this.

Oh, and just who was it who sent our troops into combat without the proper gear in the first place?

I speak and understand english fine, its what I'm hearing that has me confused.

Dude, ya gotta read more than just the headlines and listen to more than just the sound bites if you want to really understand what's going on.

No doubt

[Merk]

But that share of the responsibility is lower, isn't it? If I hand someone a loaded gun and they decide to shoot someone, I'm partially responsible for their shooting. Even if I tell them "you can only use this as a last resort and only in self-defense, and you have to convince me that using it is necessary" (which Kerry did), you're still giving them a loaded weapon, and should be held responsible. The point is that the responsibility is shared, but not shared evenly.

Re:Fair And Balanced?

[benna]

I'm not trying to argue that slashdot doesn't have a liberal slant BUT...Whether or not a claim has merit IS the point. If that didn't matter than I could just call up CNN and tell them George Bush is a member of the KKK and they'd report it. But they obviously wouldn't. They'd check it out and if they found it to have merrit then they would report it (at least thats how the theory goes).

Yeah, coz boy...

[Anonymous Coward]

60 minutes, Nightline and the morning talk shows fell all over themselves to interview the Swift Boat Vets when THEIR book released just like today's book released

Oh wait... no they DIDN'T... They didn't even talk about it until Kerry decided to defend himself against their accusations...

Unbiased my ass...

Re:Yeah, coz boy...

[Kick the Donkey]

The media is so liberal... Look at all the free advertising they give to Moveon.org by running their add over and over and over again...

No. Wait. That was the Swift Boat Verterans... My mistake. People have been screaming about this liberal media for years, I figured it must be true.

Venuzuelan Voter fraud in the 2004 election

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.iht.com/articles/534518.html

Re:Venuzuelan Voter fraud in the 2004 election

[benna]

Even so, I'd like to see more evidence. I think it probobly is a good idea to do a recount and to hand the records over to the carter center. But as of now I need more evience to believe it wasn't free and fair.

Re:Venuzuelan Voter fraud in the 2004 election

[PipianJ]

I was constantly watching the Venezuelan affair for personal reasons, and you must understand that the Carter Center and the OAS merely endorsed the initial count, and did not actually stay around to certify the actual paper count which was to take place later that Monday (the IHT article alludes to this). Furthermore, the opposition had not been allowed to be present at the official receipt counting, making it somewhat suspicious as well.

Lastly, the most suspicious activity was the refusal of the electoral council's refusal to allow any exit polls as well as refusing to do ANY on-the-spot monitored recounts even in select precincts (that would have double-checked that the machines were indeed recording the correct votes)

Here are some recent news articles claiming fraud, including a short English summary of a claim filed on possible fraud by El Universal.

More (admittedly anti-Chavez) links include Venezuela News and Views and vcrisis.com. Judge, based on this, and the news you can read elsewhere and make up your own mind.

Re:Compare

[Anonymous Coward]

Both are Americans you twit! Lameness filter slowed me down, so I'll say, you propaganda swallowing fool.

Sixty Minutes

[rlp]

So when is Sixty Minutes going to complete the paperwork to achieve 527 status?

With Dan Rather at the helm

[Anonymous Coward]

'CBS' is aptly named.

Right After You Read This!

[The Ape With No Name]

Bush by numbers: Four years of double standards

By Graydon Carter

03 September 2004

1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.

104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.

65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.

73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.

83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.

$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.

1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.

79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.

3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.

140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.

14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.

$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.

$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.

$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.

$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.

$5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling.

7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.

George Bush: Military man

1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.

$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.

600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.

0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.

0 Number of minutes that President Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, the assistant Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, the former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, Richard Perle, and the White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove the main proponents of the war in Iraq served in combat (combined).

0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.

8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.

10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper.

46 Percentage increase in sales between 2001 and 2002 of GI Joe figures (children's toys).

Ambitious warrior

2 Number of Nations that George Bush has attacked and taken over since coming into office.

130 Approximate Number of countries (out of a total of 191 reco

MOST people don't make those kinds of "mistakes"

[mabhatter654]

Fact of the matter is that most americans [better than 50%] DON'T live their teen/young adult years boozing and whoring...it's a myth perpetuated by the media "rockstars" and politicans that want to cover for their inapproperiate actions... If you don't have "moral fiber" when your young it doesn't really count when you "find" it later in life...that's why the republicans have become SO oppressive. That's why these "wise" people are passing laws at a record rate that make THEIR "youthful indiscressions" 5-10 year felonies when THEY got a break!

If somebody at 16, 18, or 21 can't control themselves what makes you foolishly think that at 50 years old, with a million dollars in the bank and a high-priced layer on speed dial they're going to be MORE responsible? Let's face it, somebody like me never, ever did drugs, drank before I was 21, or stayed out late getting in trouble with the cops... sure I made mistakes...got married too young and too late, but that was a moral choice that had to be made at 20 to stick with the girl. but I'm still with the same [first!] girl 11 years later. I got my first [only] speeding ticket at 25 for 5 over. Those are "mistakes" not felonius criminal acts! If your ANY age and still committing FELONIES you have a serious moral problem...and no business running anything.

That's an AVERAGE american...and I know 100 other people just like me! Unfortunately, the truely moral, reasonable people who should be running the country [i.e. Howard Dean types!] want nothing to do with the recent kind of backstabbing, entrapping media politics that passes for "government". The first moral choice we make is to stay the hell away from THOSE type of people because they only bring you down to their level!

The AVERAGE american is very poorly represented in our government. The average americans are far more wise than they let on...somebody could do quite well starting a new party if they could get us off the fence and back in charge of the country!!!

Want to really creep yourself out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Count up everyone in his administration with connections to the Nixon Whitehouse (Who appearently peronsally hated Kerry) and Iran-Contra.

It's like a traitor parade.

Fact Checking?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't often participate in Slashdot discussions when politics is involved; for what reasons, I'm not sure. However, I feel that you have made some factually incorrect points, sir. Whether you know this or not is not my concern, rather giving proper information is.

The swift boat stuff was all concerned actions 30+ years ago. Did Kerry tell recent lies about those actions? I don't think so -- all the fact checking I've seen supports Kerry and says the swift boat gang are liars.

In fact Kerry has lied about href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=K erry+V+device&btnG=Search+News">his service

Even though President Bush's records have come to be something of a hinderance to his re-election campaign, my research on Senator Kerry has shown that he is far more apt to take liberty with his service record to be all things to all people. Therein lies John Kerry's major flaw: He wants to be on both sides of the fence--a decorated war hero and an anti-war advocate.

Posting anonymously, because the popular view on slashdot seems to be more liberal and libetarian, and I'm a bit more of a conservative geek than that.

And that class of person decide of the outcome

[ArcticCelt]

Sadly its the same thing in many countries, a 15 percent of uninformed voter who like to swing their vote for frivolous reason are the one who decide of the future of many nations. In support of that just take a look at this graph and see how people suddenly changed their vote in reaction of political spinning.

Kerry was high then Reagan died and the republicans suddenly become the leading party, then Michael Moore came and the vote changed in favor of Kerry then came the swifboat club and Bush was leading again...

Link to pdf files of ALL KERRY'S SERVICE RECORDS

[leftie]

John Kerry has had his complete military service record downloadable in pdf files on his campaign website since the Howard Dean medical waiver (year in Aspen skiing) controversy popped up in the Democratic primaries. Republicans have been lying about this for months http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military _records.html

Investigated because of a typo!

[leftie]

The "investigation" is because on one of the records, the Silver Star is listed as being awarded with a V, which is incorrect, as there is no "V" awarded on that particular medal. The Silver Star, Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts are not in question.

Re:Investigated because of a typo!

[NateTech]

Which puts Kerry two awards and 3 Purple Hearts ahead of GWB.

Kerry's records have been downloadable for months

[leftie]

Here's the link... http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military _records.html All of John Kerry official Naval records right there where they have been since the whole Howard Dean medical waiver (year in Aspen skiing) controversy happened. Republicans don't just lie, they lie poorly.

Kerry's Naval records available for months

[leftie]

There is no such problem, and never has been. Kerry's official Naval records have been available for several months at his website. Been there since Dean had his year in Aspen skiing controversy.

Here's the link...
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry /military _records.html

More Republican lies.

Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[leftie]

Ben Barnes never claimed he was Lt. Gov. when he got Bush into the TANG. Bob Novak claimed that. Barnes was a Texas State Rep when he helped Bush get into the TANG. Barnes was elected to Lt. Gov. after getting Bush into the TANG. Barnes was Speaker of the Texas State House when he got Bush in the TANG. No... the LA Times and CNN reported that Bush and Rove and a few people Rove told them to talk to said there was nothing to the charges in 1999. Neither did any serious research. It's taken literally years of lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act filings to get copies of Bush's military records.

Re:Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[crmartin]

And he was still a representative to the UN in Geneva at the time. I doubt you remember it, but being in Europe in 1972 was being really far away.

There's also the little detail that Barnes made a sworn statement that he wasn't contacted by the Bush family.

Read all the documents. Think for yourself.

Re:Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[crmartin]

He was a member of President Johnson's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. representative to the NATO Conference in 1967, and United Nations Representative to Geneva, Switzerland, in 1968.

He was Speaker of the House... just not in 1968.

Oh, and for God's sake learn to make a link. You use an "anchor" tag. It's not hard.

Re:Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[crmartin]

The problem being that Barnes' own bio mentioned the Geneva gig only for that period.

Maybe it's like you say. Who are you going to believe, CBS or Barnes?

If Barnes, then you should also believe Barnes' own statement:"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said.

Barnes has to be lying in one of his statements. So, do you believe the one in 1999, or the one now, when Barnes is a major contributor and vice chair of Kerry's campaign in Texas?

As I keep saying, read all the sources and then think for yourself.

Re:Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[leftie]

That's not "Barnes official bio." It's a biographical blurb about Barnes for a locally produced TV show Barnes appeared on. This is not Barnes vs. CBS. It's KRLU vs. CBS. Big freakin' difference. There is also nothing in the KRLU blurb that contradicts Barnes statements. As I said, there are lots of part time government appointments that appointees do along side their "regular" jobs. For example, Arnold Schwartzenegger has been on the President Council for Physical Fitness for years and years. Does that mean that Arnold made no movies while he was appointed to that job? Does that mean that Arnold is not Governor of CA right now?

Then you think Gore should be President now

[leftie]

Exit Polls all showed Gore should have won Florida.

Re:Kerry's records have been downloadable for mont

[DAldredge]

If all the records have been released they why does he still refuse to sign FORM 180?

What about the December spot reports? (Cambodia)

What about the January '69 spot reports? (Sampan incident)

DD214 is for only 3mos 27day?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A401 10-2004Aug27.html

"The Kerry campaign has refused to release Kerry's personal Vietnam archive, including his journals and letters, saying that the senator is contractually bound to grant Brinkley exclusive access to the material. But Brinkley said this week the papers are the property of the senator and in his full control.

"I don't mind if John Kerry shows anybody anything," he said. "If he wants to let anybody in, that's his business. Go bug John Kerry, and leave me alone." The exclusivity agreement, he said, simply requires "that anybody quoting any of the material needs to cite my book."

By Ann Gerhart Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, August 28, 2004; Page C01

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips2 7.html

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

*skip*
94 pages of records unreleased?

Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

---000---

The AP pulled that report within an hour.

[leftie]

The AP ran the story. Karen Hughes asked (well, basically screamed) that the reporter double check the story. The AP reporter asked some other journalists at the event about the sounds, and the other reportes said there were mostly Oooooo with some boos. The AP reissued the story within and hour... AND YOU NEO-CONS HAVEN'T STOPPED WHINING SINCE. There were boos in the crowd. Claiming there weren't is a bald-faced lie.

Re:The AP pulled that report within an hour.

[OverlordQ]

Kinda like how Kerry does too?

Lie. Nobody can request medals for themselves.

[leftie]

This just shows just how clueless Republicans are about the military.

There is no method for an individual service member to submit requests for their own medals. Other service members must submit individuals for awards.

By the way, Kerry still has shrapnel in his thigh from one of those Purple Hearts, and Kerry did two tours, one on the USS Gridley for a year, Kerry went back to the US to train for swift boats, then Kerry went back to Vietnam for his SECOND tour.

Calhoun completely screwed up dates

[leftie]

Calhoun remembers Bush serving in the Alabama Guard when he was was still back in Texas. Calhoun gave dates and the dates were all wrong. THAT'S why Calhoun is unreliable. Here's a better record of what happened in Alabama... "George W. Bush's missing year The widow of a Bush family confidant says her husband gave the future president an Alabama Senate campaign job as a favor to his worried father. Did they see him do any National Guard service? "Good lord, no."..." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/02/allis on/index_np.html Ben Barnes help out Bush six months before he was elected as Lt. Gov because he was THE SPEAKER OF THE TEXAS HOUSE at the time. Barnes doesn't Claim he was Lt Gov. at the time. Bob Novak made that shit up.

Re:Calhoun completely screwed up dates

[crmartin]

Ben Barnes help out Bush six months before he was elected as Lt. Gov because he was THE SPEAKER OF THE TEXAS HOUSE at the time.

No, he was a UN representative:

He was a member of President Johnson's Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, U.S. representative to the NATO Conference in 1967, and United Nations Representative to Geneva, Switzerland, in 1968.

Barnes was speaker of the house, but in the 90's. I'm pretty sure that didn't help Bush in 1968 either.

In other words... GOP whining about clerk's typo

[leftie]

All Kerry's record are at the Kerry site. There's many pages of military records on many pdf files.

So, are you going to tell me that with all the millions that have been spent ranting about Kerry service record, all you got is the typo of some enlisted clerk about a "V" on an award that neither Kerry nor the Navy has never claimed existed?

Kerry and the Navy both agree that Silver Stars have never had Vs, and the poor corporal that typed Kerry's DD-214 screwed up.

Kerry's journals and letters are not official military records. You don't even know what are and aren't official records.

Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[leftie]

"...Barnes, who was House speaker when Mr. Bush entered the Guard, later became lieutenant governor...." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/09/politics /main628437.shtml

Ben Barnes WAS a Speaker of Texas State House

[leftie]

As CBS says in it's article, Ben Barnes was Speaker of the Texas State House when he helped Bush into the TANG.

No amount of spinning on your part is going to change HISTORICAL FACTS.

Obviously, if Barnes was Speaker of the Texas State House AT THE SAME TIME he was assigned other tasks by Pres. Johnson, then the other tasks were only part time positions. There are LOTS of government appointments that don't require a large time committment. Lots of the commissions, etc. only meet once a month.

CBS said Barnes was Speaker House Speaker

[leftie]

From the CBS article...

"...Barnes, who was House speaker when Mr. Bush entered the Guard, later became lieutenant governor...."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/09/politi cs /main628437.shtml

No amount of spinning on your part is going to change the historical record. Barnes was Speaker of the Texas State House when Bush was begging his Daddy's buddies for a Guard slot.

There are LOTS of appointed positions that don't require a very big time committment. Some of these commissions and boards only meet once a month.

Re:CBS said Barnes was Speaker House Speaker

[crmartin]

CBS says it's so, and Barnes' bio says something else.

I've published all the links, including the link to the Wash Post story where Barnes denies everything.

Read them. Think for yourself.

And learn to type a link for crying out loud. <a href="URL">link</a>. It's not that hard.

Missing Option

[justkarl]

Where's CowboyNeal's service records?

Re:In other words... GOP whining about clerk's typ

[DAldredge]

You flat out ignored 70% of what I posted. It isn't that hard, try rereading what I posted and understand that the goverment and his biographer both say that their is more to his military record than he has released.

Where are the records from his Christmas trip?
What about Sampan?

Why does wishing to have Kerry release his records make me a GOP supporter? I have the exact same view when it comes to the Cheny/Bush Energy task force.

Kerry, or Bush for that matter, isn't a god and doesn't deserve this blind following that he/they gets.

Mission reports aren't in personnel files.

[leftie]

Like I said, it's quite clear that you are clueless as to what is and isn't in the official personnel records of service members. The reason there are reports about missions attached to the medals awarded is because they document that particular service members reason for recieving an award. If you want the mission reports for Kerry's unit, you need to look up Kerry's unit and research what's in the archives regarding the history of the unit involved.

Re:Mission reports aren't in personnel files.

[DAldredge]

And you are clueless as to the facts.

FACT: a Form 180 will allow all his records to be released.

FACT: Kerry will not sign a Form 180.

QUESTION: If he has nothing to hide, why will he not sign the damn form?

CBS said Barnes was Texas House Speaker

[leftie]

No... you are just desperate in your attempts to spin this to Bush's advantage. There is nothing that conflicts in the CBS article and Barnes bio. CBS said Barnes was the Speaker of the Texas State House when Bush came looking for a way out of going to Vietnam. Johnson asked Barnes to do other tasks along side his work as Speaker of the Texas State House.

Also, that's not Barnes' bio.

[leftie]

That's not "Barnes official bio." It's a biographical blurb about Barnes for a locally produced TV show Barnes appeared on.

This is not Barnes vs. CBS. It's KRLU vs. CBS.

Big freakin' difference.

There is also nothing in the KRLU blurb that contradicts Barnes statements. As I said, there are lots of part time government appointments that appointees do along side their "regular" jobs.

For example, Arnold Schwartzenegger has been on the President Council for Physical Fitness for years and years. Does that mean that Arnold made no movies while he was appointed to that job? Does that mean that Arnold is not Governor of CA right now?

Re:Also, that's not Barnes' bio.

[crmartin]

As I said, read all the documents and make your own decisions.

Because neither will change on Iraq ...

[khasim]

Their past military service is what they are attempting to use to differentiate themselves.

Now if Kerry had vote against the war, that would be something to differentiate him from Bush.

This is the final run to the election. Kerry's camp has to show that Bush is a spoiled little rich boy who is afraid to risk himself in combat, but loves sending US troops to be killed in useless wars.

Bush's camp has to show that Kerry will be worse than Bush on whatever item is key to whatever group.

Kerry isn't clear on his message.

[khasim]

What he needs to say is:
"If I had the facts then that I have now, I would NOT vote to give G.W. Bush the authority to divert troops from the war on terror into a war in Iraq."

He needs to SPECIFICALLY tie this war to Bush.

This is why he joined the National Guard....

[zardinuk]

Seriously, this is crap. I don't think Bush is very proud of his National Guard service, who is trying to make less of it than it already is? It is not gonna jive with anybody. I don't think anybody is going to vote for George Bush because he served admirably in the National Guard. Come on now.

I don't understand you people who are against the war, like you think you're doing these army brats a favor. 1000 deaths? I almost joined the army simply because I wanted to drive around in a tank and blow stuff up, maybe get in a few heated shootouts, and if the odds were 1/150 that I would die, well I think I would have taken those bets. Girly men need not apply, so quit worrying.

In case you are wondering, I got a good tech job right after high school that was a better career choice than blowing stuff up for a living.

Why is that important to you?

[khasim]

Is there something you believe is being covered up by him not signing that form?

No, don't go back over "all his records will be released". Explain WHY that is important to you.

I'm all for complete transparency, but it sounds like you have found ONE THING that Kerry hasn't done yet and you're trying to portray it as something that is somehow important.

Explain WHAT you believe that you will find and WHY you believe it is there.

"QUESTION: If he has nothing to hide, why will he not sign the damn form?"

No, it doesn't work like that. YOU have to explain WHAT you believe you'll find and WHY you believe it.

Here's a quick example:
Bush's military records.

WHAT: A lapse in service and a skipped physical and a lack of disciplinary action for both.

WHY: Several reports by people saying that they did not see him where he claimed to have been and to clarify why he lost his flight status.

There, simple.

Re:Why is that important to you?

[DAldredge]

When the Kerry camp says that all records have been released then refuse to sign the from to prove that all records have been released then the safests thing to do is to conclude that something is being covered up.

Again, you've left out the WHAT and the WHY.

[khasim]

"When the Kerry camp says that all records have been released then refuse to sign the from to prove that all records have been released then the safests thing to do is to conclude that something is being covered up."

No, that is not the "safests thing". That is called a "conspiracy theory". That is favoured by "conspiracy nuts".

Again, is there some record that you believe should be available that is not? Which record and why do you believe it exists?
-or-
Do you believe some incident is being covered up? What incident and why do you believe so?

Otherwise, you are a conspiracy nut who is ranting about an item that only holds significance in your delusional conspiracy fantasy.

Re:Again, you've left out the WHAT and the WHY.

[DAldredge]

Yes, something is being covered up.

What about the December spot reports? (Cambodia)

What about the January '69 spot reports? (Sampan incident)

DD214 is for only 3mos 27day?

And again, you've left out the WHAT and the WHY.

[khasim]

No, spot reports are not part of his military record.

Care to try again?

Re:And again, you've left out the WHAT and the WHY

[DAldredge]

I want them because he is running for President and they will shed some light on a self confesed war criminal.

You've left out the WHAT and the WHY. (III)

[khasim]

"I want them because he is running for President and they will shed some light on a self confesed war criminal."

Again, you are UNABLE to specify WHAT you are looking for or WHY you believe it is there.

You are a conspiracy nut with a single hot button.

Re:You've left out the WHAT and the WHY. (III)

[DAldredge]

I just want to know. It's not that hard to understand.

Or, If I have to spell it out. I want to make sure that the person with Release Authority isn't hidding anything in his military background.

You've left out the WHAT and the WHY. (IV)

[khasim]

"I just want to know. It's not that hard to understand."

Been over that. Same question: WHY do you want to know? (answer: you're a conspiracy nut)

"Or, If I have to spell it out. I want to make sure that the person with Release Authority isn't hidding anything in his military background."

Been over that. WHAT do you think you'll find? (answer: you're a conspiracy nut)

Re:Link to pdf files of ALL KERRY'S SERVICE RECORD

[Remlik]

Wrong, try again.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/ 20 /171506.shtml

So ridiculous it would not deserve an answer.

[jotaeleemeese]

But, I could not let this one go, sorry:

"I say every one of those 1,000 soldiers who volunteered to give their lives are heroes. It's because of them that we are fighting terrorists in Baghdad and not Manhattan."

I just would like to remind you that there were no "terrorists" as you call them in Baghdad previous to the illegal invasion of the US.

And the idea that you may one day be fighting terrorists in Manhattan (implying that the fight would be similar to what is being experinced in Iraq) is just plain ridiculous.

What a pity that you are fighting terrorism in Iraq, a state that did not sponsor it in general terms.

Re:Link to pdf files of ALL KERRY'S SERVICE RECORD

[Bombcar]

Bush's records for 4.5~5 years of service total over 300 pages. Are there 300 pages of documents on that site? Why haven't all of them been released?

Why hasn't Kerry signed form 180 if everything is already released?

This is old crap dug up ....

[maduro55]

in an effort by both factions to discredit the other. I don't find it relavant to today. If I'm not mistaken, people change with time. There are many, more important issues to focus on besides this crap. Besides the only service record I really give a rats ass about is mine.