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

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

[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: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: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.