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...

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]

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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

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....

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

[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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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....

[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.

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?

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.

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....

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.

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.

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.

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: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.

[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: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?

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.

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: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.