New Bush Guard Records Released 405
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.)"
True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [texansfortruth.com] is now doing the EXACT same thing Swiftboat Veterans for Truth [swiftvets.com] 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.)
why can't we worry about something.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm curious what Kerry lied about...
Truth Matters (Score:1, Insightful)
--Mike--
US, US, uber alles
uber alles in der Welt.... o/~
They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Interesting theory... (Score:1, Insightful)
Call me if anyone reputible ever looks into it.
Re:Hoax? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Truth Matters (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
He really never mentioned it until the SBFT fellows came out and started trying to defame him. He had to fight back, and one of the tactics is the "repeat" meme.
It also stands to say that Clinton was elected during the first real peacetime since World War 2. (I'm not sure if a war on terror is any more winnable than a war on drugs, but that's besides the point.)
But if we weren't talking about this, what would we be talking about - issues? Bush's flip flops?
Re:True Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Facts on Bush's Service (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:True Lies (Score:2, Insightful)
No, he's not running on his record, he's running on an anti-Kerry record. His record over the past four years is not something he wants to discuss.
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".
I think you're dead-on right on this point. I'm one of those voting against Bush. I'd vote for any of the candidates from the Democratic primary over Bush.
I still lament the fact that Bush beat McCain in the 2000 primary, I think McCain would have been a better president than either Gore or, obviously, Bush.
Re:They had superscripting typwriters in 1973? (Score:1, Insightful)
what the fuck are the supposed to check? the documents were:
1) released by the navy from an FOIA request
2) simulataneously released by the WHITE HOUSE!
who the hell do you think that you're fooling? W was an AWOL coked up fratboy who had daddy puill strings.
the man ducked his duty, ended up in a champagne squadron, and then didnt have the decency to show up.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Know why I don't have a problem with either Clinton or Kerry? Because they don't freaking lie about their service records, that's why. Clinton was open and honest about what he did during the Vietnam War. He didn't lie, dissemble, or attack his accusers like Bush Corp.
Since I'll assume your response, if any, will be "Yeah he did!" I'll go ahead and ask you for some sources for that. And cynicism is not a source.
The problem is that Kerry has become almost monomaniacal in hyping his Vietnam experience.
Hyping? Hyping? He should be *rewarded* for his service. You fascist fucktard, he served his country -- well -- and all the Republicans can do is fall over themselves to smear that service for political gain. Pathetic and dispicable. Here's hoping you rot in hell, partner.
Perhaps you have a problem with Kerry's service because it makes Bush look so bad in comparison? "But Kerry shot himself in the leg! He's just doing it for political gain! Bush is good! Bush is great!" You know, morality is a good thing. Try it on for size some time, see how it fits. Exagerration and lying aren't justified, no matter what the cause.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be the 'echo chamber' talking about it. Kerry keeps trying to steer things back to modern issues, like health care, jobs, and our 1,000/1 young men to Saddam 'victory ratio'.
Re:Facts on Bush's Service (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not so much. They made some... (Score:3, Insightful)
Says who? When you realize that lowercase 'L' was used for the digit 1 on most typewriters and that the top row was longer than the standard 101-key keyboard we're used to, and the symbol set was different [cents key, for example]... So, find one of these typewriters, take a photo of its keyboard, put it on the net. I googled about for a good photo of an Executive typewriter but all I could find were low-quality scans.
The point of having a proportionally-spacing typewriter was that you could add things like a "th" superscript key and make it look good [not squished] in order to produce camera-ready copy... or to be a status symbol ["Executive"] for muckety-mucks such as unit commanders.
The White House says they're authentic. Why do you resist?
One more try (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why you are so angry at me, besides the fact that you're angry that I pointed out something true. It's people like you that make politics intolerable. All I did was point out that Kerry's campaign is deeply flawed. I think he deserves credit for his military experience and I said so, but you were too busy trying to come up with names to call me to notice.
You are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with political discussion today. You react with obscene insults, including criticizing me for things I didn't even say. In fact, you spend most of your reply arguing with what you think I would say, even though it contradicts what I did say. You live in a very sad little world, and it's a shame you have to take out your delusions on others.
Futhermore, to associate yourself with Air America is an insult to them. I can't imagine anyone who would want to be associated with this kind of pointless name-calling and complete lack of any ability to actually discuss an issue.
If this is what passes for debate on
Re:I don't need another example, but okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
His poker chip example was excellent at showing that you cannot give differing answers to the same black or white questions without one of the answers being a lie. This is something you are not processing.
Process this Khasim - when Kerry has been asked "Did you throw away your medals?" he has given at least 4 differing answers to the question that could not be true if any of the others are true - that means that at least three of the responses are lies.
So what did he lie about? He lied about throwing away his medals. Did he throw them away or not - we will likely never know because of his choice to not be completely factual about this important moment for him.
Your original post I replied to stated:
"Since you are unable to clearly specify WHAT LIE HE TOLD,"
So I took the time to explain for you "WHAT LIE HE TOLD." He lied about the medals being thrown.
You continued with your claims of those in disagreement with your views are only capable of repeating a MANTRA:
"...you cannot provide any FACTS for what you believe."
Well, I provided the facts several times - either he told the truth in all four differing responses or he lied in three, since none of the responses can exist without making the other three false - he lied. This is called a Fact, sorry if you don't like its existance, but it is a Fact, not a point of discussion.
As for me not being able to process the DISCUSSION, I directly responded to YOUR comment - I pointed out exactly where the lie is - something you claim the Parent poster could not do even though he clearly had, and provided factual proof of its existance - logic dictates that two differing responses to the question could not both be true because they conflict with each other.
There is nothing to debate here, it has nothing to do with who I (or you for that matter) support in the election (trust me I won't be voting for Bush, Nader, or Kerry,) it has nothing to do with discussion, it is a statement of FACTS. Something you claimed were not being provided. I have processed the information for you, and did not repeat a mantra - rather I stated the logical fact that a yes and no answer to the this question cannot coexist meaning one of those answers is a lie. You are the one repeating a mantra and refusing to process the information being handed out freely.
Re:True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [salon.com]. 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 [salon.com], 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.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:True Lies (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, enough to be the defining attitude of an entire culture for the next 20 years or so at least- if not longer. And BTW- they also represented their entire corrupt chain of command- right up to the slobs in the White House.
It happened. The WHOLE NATION was shocked and embarrassed. WE APOLOGIZED!! I am still waiting to hear a Muslim condemnation of 9/11/01.
Then you haven't been listening- every moderate Muslim cleric in the world has given at least one sermon on this (many more than one), and every single one of them denied the interpretation of Jihad as Terrorism. Doesn't matter one whit if you were directly, or even indirectly, affected. Forgiveness is often harder than appology, especially for a culture that has a memory as long as the Arabs.
Get over Abu Gharib.
Get in line- these people haven't gotten over Ghengis Kahn's conquest of their area yet. It was a mistake, sure. Possibly even an understandible one given the culture of the Bush Administration and their utter lack of respect for individual rights. But to expect THAT PARTICULAR CULTURE to get over anything that happened LESS THAN A YEAR AGO when they still haven't gotten over stuff that happened SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, is unrealistic at best. With Abu Gharib, the Bush Administration proved to the Arabic World that US Soldiers are significantly more vicious and barbaric (from the rules of their civilization anyway) than al Qaida- and in fact, more terrifying, because the US Soldiers leave you alive to live with your shame afterwards. At least al Qaida has the decency to kill you. Step out of your skin, out of your cultural biases for a second and look at this from THEIR point of view, and then you'll see why this one incident has cost us the war on terror.
Re:True Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, the rate of violent crime has skyrocketted, and is not included in any body count (this tends also to be the primary concern among Iraqis in polls).
Lastly, your number of casualties is right-out, since you're looking only at reported-civilian casualties. There are also unreported civilian casualties (estimated to be the case for the majority of the casualties in Sadr City, for example), insurgent casualties, and military casualties. Given the fact that the US military often cites numbers of kills at 10:1 or even 100:1, I'm sure you can do the math as to how many total Iraqi deaths there were.
Continuing on, I suggest you talk to some Iraqis who lived in Iraq under Saddam and ask them whether they view the infrastructure problems as being due more to Saddam diverting resources than to the sanctions or not - I can put you in touch with someone who works in the water filtration business if you'd like. The answer is, the sanctions were *incredibly* restrictive. It's not just a funding issue - when you can't import, say, chlorine *at all*, and have to wait months for most parts, it is almost impossible to fix the system. In fact, the US military predicted as much before the war:
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/1995 09 01/950901_511rept_91.html
One of the most frustrating things to Iraqis (whether justified or not) is how Saddam was able to restore power to much of the country within weeks of the end of the first Gulf War. And here comes the world's only superpower, and they can't get power working right in years.
> Saddam's focus from only concentrating services and resources on Baghdad
Compared to, say, our policy of shifting resources around as punishment (eg. Najaf, which had its power cut when the al-Madhi army holed up in Imam Ali's shrine)? Seing as the people of Sadr City are in open revolt, was that really such a bad idea to focus resources on population-dense areas?
> TENS OF BILLIONS
Over a decade. Which makes Iraq a relatively trivial trading partner with each of them, especially compared to, say, the US.
> Guess who didn't want that neverending money spigot turned off?
Yeah, they were really doing that out of concern for money (as opposed to, say, their electorates which were *overwhelmingly* opposed to the war). They were so concerned with money that they risked trade rifts with the US (and in the case of Germany, losing US military bases, which prop up several entire German cities). Great logic there.
> Thanks to criminal corruption within UNOFP
Oh, laf, this tired old thing gets trotted out again. This could take hours. Come on, pick a starting point: who in UNOFP, outside of Iraq, was being "corrupt", and why? (warning: I repeat, this will take a while)
> Saudi Arabia already provides us with needed capabilities in the region
In addition to 15 out of the 19 hijackers! In addition to huge amounts of Madrassa money! In addition to being a brutal dictatorship that bans women from driving and even sent girls back into a burning building because they weren't wearing their abayas!
> None of what you, or I, say, of course changes the fact that the people of Iraq are now indeed liberated.
According to polls... no. Not at all. Even the Iraqi olympic soccer team disagrees with you:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3378141
Heck, even Chirac comes in as a much more popular leader in Iraq than Bush! And Bush and Saddam come in pretty closely ranked. Al-Sadr is currently the third most popular leader in Iraq. Etc. We're not fighting some sort of "second front" which is trying to oppress the "liberated people of Iraq" - we *are fighting the liberated peo
Re:True Lies (Score:1, Insightful)
However, I HAVE read the Koran, and I know what it says about Jihad. I don't just follow the apologist media. I have also heard the speeches condemning the terrorist attacks. There is a duplicity that is present in militant Islam. I have heard it called "doublespeak".
The Bush adminisration is proving to the world that those slobs do not represent America by punishing those who did wrong. You can't expect Bush to take credit for what Lyndie did, he had delegated authority to his subordinate commanders. They further delegated that authority to those that could oversee the prison. The local commanders were screwed up. They were there.
AS for this incident costing us the war, I disagree. The war on terror will not be won by killing everyone who hates America, nor by beating them into submission. Those who hate America because of Abu Gharib hated America anyway. We are infidels, dhimmi.
The war will be won by taking away the governments that support terror, by stopping the funding, by closing the training camps, and by blocking their access to WMD.
I don't always think the Bush Adminstration is perfect, but I know that the overall goals of the war on terror are what is best for America, for Britain, for Austailia, for the Philippines,ad infinitum... The terrorists aren't just killing Americans after all...
Re:True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)