New Bush Guard Records Released

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.)"

Comments

True Lies

[daveschroeder]

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.)

Re:True Lies

[ConceptJunkie]

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".

Re:True Lies

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Hoax?

[squarefish]

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.

Re:Truth Matters

[madro]

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

[crotherm]

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.