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?

[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.

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

[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).