Bush releases Vietnam-era Guard records

[Natoma]

Well there is one significant difference in this particular situation. We weren't at war at any of those times, nor had Bush staked any portion of his political life on his ability to be "Commander in Chief".

Ok, so we should make a big deal about things that happened 30 some years ago. Right?? Because this will bite kerry in the ass. Some of his testimony in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 is quite explosive.

ill paste a part of the transcripts later,
epic

Kerry was the one who served in the armed forces and received medals for his service. I'm sure whatever was in his testimony comes from the fact that he was pretty damn bitter about serving in a politically driven war.

I'm sure I'd be the same way. In any case, I'd like to see the transcripts when you get them.

 

[Natoma]

Well there is one significant difference in this particular situation. We weren't at war at any of those times, nor had Bush staked any portion of his political life on his ability to be "Commander in Chief".

If we're concerned about how well he'll do as 'commander in chief', then we have some on the job experience to examine, rather than mere indicators from his national guard experience.

You said that this is the same old stuff that's been dredged up before. I'm just bringing up differences between raising this in 1994 and 2000, vs bringing it up today. Basically, why would it be politically potent today, vs the last two times it's come up.

No qualifier attached to the "same ol" label.

 

[RussSchultz]

Uh, no. It would be more pertinent in 2000, when we had to guess how good of a commander in chief he'd be.

Now we know, from his past 3 years of experience.

 

[epicstruggle]

Kerry was the one who served in the armed forces and received medals for his service. I'm sure whatever was in his testimony comes from the fact that he was pretty damn bitter about serving in a politically driven war.

I'm sure I'd be the same way. In any case, I'd like to see the transcripts when you get them.

village.com seems to be down, but here is a quote from another source

source:http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/Chuckman_Perfumed-Prince.htm this is quite a liberal source.

John Kerry, having become an opponent of the war in which he served, made a speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, describing some of what he had witnessed in Vietnam. Americans had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." I can only admire such truthfulness, but Kerry's first instinct, years before, had been to contribute to the mayhem. Only when it was politically opportune did he oppose it.

He also never tried to turn in these people in. Wheres the honor in that? Or was he lying to the committee. Time will tell, when this is brought out against him.

later,
epic
edit: i found more info on this, that might shade some light on this. Seems that he was proven wrong, but never appoligized. Ill add more later,

 

[Natoma]

Uh, no. It would be more pertinent in 2000, when we had to guess how good of a commander in chief he'd be.

Now we know, from his past 3 years of experience.

You have to remember we were coming off 8 years of Clinton, i.e. the "draft dodger". I doubt it would have really been politically killer at that time vs now, especially when one labels oneself as a "war president" as Bush did in Meet the Press.

 

[RussSchultz]

I'm sorry, Natoma, that's one of the most ludicrous positions I've seen yet.

How could this story be more important at judging how well he'll handle foreign affairs and military action than the incontrovertable evidence of his past 3 years as president!?

 

[Natoma]

I'm sorry, Natoma, that's one of the most ludicrous positions I've seen yet.

How could this story be more important at judging how well he'll handle foreign affairs and military action than the incontrovertable evidence of his past 3 years as president!?

It wouldn't necessarily be a story as to how competant he'd be as a president, if it were taken inside a bubble. But let's see what's happened during Bush's tenure.

War with Iraq
Highly Questionable Reasons, Highly Questionable game plan

War with Afghanistan
Justified Reasons, Highly Questionable game plan

Al-Qaeda
Justified Reasons, Highly Questionable game plan

There are many questions about his leadership as commander in chief during this presidency, and the results of his leadership. If it turns out that he ducked his service in the military, then it just adds to that very real perception that he is unfit for the job and should not be re-elected.

In and of itself it would not necessarily be a story. Tied in with everything else swirling around the White House, and it adds to the shark bait.

That is why it is more relevant today, politically, than it was in 2000 or 1994. Especially since you're potentially contrasting his military service with someone who actually served in Vietnam and came home with a chestful of medals, vs Al Gore

 

[Silent_One]

People can float every rumor they want and people can try to destroy the reputations of candidates, but as we head into the 21st century, it's neccessary for somebody to say the past is the past and judge me for what I am today.

George W. Bush 5/99

 

[Clashman]

People can float every rumor they want and people can try to destroy the reputations of candidates, but as we head into the 21st century, it's neccessary for somebody to say the past is the past and judge me for what I am today.

George W. Bush 5/99

Yeah, Bush says alot of things when it's politically expedient for him. These two seem to come to mind:

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

George W. Bush, Nov. 6th, 2000

"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

George W. Bush, Fall 2000

 

[Silent_One]

Then try this one:

We do not need to divide America over who served and how" by playing "to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America. Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam? The race for the White House should be about leadership and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them"

John Kerry, Senate floor, 1992, regarding Bill Clinton.

 

[Clashman]

Well, I guess it's a good thing I'm not voting for Kerry then, isn't it?

 

[horvendile]

I may have missed something, and I admit that I haven't read everything there is to read on the matter, but personally I can't see why this should be an important issue.

The question is whether Bush evaded military service or not. But it was 30 years ago! After such a long time, even murder isn't punishable anymore (at least in Sweden)! I agree that evading military service possibly signifies lack of moral fibre - but again, it was 30 years ago! People change. I don't think it's reasonable to hold someone accountable for such a thing after 30 years.

Note: I don't mean that prescription time is the one deciding factor in this. If prescription time for murder is 25 years and it turned out that Bush had murdered someone 26 years ago I definitely think that should matter. I just don't think that this particular case is important enough to matter anymore.

 

[kyleb]

no one is trying to prosecute him for this though, i see it more as an issue of how he accepts responsibility for his actions.

oh and i found a link to this page with a poll on it from a post over on anandtech, you all should vote:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

don't forget to look at the results either.

 

[horvendile]

no one is trying to prosecute him for this though, i see it more as an issue of how he accepts responsibility for his actions.

Yes and I understand that, I just think that judging characters on a matter like this (taking the time gap into account) is slightly far-fetched.
Oh well. Of course you're free to do as you like, I just don't quite understand (or rather agree with) it.

 

[epicstruggle]

I may have missed something, and I admit that I haven't read everything there is to read on the matter, but personally I can't see why this should be an important issue.

The question is whether Bush evaded military service or not. But it was 30 years ago! After such a long time, even murder isn't punishable anymore (at least in Sweden)! I agree that evading military service possibly signifies lack of moral fibre - but again, it was 30 years ago! People change. I don't think it's reasonable to hold someone accountable for such a thing after 30 years.

Note: I don't mean that prescription time is the one deciding factor in this. If prescription time for murder is 25 years and it turned out that Bush had murdered someone 26 years ago I definitely think that should matter. I just don't think that this particular case is important enough to matter anymore.

Its only an issue because the other party wants to make it an issue. Simple as that. Its all politics.

later,
epic

 

[Natoma]

Its only an issue because the other party wants to make it an issue. Simple as that. Its all politics.

Pretty much. That's what I was telling Russ earlier.

If the current "front runner" was Howard Dean or John Edwards, you wouldn't hear a peep about this, nor would it become front page news as I've seen it has become here in NYC.

If you look at the timing of when all thise really "broke", it was about 2-3 weeks ago when Kerry won Iowa and New Hampshire decisively, and it looked like he was on his way to wrapping up the nomination. Only then did Terry Macauliffe come out with his statements about Bush being AWOL, and then talking up the phantom "chestful of medals" comparison in a debate. Obviously he was discussing John Kerry.

Indeed, politics. Good (or bad, depending on your point of view) politics too. Just part of the game.

 

[RussSchultz]

But Bush is the divisive one, no?

 

[Natoma]

But Bush is the divisive one, no?

He's been playing for keeps for the past 3 years Russ. The Democrats are frankly just fighting back after all this time. Yes, Bush is extremely divisive.

I don't necessarily agree with what's going on because it's blatantly obvious that it's politics as usual. But frankly, I'm not teary eyed and/or driven to write my congressperson about it either.

p.s.: The republicans are going to try and paint Kerry as a "Massachussetts Liberal" who believes "gays should marry" and has "different values than the mainstream". They're going to use the Supreme Court decision against him. It's already been documented as that is their strategy for this year.

Republicans and Democrats have long rode the trail of divisiveness in American politics. This is no different really. Republicans simply tend to run on minority issues, god, women, and now gays.

 

[Clashman]

But Bush is the divisive one, no?

You're right, Russ. I'm sure he intended that whole "You're either with us or with the terrorists" thing to be a message of unity and inclusiveness, about how we can all get along despite any differences we may have, right?

 

[RussSchultz]

But Bush is the divisive one, no?

You're right, Russ. I'm sure he intended that whole "You're either with us or with the terrorists" thing to be a message of unity and inclusiveness, about how we can all get along despite any differences we may have, right?

Well duh, terrorism is evil. Just like racism and other evils in the world, you're either against it, or you're part of the problem.