Bush's National Guard Service - FULL story

My personal belief regarding the matter of both the military service of the President and John Kerry is that it was 30 years ago, making it a non-issue for me. Maybe Kerry's thoughts about the war after so many years is different. Maybe President Bush would do things differently today than he did way back when. Men grow and change.

What matters to me in this election is what they stand for today, not 30 years ago and not what they did 30 years ago. What's ahead of us? - not behind us.

GEORGE W. BUSH 2004

 

MadMan's post sheds some good light on the Bush Guard duty issue. However, I tend to agree with you in principle here about 'what happened 30 years ago'. However, the part that DIDN'T happen 30 years ago... the part we can look to now... does matter - that is the way the candidates deal with their past mistakes.

Kerry has lied and tried to cover up his past indiscretions. Bush has said "yes, I made mistakes, I put them in the past and changed". Kerry's behavior today regarding his past only serves to prove that he is still the same as he was 30 years ago - lying on official reports to cover up his mistakes is the same as him lying about his past to cover it up.

 

Left to the policies of either Bush or Kerry, what's ahead of us is:

Expansion of the federal government in scope and expense;

Further federalization of education;

Status quo on abortion, with every day the approximate equivalent of 9/11;

Wars launched on faulty pretenses;

Government policies further encouraging the dismantling of manufacturing, causing further loss of jobs, and increased wealth for the politically connected;

Further advances of the homosexual agenda.

Ain't ya proud?

 

I am sick of hearing from the Texas National Guard Against Bush and these Swift Boat Veterans against Kerry. Both of these groups are distractions from the real issues and the Vietnam War has been over with for 30 years while there is a War going on now with 1000 Americans dead that should be more the center of attention rather than...Bush didn't show up for duty in 1971....OR ....Kerry's purple geart came from blowing up rice... Let's focus on some of the issues that Pa Jim mentioned!

 

That might not look good for "The Party".

 

[/qb]
Actually, I do agree with Kiffin and Pennsylvania Jim that there are real issues that are more important.

"There is a War going on now with 1000 Americans dead that should be more the center of attention"

And healthcare costs are still rising.

 

The documents are forgeries. I believe that someone is in some serious trouble for this blunder (CBS, Boston Globe, Kerry Supporters, or Kerry himself). It might get interesting, assuming the national media has the guts to pursue the story. Here is the link:


Forged Documents

 

Oy!

 

Interestingly, the Dallas Morning News (which by the way endorsed Bush last time around) reports that:
"A Bush spokesman did not deny the authenticity of the documents, but dismissed the new information as 'dirty politics'."

And former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, who admitted years ago that he had done a political favor for young George W. Bush by pulling strings to get him moved ahead of more qualified people for a safe guard slot, has reconfirmed that fact, and has expressed his regret for doing it.

Sounds like more desperation from the sleaze machine. The convention bounce is evaporating (Rasmussen has Bush's lead down to less than one point) and there's more bad news on the horizon.

Bush's own GAO reports that he has virtually no chance of cutting the deficit until he raises taxes or cuts spending. In fact, the deficit will shoot to new record levels if something isn't done soon. And the office also is recommending that one of Bush's senior staffers have his pay cut off, for trying to keep a WH statistician from telling the truth to GOP congressmen about the cost of Bush's new Prescription Drug boondoggle.

And then someone pointed out that Zell Miller's rug-chewing rant against Kerry was plagarized from an internet hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

Turns out that while he was frothing about Kerry trying to kill the Apache helicopter, it was really none other than...

Dick Cheney. Here's Dick on the Apache (for which Zell ferociously and falsely attacked Kerry for not supporting):

"The Army, as I indicated in my earlier testimony, recommended to me that we keep a robust Apache helicopter program going forward. AH-64 . . . forced the Army to make choices. I said, "You can't have all three. We don't have the money for all three." So I recommended that we cancel the AH-64 program two years out. That would save $1.6 billion in procurement and $200 million in spares over the next five years."

(Note that this testimony took place over six years before Senator Kerry supposedly voted to "kill" the AH-64.) "

Here we go again.

Not that it really matters. Even if Bush doesn't stop the slide, Kerry is unlikely to be much but a slight improvement.

Maybe it's time to think about someone who isn't tied up in this nonsense.

Peroutka.

 

Philip Bouffard seems to be a genuine expert and the part about it being a "proportional font" may be valid. But it's too soon to tell yet, as Dr. Bouffard said, he was looking at a bad copy of a copy of a copy.

Well, we'll see....

 

So? What do you think it would profit Bush to argue with the left wing media? As the old saying goes, it doesn't pay to pick a fight with people that buy ink by the barrel. They influence the opinions of alot more people on a daily basis than Bush can within his campaign spending limitations.

Does the media have an agenda? Well let's see... why haven't they demanded that Kerry sign a Form 180 like Bush did? Bush never made an issue of his service yet they badgered him until he signed the full release. Kerry on the other hand has not suffered the same degree of scrutiny by any stretch.

In fact, the "mainstream" media didn't even cover the SwiftBoat accusations... they covered the Kerry response to them. I have yet to see one report from AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, etc that actually deals with what Kerry has said vs the truth about his service in a factual, critical way. They have simply reported it as a dispute between Kerry and the SwiftVets and have even played mouthpiece for Kerry in questioning the character of his accusers- Often reporting his press releases as news or employing campaign/DNC talking point language. They can say they are covering the story all the while ignoring credible information that indicates Kerry has lied and exaggerated about his record.

For instance, he claimed the Silver Star with "V"... when the Navy has never awarded that medal. He claimed to be in command of the Boston Whaler the night he received his first "purple heart injury" when he didn't. They have yet to cover the FACT that the actual commander that night refused to put Kerry in for a Purple Heart as did the next level commander because they had not received enemy fire that night and Kerry's injury was so minor.

The only reason this is an issue or should be an issue is that Kerry made it central to his fitness to be commander-in-chief.

Yeah... that's credible. He is a signficant Kerry donor and operative. Barnes also stated that he helped Bush as Lt. Governor when in fact Bush went into the Guard the year before Barnes took that office.

It certainly does.

 

Barbarian observes:
Interestingly, the Dallas Morning News (which by the way endorsed Bush last time around) reports that:
"A Bush spokesman did not deny the authenticity of the documents, but dismissed the new information as 'dirty politics'."

The Dallas Morning News generally endorses Republicans. Hardly "left wing media."

They are at least informally on his side. But they can't ignore stories like this one.

Can't agree with that. As you know, he's been the target of all sorts of negative stories. Granted, as the truth comes out, Navy records have shown that most of them are lies, but they still got press.

The papers where I lived sure did. Of course, when the truth came out, they reported that, too.
What did you expect would happen?

Someone's had a little fun with your confidence in them. Go to Kerry's website. See what he's actually promoting about himself. His military record has always been a minor part of it.

Barbarian observes:
And former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes, who admitted years ago that he had done a political favor for young George W. Bush by pulling strings to get him moved ahead of more qualified people for a safe guard slot, has reconfirmed that fact, and has expressed his regret for doing it.

Yep, it is. It's credible, because he made the admission years ago, in a lawsuit that had nothing to do with Bush's political career, before any of this was an issue.

Barbarian on the Bush campaign's attempt minimize the damage by attacking Kerry:
Sounds like more desperation from the sleaze machine.

We can agree on that, at least.

 

You really want to argue that Wayne Slater and another columnist whose name escapes me at the moment are pro-Republican?

Barnes recent partisan retreads have recently been discredited again by published reports. I'll have to find where I read them. Forgive me.

I concur that this is all a bunch of junk. If Peroutka were leading this race, someone would be sniping at him. The "politics of personal destruction" or "Bloodsport", whichever you prefer, has become the standard for today's politics. And we eat it up

 

Shew.. ain't that the truth, Bro Tom. Getting tired of it. Wears me out. And it's not just the politians doing it, I'd agree.

 

The Dallas Morning News generally endorses Republicans. Hardly "left wing media."</font>[/QUOTE] Are you sure it wasn't an AP story?

Can't agree with that. As you know, he's been the target of all sorts of negative stories. Granted, as the truth comes out, Navy records have shown that most of them are lies, but they still got press.</font>[/QUOTE] Nope. The records that Kerry has selectively released have been the easiest for him to spin... even though many of the commanders and people with firsthand knowledge of the events say that they are not true and probably were written by Kerry himself.

The papers where I lived sure did. Of course, when the truth came out, they reported that, too.
What did you expect would happen?</font>[/QUOTE] I would expect them to write objectively without 75%+ of their article being dedicated to the Kerry Campaign's response to the charges.

Why won't the press demand that Kerry sign the Form 180? Why won't they demand to talk to Kerry's "band of brothers" without handlers around to keep them from being aggressively interviewed. Why since Kerry's biographer refuted the claim that his diaries were closed except to Brinkley himself is the press not demanding to see those diaries?

Kerry got out of Vietnam on the 3 Purple Heart rule. Two of those injuries appear to be minor and one was probably accidentally self-inflicted. The commanders over Kerry when this event occurred have said they never signed a request for this Purple Heart. So while Kerry's crowd runs around accusing Bush of using political ties to avoid Vietnam, Kerry used to questionable if not fraudalent Purple Hearts to leave Vietnam after only 4 months.

Someone's had a little fun with your confidence in them. Go to Kerry's website. See what he's actually promoting about himself. His military record has always been a minor part of it.</font>[/QUOTE] Oh. That must be why it featured so prominently at the DNC and why he loves to be surrounded by his "band of brothers". Maybe that had something to do with his book... "My Time in the Senate..." uh, no "Tour of Duty".

 

Oh Galatian... by the way. You were always a big Clinton apologist... in fact, didn't you defend his draft evasion?

Strings might have been pulled for Bush as they were for many other people from "connected" families. At worst, that's an indictment against someone who wanted to help him... there is no indication that GWB solicited such help.

 

I called him a liar. You seem to have an odd idea of "apologist." Granted, he did a lot of good things for the economy, and to restore American influence in the world, but he's a mess morally.

I called it evasion. He found a way to avoid serving in Vietnam. So did Bush. Neither one of them had the moral fiber to put themselves in harm's way for their country, as Kerry did.

Not "might have been." The guy who did it, admitted it. And he did it long before there was any political reason to do so.

Oh, heavens no. Bush was probably outraged when he discovered a family friend arranged for him to get to the head of the line against more qualified applicants. WFTH-I