Slashdot Mirror
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).
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...
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....
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
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.
God spoke to me.
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."
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?
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.
=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
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 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.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
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..
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?
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
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?
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
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.