New Bush Guard Records Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Bush Guard Records Released

Posted by michael on Thursday September 9, 2004 @04:23AM from the fighting-the-last-war dept.

rwiedower writes "Over the past 24 hours, several new stories have emerged surrounding President Bush's service in the National Guard. Memos from his commanding officer seem to indicate he was unhappy with Bush's desire to leave Texas, and that he felt Bush was going 'over his head' to get out of service. In true slashdot/military/government fashion, Killian even titled one memo 'CYA'. (The memos, in pdf format, are available here.)"

12 of 405 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

True Lies by daveschroeder · 2004-09-09 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bush LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
Kerry LIED about some things related to his service some 30 years ago.
BOTH were honorably discharged from the military.
Bush has said Kerry's service was "honorable". Both "sides" have gone at one another with 527 ads. Persons from BOTH campaigns have been proven to have ties with 527s in some way or another. Texans for Truth is now doing the EXACT same thing Swiftboat Veterans for Truth did. Neither side is better or worse here; sorry to anyone who thinks their "side" is.
What I want to know is:
How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
And before you answer about things like "character" or truthfulness, in defense of either side, be careful, as both side has lied plenty. (Yes, [insert Bush or Kerry here]-supporters, he's lied a LOT about things related to his service, both during and after.)
1. Re:True Lies by ConceptJunkie · 2004-09-09 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How does someone's experience as a junior officer over three decades ago have any bearing on their ability to be President of the United States?
  
  It doesn't. None of the Democrats, including Kerry, seemed to have a problem with Bill Clinton who dodged the draft and protested against the U.S. while overseas. This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
  
  The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience. OK, a year ago it was good to remind us you served honorably under fire. That counts for something in my book, but what has he done recently?!
  
  The irony is that he spends an order of magnitude more time talking about 4 months from before half the electorate was born than his past 20 years in the Senate.
  
  You might not agree with Bush, but at least he's running on his record. Kerry doesn't want people to know who he really is, because most people don't want someone like him. Like I've said many times before, this is a referendum on Bush... Kerry is irrelevant, and he's run his campaign like he is.
  
  Even if Kerry wins, I bet far more people are voting "for Bush" than people who will be voting "for Kerry" as opposed to "against Bush".
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
2. Re:True Lies by daveschroeder · 2004-09-09 05:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is a troll, but I'll address it.
  
  First of all, "30,000"? You're only off by a factor of 2 or 3. Even iraqbodycount.net, which is sympathetic to your position, estimates Iraqi civilian deaths at 11793 to 13802.
  
  Second, and to rehash some things I've said elsewhere, sanctions against Iraq for 12 years did nothing but kill approximately 50,000 Iraqis needlessly each year, according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other estimates.
  
  So, what of those 600,000-some dead Iraqi people under sanctions? That approximately 50,000 a year, the number we were always bombarded with during the tired "no blood for oil" protest of the 90s?
  
  Well, here's some numbers for you:
  
  Since March of 2003, *including* the 10000-15000 Iraqis US and coalition forces are estimated to have killed during the invasion, there has actually been a NET PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, on the order of the thousands. A statistically significant PRESERVATION of Iraqi lives, over the previous death estimates of "50,000/year" directly due to sanctions, all from the relatively minimal infrastructure and services improvements made by coalition forces since March 2003. That's how little Saddam cared for his own people, without regard to sanctions. No matter your position on the Iraq war, our direct action has saved, and will continue to save, THOUSANDS of lives of innocent Iraqis. Remember: the only alternative course of action was continuing sanctions. Even the radical idea of lifting sanctions wouldn't have changed Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad, leaving over 50% of the population to suffer and fend for itself, not to mention that France, Germany, and Russia would never have allowed the lifting of sanctions, short of military action (which we took). Think about that: exclusively because of US action, statistically, thousands of Iraqis have lived, who otherwise wouldn't have. Countless thousands of others will enjoy this same future, to say nothing of access to basic amenities of life previously not available to rural areas.
  
  Want to follow the money?
  
  Ok, let's follow it.
  
  During sanctions, tens of billions of dollars flowed into, in this order, France, Russia, and Germany for UNOFP contracts administration. TENS OF BILLIONS. Guess when that flow of money stopped? When the US and coalition countries initiated action in March 2003. Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off...? Thanks to criminal corruption within the UNOFP itself, we may never know the true amount of money that flowed.
  
  So, why not Saudi Arabia? Because Saudi Arabia is an official ally. Saudi Arabia already provides us with needed capabilities in the region, and is critical at this early phase of change in the mideast. Saudi Arabia will be one of the first to go when our support wanes and its royalty is overthrown. By that time, hopefully strong Western-friendly official governments will be present in more nations in the locale which will influence the outcome in the lands of Arabia.
  
  None of what you, or I, say, of course, changes the fact that the people of Iraq are now indeed liberated, even in the face of radicals and insurgents within the country who thirst for control.
3. Re:True Lies by commodoresloat · 2004-09-09 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This wasn't a problem compared to Bush 41 and Dole, who accomplished significantly more than Kerry in the military.
  Such as what? Kerry has three purple hearts, as well as a Bronze Star and a Silver Star. He did two full tours of duty. I don't know anything about Bush 41's awards, if any, but Bob Dole has admitted that his injuries were self-inflicted. In any case, do you even know what a purple heart is? Have you met any vets decorated with the purple heart? This is not an award you compete for, or a recognition that you apply for; this is not a merit badge in the boy scouts. It is given to recognize the recipient was wounded in battle. Questioning the circumstances of someone's purple heart is ridiculous; the person never applied for it and never asked for it. The real problem the Swift Boat people and their ilk have with Kerry is not about his bravery under fire; it is about his bravery after he returned home, when he had the courage to publicly denounce the war itself. Some soldiers took that personally, which is too bad, but looking at things over 30 years later, we should be able to see pretty clearly that his beef was with the government that got us into the war, not with the soldiers who fought in it ("bravely" or not).
  The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience. OK, a year ago it was good to remind us you served honorably under fire. That counts for something in my book, but what has he done recently?!
  Ummm, in case you didn't notice, Kerry was not hyping his Vietnam experience much at all until the Swift Boat Veterans came along and started attacking him on it! I personally agree that what happened 30 years ago is a poor basis on which to choose a president -- especially since his opponent has sent over 1,000 American soldiers to their deaths in Iraq with no end in sight. That should be the real issue in 2004, and it is the Republicans who have diverted the issue to what happened during Vietnam. In which case, Bush's sorry record of dodging service -- while never showing the kind of courage Kerry showed both during and after his service in the war -- becomes a legitimate issue to discuss in the campaign. Sorry, Bush, but while you were bragging every day about how much you drank the night before, Kerry was actually taking fire in Vietnam, and later taking fire in front of the US Congress for opposing US involvement in that war. I much prefer a leader who has thought seriously about these issues from either side than one who was just getting wasted the whole time.
  I don't particularly like how Kerry is running either -- I wish he would come out more clearly against Bush's policies in Iraq, on terrorism, on the economy, etc. He should be saying what everyone studying the issue honestly has seen -- that Bush's war in Iraq has been a disaster in terms of the war on terrorism. Unfortunately, he's letting Bush get away with murder in terms of pretending the two wars are one and the same. I want to vote for Kerry, I really do, but I think you're right -- I will be on the list of people voting "against Bush" instead, and that is the Kerry campaign's fault. But I don't think you can pin the Vietnam distraction on him.
4. Re:True Lies by Plankt0n · 2004-09-09 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The slobs at Abu Gharib represent all Americans just as the 19 scumbags on the 3 planes in September 11, 2001 represent all Muslims.
  
  It happened. The WHOLE NATION was shocked and embarrassed. WE APOLOGIZED!! I am still waiting to hear a Muslim condemnation of 9/11/01.
  
  Get over Abu Gharib.
5. Re:True Lies by coaxial · 2004-09-09 14:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You might not agree with Bush, but at least he's running on his record.
  
  Really? What I heard at the convention was:
  
  "9/11! 9/11! 9/11!" and "Ignoring what happened over the previous 4 years, here's a bunch of things I'll do when I become President!". Now Bush-Cheney are running on "Vote for us or die.".
  
  This is because they CAN'T run on their record. Proverty is up. Jobs are down. The deficit is record highs. Iraq is a mess. None of these is a winner.
  
  Like I've said many times before, this is a referendum on Bush... Kerry is irrelevant, and he's run his campaign like he is.
  
  You're right. The election is a referendum on Bush, and Bush is weak across the board, and Kerry needs to execute, but he hasn't yet. Hopefully soon. (I think that's the real reason the Democrats have so many 527s. The grassroots are fed up with the incompetence of the DLC.)
They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? by mc6809e · 2004-09-09 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Look at the part of the memo that reads "the 187th group". Notice anything about the "th"?

Typewriters don't automagically superscript such things like Word does.

These are obvious forgeries done with Word and run through a copier 50 times to make them look old.

The scary part is how the press did nothing to verify the authenticity of these documents. You'd think they'd check their sources.
Re:Hoax? by squarefish · 2004-09-09 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

RTFA
from the article:
Anchorman Dan Rather reported that the White House did not dispute the authenticity of the documents and said the network had used document authorities to verify their authenticity.

--
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Re:Truth Matters by madro · 2004-09-09 04:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because voters need to weigh the amount of lying done by both sides. To say both sides lie, and then imply equivalency between the two sides, is disingenuous.

There are lies that hide assumptions or omit extenuating circumstances. Then there are lies that are directly contradicted by documented evidence. They're not the same.
Re:The Documents might be forgeries by crotherm · 2004-09-09 05:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

FUD

Rule number one. Cast doubt on the veracity of the documents.

Have some far right site start it. Next the Rush's of the world will start to quote the site as if the site was reporting facts. After that, Fox will pick it up and before you know it, the whole world will think it is fake. And if it turns out to be true, never admit that your were wrong. Instead move on to another attack point.

Politics these days are full of depraved individuals.

--
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Re:Facts on Bush's Service by Heisenbug · 2004-09-09 05:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Remember, President Bush has asked all the 527s to stop the mudslinging, including the SBVFT"

As far as I've seen, though, he has evaded requests (by John McCain, for example) to condemn their tactics. "Will you condemn those ads?" really breaks down into two questions:

1) "Do you believe 527s should be allowed to run political ads without limits on funding?"

and

2) "Do you believe that any group, whatever the legal definition, should be challenging John Kerry's military record?"

As far as I've seen, Bush has repeatedly been asked the second question, and responded with an answer to the first. If he won't answer the second part, any statements he makes about respecting Kerry's service don't really impress me much.
One more try by daveschroeder · 2004-09-09 07:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

He LIED, specifically, about whether or not he threw away his medals/ribbons.

I do not know WHICH is the lie, because he has said, alternatively, that he has NOT thrown away any; that he has thrown them ALL away; that he has thrown SOME away; or that he threw none of his OWN, but some of another veteran at that veteran's request.

I, personally, do not know WHICH is the lie, because I physically, myself, do not know whether or not Kerry did actually throw away all, some, or none of his own medals. However, HE HIMSELF has said he has thrown away all, some, or none of his own ribbons and/or medals.

ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS A LIE, and I'm not sure why you can't understand that. There is NO WAY for me to tell you WHICH is a lie, because I wasn't physically there. But when you have the following two scenarios, as presented by KERRY HIMSELF:

Kerry DID throw away his medals/ribbons

Kerry DID NOT throw away his medals/ribbons

ONE OF THEM IS A LIE, period, and you cannot refute that. What's worse is not even the lie itself or the subject, but how many times he's changed his story, and the degree of creativity to which he has done so, for this one utterly insignificant event.

I literally cannot believe I just had to explain that.

Further, please note that I DO NOT CARE whether or not Kerry threw all, some, or none of his medals and/or ribbons away over three decades ago. Whether he did or not would not affect my own personal voting decision. What DOES concern me is that he has CLEARLY lied about it, and several times at that. Just because you don't know WHICH is the lie doesn't make them all the truth.