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

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...

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."