|
 |
February 13, 2004 FULL RELEASE AT LAST?....Ah, Associated Press is reporting that the White House will shortly release George Bush's entire service record. Hopefully this will include even the DD-214 separation report that everyone keeps saying should be able to settle everything. I also hope that they will issue an authorization to all of the relevant archives to release Bush's files directly to reporters. If he does that, it should put this issue to bed for good. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 13, 2004 03:04 PM | TrackBackComments
Rove's been going through them frantically with a black Magic Marker. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 03:06 PM | PERMALINKHappy Presidents' Day weekend everyone - don't drink and drive : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 13, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINKSomebody posted that "medical issues" and his social security number are going to be blacked out on this. Is cocaine usage considered by Karl Rove to be a "medical condition"? Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINK"I also hope that they will issue an authorization to all of the relevant archives to release Bush's files directly to reporters." This would fit with Bush's statement to Russert, and would be the honorable thing to do. I doubt it'll happen. K Posted by: keef at February 13, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINKFunny about those thoroughly blacked out "medical issues" and his flight physical! Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 03:10 PM | PERMALINKBush's medical records -- dozens of pages in all -- were opened for examination by reporters in the Roosevelt Room but the material was not being distributed publicly. Ahh, transparency in government in action! Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 03:12 PM | PERMALINKPrediction #1: Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun's memory of GWB serving in Alabama with him is going to become . . . inoperative. Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend = there's something there. Prediction #2: The White House's promise to release "all the records" is going to be as solid as Bush's promise to Russert. This is going to be another drip. There's more to come. Posted by: Marchbear at February 13, 2004 03:12 PM | PERMALINKAny predictions people? It's a friday night document dump. Something has got to be there. Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINKWith apologies to Robert Zimmerman, I hereby rename this site "Area 51 Revisited" Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 03:15 PM | PERMALINKIsnt it Bush himself that came up with the idea of interviewing with Russert? Ill bet that was over Roves objections. Bush figured he would do great because of his messiah complex. This full release is probably Bushes idea too. Bush doesnt know what the truth is anymore. He probably thinks he did show up in Alabama. Rove may be hanging himself at this moment. Posted by: the third man at February 13, 2004 03:15 PM | PERMALINKSomething ressembling the redacted pages on the Saudis. Posted by: greg at February 13, 2004 03:15 PM | PERMALINKthis in some way might help to explain the slow release of documents over the last 5 days. giving the appearance of trying to live up to the pResident's promise while madly scrubbing the rest of the documents for the ultimate "full" release today. surely they knew that they couldn't continue to get away with not complying with the pResident's promise forever, right? any takers on this theory? Posted by: smiley at February 13, 2004 03:15 PM | PERMALINKI'll predict you won't get a DD-214. That's because he got an NGB-22. But hey, what do I know? J. Posted by: JLawson at February 13, 2004 03:16 PM | PERMALINKI'm BLOWn away by this. I think that the reporters have NOSE for this story, they're like kids in a CANDY store. I wonder if the Bushies have crossed a LINE with this. It looks like they're lined up behind the 8-BALL. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 03:17 PM | PERMALINKI predict any cocaine use will be buried under deepest, darkest, India ink. You'll be able to get high off the document when they're done. We'll be left with a vague impression of cocaine-related program activities. Posted by: idahogie at February 13, 2004 03:17 PM | PERMALINKyawn. Come on, people. There are far more serious issues to deal with in this election. Of course, if this is all you have to offer, then I stick with my comments in a prior thread: after 30 years of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not a cover story of any kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for a Republican for the first time. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINKYep. Released right on time. Minutes before the evening news. On a Friday. Before a three-day weekend. Posted by: Chris Rasmussen at February 13, 2004 03:18 PM | PERMALINKActually, I think it is legitimate to BLACK-OUT medical issues. Medical issues are private... oh wait, Ashcroft says we don't have privacy rights. Here is a compromise that would work for me - fire Ashcroft and then black-out the medical related sections. What you people REALLY want... the thing all this pussy-footing has
been intended to conceal - the drug bust - is expunged and sealed. Smiley: You know that's exactly what they've been doing--finding all the bad documents and removing or "fixing" them--it happens all the time in high stakes litigation. In addition to the docs, I want to know the chain of custody, who retrieved them, who reviewed them, etc. And the WH press corps should insist on a direct answer to this question: "Were any documents removed or withheld from this production?" Posted by: Bassfish at February 13, 2004 03:19 PM | PERMALINKrkb, if you're going to change your Presidential vote because of what a bunch of computer nerds with no connection to the Democratic Party like to chat about, I wouldn't have any clue about what could be done to keep you from making that mistake. Posted by: Trickster at February 13, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKI'm hoping they release an unredacted version of his National Guard application. Reports of the last two days indicate that Bush might have failed to report one of his two arrests on the application. Bush has previously admitted that he was arrested twice before
applying to the National Guard -- yet his on application Bush reportedly
claimed to have been arrested just one time. I discuss this issue in
my blog post: after 30 years of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not
a cover story of any kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for a
Republican for the first time. Spoken like a true Mooney. Posted by: Thumb at February 13, 2004 03:23 PM | PERMALINKWhile we're at it, I hope someone is looking for Bath's arrest records in TX from 1972, because they might come in useful for cross-referencing. Posted by: emptywheel at February 13, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINKOh dear God, Suzanne Malveaux is saying "certainly the documents
appear to show that he served. We saw medical records from 1968, 1970,
and 1971...." " after 30 years of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not a cover story of any kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for a Republican for the first time." Better lies, please. Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINKGood riddance rkb (assuming you're telling the truth). Posted by: alias at February 13, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINKHey, you think they picked this weekend to release because they know Atrios is gone? Kevin, they do know you're here this weekend, don't they? Or can't they keep their left-leaning blogs straight?? Posted by: emptywheel at February 13, 2004 03:25 PM | PERMALINKAnyone else here kinda bummed? I mean, what made this story fun wasn't whatever happened 30 years ago. What made it fun was that the administration was being all weasely, and the public got to see how weasely they are. Now that the docs are out, the weaseling is over, all that's left is some ancient history. - Josh Posted by: Josh Yelon at February 13, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKThere's not going to be anything interesting or revealing in whatever they release. That would be inconsistent with everything this administration has ever done. Rove is just hoping that this will bring it to a conclusion, and I suspect they will just stonewall from here on out... Posted by: peter jung at February 13, 2004 03:26 PM | PERMALINKemptywheel I would expect Bath's record to be expunged and sealed too (if they were arrested together). But it is worth a try (shrug). rkb, how many GOP Teamleader points do you get for claiming to be Democrat? Got that tote bag yet? Or is your real name Zell? With Atrios gone this weekend, you better avoid small planes, Kev. Posted by: Ras_Nesta at February 13, 2004 03:28 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I must admit, already I'm skeptical. I doubt this is a full dump. We shall see. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 13, 2004 03:28 PM | PERMALINKrkb -- Let's talk in 6 months -- if the mild inquiries of the past week have caused you to leave the Democratic party after 30 years, I'm sure you'll be proud of the Republicans' above-board campaign tactics between now and then. And when Hillary runs in 2008, you'll REALLY be glad to have switched to the non-scandal-mongering, non-conspiracy-minded, non-smearing Republican party. (And, in any case, I could at least empathize a little your point if the party leaders -- or if any of the candidates -- were leading this story, the way that Newt Gingrich and others did with Clinton. But since they're not, you're switching parties after reading partisan messages on a blog response board? Really, now?) Posted by: Eazy at February 13, 2004 03:29 PM | PERMALINKFull release on information? Did that ever stop the Bushies from plowing ahead? "Saddam lied. We know he did. Invade!" Years pass, after the blood has spilled and the money looted: Looks like it's really Friday the 13th for the conspiracy theorists out there! Not only has he released all the records, but he also VOLUNTEERED TO FLY COMBAT IN VIETNAM: "Ex-pilot says Bush put in for Vietnam BY PETER BACQUE A former senior Virginia Air National Guard commander, who served with George W. Bush in the Texas Air Guard, says Bush volunteered for Vietnam combat service but was turned down because he did not have the required flight experience. William J. Campenni, a retired Air Guard colonel, also said absences such as Bush's from his unit were common in the Air Guard during the period of Bush's service and still are. He and Bush were young lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron of the Texas Air Guard from 1970 to 1971, Campenni said, serving under the same flight and squadron commanders, both of whom are now dead. Campenni, 63, lives in Herndon and has participated in Republican
Party politics in Northern Virginia. He retired as an Air Force pilot in
1998, last flying with the 192nd Fighter Wing based at Richmond
International Airport. http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031773659263&path=!news&s=1045855934842
I'm predicting the Kevin stays on the "scouring"/Burkett story and also add some of the cocaine theories to his portfolio. Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINKNow it is time for Kerry to disclose his military record. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 13, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINK(Trickster beat me to the point and said it better.) Posted by: Eazy at February 13, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINKHave to agree with smiley: they're letting reporters look at the documents that remain after the intensive week-long review of them. No getting documents directly from the military archives? Why not? Posted by: BayMike at February 13, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINKBush releases his records. Let's try some prediction: the response from the media and pundits will be: 1. The media will be mollified, finally admit that there isn't any "there" there, and drop the subject. *snort* yeah, right. 2. Some small element of the records will be inflated to a new issue to harangue him on for the next four weeks. I'd lay heavy odds on this one. 3. The entire issue will now become why Bush took so long to release all the records, with suspicious muttering that there is no absolute PROOF that this is "all" the records, or that they could be faked, or that maybe Bush's stint in the Guard was really accomplished by a lizard person in a Bush Suit. Add a few of your own. It's fun! The one common lesson should be "compromise with the Left on anything and they'll reward you by ripping your lungs out." Posted by: tbrosz at February 13, 2004 03:32 PM | PERMALINKI would also ask Scotty: Report that the reporters are only allowed to observe the records. Not make copies. This is a joke. The White House is hoping to bury the bad news by limiting reporters, who are inexperienced in going through military personnel files. Posted by: Trifecta at February 13, 2004 03:33 PM | PERMALINKCampenni, 63, lives in Herndon and has participated in Republican Party politics in Northern Virginia. Keep playing that tune, sheep. No one's listening. Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 03:34 PM | PERMALINKActually, let me revise that. Kevin's response will be "this raises more questions than it answers"... regardless of what it answers. Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 03:35 PM | PERMALINKSorry to barge in, but this DD214 of Bush's may not be definitive: mine has several errors, with training, awards, and qualification badges missing from the page. Why? You could get out "five minutes from now" or hang around a few days to have it fixed. I was on my way home, just back from Nam a few hours, and clerical errors were not a priority. Posted by: JackT at February 13, 2004 03:35 PM | PERMALINKAm I the only one who thinks they did this (drug it out for so long) on purpose in order to draw attention away from the V Paine affair. Posted by: atrop at February 13, 2004 03:36 PM | PERMALINKThis is when the story about all of Bush's records from St Louis being moved to DC comes into play. We can't check against a complete set of the documents because that complete set, um, is gone. Somehow. Posted by: emptywheel at February 13, 2004 03:36 PM | PERMALINKKeep playing that tune, sheep. No one's listening. Yep. But the guy from Democrats.com is JUST FINE! Baaaaah. Posted by: Al at February 13, 2004 03:37 PM | PERMALINKWas an inventory taken in Denver of Bush documents before they were transferred to the DOD? This would seem to be the proper procedure that would ensure that all documents were returned by a requesting party. Therefore reporters should ask the above question and request to compare the Denver inventory, if one exists, with documents released to make sure nothing was withheld. Posted by: Carswell at February 13, 2004 03:37 PM | PERMALINKWell, ALREADY I'M EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL, JUST LISTENING TO THE NEWS. How come they're not redacting medical information? How come reporters are being forced to have only one copy, and otherwise forced to look at the records in one room? Let's see what develops over the next several days, but I sense an effort to throw us off the scent here. They're not predicting any snow this weekend in Northern Virginia, but I see a snow job developing..... Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 13, 2004 03:37 PM | PERMALINK"compromise with the Left on anything and they'll reward you by ripping your lungs out." Remind me again which liberal said that bipartisanship was date rape. Posted by: Spyral Pegacyon at February 13, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINKActually, I'm not sure what the DD-214 would solve that the Honorable Discharge doesn't. It contains basic personnel information, the assignments he had, awards, discharge status, and so forth. There isn't anything on there that will tell you what the soldier did on any particular day. Posted by: James Joyner at February 13, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINKHoward Dean was overheard mumbling to himself today, "After 30 years
of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not a cover story of any
kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for John Kerry instead." A good reporter doesn't stop until he or she has all the answers or at least has exhausted all trails. Kevin's a great reporter. The point is to get to the truth. Then we the people can examine the evidence through the lens of our political predilections and make our own judgment. Posted by: Bassfish at February 13, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINKIf there had been no attention paid to this by the blogs the media would have done their usual rollover and wait for head pat. But thanks to the attention paid here and elsewhere it is still here. This may or may not be the end of it. Still, they sure did weasel and if there was no reason to then why did they? Something is wrong with this picture. Oh, and how could anyone try and pass off a claim to be a W is really really really going to release all his records this time and really really really going to tell us all the truth. Really he is. Doesn't he always? Posted by: prob at February 13, 2004 03:41 PM | PERMALINKI imagine that some journalist is trying to interview people from Denver, where the records are stored, to find out about the transfer and see any documents pertaining to it. Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 03:42 PM | PERMALINKLooks like it's really Friday the 13th for the conspiracy theorists out there! Not only has he released all the records, but he also VOLUNTEERED TO FLY COMBAT IN VIETNAM: That Bush volunteered to fly combat in Vietnam (and was turned down becuase he didn't have the minimum number of flight hours they were taking for volunteers to fill that particular need) has been widely known for quite some time. To anyone who has followed this story at all, that is no longer news, much less damaging to anyone. Posted by: cmdicely at February 13, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKA former senior Virginia Air National Guard commander, who served
with George W. Bush in the Texas Air Guard, says Bush volunteered for
Vietnam combat service but was turned down because he did not have the
required flight experience. And I thought his family had pull. You're right Al he really, really wanted to go to Nam. How unfair. Also, I've just pulled out my own DD 214--there is no medical information of any kind on there. Indeed, aside from the Social Security number, I can't see anything on it that would require redaction for privacy. Posted by: James Joyner at February 13, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINKI want bush to loose but I want this to go away. I want bush to get voted out becuase of what he did as president not becuase of what he did or didnt do in the ng. That's how I want the record to read. You lost becuase you sucked as president. Posted by: gary hart at February 13, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINKDoes anybody else think Campenni is laying it on just a leetle thick? His claim that Bush volunteered for Vietnam is inconsistent with what Bush himself said. Posted by: Tom Hilton at February 13, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINKHmmmm. No monkeys flying out of my ass. The full records have not yet been released. I still think that was involved an accident while flying (or maybe taxiing) and coked up. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 13, 2004 03:45 PM | PERMALINKW is really really really going to release all his records this time and really really really going to tell us all the truth. Really he is. Doesn't he always? Lucy. Charlie Brown. Football. Has the President signed a release authorizing the complete release of his records? If not, why not? That's the question here. The President should just sign the release, and let everyone have full and free access to his records. Hell, it's the right thing to do to put this to bed. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 13, 2004 03:47 PM | PERMALINKThe document dump crowded out the revelation of Chalabi's coaching fraudulent defectors to deceive the CIA. Posted by: dcc at February 13, 2004 03:49 PM | PERMALINKAdd a few of your own. It's fun! The one common lesson should be "compromise with the Left on anything and they'll reward you by ripping your lungs out." Hilarious. Phony victimhood. Rush has you programmed nicely, son. You still believe in the "liberal media" -- old school! Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 03:52 PM | PERMALINKOf course, if this is all you have to offer, then I stick with my comments in a prior thread: after 30 years of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not a cover story of any kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for a Republican for the first time. Let me get this right. You're going to vote for Bush because a lot of dems think that Bush is currently covering up mistakes he made in the past. Is that really the central issue for you? Do you really think that it trumps Plame, Enron, WsMD etc? If that's the case, you should switch parties, right now. You have an intellect more suited for the GOP. Posted by: patriotboy at February 13, 2004 03:53 PM | PERMALINKRope-a-Dope, Muthafuckas!! Bwahahahaha!!!! Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 13, 2004 03:54 PM | PERMALINKRWV, are we to infer that you think Bush will turn into a brain-damaged vegetable by the time this is over? Interesting. Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINKFrom MSNBC: "...a pool of reporters would be allowed to see Bush?s medical records from that period." Hmmm... Posted by: Eazy at February 13, 2004 03:56 PM | PERMALINKRWV, What's your take on why Bush volunteered for PULL? Posted by: Eazy at February 13, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKNow that it has been proven that you lob bullshit charges, the Sheeples will ignore things like Palme. Hahah. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 13, 2004 03:58 PM | PERMALINKFrom MSNBC: "...a pool of reporters would be allowed to see Bush?s medical records from that period." Hmmm... Helen Thomas? "RWV, What's your take on why Bush volunteered for PULL?" My take is you can speculate all ya want. As far as I am aware, Neil Bush never told the cops that he had a brother with a nose like a vacuum cleaner. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 13, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINKyawn. Come on, people. There are far more serious issues to deal with in this election. Of course, if this is all you have to offer, then I stick with my comments in a prior thread: after 30 years of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not a cover story of any kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for a Republican for the first time. Why does this "Democrat" talk in Republican talking points? Posted by: winsome at February 13, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKNow that it has been proven that you lob bullshit charges, the Sheeples will ignore things like Palme. Did the "sheeple" ignore the Republicans after the "Clinton trashed the White House before leaving" nonsense story? C'mon, sheep -- you're not even mildly competent. Try harder. Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINKWhy do people think this is the only issue we have with Bush? I agree this is probably the least significant issue but nonetheless still an issue. if you think this is damaging Bush's reputation wait till Plame, 9/11 comission and the issues on the economy start to warm up. I can't wait till we get to public debates. Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 04:01 PM | PERMALINKTo the trolls among us, the central question is whether Bush's military record is GERMANE to whether the voters should extend his CEO contract by 4 years. If it is germane, then there is no vice in aggressively investigating the matter. If it is not germane (like consensual sex with another adult), then it should be out of bounds. In my opinion, Bush's record is germane, because it is inconsistent with his attempts to cast himself as a war hero. It also casts light on the cavalier manner in which his administration sent our sons and daughters off to die. If the Repubs had information that suggested that Kerry's military credentials were exaggerated, you can bet they'd be all over it. Let's get real people. This is important business. This is about selecting a president. Posted by: Bassfish at February 13, 2004 04:02 PM | PERMALINKNPR says that there are no medical records from 1972. And no proof of what he was doing in 1972-3. They've done a paper dump to distract us. But in no way have the delivered everything. We need to have a list on Tuesday morning of the things they forgot. Posted by: emptywheel at February 13, 2004 04:03 PM | PERMALINK> Does anybody else think Campenni is laying it on just a Dunno. Why don't you call him and ask? Trickster and others, if it were only a few blogs doing the "awol" meme it would still warrant a response. After all, I guess I'm one of those computer nerd types too since I've been in this and another comment thread here on and off all day. Hell, I've been on the Net since before there was a world wide web. Nope, my problem with the Democratic party right now is that it has a huge black hole in the middle, where serious and responsible discussion of important issues should be. The "awol" meme, complete with cheap shots during a congressional hearing on a very serious topic, is just one obvious symptom at the moment of that black hole. I really wish I saw some health here. The Bush administration deserves to be pushed on a bunch of topics. But - to quote Rumsefeld on Europe, quoting a European on a previous generation of Americans - the Democrat / anti-Bush crowd just doesn't seem to be SERIOUS at a time when IMO we are facing very serious issues indeed. One evidence of seriousness would be to acknowledge what Bush has indeed done right. I know - the very idea that there are such things sets off apoplexy among some. Atrios posted that he got a headache reading a short comment of mine earlier to this effect. We'll have to differ on that then, because I think that despite some really big f*ckups, there are a few important areas where he and his Administration have done about as well as anyone could have. (pause to allow people to stop choking) The second evidence of seriousness would be to address the real challenges and opportunities we face as a nation and a world right now. And THAT would require Dems to admit that some of those challenges are ... well ... challenging. And it would require Dems to articulate clear policies that have a chance of working. I just don't see it, folks. It isn't happening. And all the focus on the "awol" meme is just childish distraction in the face of that major problem the "anyone but Bush" crowd faces this year. I wish it weren't so - I'd like to have better choices to choose among. I have waited and hoped for years for my party to regain a credible adult leadership in defense, international and economic affairs. I won't change party registration - I am NOT a Republican in some important ways. But damn it, right now they are acknowledging some really crucial threats to us and they are attempting to deal with them. And that is more than I can say for the other side. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 04:04 PM | PERMALINKThis AWOL flap isn't a diversion from the Plame affair, it is a warm up. The press corp is now like a dog who has just killed and eaten a live chicken. Once a dog gets a taste of fresh, bloody meat he has to be put down because he can't stop himself from killing more chickens, the taste is that good. When the indictments get handed down, and they will, the press corp is going to dive in with their carving knives flying. It's going to be a long summer for the resident of the White House. He'll be glad when he loses in November. Clearing brush in Crawford never looked so good before.... Posted by: magurakurin at February 13, 2004 04:07 PM | PERMALINKYou're right, rkb -- the Democratic party really isn't taking the crucial threat of North Korea as seriously as the Bush Administration does. Posted by: Eazy at February 13, 2004 04:09 PM | PERMALINK"He sat in my office he would study his training manuals, read safety magazines. military type stuff," Calhoun told Roberts. Calhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign. "I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six." But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th. Oops! Rove's got to do a better job giving his tools a story to tell. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/06/politics/main591781.shtml Posted by: Gaska at February 13, 2004 04:09 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps we'll soon find out that Bush was arrested with the White House plumbers at DNC HQ at the Wategate Hotel in June 1972 -- that will account for at least one missing month! Posted by: Oahu Guy at February 13, 2004 04:10 PM | PERMALINKI'll say this real slow, so that even the most manic among you may comprehend: You. Have. Been. Snookered. Again. Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINK Rkb, I'll give you a chance to prove your credibility. You said that
Bush can be "pushed" on numerous other, more important grounds. Ok, the balls in your court. Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINKGaska, the reason Calhoun got the dates wrong is that an early,
inaccurate news article gave the wrong dates for Bush being in Alabama. Why do they keep playing games? Why are they making this crap so complicated. It's very simple. AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF EVERYTHING I'll even help out the lazy, here's one of the damn forms Sign those and the White House doesn't have to do any more work. They can let the journalists and bloggers and farmers alike pour over and make their own conclusions. The Calpundit's and Hobbs could both fit the puzzle pieces in the ways they see fit. But no! Now we have to suffer through this charade of parading clueless journalists in front of vetted piles of papers that they can't make copies of. This will be weasel word-smithed so McClellan can say that bush "released everything" (relevent to the topic). We won't know what they considered "relevent", I have no doubt it's going to be as narrowly defined as possible (only things related to the AWOL in Alabama charge most likely). They bring all this wild speculation upon themselves when act so damn suspicious and coy. Posted by: Gryn at February 13, 2004 04:13 PM | PERMALINKGaska: Billmon neatly shows that the "May through October 1972" factoid was an error widely reported in an AP article. Posted by: Pacific John at February 13, 2004 04:13 PM | PERMALINKKevin, when are you going to ask Kerry release his book, The New Soldier? Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog at February 13, 2004 04:15 PM | PERMALINKrkb's a troll. Anytime they say something like, "they have no plan, they just criticize", it gives them away. Posted by: alias at February 13, 2004 04:15 PM | PERMALINKThe CBS report on this matter is a far cry different than Moran's on ABC and Malveaux's on CNN. Posted by: Maggie at February 13, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKThe Friday afternoon before a three-day weekend. Or looking at it another way, just in time for President's Day. Posted by: J Edgar at February 13, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKRemember-- 'this is what a leader does'. Leads from the rear. Posted by: Ralph at February 13, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKPersonally I hope this does put this issue to rest. I don't begrudge Kevin for pursuing - like any investigative case it just sucks you in. I just don't think it's that important. There are tons of substantive things going terribly wrong with the Administration right now - Plame, more WMD lies, jobs statement snafus, homophobic pandering - that deserve real attention. Posted by: Elrod at February 13, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKpreviously on the wacky, nutty Al show: some poster: "If any of them happened to drill with the man who turned out to be the President of The United States of America, you don't think they'd, yeah, kinda remember him?" Al: "Of course! Provided that they were clairvoyant, and knew that Bush would become President 30 years later!" "yadda yadda, impossible to remember 30 years ago, yadda yadda, no case" on this week's crazy, nutty Al show: Al posts: "Ex-pilot says Bush put in for Vietnam "yadda yadda, repub talking points, yadda yadda, tin-foil hats, case closed" good god! call the amazing randi (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html), Al's found a true clairvoyant, you could win $1 million for this. Posted by: d at February 13, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKDon't let Shrub off the hook on those very serious traffic tickets. Go get him, Kevin!!! He's not a President; he's a SCOFFLAW!! Bush parked; people snarked. Posted by: The Commissar at February 13, 2004 04:22 PM | PERMALINKIs this still going on? Seriously? You must all be disappointed... Posted by: Kevin P. at February 13, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINKHas anybody read any article where some enterprising reporter went out and talked to some NG guy who served at the same time in the TANG? I have many questions, but here is one long one: How come the TANG was spending a million bucks training people on soon to be"obsolete" aircraft? Did people have a choice about what they would train on? Could you choose "obsolete" and as few hours as possible so that even if it is true he volunteered to go and actually serve he knew he would be rejected? Sarah Posted by: Sarah at February 13, 2004 04:23 PM | PERMALINKShouldn't we just be faxing the "AUTHORIZATION FORM FOR THE RELEASE OF MILITARY RECORDS" to the Whitehouse? Posted by: geoiii at February 13, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINKHelen will still be asking about the community service on Tuesday... hehe Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 04:26 PM | PERMALINKI sometimes wonder if Bush doesn't do things like this on purpose, so his critics pick and chortle over it all, and continue to make themselves look mean and petty. This is an obvious tar baby for the critics, and I'm surprised that it has been fallen for so easily. Of course, if your over-riding assumption is that Bush is stoo-pid, then maybe that explains the gullibility of all you guys. This is going to be fun to watch you guys, and see how you sping it, and move the goal posts. In a sick morbid kind of way ;-) Thanks, Pacific John. I knew that after all of the questions about not a single guardsman attesting to Bush's attendance that some Republican shill would suddenly "remember" seeing him there. I'm just surprised there weren't more. My theory is that most people who actually showed up and did their jobs couldn't stand that rich little prick getting away with blowing his own job off. On another note, I'm sick of the holier-than-thou "Democrats" complaining that this issue is beneath such scrutiny. After the 2000 campaign, when the Bushies painted Al Gore as a liar, I no longer felt we had any obligation to take the high road. Those idiots are still saying Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. Republicans are used to Democrats who just meekly take their abuse and say, "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?" When we dare fight back on their own turf they howl with outrage. These are the same assholes who spent years investigating Clinton for something completely irrelevant to his presidency so they could go fishing. They have no right to complain. When we see a weakness of any kind, I say we hit it over and over and over. It's like James Carville said: In politics, when your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. Posted by: Gaska at February 13, 2004 04:29 PM | PERMALINKYou guys really are hilarious, you know? By the way, JLawson, Bush's DD214 has been available on the web for days. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 13, 2004 04:29 PM | PERMALINKFor the last time, Bush doesn't have a DD 214 to give out because they're only for regular military. Guardsmen without regular military experience get an NGB 22, and Bush's came out years ago. Although this has been stated here and elsewhere many, many, many times it won't ever stop the conspiratorially minded from ranting about the absence of said document, though. Oy vey. Posted by: Yeechang Lee at February 13, 2004 04:29 PM | PERMALINKI must say, I'm almost sorry he finally did what you asked (again). It's really been quite amusing watching all of you all punch your fists into this tarbaby. Posted by: Dodd at February 13, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINKBush said Sunday they released everything in 2000. But these docs weren't released until now. Explain to me again why Bush isn't a liar. Posted by: mkultra at February 13, 2004 04:32 PM | PERMALINK" after 30 years of being a registered Democrat (and no, that is not a
cover story of any kind) I'm giving up on this party and voting for a
Republican for the first time." Bullcrap! Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINKOkay, here's a big one IMO and a major vulnerability Bush has, although I don't see much evidence the Dems are any better: When Bush1 went to Japan and could only talk about preserving jobs in the US auto industry, I gagged. The real issue he needed to be talking about was intellectual property and their tariffs on high-tech. Bush1 didn't "get" that the basis of the economy was changing out from underneath him, so all he could do was to try to preserve existing jobs in Detroit at unautomated plants. Dumb move. But don't take my word on that - after all, much of my career has been in high tech. Take my father's word instead since he was a shop steward and a 20 year United Auto Workers member whose 2 brothers served on UAW negotiating committees. Which brings us to Bush2. Bush2 really really doesn't "get" that the IT revolution has significantly changed the behavior of our economy and that of the world. His advisors don't get it either. And so they attempt a top-down stimulous package of tax cuts on high-end income and dividends in an attempt to get capital to invest in businesses again despite low interest rates and the Clinton market bubble crash. Based on historical analysis, that should have created a lot of new jobs by now. But it hasn't, for several reasons - among them the fact that the prevalence of broadband communications and of expert systems software now allows flexible manufacturing abroad, not to mention making it cost effective to send customer support jobs, programming and other services overseas as well. This is a *structural* change in the basis of our economy so significant it amounts to a change in *kind*. Now, you can address this sort of change in one of two ways, neither of them easy. You could try to mitigagte the impact on jobs a bit with some short-term protectionism, but a serious response to it will be broad, expensive and long-term. It will require investing in physical infrastructure like repairing bridges to provide relatively unskilled work in the short run and a deep investment in science/math education, funded research and similar programs for the longer run. We know some of this works - after all, Silicon Valley started out leveraging defense research technologies in hardware and software both. Or, you could decide that the market will do a more efficient job of that than a government program will - in which case you should take the bull by the poitically-suicidal horns and make it clear that both discretionary and committed funding programs must be cut to pay for this. In either case, you should (if you believe, as I believe Bush does, that we must spend heavily on defense and counter-terror activities) make clear the sacrifices and tradeoffs you are willing to absorb. Instead, Bush and his advisors are wandering about in an economic policy haze, waiting for the jobs they are sure MUST be there somewhere. And in fact, they probably will see a comeback in jobs this spring and summer. How many, I can't predict, but a fair number. The problem is, they won't be long term jobs in growth industries. And unless his advisors, or the Dems if elected, figure this out, we are all in for a dreary decade. I graduated into the economic mess of the 70s ... I hate the thought that I and my 27 yr old daughter are facing another such time. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINKA quickie bulletin on National Public Radio just now says that even with the humongous number of pages of military records in the document dump, they still fail to answer two crucial questions: (1) Did Bush show up and do the duty in Alabama he was supposed to do? (2) Why did he not take his physical? I'm sure we'll hear more later. Also pretty sure that when the facts of these still missing facts are talked about again on this board, we'll still hear the complaints from the trolls that "no matter how much evidence [sic] is produced, you're never satisfied." Nope, no matter how much lack of evidence is produced, I'd still really like some evidence. But doesn't seem like Bush & co. are ready even yet to provide it. Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 04:33 PM | PERMALINK"Ex-pilot says Bush put in for Vietnam" Oh, God, Al, it's the "shark infested waters of the Gulf of Mexico" guy again. If you believe your source, it's not to GWB's credit that he supposedly volunteered for Vietnam--your source ALREADY said that it was more dangerous to stay in the States and fly for the TNG: "While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar
games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who
knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North
Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico." Actually, let me revise that. Kevin's response will be "this raises more questions than it answers"... regardless of what it answers. Ah, Al - you know this administration so well. You're probably right - regardless of what this release of records answers, it will almost certainly raise even more questions. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 13, 2004 04:36 PM | PERMALINKDavid Gregory just said on Hardball that some of the records were REDACTED!!!!! No joke! He said he "guesses" the redactions were for privacy reasons, but he clearly had no idea. How can they be releasing everything if there are redactions?? Posted by: pontificator at February 13, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKI wish it weren't so - I'd like to have better choices to choose among. I have waited and hoped for years for my party to regain a credible adult leadership in defense, international and economic affairs. Yeah. The peace and prosperity from '92 to 2000 just sucked. Things are so much better now. Face it rkb, you're just another one of the Tottencrats who wants to pretend to be a deep thinker about the world right now because "9/11 woke you up and nothing will ever be the same". Welcome to reality. The world was a bad place before you woke up. And running around and blowing shit up isn't a way of dealing with "really crucial threats to us". It's just an excuse for running around and blowing shit up. Posted by: tbogg at February 13, 2004 04:37 PM | PERMALINKSeems to be a Bush WH practice to allow a few people to look at the records but not allow anyone to have a copy. They have been doing this with the 9/11 investigation and now with the Bush NG records. Sort of heads I win/tails you lose. The people who are allowed to look at the records say "I saw X." The WH responds "No you did not (and we know that you can prove that you did)." Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINKGoofy theories abound on this thread. One poster suggests that the White hHouse released this on Friday because Atrios isn't posting. What??? Then there's the Republicans who seem to think that the Bush administration has been pulling the strings on this whole National Guard thing just to make the press and the Democrats look bad. A tar baby? Come on, be serious. Even if Bush is exonerates, this to-do pushes him of message, and draws attention to the fact that he chose not to go to Vietnam, and it's pretty much beyond dispute that his connections helped get him into the Guard. You really think that Scott McClellan wanted to spend this week talking about Bush's Guard exploits instead of the war on terror or the mission to Mars or athletic supplements or something? No way. Posted by: JakeV at February 13, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINKI must say, I'm almost sorry he finally did what you asked. No he didn't. The records haven't been "released" - a few selected reporters can look at what they have chosen to show them, as long as they don't take notes or photos. So far, all they've seen are three medical reports from '68, '70, and '71. Meanwhile, no one who isn't under the thumb of the brownshirts remembers seeing hide nor hair of him in Alabama, his arrest records are still blacked out, his dental record shows him one place when he says he was in another... But you tell Unka Karl you typed his script real good. Maybe he'll give you some turkee! Posted by: dave at February 13, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINKDodd and Lonestar, the WH is responding to this non/lame/irrelivant issue. Doesn't that give you some idea they aren't taking it so lightly? And Lonestar, did you watch MTP on Sunday??? Bush spoke so... ummm... errr... duh.... well.... ahhhh... hmmmmm.... eloquently. We all witnessed his amazing grasp of the english language. I do hope he gives many more interviews. Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 04:39 PM | PERMALINKrkb, You just say Bush does some important things right, Democratic party is adrift. I'm giving you ONE chance. Don't waste my time or make me regret it. Quick questions: Why were you a Democrat ? Have you read AT ALL about the policy proposals of the Democratic candidates ? (some of their policies are at: What has the Republican party done for you recently ? What is the best thing Congress did this year ? The worst ?
rea - You deny that John F. Kerry was lost in the Fonda house? Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 04:42 PM | PERMALINKMore from David Gregory on Hardball --- Bush did NOT release the military medical records. Instead he merely allowed reporters to EXAMINE them, but would not release them to the public to be examined. I'm not satisfied. Those WH reporters are not military/medical experts. They need to be allowed to show them to experts who understand how to read and interpret those records. It's Bullsh!t!!!!!1 Posted by: pontificator at February 13, 2004 04:42 PM | PERMALINKThis is about truth and credibility. It goes to the essence of the person. If W screwed up in the past he should speak the truth and be judged. Nobody is perfect, everyone has skeletons in the closet. The constant lying is the problem here. The files were released. I have released everything. I have nothing to hide. More smoke and mirrors. OK - here are more files that I forgot to release. I have removed certain parts of these files but yet I have released everything. etc. etc. Government officials should attempt to be honest (an admittedly low standard). W is beyond even attempting to tell the truth. His philosophy seems to be that lies are good if they stick. Truth doesn't matter. This is the same problem that Clinton had with Monica. I suggest that Clinton's major problem was his lying, not the sex (I am not condoning his sexual activities). W abused alcohol, did cocaine and marijuana - OK so he admitted it. To many this is a non-issue; a secondary issue. The main issue here is that W is a compulsive liar; and our president; our face to the world; and someone who has a huge amount of control over our lives and our country. We need better. I think that there are 2 "rkb"s posting here. The 4:33 PM post seemed a lot more rational than many of the previous posts. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 04:43 PM | PERMALINKyeah, they probably have a note in Freeperland to "post as rkb, the 52 y.o. teacher..blah,blah" I guess they finally got the docs phonied up. What could have taken so long? Waiting for special paper with a touch of watermarkings and 60's ink from Birmingham. Or maybe they couldn't find a 1972 Royal typewriter? Posted by: dave at February 13, 2004 04:47 PM | PERMALINKA serious question: What is the WH/RNC official explanation of why Bush volunteered at PULL in Houston? Helen Thomas got stonewalled today, of course. But is there anything out there? Just wondering. Posted by: mkultra at February 13, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKCorrection of my 4:39 post Seems to be a Bush WH practice to allow a few people to look at the records but not allow anyone to have a copy. They have been doing this with the 9/11 investigation and now with the Bush NG records. Sort of heads I win/tails you lose. The people who are allowed to look at the records say "I saw X." The WH responds "No you did not (and we know that you can't prove that you did)." Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 04:48 PM | PERMALINKJust in time for the Valentines Saturday Papers. Dear Press: If there's news in the files, reprint it on Sunday. Posted by: Hipocrite at February 13, 2004 04:52 PM | PERMALINKGreat. I'm just waiting for the WH to release a 17 page summary of all the relevant points from the 400 or so pages. Seems to me a fair deal. Oh wait! This isn't a commission. Take one look and leave your thoughts at the door. Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINKmkultra From the way Scottie was responding I would have to say that there must be something there. I don't think Helen got steamrollered. I think she and the others clearly showed Scottie was frantically avoiding a response. We know that Bush has never volunteered to do anything like PULL at any other time in his life. And we have to remember that this was in the middle of his boozing years. Why would a drunk be a do-gooder for one single six month period and never before or since. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINKOne thing's for sure: it isn't going to do Bush any good that he released these on a Friday. It gives 3 days to think of new questions for Tuesday. They're blacking out medical problems? Since when has crashing an F-102 counted as merely a medical problem? (responding to an earlier speculation) If it was a hernia repair or back spasms, I'd just as soon it remain secret. Nosebleeds caused by snorting cocaine? -- now that starts to get interesting, well sort of. And what if his National Guard records don't answer all the questions about his P.U.L.L. work? Why don't they show the documents to bloggers? It's mostly bloggers, following up Peter Jennings, who have kept this story alive. They should photocopy the papers and post them on the web. Then we can Photoshop them! That will be fun too. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 04:56 PM | PERMALINK I think William J. Campenni likes to see his name in the paper... After 9/11, he was the source for an article about how he was a National Guard pilot who was trailing a hijacked plane to Cuba in 1972. But the thing is, he says he was stationed in Pennsylvania, and prior to that, had been in graduate school, which makes me wonder how he was also stationed in Texas at the same time? Posted by: John McKinzey at February 13, 2004 04:58 PM | PERMALINKAmazing that that guy Campenni remembered that Bush volunteered to serve in VietNam -- especially when Bush said that he didn't. Amazing that guy in Alabama remembers his showing up for more drills than the Bush service records indicate, and that the dates of the drills (which this guy presumably attended) don't match the make-up dates that the Bush records supplied. If the current release goes half-way towards putting some real timeline together, I imagine this story may fade away (although the questions about community service at the gaggle this AM may be interesting). Hard-core Bush-lovers will believe he's been vindicated (not that they ever thought there was anything there anyway), hard-core Bush-haters aren't ever going to be convinced of anything except that there's been a cover-up. And we'll see what the rest of the world thinks in the fullness of time, if they care at all. I've been watching "the gang that can't lie straight" with amusement, largely for the process story. This would have had no mainstream traction at all, except for Peter Jennings' really stupid question to Wes Clark about Michael Moore, and then the RNC's total brain-fart in picking it up and making it an issue. When they did that, I knew we were in for some fun, because these guys simply can't deal with the idea that Bush has EVER shown any human failings except the few things that were pre-conversion that have already come out. So spin spin spin, deny deny deny, weak explanations that didn't hold water, dental records(!), and all kinds of "helpful" people like Campenni flying with Bush over the cold Atlantic and shark-infested Gulf when he was apparently also serving in the PA ANG (and not in the missing years), that guy who suddenly remembered him attending six drills with him when his records don't show that (and he couldn't remember what he did), and the RNC woman from Alabama who called up the commander and got it fixed because "idiots" were complaining at the time that he wasn't showing up. Talk about the choir starting to sing before anyone has handed out the music.... And unless there is really photos of him screwing a snake, the
whole thing could have been put to bed a long time by just admitting
that his ANG duty wasn't something that he could really be proud of, but
that was before he found Jesus. This is going to be fun to watch you guys, and see how you sping it, and move the goal posts. In a sick morbid kind of way ;-) Posted by Lonestar at February 13, 2004 04:28 PM | PERMALINK
And I'd bet the bank this document dump isn't everything. Posted by: John McKinzey at February 13, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKNow all we need are John F. Kerry's FBI files. (You are all aquiver 'bout those, right?) And, oh, yes, William J. Clinton's medical records. Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINKNow all we need are John F. Kerry's FBI files. (You are all aquiver 'bout those, right?) And, oh, yes, William J. Clinton's medical records. Posted by Tonto at February 13, 2004 04:59 PM | PERMALINK Please keep loading your diapers. I'm really enjoying this desperate display. What are you going to do when you face the fact that not only is Bush a piece of shit as a human being, he's also corrupt and incompetent and his biggest "success" is taking a renewed and optimistic nation and turning into a dark, paranoid, fearful, aggressive, backwards-facing place, all in three short years. Be proud, Bushite! Keep hanging on! Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure I heard somewhere that John F. Kerry had agreed to the release of his FBI files! Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 05:03 PM | PERMALINKRelease JFKs records. I am not saying not to. I'd rather know now if he has something to hide than having him nominated for the Dems and discovering after he becomes president that he had questionable character. the fact is we KNOW Bush is a LIAR and a misleader. Posted by: Poz at February 13, 2004 05:03 PM | PERMALINKtbogg, there was indeed prosperity in the 90s. It had its roots in a number of things, including defense spending in the 80s and the commercialization of a bunch of originally-defense technologies. Sorry if that isn't stressed these days, but it's what happened, beginning with the first head of the Electrical Engineering dept at Stanford who came from MIT's Lincoln Labs, a major defense research center. I know - I was involved with some of that commercialization. Rubin, Clinton's Treasury Secty with Wall Street experience, did a great job of working with the markets to keep the growth going. Too bad it was allowed to turn into an unsustainable bubble that inevitably crashed. But ... there was goodness there too and a lot of it was driven by technology shifts. Some was also enabled by the collapse of the Soviet Union. If y'all don't understand WHY things were better in the 90s - and why they are different now - you don't have a clue about what to do NOW. And just blaming Bush really misses the point. As far as "why was I a Democrat" - that's easy. I was the beneficiary of a bunch of social programs that let a blue collar kid eat 3 meals a day even during the Korean war recession when her dad was out of work a lot. I got to go to a first rate college because of scholarship and loan aid too. I was also the beneficiary of what had used to be a strong Democratic defense and space policy. I was a Democrat because Lyndon Johnson had the courage to push civil rights. And I think that I and our democracy benefit from similar social programs, if they are designed well and held accountable (i.e. if they continue to benefit their intended purpose and are not allowed to become entrenched for their own sakes). That has been a Democratic strength for a long time now and that's why I've been a Democrat. Yes, ch2, I've read the policy statements of the candidates. I find them ... less than impressive, generally a rehash of ideas that are out of sync with what is really happening right now. That's why I'm bitching in places like this! Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 05:04 PM | PERMALINKI guess the White House finally got Frank Abagnale set-up to do some high-quality "paper hanging" on those old Guard documents. Posted by: jg at February 13, 2004 05:04 PM | PERMALINKThey are ONLY RELEASING HIS PAY RECORDS.
rkb: You must be a hoot at parties. Maybe there's a point or two buried in there somewhere, but your example of a Bush "weakness" issue is Dukakisesque. Long, leaden, technocratic lectures don't really gain you much politically. I suppose it would be nice if politics consisted of an erudite electorate gathering to reason together on the best response to structural changes in the basis of the economy. Unfortunately, these things are won and lost on things like Ed Muskie crying, Willie Horton, Gore's sighs, and so on. Nobody ever won an election by giving economics lessons. Sad, maybe, but true. Posted by: Gaska at February 13, 2004 05:07 PM | PERMALINKGood post, rkb. The issue you raise -- how to deal with the structural changes in the economy leading to the moving of white collar jobs overseas -- is important. Dubya lost me when he dismissed international institutions for dealing with the our problems. As with nation building, he's having to eat his words now & try to get help from the U.N. The relevant point here is that our economy is closely tied to the international economy, which is in turn dependent upon healthy political relationships. Bush has addressed the serious international problems in a counterproductive fashion. Only a change of administration will restore our credibility and enable the U.S. to again play a leading role in defining & enforcing the global economic rules... Posted by: Detroit Dan at February 13, 2004 05:08 PM | PERMALINKtex, note the date on that Reuters article. Posted by: JakeV at February 13, 2004 05:12 PM | PERMALINKNo, Tex, that Reuters story is old. This makes no sense to me, though (perhaps some of you Bush apologists lurking here can help me). If there's nothing in those files, why the stonewalling and footdragging before releasing them. I don't buy Scottie's hysterical 'Trolling for Trash' line, because it's a tacit admission that there's trash to be found. It's clear they didn't want to release these records... Applying Occam's Razor, the most plausible solution is that these aren't ALL the files or they've redacted the bejeezus out of them. Time will tell (I hope). Posted by: JR at February 13, 2004 05:12 PM | PERMALINKNow, now, thomas. That's no way to treat an Independent, equal opportunity voter. BTW, reading "Area 51 Revisited" has prompted my spouse ... who has not voted in nearly 20 years ... to register and vote for Bush. Be proud, thyself. Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 05:12 PM | PERMALINK"Upon finishing the first draft of Fortunate Son, J.H. Hatfield was bothered by the incongruous break in the pattern of young G.W. Bush's life. In 1972, Bush "volunteered" to work with inner-city Houston youth at the community center Project P.U.L.L. Hatfield began to suspect that the service wasn't voluntary, but court-ordered. This was confirmed by three sources who had the same story: Bush was arrested for cocaine possession but his father, Congressman George Bush, worked out a backroom deal with a friendly judge. This information was first brought up by online journal Salon, where the community center was named as the "Martin Luther King Community Center." Bush campaign spokesman Scott McClellan responded to Salon's story with a firm, "We do not dignify false rumors and innuendoes with a response." After more research, Hatfield phoned McClellan and asked if it was Project P.U.L.L. where Bush performed "court-ordered community service." McClellan's response was a sudden, almost inaudible "Oh shit." followed by a, "No comment." " wasn't this mcclellan's reaction to helen's questioning this morning? Posted by: fun with republicans at February 13, 2004 05:13 PM | PERMALINKI'd be interested to know what Rkb sees as the cause(s) of the burgeoning deficits under Bush. This is all too funny. Redacted records released. These poor bastards are screwed. The administration is still operating with an abusers mindset. They dont understand that the victim is punching back and they intend not just to defend but to attack. Records disclosed? Its an open joke now. Nobody thinks Bush is charming anymore. Nobody wants shrub around anymore. Its very funny. Posted by: the third man at February 13, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINK> I'd read about this before, without making the community service connection, and it had struck me as strange too. Hard to imagine the young, callow Bush suddenly deciding he wanted to go work with inner-city kids, although it's possible. Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKI wonder if Hatfield's book will see a re-printing:) Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKWe seem to have lost most of the trolls. Maybe they really believed everything had already been released or maybe they are finally beginning to wonder why actual paper copies were not given to the reporters. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKCause(s) of burgeoning deficits under Bush? There are a couple of them: the collapse of the dot com bubble, at a time when entitlement increases were just kicking into spending mode economic suppression due to 9/11 - actually this IS true to SOME degree. I live in NY and believe me, we're feeling the impact from the attacks on NYC a lot. Ask someone who works for the airlines about this, too. homeland defense costs since then - again, not the whole story by any means, but it IS an expensive proposition. I live near the aquaduct bringing water to NYC & since 9/11 there have been several flights a night tracing that thing, flight crews presumably using infrared & other sensors to look for sabotage. 13 million people would be out of water for a long time if it were blown up. It isn't cheap to keep those patrols going for several years. Neither are the high tech responses being deployed to sense radiological and chemical activity in cities and ports. Afghanistan, Iraq, other intel and security activities - a big part of it, clearly. The originally strong dollar didn't help as it suppressed exports from the US, and the associated tax revenues. I don't have an estimate on the impact of that, haven't been following the various money supplies and trade figures closely. Some impact, though, not the majority by any means. The lower valued dollar will help this year and next. Ummm ... and your point in asking was? I gather you simply wanted
to mock the idea that 9/11 is responsible for anything happening these
days. An official bio of Bush (which I assume is widespread but that I found at http://usembassy.state.gov/seoul/wwwhe906.html) writes, in part: " In the spring of 1972, he left this job and went to Alabama to work on the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. Returning to Houston, he became a counselor for African-American youngsters in a program called PULL (Professional United Leadership League). " Okay. So all theorizing aside and based on just the facts at hand, it seems pretty clear that during one of the times in question, whether it's before or after January 1973 he was working at Project PULL, no? It would certainly seem that it coincides with one of the periods where Bush was absent from the Guard. That's rather interesting. Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2004 05:27 PM | PERMALINKBut as far as 9/11 goes, yes I do take it seriously. My daughter was less than a mile from the buildings when they were hit. Some friends of ours were in the section of the Pentagon that was hit too. And I respect the leaders of the Islamcist terror networks enough to take them at their word when they say they'd like to destroy me and my way of life. Yup, 9/11 is an issue for me. Wish the Dems had a credible response to it. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKAll this picking on Jane Fonda is shameful. She's a born-again Christian now (true...which is why Ted dumped her). What she did as a youth 30 years ago can't be held against her now. Of course, Karla Fay Tucker's prison conversion to Christianity didn't stop W from giving her the juice for her "youthful indescretions". Posted by: PMS at February 13, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKOk, rkb is a troll. (Bet you didn't know that !) So rkb, you got to benefit from social programs that Bush is cutting because he decided that there should be tax break for people who want to pass on wealthy estates (remember there is no estate tax on the first million dollars) ? And you are turning into a what ? A Democrat ? right ? Kevin, I'm sure you will join me in barracking for Kerry's release of his first book, The New Soldier. Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog at February 13, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKHow about we separate existing deficits from those that are just kicking in from the tax cuts, huh? Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 05:32 PM | PERMALINKLOL.. this is too rich. rkb Going after the terrorists where they were hiding was a good first step. I think everyone supported Bush on that. He got sidetracked into Iraq for one or more of a number of bad reasons. If Gore had been president, I think that he would have continued to hunt OBL in Afghanistan. The new president in 2005 now has a whole lot of problems to fix that did not exist in 2001. At this point I want to see Bush gone no matter who replaces him. He has screwed up more things in 3 years than I would have believed possible. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKrkb, I would like to know what you admire about Bush's foreign policy, as opposed to the Democrats. Sure the Democrats haven't presented their foreign policy in one strategic vision statement but this is mostly because they are not in power right now. The out-party is usually a gaggle of critics (remember the GOP in the 1990s) while the in-party can use the White House pulpit to present a coherent vision. Yet, for what it's worth, Kerry HAS stated a foreign policy vision that takes the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously. But his approach is different from Bush's. Instead of using force stupidly like Bush did in Iraq Kerry would use both soft and hard power to crack down on real threats, in places like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and North Korea. Clinton once said Americans would rather be strong and wrong than be weak and right. Kerry responded that he planned to be strong and right. The Democratic approach (with the exception of the far left) is to use our military might judiciously so as to be able to use it again should the case arise. Our military needs to be bigger, not smaller as Rumsfeld has long wanted. And our human intelligence operations needs to be expanded, not gutted because the Arabic speakers don't have the "correct" view on Israel. That approach is strong and right, not blustering and defective. Bush's foreign policy has now rendered the United States a paper tiger. In response to the gravest threat of our time Bush has made our country weaker, not stronger. This, not some garbage about what he did 30 years ago (or even his failure to come clean on it), is the biggest reason why we cannot allow Bush to continue in office. Posted by: Elrod at February 13, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKMy daughter was less than a mile from the buildings when they were hit. Some friends of ours were in the section of the Pentagon that was hit too. Wow, I bet you're a blonde teenage cheerleader in AOL chatrooms, too! Age/sex/loc, RKB? Press 69 if U want 2 cyber! IM me! rkb, Again ? Tell me ? You are going to vote ... Kerry ? Right ? Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINKIt seems like the administration has struck on a new strategy, a managed admission. They are betting on a percentage value base estimate of the inquisition including stupidity, gullibility, and short attention span to spin a plausible yarn. But what they have really bet the house on is that the boys and girls in the club will recognize that they are about to torpedo an american president and will back off out of quesiness. Its the same with the WMD committee. In both cases they have miscalculated. People have had enough of this idiot. Posted by: the third man at February 13, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKrkb writes: "Yup, 9/11 is an issue for me. Wish the Dems had a credible response to it." So what has Bush done to secure our ports lately? Posted by: Jon H at February 13, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKCBS coverage points out the contradiction in dates between Calhoun & Bush's pay records Quote from CBS website: "He sat in my office he would study his training manuals, read safety magazines. military type stuff," Calhoun told Roberts. Calhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign. "I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six." But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th. And former Guard Pilot Bob Mintz -- who was with the Alabama unit at the time -- says the base was all abuzz about a politically-connected Lieutenant coming in. But Mintz claims he never saw Mr. Bush -- and expects the newcomer would have stood out. "I just don't see how you could, ah, walk into a military squadron of people who are intimately familiar with each other and their jobs and things and not recognize him as a stranger, ya know?" said Mintz. See the full story. Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 05:42 PM | PERMALINKAnd our human intelligence operations needs to be expanded, not gutted because the Arabic speakers don't have the "correct" view on Israel. "Desparately needed - Arabic Translators. Must be heterosexual Zionists"
ch2 - I think the estate tax should stay. I also realize that taxing estates of $1m means taxing the inheritance of a LOT of baby boomers because in many markets the value of a house bought by the WWII generation is worth 10 or more times it original purchase price. The argument for removing the tax is again that it is a stimulus to investement at a time when low interest rates and a low-valued dollar make investing less attractive. And, sad to say, it usually takes investment to create jobs. Now as I commented above, I think Bush et al aren't tuned into some structural changes going on that are interfering with some of that stimulus effect. But then, I don't see the Dems tuned into that either. And you Gen X and Gen Y'ers better HOPE the baby boomers inherit enough to live on, because otherwise y'all are going to get to support us. Or things will get ugly. Probably both. Detroit Dan, how exactly would participation in exactly which international fora help us address the massive economic shifts due to technology change? I'd love to hear an analysis on that. Specifically, I'd love to hear how doing that will address short-term jobs issues, if it will. I'm off to bed early tonight - y'all have fun playing "neat conspiracy stories about the Bush records" .... but he also VOLUNTEERED TO FLY COMBAT IN VIETNAM: Hmmm....then why did he check the DO NOT VOLUNTEER BOX as his choice regarding overseas assignment??? Sorry....Bush's whole life has been evading responsibility, while others pay the price. Let me see if I have this right: Bush-- strong, honest, bold leader, and a war hero to boot- (Remember, Bush was quoted once as saying "I've been to war") Kerry-- unpatriotic, weak leader, soft on national security, slandering American troops. Yeah, that sounds right.....uh huh. rkb, I think u baby boomers better learn to survive on your own, if plan on SUPPPORTING BUSH, who is currently ransacking OUR future and the future of my KIDS! You should think carefully. The deficit that Bush plans to leave behind is criminal. And if you plan in voting for this endeavour you can be sure that voters younger than you will CUT social security, medicare, etc. So go ahead, vote Bush. Hopefully your daughter will have enough to support you. Posted by: ch2 at February 13, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINKIf he did volunteer to go to Vietnam, I am sure that he knew that F102s were not being sent there and anyhow he did not have enough hours. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINKThe AP says: "there was no new evidence that he was in Alabama during a period when Democrats have questioned whether he showed up for service." We also have the recollections someone "whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush" that he was in Alabama. Of course, we also have the recollections of two other pilots that he wasn't there. I don't think what W did in the Guard is a particularly big deal. But
if you don't smell a rat in the White House's response to this
situation, you are simply dishonest. The administration's weaseling on
this is pathetic. Oops, JonH asked a good question: what has Bush done to secure our ports? From what I'm hearing and reading, a couple of things: 1) pushed, pulled, chivvied the shipping and transport industry to adopt some security regs and more importantly, to begin to realize they have a stake in security issues 2) more tactically, begun deploying radiological and chem/bio sensors in at least 2 major ports, with the intent to expand automated scanning when the trial use is complete and we know how well it works 3) sent a lot of patrol boats, planes and helicopters over some ports, especially when intel suggests a higher risk of attack. I've seen a few of them escort / overfly some of the major cargo ships that come up the Hudson. Ports are a real vulnerability, no doubt about it. Al Qaeda owns or effectively controls a reported 50 or so ships, with at least one attack on London's docks reportedly thwarted in the planning state. Okay I'm off to read and sleep. Y'all have fun now. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 05:50 PM | PERMALINKDid someone mention smells? *sniff*... AHHHH rkb: Yup, 9/11 is an issue for me. Wish the Dems had a credible response to it. Like invading Iraq? Posted by: patriotboy at February 13, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINKI wish the Republicans had a credible response. Posted by: alias at February 13, 2004 05:54 PM | PERMALINKWe know that Bush has never volunteered to do anything like PULL at any other time in his life. And we have to remember that this was in the middle of his boozing years. Why would a drunk be a do-gooder for one single six month period and never before or since. And isn't it a bit...ohh, strange, that the President who is ever preaching the "love your neighbor as you'd like to be loved", always praising the value of citizens helping others, etc-- has not spoken publicly about this period in his life? Has anyone ever heard him say that this was any kind of formative experience for him, or that he knows the valus of helping others, since he did it himself? If this was a community-service stint to pay for his drug bust, I guess he wants to keep it hidden and not invite further probing. The fact that he never talks about it strikes me as very odd, given his supposed "values". Posted by: marty at February 13, 2004 06:01 PM | PERMALINKThersites wrote: We also have the recollections someone "whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush" that he was in Alabama. Though, as has been pointed out here, at Billmon's site, and by CBS news, that "someone" (Calhoun)recollected Bush being there during a period of time completely at odds with Bush's pay records. I.e., Calhoun seems to be lying. Of course, we also have the recollections of two other pilots that he wasn't there. Yep. And one of them says he was actively looking for Bush. Posted by: rolldown at February 13, 2004 06:01 PM | PERMALINK"I wish the Republicans had a credible response. Posted by alias" didn't you hear, kerry had sex with someone. that is the repubs credible response. Posted by: fun with republicans at February 13, 2004 06:03 PM | PERMALINKWhile the Democrats seem to bash Bush's budget they don't seem to have any thing to add except spending more on health care + education + police and raising taxes..... How is that going to fix social security/medicare in the long run? Social security/medicare cannot ever be properly funded because medical inflation exceeds the best investment return you will ever get. Taxes would just keep going up and up and up. Bush's work in restructuring Medicare towards private competition, capping malpractice and being pro-immigration (bringing in younger workers) does more than any Democrat will do. As to homeland security. What is Democratic policy? Unionize it again and screw it up.
ch2, 10,000 Americans with missing limbs or disfigurement? > 10,000 Iraqis dead (mostly women and children)? Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 06:04 PM | PERMALINK"Conservative columnist Robert Novak wrote that Bush's State of the Union address was the most ineffective in recent years, and he said Bush "has not seemed energized on the campaign trail." Bush has been shadowing Democrats in presidential primary states and battleground states, traveling a day or two a week. Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter for President Reagan, wrote that Bush seemed "tired, unsure and often bumbling" when he appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" to answer questions about Iraq and suggestions he shirked his military duty during the Vietnam War." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=693&e=1&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_on_the_defensive even super-shills novak and nooners are dissin' the g-to tha-w-to tha-b. that's gotta hurt. Posted by: fun with republicans at February 13, 2004 06:08 PM | PERMALINKOH, thanks. You guys are right. I went back and found this: President Bush, trying to calm a political storm, released his
Vietnam-era military records Friday to counter Democrats' suggestions
that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard. But there was
no new evidence that he was in Alabama during a period when Democrats
have questioned whether he showed up for service. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/02/13/national1741EST0732.DTL Sorry, I don't know how to make a link here. Looks like nothing is in the records about Alabama. Again, my apologies if this has already been discussed.....
Damn, more good questions up above. Okay ... Elrod: what I admire about Bush's foreign policy is twofold. First, that he recognizes and is willing to state that only a serious restructuring of international relationships will set the stage for improving conditions in most Islamic (and other) countries. And second, his insistence that democracy can be established there in the short tun and must be insisted on - including the subsequent responsibility of those democratic countries for their policies in the future. I simply have to disagree with your assessment both on the size of the military and on gutting intelligence. I think Army Chief of Staff Schoomaker is right: we are straining the size of our Army but more importantly, the structure of our Army is all wrong for the threats we face now. Until the restructuring is complete, adding more troops is counterproductive. It wastes time, materials and money, diverting some of our best talent into training people for ways of fighting that need to be changed anyway. However, having said that, we really are demanding a huge amount of our Army in particular and that can only go on so long. My friends who are Army officers make that very clear to me when we talk about this. Re: human intelligence, I don't know a great deal about that personally, my familiarity such as it is is more with the technical means of collection. But I will say this: both the CIA and the FBI had reputations as hidebound organizations that rewarded turf protection and politically correct consensus reports, long before the 2000 elections or 9/11. Rumsfeld had good reason to be skeptical about their conclusions. And in point of fact, it was the CIA that went along with the withering of the human intel side in favor of technical means, for two reasons: (1) technical intel is "objective" so no one had to go out on a limb and actually make an assessment that might be wrong and (2) human intel sometimes means associating with unsavory people and after the 80s and Contragate, and with the fall of the USSR, it was assumed we could and ought to avoid doing that any more. Whether and to what degree Rumsfeld et al's skepticism about those organizations also meant that accurate assessments on some issues were disregarded must be evaluated, preferably in serious hearings and investigations rather than TV photo ops where congressment slip in snide comments about "awol". It's just too important to figure this out and figure out what to do differently in the future about intelligence gathering. As for Kerry's position, it sounds good but really doesn't have any substance when you dig into it. I have yet to hear an credible strategies for exactly how more soft power would dismantle terror networks, intercept nuclear black markets or force change upon resistent, autocratic governments. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 06:08 PM | PERMALINK Yup, 9/11 is an issue for me. Wish the Dems had a credible response to it. You mean like that? http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/13/national/bush.184.jpg Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:10 PM | PERMALINKRemember how early in the Iraq war aftermath, when the failure to
find any WMD was getting embarrassing, there started to be such stories
like the nuclear plans buried since 1991 in an Iraqi's backyard and
Judith Miller's account of a "silver bullet" being found. The few
stooges now being pushed forward by the GOP are like those -- temporary,
but ultimately discredited fictions. Grand Moff Texan, Boy, that sure did put an end to Islamacist terror from the Egyptian group that later merged with bin Laden's, not didn't it. Pfah. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 06:15 PM | PERMALINKSo, rkb, why is it that our campaigns will be broke by October 1 and Bush isn't asking for any more money? And, assuming that Bush understands his supposed foreign policy at all, when has he ever acted on either supposed principle? We've removed the only natural rival to Wahhabism and expected miracles to happen. You make it sound like there was a plan or something. CIA and the FBI had reputations as hidebound organizations that
rewarded turf protection and politically correct consensus reports Until the restructuring is complete, adding more troops is counterproductive rkb Elrod: what I admire about Bush's foreign policy is twofold. First, that he recognizes and is willing to state that only a serious restructuring of international relationships will set the stage for improving conditions in most Islamic (and other) countries With Bush "serious restructuring" seems to mean insult, ignore and bully virtually every other country in the world. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 06:15 PM | PERMALINK'Yup, 9/11 is an issue for me. Wish the Dems had a credible response to it. Well, the first time the WTC was attacked, Clinton had those responsible seized, charged, and convicted in 13 months. You mean like that? http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/02/13/ national/bush.184.jpg Posted by Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:10 PM | PERMALINK" I think he means to imply that Clinton wouldn't have prevented it, unlike GWB. Posted by: jri at February 13, 2004 06:15 PM | PERMALINKok, so i know that rkb = Rove, Karl B. but what does the B stand for? Posted by: fun with republicans at February 13, 2004 06:16 PM | PERMALINK not didn't it I also know that ObL failed to get agents into the US under Clinton thereafter, and only succeeded when AQ switched from Yemeni to Saudi agents. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:17 PM | PERMALINKThen again, every time Clinton took a shot at AQ the GOP claimed he was just covering for his penis. It's hard to remember what you never paid attention to. Wanna try moving the goalposts again? Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:19 PM | PERMALINKSaudis being explicity part of Bush's road to success. Posted by: jri at February 13, 2004 06:19 PM | PERMALINKI think he means to imply that Clinton wouldn't have prevented it, unlike GWB. 1. supposition contrary to fact is a logical fallacy, which someone who actually does have experience with intelligence should know. 2. I've already mentioned Clinton's success against AQ agents through the end of his term. It doesn't matter if it doesn't fit party stereotypes, at some point you have to grow up and deal with the real world. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:20 PM | PERMALINKjri: I wasn't trying to imply anything like that, if I catch your drift correctly (and I'm not sure I do). Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:21 PM | PERMALINKGrand Moff Texan, I'm well aware of the temporary increase in troops authorized by Rumsfeld. But that isn't anything like the troop increase Congress is pushing for and you know it. ___League, I didn't much care for some of the testosterone-filled language floating around in the runup to Iraq, here OR in Europe. But in fact Bush *is* working with other countries in many ways, as the intervention in the nuclear black market shows. And as the careful push of the Saudis and Pakistan also show. The reality that Dems have yet to face is that Chiraq, Shroeder and Putin each had very strong personal/political (and mostly not publicly admitted) reasons for NEVER intervening in the status quo situation before we entered Iraq, no matter what Bush had done or what evidence had been presented. I would argue we are getting more cooperation since then than we did before Bush made it clear he would act with or without them. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 06:23 PM | PERMALINKYeah, and what about super-patriot and Bush family friend James Baker (you remember him, he hushed up Jeb Bush illegally disenfranchising 90,000 black and latino voters in the Florida, election, the same election that George W. Bush "won" by 500 votes) defending the Saudis after they were sued by the 9/11 families? What's up with that RKB? Why is James Baker, super-patriot, defending the Saudis? I thought there was a scandal because 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi and Saudi royal money helped fund AQ? What's up with that RKB? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:24 PM | PERMALINK The reality that Dems have yet to face is that Chiraq, Shroeder
and Putin each had very strong personal/political (and mostly not
publicly admitted) reasons for NEVER intervening in the status quo
situation before we entered Iraq, no matter what Bush had done or what
evidence had been presented. What do French refining interests have to do with that? And since when does Congress get everything it wants? That means exactly nothing. Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:26 PM | PERMALINKRKB, do you care to comment on the 20 year old business relationship between the Bushes and the bin Ladens? How come the only people who were allowed to fly on Sept. 12th in the United States were members of the bin Laden family? Isn't that a little strange? Shouldn't they have been held for questioning? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:27 PM | PERMALINKCalhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign. "I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six." But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th. I am posting this to point out a sneaky thing the reporter who wrote this did. It is customary practice for reporters to filter out ums, uhs, and other filler sounds that we use on a daily basis. But the AP writer left the 'uh' in Calhoun's quote, which nudges the reader to doubt what Calhoun says. And considering that the next paragraph contradicts what Calhoun says, I think that the 'uh' was intentionally left in as an editorial comment. Please don't think I am trying to make a point about Calhoun's trustworthiness. I'm pointing this out because I found it an interesting writing technique. While I think it is intentional, I could easily be wrong, so I toss this out to the peanut gallery: am I right, or am I creating something out of nothing? Posted by: Jason at February 13, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINKIf only our government could release full documents the way Saddam Hussein did about his weapons programs:) Posted by: coomaraswamee at February 13, 2004 06:31 PM | PERMALINKThe house of Saud certainly has a lot of friends in Washington in both parties. They should - it would appear they've paid for it. This Bush, I think, has left that behind if he ever shared it. I think Bush2's big issue wrt the Sauds now is to figure out how to minimize the damage to us and others when they fall, which will be sooner rather than later. Unless of course Nayyaf manages to seize power due to his control of internal security there. But the internal opposition to the whole family is heating up, and not just from the Islamacist fundamentalists either. Of course, all you who are concerned about the economy here do realize that oil prices will jerk all over the place when the Sauds fall. In the mid and long term it will be a refreshing change -- maybe, depending on who replaces them. In the short term, expect at least the potential of economic chaos and more lost jobs / higher cost of living. As far as Baker is concerned, I'm glad he's out shaking down other parties to forgive Iraqi's odious debts incurred by Saddam. Baker's pretty savvy and he also is, I think, motivated by concern for our country when the threat is clearly established, as it has been in the case of the Saudis. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 06:34 PM | PERMALINK If only our government could release full documents the way Saddam Hussein did about his weapons programs:) Desertion of mass destruction? Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:34 PM | PERMALINKFrom up thread, the post of the day.
Why do they keep playing games? Why are they making this crap so complicated. It's very simple. AUTHORIZE THE RELEASE OF EVERYTHING I'll even help out the lazy, here's one of the damn forms Sign those and the White House doesn't have to do any more work. They can let the journalists and bloggers and farmers alike pour over and make their own conclusions. The Calpundit's and Hobbs could both fit the puzzle pieces in the ways they see fit. But no! Now we have to suffer through this charade of parading clueless journalists in front of vetted piles of papers that they can't make copies of. This will be weasel word-smithed so McClellan can say that bush "released everything" (relevent to the topic). We won't know what they considered "relevent", I have no doubt it's going to be as narrowly defined as possible (only things related to the AWOL in Alabama charge most likely). They bring all this wild speculation upon themselves when act so damn suspicious and coy. It would be nice is the Saudis would close down the other 4/5's of the Islamic "charities" tied to terrorists. At least they've stopped taking contributions opening in shopping malls! I wonder if the current prince's hold on Vegetable Saud's kingdom is any firmer than Musharraf's? Posted by: Grand Moff Texan at February 13, 2004 06:37 PM | PERMALINKAs far as Baker is concerned, I'm glad he's out shaking down other parties to forgive Iraqi's odious debts incurred by Saddam. Baker's pretty savvy and he also is, I think, motivated by concern for our country when the threat is clearly established, as it has been in the case of the Saudis. Wow, you more full of shit that I had guessed before. You didn't even make a vague attempt to answer the question. Why is super-patriot James Baker defending the Saudis against the 9/11 families, RKB? Is he "motivated by concern for our country" when he defends the Saudis against the 9/11 families? The same Saudis who funded AQ? That shows "motivation by concern for our country"? Are you fucking serious? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:38 PM | PERMALINKOK, with this story, look at the dates Calhoun gives. May thru October?????
By Mike Allen and Lois Romano
Bush has been under fire from critics who contend he shirked his duty in the National Guard, and Republican lawmakers have begun to complain privately that the controversy is hurting the party. The White House used fanfare to release 13 pages of records this week to rebut Bush's critics, but those same records did not provide details about Bush's service. The president's aides have said they would release only those documents "relevant" to his service. Bush's staff on Wednesday released a one-page record of a dental exam -- culled from medical records the White House received this week -- to establish his presence at a base in Montgomery, Ala., during a period in 1972 and 1973 when the nature and extent of his service had been undocumented. White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the 30 or so pages of medical records contain "nothing unusual." "It is a standard medical file with standard medical examinations and evaluations that took place during his flying career with the National Guard," Bartlett said. "People who suggest there are problems in the medical files are flat wrong." Bartlett also said the White House does not have any records that document disciplinary action. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver sent Bush's complete military record to the administration by Federal Express early this week, an official said. A Bush aide said the documents apparently went to the Pentagon but added that the White House expects to receive them soon. The aide said they are likely to be duplicates of records -- which Bush's aides thought was his entire file -- compiled five years ago in preparation for his run for president. Retired personnel officers in the National Guard -- including the one the White House offered this week as an expert on Bush's file -- said in interviews that the records should contain a form or a letter detailing exactly what Bush did in Alabama and for how many hours. His file would also contain his detailed medical record, as well any disciplinary actions, the officer said. Bush said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last weekend that he would release his entire file, but his aides have since backed off that pledge. The White House and journalists have been attempting to find contemporaries of Bush's who could corroborate his claims about serving in Alabama while working on a U.S. Senate campaign in 1972. A Republican close to Bush supplied phone numbers yesterday for the owner of an insulated-coating business in the Atlanta area, John B. "Bill" Calhoun, 69, who was an officer with the Alabama Air National Guard. Calhoun said in a telephone interview that Bush used to sit in his office and read magazines and flight manuals as he performed weekend duty at Dannelly Field in Montgomery during 1972. Calhoun estimated that he saw Bush sign in at the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group eight to 10 times for about eight hours each from May to October 1972. He said the two occasionally grabbed a sandwich in the snack bar. "He'd sit on my couch and read training manuals and accident reports and stuff like that," Calhoun said. "The pilots would read those so they would see what other guys did wrong. . . . He never complained about coming." Calhoun, a retired lieutenant colonel who said he was the group's flying safety officer and later its plans officer, described Bush as "a typical fighter pilot -- he was aggressive with his talk." "He said he wanted a career in politics," Calhoun recalled. He said Bush used to talk about how hard he worked on the Senate campaign. "He'd come in on a Saturday morning and say, 'Man, I've been going like crazy,' " Calhoun said. Calhoun said he is a Republican but has not talked to Bush since 1972. Calhoun faxed The Washington Post military records that show he worked at Dannelly Field when he said he saw Bush. One of the sheets is signed by William R. Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general who was an officer in the Montgomery unit. Bush was supposed to report to him, but Turnipseed has said he does not recall seeing Bush. Asked about Calhoun's description of Bush's duty, a White House official replied that Bush "was pulling duty in a nonflying status. He recalls doing general administrative work." Calhoun's claim was a rare respite for a White House that has had a difficult time locating anyone who served with Bush. A variety of veterans have said they do not recall his presence at the base. Republican lawmakers have been growing increasingly concerned about the fallout from the dispute over Bush's Guard service. GOP aides on Capitol Hill, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the White House had put the party on the defensive on an issue related to national security, which is traditionally a GOP strength, as Bush prepares to face the Democratic presidential front-runner, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "We will never win the debate over who was the better soldier," said a Republican leadership aide. "This has to be about who would be a better commander in chief, and we let the Democrats shift the terms of the debate. Who would have thought Bush would get caught in the quagmire of Vietnam?" Kerry has declined to comment on Bush's military record in recent days. But one of his remaining rivals, Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who did not serve in the military, told reporters yesterday that he considers Bush's military record to be "a legitimate area of inquiry." Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie used a speech last night in Reno, Nev., to declare that the dental record and other documentation released by the White House should settle the matter. "I am sure the media will follow up with 'Well, that only proves his teeth were there, but do you have any proof of the rest of his body being there?' " Gillespie said. Albert Lloyd Jr., the retired Texas National Guard personnel officer who reviewed Bush's records in 1999 and again this week for the White House, said yesterday that records of Bush's Alabama duties would be archived with the pay records. Lloyd added that he thinks the Guard was not required to maintain those records indefinitely. Staff writer James V. Grimaldi and researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.
As to special treatment given to the bin Ladens, possibly at Saudi insistence, I don't know for sure what went on there. It's not hard to imagine that strings were pulled and that the Administration, uncertain about who did what and not yet really having uncovered the extent of Saudi complicity in the creation of Islamacist terror networks, went along either naively. Maybe someone was even bought off openly, I don't know. But neither do you ... it's all speculation. Maybe the 9/11 commission will clear it up and maybe not. I hope it does. What *is* clear is that the relationship with the Saudis has changed irrevocably since and that is an earthquake in the middle East and elsewhere. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 06:40 PM | PERMALINKWish the Dems had a credible response to it. You mean like IGNORING the warnings given to them about it for 9 months? Or sitting in a classroom full of children for 20 full minutes after being told "America is under attack" reading them a story about a GOAT? Or going on vacation for the month of August? The ENTIRE MONTH OF AUGUST, while George Tenet was supposedly "frantic" with warnings about AQ that people in the WH became "bored" hearing? Uh yeah, real fucking credible, champ. Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKAs to special treatment given to the bin Ladens, possibly at Saudi insistence, I don't know for sure what went on there. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the Bushes have been business partners with the bin Ladens for over 20 years. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that the CIA personally funded Osama bin Laden back when he was our buddy in Afghanistan and he was fighting the Soviets. Remember that? Remember when bin Laden was Reagan's buddy? Hey, I think Bush 41 was Reagans vice-president! Small world, huh? What *is* clear is that the relationship with the Saudis has changed irrevocably since and that is an earthquake in the middle East and elsewhere. Yeah, you're still not answering the question. Why is super-patriot James Baker defending the Saudis against the 9/11 families? Why? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKCalhoun's a crank, a Roy Moore without portfolio. He's being remembered by Democrats in Alabama as a Knight Errant and yearning sycophant not to be trusted or believed. Giggles though are quite in order. Posted by: Sam Spade at February 13, 2004 06:44 PM | PERMALINKRKG, how much longer do you want me to paint you into corners, embarrass you and shatter your perception of Bush as the awesome American superhero? Do you want me to continue to rock your world with inconvenient facts? I'd be happy to. I can go on all night if you want. RKB, why is James Baker defending the Saudis against the 9/11 families? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:46 PM | PERMALINKQUESTION: Well, the reason I bring up the question is that John
Calhoun, who claims he was the person in charge of making sure that
President Bush reported for duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group, says
that he saw the President several times on the base between May and
October of 1972, yet there is no record of him being there, in terms of
what you released earlier this week. Scott McClellan Read billmon: http://billmon.org/ Posted by: tex at February 13, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINKMaybe someone was even bought off openly, I don't know. An interesting possibility. The FBI whistleblower said that she and her coworkers openly speculated as to whether some of their higher ups were double agenst, since they so studiously avoided dealing with clues (about what became 9/11) presented to them. One refrain runs through Soviet observations about the cold war,
after it was over: it was never a problem finding an American willing
to sell out other Americans; you just had to wave money around. Re: Baker defending the Saudis against 9/11 suits, the whole issue of Saudi relations with US ex-politicians is a snakepit. On the other hand, personal lawsuits against the Sauds in this case - while morally justified -- make no sense in terms of international law (such as it is). I don't favor the ludicrous suits that some Belgians tried to bring against Rumsfeld or Franks and I equally don't favor suits here against the Sauds. Don't get me wrong - I think the Sauds are complicit as hell. I
just don't think those suits are a good idea or are likely to succeed. ch2, my daughter won't have to support me. In fact, I'm supporting her right now and expect to for some time to come, just as I expect to work into my 70s. The deficits need addressing. But there are some short term pressing needs that need spending on too. And, Bush's budget doesn't help. But then I've already said his assumptions about growth to pay for that budget are off base. Which is one reason I expect to work into my 70s. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 06:53 PM | PERMALINKRe: Baker defending the Saudis against 9/11 suits, the whole issue of Saudi relations with US ex-politicians is a snakepit. No, it's not a snakepit, it's a politically inconvenient fact that Republicans and especially the Bushies don't like to talk about and is almost never mentioned in the media. And you still haven't answered the question. Why is James Baker defending the Saudis? Do you think it has something to do with, oh, I don't know, their old terrorist friends in the House of Saud sitting on the largest proven oil reserves in the world and an administration filled with Texas oilmen? Or is that a "conspiracy theory"? What about the relationship between the Bushies and the bin Ladens? Remember when Reagan lauded Osama bin Laden as a "freedom fighter"? How about all of those chemical weapons we gave to Saddam Hussein? How about our knowledge of his gassing Kurds in Halabja and the fact that we gave him even more chemical weapons after he "killed his own people" as Bush put it? Wasn't James Baker the Secretary of State during Iraqgate? Small world with these fellows, isn't it? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINKMost of you are fucking nutcases.. There will never be enough evidence for any of you Posted by: luna at February 13, 2004 06:58 PM | PERMALINKAccording to news report, the records still don't address the W's time in Alabama. If these are truly all the records, but they don't show time spent in Alabama, then shall we conclude he didn't show up in Alabama? And why did they just release dental records from before? Was that because that it is the only record showing presence in Alabama? And why did this take so long? Scrub, scrub, scrub, shrub. Posted by: tstreet at February 13, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKThere will never be enough evidence for any of you That's the problem. Every report I'm reading says there's nothing in the records to prove that Bush was where he said he was. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKrkb In 3 years Bush has already made it necessary for you to work into your 70's. Give him 5 more and you will have to work into your 90's. If we dump him this year you may be able to stop work at 80. Posted by: ____league at February 13, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKThe Columbia Jounalism Review?!!!!!!! Wow! Congratulations, Kevin! Lastly, Kevin Drum of the blog Calpundit, deserves credit for offering edgy and reported posts on the subject through the week. Posted by: pie at February 13, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKOh yes, and Re: being safer and port security: We have now negotiated an agreement with Liberia allowing us legally to search any ship under Liberian registry if it is suspected of carrying WMD. Negotiations continue with other major registry countries too. It's one step, but a very useful one. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 07:01 PM | PERMALINKHow about you attempt to answer some questions RKB? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 07:01 PM | PERMALINKThe central point remains the same that it's always been -- why did the White House have to be dragged kicking and screaming into releasing the documents, or even into PROMISING to release the documents? Something here smells seriously wrong. If it was simple political ineptitude on their part, then it was ineptitude to the point of flat-out political insanity. At any rate, according to the Washington Post, we at least have the central period of interest identified -- May 1972 to May 1973, when the suppsedly complete new records still provide no information whatsoever on what he was up to or whether he attended Guard service at all. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at February 13, 2004 07:02 PM | PERMALINKDon't get me wrong - I think the Sauds are complicit as hell. Funny, you must be alone among Republicans. We invaded the wrong country. Saudi Arabia has more oil too. Let's see... Saudi Arabia: 19 of their citizens attacked us, funded by members of their royal family. Military Action Taken: None Iraq: No attacks on Americans. No Iraqi citizens were involved in Sept. 11 attacks. Military Action Taken: Massive invasion and Occupation. Tens of thousands of Iraqis killed. 540 Americans killed, 600+ Coalition deaths. Civil war in Iraq. Massive instability in the region. Thousands of GIs without arms, legs, or other important parts of anatomy. No WMD found. US invincibility aura shattered (don't need nukes to deter the US, just use RPGs and truck bombs). Military retention rates stabilized only by stop-loss orders. Plans for "caucus" elections where the US would "appoint" Iraqi government squashed by Islamic cleric demanind (ironically) free elections from George W. Bush. Iraq is a disaster. A complete and utter failure. We're scrambling to get the hell out of there before the elections in November. Way to go Bush. Just like every other venture in your life, you f-ed it up. Again. Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 07:04 PM | PERMALINKThere will never be enough evidence for any of you Oh, that's where you're wrong. This could be over in a minute, couldn't it. Deny. Deny. Obfuscate. Posted by: pie at February 13, 2004 07:06 PM | PERMALINKok, chickenhawks, riddle me this: let's grant for the sake of argument that the cock-and-bull story that the WH is trying to feed us constitutes a legitimate, honorable separation from the Armed Forces. Given that he's been on non-flying status for thirty-two years, WTF was the POTUS (ROTUS?) doing the day he landed on the Abraham Lincoln, at the stick of a $27M aircraft on which he has never been trained? Is he lying about having flown the plane, or did he recklessly and needlessly put at risk millions (billions?) of dollars of naval materiel, thousands of troops, and his own ridiculously overpriced ass? Posted by: xf at February 13, 2004 07:06 PM | PERMALINKAs someone pointed out over on Eschaton, what really needs to happen is that the fratboy coward needs to release his 201 file. I still want to know why he ducked his flight physical in 1972. That is the key to all this. That's where the white powder is buried. Posted by: Gary Frazier at February 13, 2004 07:07 PM | PERMALINKWell, I am glad to see that rkb's posts have gathered some thoughtful responses. That's what I found good about Kevin's blog when I started following it for info during the California recall. I'm not a troll, I have voted for Dems for President before, going back to McGovern, Carter twice, Clinton in 96, and I stayed home in 2000 becuase I wasn't convinced that either Bush or Gore were really up to the job. And, Bush has done things I don't agree with-- his first tax cut was OK, but the tax cut on dividends was way overdone. It seems to me that, with the deficit where it is now, it wouldn't be at all inappropriate to impose, say, a 5% surtax on the upper brackets for a limited period to fund the increased costs of homeland defense and the defense budget. The point is, there are independent voters out there that know Bush is nowhere near perfect. A responsible democrat would have had a chance to get their votes. I like Joe Lieberman a lot, and I trust Gephardt on national security (though I can't stomach his trade views), but how can any reasonable person support the candidate of a party whose bases's first response to everything is "Bush lied" and whose remaining presidential candidates are so quick to pander to them? There are some huge issues about our economy, and the solutions require us to address the world in ways that we thought were past us once the cold war ended. How we deal with those problems will also have a lot to do, in the long run, with lowering the temperature in the war on terrorism. I think Bush sees this somewhat dimly, but I get no sense that Kerry or the others are willing to engage these issues at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but I am afraid that this is going to be a totally bullshit campaign and that the people will never really get a chance to hear some hard truths. (I will give Dean credit-- I did hear him say that stopping job loss to China would mean we would have to pay more at Walmart.) And, really, Kerry is going to be a lot weaker candidate than you think. He really is considered a lightweight inside the beltway (as opposed to someone just as liberal, Ted Kennedy, who is considered one of the most effective members of the Senate), and I have every reason to believe that this intern thing is only the first of what will be several revelations that reveal him to have come to DC with an empty head and an open fly. I hate to be as partisan as I have become this year, but my family's safety is too important to me. I could be convinced to vote for a theoretical Democrat, but not based on what I have seen from the Dem base. The Falwell types in the Bush base aren't my cup of tea either, but they at least support a strong defense. Whatever you say about Bush, at least we haven't been attacked again, and if you think that is just dumb luck, then you don't give the Islamofascists enough credit. All this focus on Bush's NG record is just an attempt, started by Michael Moore and Terry McAullife, to avoid the real issues and try to stop the fight on cuts. I have one question, what are all of you Bush bashers going to do if, by some chance, he gets re-elected? Posted by: Dan at February 13, 2004 07:08 PM | PERMALINKIf Bush releases every scrap of paper with his name on it and nothing shows up, you guys will just say it was "doctored" or "cleansed." In fact, Kevin has already floated that, just in case. This is a witch hunt, and I've lost all respect for Kevin. Only if the evidence comes out your way, will you accept it. Otherwise it's been tampered with. Nice "no win" situation. Posted by: David R. Block at February 13, 2004 07:08 PM | PERMALINKIf Bush releases every scrap of paper with his name on it and
nothing shows up, you guys will just say it was "doctored" or
"cleansed." That's odd, because even after this paper dump I haven't read a single report that said any of the documents prove that Bush was where he said he was. And these are supposedly his "complete records"? I have to hand to this President. If the most you get out of this President is that he missed a physical and had a misdeanor charge dropped, you guys got screwed. Poker, fellas. Get the other players to bet big on a losing hand. Posted by: Chad Peterson at February 13, 2004 07:11 PM | PERMALINKI have one question, what are all of you Bush bashers going to do if, by some chance, he gets re-elected? Re-elected? I will laugh. Then I'll do what the GOP did in 1996. I will work for his impeachement. Next question? Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 07:12 PM | PERMALINKHey, I just noticed that on the famous have-you-been-arrested page that's got everybody fascinated, GWB listed his "normal" frat but not "super-secret" Skull and Bones. Would that be a (trivial) felony? Image available many places including through my own blog here, he said hit-whorishly. Posted by: DonBoy at February 13, 2004 07:13 PM | PERMALINKAnd what about all of these bothersome reports I'm hearing about reporters calling around and being unable to find anyone who can attest to Bush showing up in Alabama? What about Calhoun's statements pointing out discrepancies with the official timeline? What about this missing flight physical? What's this I hear about all of the medical information being blacked out in the records? What about the records not being released to the public, only to a select group of reporters for 20 minutes at a time, who are allowed to take notes but not make photocopies? What is this I keep hearing about Bush working for PULL in Houston? He's never mentioned that before? Gee, maybe I'm just dumb but something's not adding up here. Bush has nothing to hide, right? Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 07:15 PM | PERMALINKI have to hand to this President. If the most you get out of this President is that he missed a physical and had a misdeanor charge dropped, you guys got screwed. Poker, fellas. Get the other players to bet big on a losing hand. What about all of these rumors I hear about Bush being a huge
cokehead and him missing his physical for some unknown reason and him
not showing up in Alabama and him suddently doing community service in
Houston? Odd...this "born again" Christian never seems to mention that
community service he did. rkb, it truly stuns me that someone as obviously intelligent as you thinks Bush and the neocons are making us safer. They have a vision of the world, that's for sure. If only it wasn't completely delusional. Iraq was not a threat to America or its neighbors. The neocons thought they could turn it into a democracy overnight. Whoops. Women have already lost the right to hold professional jobs, a right they did have under the secular Baathist regime. When Bush pulls out this summer to help his re-election prospects, they're probably going to end up another theocracy. He's turned the rest of the world against us. Most Europeans consider him the biggest threat to peace in the world. When you're pursuing terrorists, who are stateless, you need the cooperation of other countries. Swinging your dick into a stationary target like Iraq is a lot easier though, and it makes people feel good. At least if they're watching Fox News and don't have to see the Iraqi children with their arms and legs blown off. I'm glad your daughter was safe on 9/11 though. Good thing she was lucky enough not to be born in Baghdad, huh. The Bushes are totally in bed with the Saudis and you've done nothing but prevaricate and read George W.'s mind. You sense this Bush isn't trying to protect the Saudis huh? I wish I shared your psychic powers. What about our allies Pakistan? The Bush administration killed
investigations into their trading of nuclear secrets years ago. It was
front page news in most of the rest of the world. If you find George Bush manly and attractive, and you don't mind his gutting the social safety net, environment, economy and America's standing in the eyes of the world, then by all means, vote for him. You deserve each other. Posted by: rorschach at February 13, 2004 07:17 PM | PERMALINKIf the most you get out of this President is that he missed a physical and had a misdeanor charge dropped, you guys got screwed. LOL By now every veteran knows that Bush has a shitty Guard record. Honorable discharge? The DC sniper got an HD. He snuck off to the Guard to avoid Vietnam. I think this whole mess has cemented that in people's heads, so that's a net gain, IMO. While George W. Bush was reading magazines in a cushy ANG berth, the rest of Americas's kids were getting their heads blown off in Vietnam. Says a lot, to me, about his fitness. And for him to need his records PORED over to establish where the eff he was? To have them have to be DRAGGED out of him, rather than him being man enough to step up and release them last week? Makes people think that he's hiding something. When he won't answer a simple question like "Did you ever have to do Community Service?" It makes reasonable people believe he did, in fact, have to do CS. For what, they're going to wonder? DUI? Drugs? What is he hiding? Was he arrested? Did he get special treatment because his Dad had pull? These questions are going to percolate in people's minds regardless of how this turns out. That's a net gain, IMO. Partisan? You bet. Not "fair" ? I stopped caring about that when the Starr Report came out. Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINKThe real prize: P.U.L.L. Find the staff and learn the truth. Posted by: larre at February 13, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINKI missed Old Hat's post earlier in which he asked for my age/sex/location. I posted this in an earlier thread, but here it is again, FWIW: age: 52 married to a retired USAF officer who also now teaches, 1 daughter 27 yrs old who was temping in an office building close up the avenue from the WTC on 9/11 'night y'all. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 07:24 PM | PERMALINKOh, one last demographic: a registered Democrat for 30 years. Whether you believe that or not. Of course, the party has changed a good deal since the days of Scoop Jackson. But a Democrat still, albeit one that is seriously thinking of voting the other side this time around. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKNot "fair" ? I stopped caring about that when the Starr Report came out. I know it bothers the trolls to no end that we're playing by the rules that they wrote in the 1990s. It's payback time, boys. This is for every Vince Foster murder theory, this is for every Chelsea Clinton is a dog, this is for every impeachment, this is for every election you frauds stole, this is for the war you waged, this is for the Saudis you propped up, this is for the bin Laden you created, this is for every CIA agent you outed, this is for every Rove dirty trick in the book. Your boy is going down. We're playing hardball now. Bring it on. Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 07:26 PM | PERMALINKOf course, the party has changed a good deal since the days of Scoop Jackson. But a Democrat still, albeit one that is seriously thinking of voting the other side this time around. Don't let the door hit you in the bum on the way out. NY will go for Kerry, in any case. So vote Bush all you want. : ) Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 07:27 PM | PERMALINKActually, as pointed out by Mark Kleiman in his earlier handy summary of this whole business ( http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_bush_awol_issue_/2004/02/awol_roundup.php ), virtually all its important questions have always revolved around what he was doing between May 1972 and May 1973 -- and why he's been evasive about it to the point of sometimes telling flat and provable lies. And that is precisely the period for which (according to the Washington Post), the new records provide no information whatsoever. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at February 13, 2004 07:28 PM | PERMALINKHigh Fives, Old Hat. My work here is done tonight. Posted by: Monkey at February 13, 2004 07:29 PM | PERMALINKPoor Bush. He can't do anything right. He can't even find half-literate advocates. Those who carry the burden of juxtaposing his behavior with middle class credulity don't have easy jobs, to be sure, but they ought to be better at it. Defending the indefensible just can't be that hard. McClellan, for example, just might be the worst presidential press secretary since Ziegler---fumbling, inarticulate, perplexed---but he's not alone. Everywhere the Bush spokesmen gather and try to make their case, like here, by the way, obfuscatioin is as common as sophistication is rare. Posted by: Sam Spade at February 13, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKrkb: believe it or not, I am one of a relatively small number of people who can truthfully claim to have voted for Dan Quayle four times. But I'd vote for LaRouche over GWB. Posted by: xf at February 13, 2004 07:35 PM | PERMALINKhere's what you freepers don't understand. (maybe step away from the television for awhile.) this is only the beginning. there have been so many problems with this WH and they've all died relatively quickly with the noble "liberal press corps." this one has gone on longer than any other, and though it is relatively meaningless in the grand scheme of the american psyche (there are wings in the subplots of the story that will never fly, my anti-gw friends), the press is finally on the scent like they have never been during this admin. combined with the falling poll numbers, the press is finally gaining the "popular-support balls" to start asking questions that they have far too long been afraid of asking. the plame affair, 911 and iraq intel commisions are going to start gaining a lot more media attention because of the credibility gap that comes out of this story. just count this seemingly insignificant media moment as the beginning of the end. Posted by: fun with republicans at February 13, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINKThere is now a whole lot of evidence and none of it shows that Bush
was in Alabama. That kook, Calhoun puts Bush there when there are
absolutely no records of his being there, even by Whitehouse standards.
So where was Bush in '72? AWOL Bartlett said, "“There was no need or
reason for him to take a flying exam,” Bartlett From Doc. 5 "A review of his Master Personnel Record shows that he has a Military Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under the provisions of paragraph 30-6 (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron." Posted by: Alma Evans at February 13, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINKPosted by Ducktape: "Hard-core Bush-lovers will believe he's been vindicated (not that they ever thought there was anything there anyway), hard-core Bush-haters aren't ever going to be convinced of anything except that there's been a cover-up. And we'll see what the rest of the world thinks in the fullness of time, if they care at all." Ah, but that rest of the world is also made up of those in this country who are hard core about neither their Bush loving nor their Bush hating. That group is composed of the same people who are already most likely to swing to and fro with their support and opposition to Bush. As such, they are the folks who are most likely to gather their views from the major mass media outlets -- which is another way of saying they are the most susceptible to corporate media's pro Bush spin. That isn't going to change; in fact, as the election draws closer, it will become more apparent. Ducktape: "And unless there is really photos of him screwing a snake ... " There are. The known facts show a lot of snakes being screwed. They
also point to the obviousness of still unaccounted for "photos" --
irrefutable evidence/conclusive proof/the smoking gun that, while
already apparent to anyone without a conscious or deluded self interest,
still eludes or is irrelevant to the Bush lovers and those
non-hard-core folks mentioned above. What this all means is that only
the discovery of some Bush wrongdoing which is widely reported as such
will have the power to make it a likelihood that a Democrat will be
elected in the fall. Unfortunately, there is a very great likelihood
that the evidence which could become the truth to the vast majority of
voters has been permanently destroyed or is so well hidden it will not
be found. Posted by Kevin Drum: "If he does that, it should put this issue to bed for good." We don't want this issue put to rest. We want Bush put to rest! (Alive and well in Crawford, of course.) What we want, what all of us want who truly want to advance humanity, is to demonstrate Bush's supreme unfitness for the office he holds and to expose his policies as being counter to the public good. Doing that means there can be no rest until it is accomplished, and only a short one then. Because, as much better that Clinton was than Bush, even he was just barely able to keep those who suffer most from faring any better than treading water. Meanwhile, it was during his time that so many at the top came to solidify their belief in their entitlement to such a position. Gore might have nudged things a bit closer to fairness, but the fight for real justice would still be far from complete. That we now have to win a monumental battle merely to begin getting back to where we've been, shows how urgent is our situation. Keep digging, Kevin and everyone. And hoping. Posted by: jayarbee at February 13, 2004 07:41 PM | PERMALINKrkb writes: "Oh yes, and Re: being safer and port security: We have now negotiated an agreement with Liberia allowing us legally to search any ship under Liberian registry if it is suspected of carrying WMD. Negotiations continue with other major registry countries too. It's one step, but a very useful one." So, are you saying that Bush would have waited to get permission from Liberia before searching a Liberian-flagged ship? Bush would have gone to Liberia for permission to defend the United States? And by extension, any other flag of convenience nation? What if they say no? Bush will just let it sail into port? Posted by: Jon H at February 13, 2004 07:42 PM | PERMALINKerrata: could not serve in that postal unit. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 13, 2004 07:42 PM | PERMALINKPartisan? You bet. By golly, I had guessed that somehow. Let's see: so if I've got this straight, ... Bush was AWOL unless he shows us his discharge, ... because one guy who insists he was misquoted originally was once quoted as not remembering him after 32 years, ... and, er, his pay stubs, ... er, his retirement points, ... er, and his dd214, his whole military record, ... his whole military record including his social security number and that of anyone else in the files, (even though the Pentagon just paid a big settlement for letting someone's personal info out during Clinton and thus might prefer to only release what they lawfully could) ... uh, and he's got to show he was a wonderful and brilliant officer not just adequate, ... and he's got to have witneses, oh, and the witnesses' recollections after 32 years have to exactly match up to all those records, ... and his witnesses have to have actually seen him on base, but anyone who doesn't remember seeing him on base in the total of six days he would have drilled in those three months means those witnesses were lying too, ... and his pay stubs should be from Alabama even though he was never in the Alabama Guard, ... and they have to have no delays or gaps in processing even though we just heard today on C-SPAN about how bad paperwork is even today, ... and now that those have all been released you found out he had had a couple of speeding tickets in high school (speeding tickets? A guy who was going to become a fighter pilot? Oh, say it ain't so!) but that in fact all his efficiency ratings were top tier and all sorts of people speak well of him, but after all he didn't really volunteer for Nam like his records say he did because two years earlier he didn't volunteer for overseas duty at enlistment? ... ... oh, and don't forget he was admonished for poor attendance in 1967, the day he enlisted, showing that the Air Guard is really really smart since his supposed poor attendance didn't happen until 1972... and you say: Partisan? You bet. Nah. Y'think?
You only get a DD-214 when you leave active duty. If Bush has one, it would be for the two-year period of active duty flight training BEFORE he joined the Guard. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House has gone through all the documents to black out Bush's SSN, old home addresses, and other personal information. Of course, some will see ANY redactions as evidence that Bush is hiding something... Posted by: SMASH at February 13, 2004 07:44 PM | PERMALINKNo Bush didn't ask Liberia's permission to defend the US. We're already boarding Liberian ships at sea at least during 2003, don't know if we did earlier than that - this makes it it nice and official that they give permission. Expect to see similar bilateral agreements with other countries shortly. Posted by: rkb at February 13, 2004 07:46 PM | PERMALINK'night y'all. Posted by rkb at February 13, 2004 07:24 PM Wow, you sleep fast. Posted by: Mr T. at February 13, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKWe're playing hardball now. Bring it on. Right fucking on. As Billmon said: I believe the only way to stop this kind of mindless, destructive discourse -- Scott McClellan's "gutter politics" -- is to establish a doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Conservatives have to be taught that the techniques they used to try to destroy Clinton can be successfully used against their side as well. Posted by: slappy at February 13, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINKIgnoring the idiot trolls for a moment, I wanted to direct a serious question to the serious posters such as rkb and Dan. First of all, kudos for willing to post here amid the hostility and silliness on both sides. It's nice to have an actual dialogue/debate going. My question is this: what is it about the Shrub that makes you think he's (1) doing more good than harm on issues of national security and, perhaps more importantly (2) would do it better than Kerry (or any other serious Democratic nominee)? Here's the thing about international terrorism: it breeds when the climate is right. You need a large group of young men with nothing much to live for, you need a steady stream of funding from rogue nations and individuals, and you need safe places for them to breed (which means a sympathetic populace and tacit approval or at least non-intervention of local authorities). Do you really think Shrub's policies of pissing off the rest of the world, ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and statements from him and his administration about "crusades" help here, when the clear evidence is that he has stiffened opposition to us far more on the Islamic street than before 9/11 and alienated former allies. Do you really think a Democrat would not have gone after Afghanistan and focused on attacking terrorists after 9/11? If so, that's absolute garbage; the Afghanistan action was overwhelmingly bipartisan. To those of you who point to Clinton's moderated response in the 90's to Afghanistan, I can only answer that you're comparing apples and oranges. There is an obvious difference in scale between the 9/11 attacks and the embassy bombings, for example. Aside from the fiscal responsibility a Democratic win could bring back to this country, let's not forget that a Democratic win would be overwhelmingly welcomed by most of the civilized world (and much of the uncivilized world) which would go a long way towards rehabilitating our international standing. I hardly need to point out that this international standing is at or near an all-time low. I really want to know what credibility the Doofus-in-Chief has to reasonable people. Please, tell me. RE: Luna -- "There will never be enough evidence for any of you." What evidence? You mean the 30-year-old dental record that purportedly shows Dubya in Alabama during the same period of time when he earlier claimed to be in Texas ...? I think Dubya was in England, helping Pink Floyd record their epic album, "Dark Side of the Moon." That's him talking in the background at the end of the song "Money" -- he's the guy saying, "I don't remember, I was really drunk at the time," while some chick tells him that he's "cruising for a bruising." Bring it on, dude. Posted by: Oahu Guy at February 13, 2004 07:55 PM | PERMALINK> The real prize: P.U.L.L. Knock yourself out. She won't talk to anyone else, though: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. COMMUNITY CENTER, INC. Madgelean Bush, Executive Director 2720 Sampson Houston, Texas 77004 Phone: (713) 659-7704 Hours: 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Cost : No fee The only other name I've seen cited from that episode is pro football star and wrestler Ernie Ladd, who probably is not going to rat out Bush. What can I say, the conversation was just scintillating. Well, maybe not that. But I missed Old Hat's earlier demand for demographic profile and wanted to answer it. xf, Didn't Dan Quayle mostly or entirely play golf in the National Guard? GWB had at least 4 years commendable flight training, there's just some doubt about a few months' time in late 1972, early 1973. Posted by: MatthewRMarler at February 13, 2004 07:56 PM | PERMALINKJust got back from a little errand.Was forced to hear that schrill
michael Moroon savage.(i hate media reform!)He had on this poor woman
that wanted to offer her opinon that she was worried about GWB and his
religious convictions(completley justified in my opion)and savage like
all other talking heads were forced to hear on AM radio and the like
made this woman out to be be some left wing liberal christian hater when
in fact she said she wasnt .He then proceeded to berate her to no end
labeling her on way or another.my question to all the righties here what
does it take for all you zealots to realize there ARE other opinions
that have merit and are not thought up by karl rove and dick cheney and
all those P-NAC zombies makers out here.I cant wait for the main
election debates to commence so that the blind may be enlightened!!!!!! Okay, I only served on active duty for 27 years. I know I would have received non-judicial punishment (Article 15) if I deliberately missed a dental appoint, let alone a required physical. What am I missing about 'military discipline' here with someone who garbs himself in a military cloak while using lies to send innocent soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to their death? For what? Posted by: WTC Survivor at February 13, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINK"Okay I'm off to read and sleep. Y'all have fun now. No comment. Posted by: mac at February 13, 2004 08:10 PM | PERMALINKok, so i know that rkb = Rove, Karl B. but what does the B stand for? Bullshit. Posted by: Thersites at February 13, 2004 08:15 PM | PERMALINKTO: Charlie (Colorado) Apparently, you don't find it the least bit peculiar that none of the 30 or so pilots with that Alabama ANG unit, not to mention the commanding officer, remember serving with a man who eventually became the Governor of Texas and President of the United States. I mean, we're not talking about some private who served anonymously in an infantry regiment -- George W. Bush was a trained fighter pilot, one of perhaps hundreds nationwide, because only a few states maintained active ANG units. And NOBODY can remember having served with this future President of the United States during this entire year in question? I find such a supposition to be incredulous and extremely unlikely. For sure, 30 years after the fact is a long time, but none of them could remember seeing him when asked four years ago during his presidential campaign (26 years later), nor could they ten years ago when he first ran for governor in Texas (only 20 years later). There are a tad too many convenient coincidences of carelessly lost records and paperwork, of too many people who've apparently gone daft with long-term memory loss, etc., etc., for George W. Bush's official version of events to be believable. You're right, this should be a minor story -- but Bush's inability to square his accounts have literally turned it into a Rohrschach test of his veracity and credibility. You can believe in the tooth fairy, for all I care. What you and the other Bush apologists think really doesn't matter to me any more. Truth has a way of eventually outing itself, even if only in historical retrospective. And in that respect, history will not treat the regime of George W. Bush kindly. Perhaps all this missing paperwork from the Texas Air National Guard is in the same file drawer as all that missing paperwork from his questionable sale of $800,000 worth of Harken Energy stock two days before it restated its earnings and reported a substantial financial loss. But that's for another time ... Posted by: Oahu Guy at February 13, 2004 08:31 PM | PERMALINKLOL! I see that rkb went to sleep, then came back. Posted by rkb: "I gather you simply wanted to mock the idea that 9/11 is responsible for anything happening these days." Clear thinking demands that we insist on 9/11 not being used as a tool by those with unrelated self interests to entrench their power at the expense of the nation's peace and prosperity. The degree to which it is "responsible for anything happening these days" ought to be proportionate with other instances of loss of life which pose the danger of becoming an increasing threat. When will this country allow the Constitution to be disregarded as a response to killer heart disease? When will millions losing their jobs be justified by cancer research? When will pain of the poor families of hundreds of dead and thousands of wounded soldiers be accepted as a fair cost for reducing highway deaths? That the deaths of 9/11 victims and the sorrow of their families and
friends should be used as a catch-all excuse for the powerful, with the
only price being paid by the powerless, is to the shame of this
administration. It belittles the suffering deaths far more likely to be
brought to people from causes other than terrorism, to which an equal
commitment of fighting is not made because it does not serve to advance
the wealth and power of the powerful and wealthy. None of what they do
is about fighting terror, for they are as willing to use it as any
terrorist. It is about, not bettering the world, but controlling it. It
is about the evil they claim to be fighting. Read the Meet the Press
transcript carefully. When Bush describes Saddam and the threat posed by
his country, it is as if he is describing himself and the country he
rules -- by means of the world's greatest stockpiles of weapons of mass
destruction. He might as well have said: "We can't take the chance on
Iraq or anyone becoming like *us*. I have one question for you, Kevin. Its an honesty check before the event. Assume the records are released, full release like you've asked for over and over again. Will you: A) Take it at face value, since it's exactly what you've asked for, and since there is no real proof that he DIDN'T show up, is proof you had zero right to expect (that whole innocent before proven guilty thing, I know it annoys you sometimes, when you JUST KNOW he's guilty)... B) Claim it's a forgery. C) Same as B, but more weaselly: Pretend it's just another piece of evidence, no more or less important or reliable than the questionable testimony of certain people who were Bush-haters long before this 'theory' resurfaced. (Links are to the guy pushing Bill Bunkett's testimony for his new book, who has admitted he never bothered to interview any names Bunkett named. Too good a story to investigate, you know...) D) Spend one sentence desribing the release, then devote two paragraphs to some tiny flaw somewhere in the records to cast doubt on the whole thing (what? flaws in military records before they were computerized? noooooooooo! imposssible! coverup!) In short, are you actually thinking that the records disclosure is important, or were your previous demands for them simply a rhetorical vehicle to cast suspicions? Even Shorter: Are you honest, Kevin Drum? Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINKIf the most you get out of this President is that he missed a physical and had a misdeanor charge dropped, you guys got screwed. Ohh, it's way more than that....this is just the latest drip...drip...in the continuing breakdown of the whole phony Bush persona....... the "bold and decisive, speaks with moral clarity, straight-talkin' man you can trust" BULLSHIT that has been constructed to sell this shallow, incurious, unlearned and ignorant fraud to us. He never had any ideas, principles, or real vision that would commend him as a President....the foundation was that "likeable, trustworthy" image....once that goes, it's over. It's over. Posted by: marty at February 13, 2004 08:46 PM | PERMALINKSo, who's batting for rkb now? rkb, if you think that our foreign policy should be, "let them hate, so long as they fear," then you really do belong in the Republican camp. With such a domineering mindset, I'm shocked you were ever a Democrat to start with. For my part, it boggles my mind that you think that the explosion of anti-Americanism around the world in response to Bush's shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later and fuck-international-law policy has somehow made our country safer. The world sees us as a rabid dog. The damage done to foreign goodwill will take a generation to heal. On another note, I thought Doonesbury said it well in today's strip: how ironic it is that a man who chose Guard duty as a way to avoid war is now using his authority to send Guardsmen to their deaths in Iraq. Posted by: DanM at February 13, 2004 08:47 PM | PERMALINKIt is hilarious seeing the newbie trolls popping in, making outrageous claims, and popping out. And rkb, you are making me think you worked for big blue, am I right? I think today's "release" the bush records is a pretty brilliant strategy aimed at snuffing out the intense press interest in aWolgate. Consider: 1) The release comes late on a friday, at the beginning of a three-day weekend -- the old let-the-news-out-when-no-one's-looking gambit. It also means that there won't be another press confrontation with Scott McClellan until tuesday, an interruption of the daily press conference eruptions we've been enjoying this week. Rove hopes the press will use this quiet time to decompress and listen to what their timid publishers are saying about not rocking the boat of state too much. (I have no doubt the calls have been going out to media owners all week.) 2) This document dump isn't truly a full "release" -- the Washington press corps gets to eyeball the files, but they can't copy or photograph them. This allows the White House to prevent the files from getting too much scrutiny/cross-checking/vetting -- all the things that reporters ought to be doing. 3) By limiting this quick glance at the files to the Washington press elite, Rove and company will prevent bloggers like Kevin and other non-traditional journalists, who have played a huge role in keeping interest in aWolgate alive, from pointing out discrepencies or areas of interest in the new docs. In essence, Rove hopes to turn the clock back on scandal-control to the good old days before the Internet enabled citizens to get involved in "do-it-yourself, open-source" investigations, with lots of information swapping moving the story forward. Rove would rather take his chances on the innate laziness of the Washington press corps. 4) And speaking of that innate laziness, Rove is hoping that the press corps' pack mentality will now take over. As soon as the New York Times or Washington Post announces that "there's no there there," the rest of the pack will follow, not wanting to stick their necks out and contradict the instant conventional wisdom, which will be: "Nothing more to be seen... move along, return to your homes." Meanwhile, the rest of us may never get to see exactly how much has been redacted and exactly what is missing. Posted by: ultranoia at February 13, 2004 08:50 PM | PERMALINKShotgun effect, with chosen contestants, absolutely right, ultranoiea. The paid off get the 'facts', and the heat's off the poor player, McClellan, for the time being. At least he's not on this Sunday. Posted by: Yap at February 13, 2004 08:59 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps all this missing paperwork from the Texas Air National Guard is in the same file drawer as all that missing paperwork from his questionable sale of $800,000 worth of Harken Energy stock two days before it restated its earnings and reported a substantial financial loss. Right.....and this from the man who constantly preaches....in that "moral clarity" kind of way: "I believe people need to be responsible for what they do." What the Bushies seem blind to is the utter, rank hypocrisy of the fraud who is forever preaching to the rest of us about "responsibility", when he has evaded it and shirked it his whole life. Posted by: marty at February 13, 2004 09:00 PM | PERMALINKI don't see what is brilliant about the weekend dump. The press have 3
days instead of two to pore over these documents and prepare for
Tuesday's session with Scotty. In all fairness, the records released so far have put to rest any questions about GWB's dental health as of 1973. Fuck, Trolls everywhere go get help, Lassie Don't feed the trolls people Posted by: Free American at February 13, 2004 09:07 PM | PERMALINKAlready several articles are out saying that the new documents answer
none of the questions people care about. Brilliant strategy to let the
press stew for 3 days about getting shafted? Assume the records are released, full release like you've asked for over and over again. Glad you concede they haven't actually BEEN released, Mr. Waxx, you paragon of honesty, you. Posted by: Thersites at February 13, 2004 09:12 PM | PERMALINKI assumed they hadn't yet been, based on Kevin's sentence: FULL RELEASE AT LAST?....Ah, Associated Press is reporting that the White House will shortly release George Bush's entire service record. But hey, if you want to insinuate that I was foolish for believing Kevin, you go right ahead. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 09:20 PM | PERMALINKwhat if there's nothing to hide, and they just played this shell game to dupe and exhaust the media? it would be an extremely clever thing to do I think, because it would (as someone said) distract attention from possible real problems like valerie plame, and more generally allow bush to claim that the media are not to be trusted (when real shit hits the fan) because they are out to get him. however, if he did this it actually *would* make the media hate him, and they'd find a way to bring him down probably. so maybe not such a good idea. Posted by: mike at February 13, 2004 09:29 PM | PERMALINKrkb, if you think that our foreign policy should be, "let them hate, so long as they fear," then you really do belong in the Republican camp. With such a domineering mindset, I'm shocked you were ever a Democrat to start with. It's a neocon mindset. Remember, many of the 'cons came from the Dems. rkb mentioned Scoop Jackson above as a paragon of who the Dem Party "used" to be -- a good clue. Richard Perle was an aide to Jackson in the late 1970s. Read Walter Karp's Liberty Under Siege: American Politics 1976-1988 and see the incipient neocons in action. Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 13, 2004 09:32 PM | PERMALINKMike, if you want to insinuate that I was foolish for believing Kevin, you go right ahead. I don't want to insinuate anything. I want to say straight out that you don't know what the hell you're talking about, but you still like preening yourself on your righteousnes. 'Night. Posted by: Thersites at February 13, 2004 09:38 PM | PERMALINKAh, but you finally got to the bottom of Bush's hidden health issue. He was a fighter pilot with (wait for it ...)*hemorrhoids*. What an asshole. Posted by: Tonto at February 13, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINKIf you wan't to see how low is a low blow then read this, but I warn you it's not pretty. http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37082 Posted by: poster at February 13, 2004 09:49 PM | PERMALINKRef my last "low blow" post go here for followup. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=6228 Posted by: poster at February 13, 2004 09:51 PM | PERMALINKLe skank (coulter) is past her pull date. Thersites: It's rather difficult to reply because your comments towards me have so far been utterly content-free. I put the "Assume the records are released, full release... " clause in there to give Kevin a honorable escape from my question in case the records have been obviously redacted or vital parts withheld that unquestionably should have been there. Of course, that didn't occur to you because the concept of fair-mindedness is alien to you. What miserable pettiness on your part. I pity you. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 10:01 PM | PERMALINKOh, and to all the Black Helecopter types, your questions as to 'why didn't Bush release the records the moment some asshole decided he wanted to look?', a plausible answer to your question has been already uncovered. The hemmeroids problem he had at the time. Y'think maybe he didn't want every moveon.org puppet, Justin Raimondo wannabe, and lefty talk-show host cracking 'asshole' jokes? I know I wouldn't. Think it's farfetched? Say so now. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 10:12 PM | PERMALINKI missed something. Do we really know that Bush had hemorrhoids, or is that just some guess? Posted by: marky at February 13, 2004 10:13 PM | PERMALINKThe DD-214 HAS been part of the papers released to date because the New York Sun reporter, Alicia Colon, has seen them. Someone posted on a blog about it: The start of the article is: Did you know that President Bush has hazel eyes? I didn?t. I was under the impression his eyes were blue until I read his DD214, which everyone in the left-stream press seemed to have trouble finding until this week. This discharge form confirms that George Bush did, indeed, get an honorable discharge from the National Guard. He served five years, four months, and five days. He was scheduled to serve six but left early, as permitted, to return to school. The DD214 is a standard military form, but Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC, doesn?t see it that way. ?George Bush never served in the military and our country,? he said February 1 on ?This Week with George Stephanopoulos.? Perhaps he would like to explain that to the 6,140 National Guardsmen who served in Vietnam, or perhaps send his regrets to the families of the 101 who were killed. The link to the whole article is: http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/02/13&ID=Ar00300 Posted by: Margaret at February 13, 2004 10:13 PM | PERMALINKI believe Margaret has misquoted McAuliffe. Marky: I'm pretty sure I saw a confimation earlier when surfing, but I can't seem to locate it just yet. I'm pretty sure its real. However, there is a possible hole in my argument, that is if the condition was already known before the release. That I simply don't know... I remember it READING as if it was a relevation, but all reporters write like that as a matter of course. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 10:23 PM | PERMALINKAmazing to watch the lengths to which people will go to defend the "Texan souffle." * Split for Alabama without permission, missing his flight physical and being grounded. Never observed there, at least by the other pilots. Never observed thenceforth in Texas. * Doing community service in Houston in 1973, but not the military service for which he'd been trained. No, nothing about this strikes me as strange. Perhaps we could get
the new visitors aroused if it turned out that he was engaging in sexual
activity during this period. Well, the hemorrhoids are pretty funny. No one serious, on either side of the debate, is going to claim with a straight face that Bush's transfer to Alabama was 'without permission'. bad jim? Are you trying to make the leftists here look like fools, by making outrageous, easily disprovable claims? If so, its not working, troll. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 10:33 PM | PERMALINK"Whatever you say about Bush, at least we haven't been attacked again, and if you think that is just dumb luck, then you don't give the Islamofascists enough credit. " That's the wrong gauge to measure the Bush policy effectiveness. It was 8 years between WTC bombings. That we haven't been attacked since 9/11/01 means nothing. The gauge to watch is the number of colored alerts. Al Qaeda's goal isn't to murder us. It's to cripple us financially, so that we are unable to exert power over them, by our support of the regimes that control and oppress their lives. Murdering us is just a tool they use, one of many, to terrify us. It's a tool that they use to keep us in a state of anxiety. To keep us home, away from the market place, to keep us from spending money, to keep us from stimulating the economy. Al Qaeda can get, and do get, the same result, for now, by chattering. Intelligence hears it, doesn't know what it means, but as a result the government issues a colored alert. We get spooked, and we do alter our lifestyle habits. Mission accomplished for Al Qaeda. They get much more bang for their buck this way. They experience no exposure, no loss of personnel, and they keep us home or close to it, not spending money. With colored alerts in effect, Al Qaeda manages to curtail our errands (spending) travel for business and pleasure (spending), just by playing with our heads with their chattering. There will come a time when it we won't be so jumpy. That will be when Al Qaeda has been apprehended and obsolete. We'll know that by there being no attacks and the absence of chattering, and the economy improves for all classes. It's the frequent changes in the status of colored alerts that brands Bush a lousy wartime president. Ryan, I"m serious, and I claim that Bush went to Alabama without permission. Ryan Waxx, a counter-honesty check to you: I note all of your questions implicitly assume that Bush's records do not contain anything incriminating. In order that your position be equally honest, I ask you to consider the following additional positions: 1) Bush's records state that he was derelict in his duty, either by failing to show up for his physical or by an illegitimate transfer, or what have you. 2) Bush's records indicate that he failed his physical, possibly due to drug-related means. 3) Bush's records are internally inconsistent to the point of fraudulence. 4) Bush's records contradict the various recent (last ten year's) accounts to the point of fraudulence. All of these possibilities are consistent with what we currently know. [Caveat: They were at the time I wrote this post. That may have changed by the time I actually post it.] None of them are considered in your questioning. Might I suggest that, in the spirit of intellectual honesty, you rephrase your questions and conclusions? Posted by: Anarch at February 13, 2004 10:47 PM | PERMALINK*guffaw* Since one of the goals of Trolls is to get people to post long rebuttels and laugh at the person wasting their time, I will consider that laughable claim to be worthy of rebuttal the moment you post a link to someone with even an ounce of credibility making that claim. And not before. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 10:47 PM | PERMALINK"the collapse of the dot com bubble, at a time when entitlement increases were just kicking into spending mode" Utterly false. Who told you such a thing? Social Security is taking in more money than it's paying out, and the gap is getting larger. A good chunk of Bush's "halve the deficit" promise is related to the fact that Social Security's surplus will double in 5 years. Really, is it that difficult to get such a simple fact straight? Posted by: thomas at February 13, 2004 10:49 PM | PERMALINKthomas, You've noticed that rkb is totally full of bullshit? :) I liked the post earlier where Ryan, why don't you show that Bush had permission to go to Alabama ( he did not). Margaret this is not about the guard's service in vietnam, it's about GWB's service or lack therof in the gaurd. His unit did not go to Nam, his unit was never going to go to Nam, that's why he was in it. Maybe you know the answer to this weeks trivia question. Q.What do GW Bush and the DC sniper have in common. A. They both recieved an honorable discharge from the national guard. (In Muhammads case despite having been demoted from sergeant to specialist for striking an officer) Posted by: poster at February 13, 2004 10:55 PM | PERMALINKTrolls are supposed to be friendly, mischievous spirits. So much for Scandinavian mythology. In early internet usage, trolls are supposed to post outrages to incite excessive responses. C.f. "trolling for newbies." Nowadays we use the term to characterize tediously tendentious, unfriendly and unwelcome visitors. Truth to tell, we liberals are unlikely to be satisfied with anything less than a blow by blow account of Arbusto's ANG legacy. Feel free to wax eloquent in response. Bad Jim, regarding th ANG story, I've been sniffing around but the best I get are incredulous snorts out of winger trolls. There has to be a line that connects the dots. Sometimes I take a look in the mirror and tell myself "You're not grasping at straws so dust yourself off and keep looking for answers." Posted by: Old Hat at February 13, 2004 11:01 PM | PERMALINKSide note: there is a real mystery about the lack of fellow guardsmen who remember serving with W. I will answer your counterquestion, Anarch, but in reality I shouldn't have to since my original question is still unanswered. What I am doing here is opening myself up for counterattack without getting what I seek in return. I would ask you to consider that courtesy when replying. 1a) I don't recall anyone disagreeing weather Bush actually took the physicial: He didn't. So I would expect that no record of that physicial exists. There ARE however serious questions as to weather a person who was not assigned to flight duty at the time actually needed to take the physical in question, I have heard persuasive arguments from both sides on that issue, and am still undecided. Do you seriously think that if the Alabama guard was acticvated and sent to Vietnam while GWB was there, they would have brought him along and put him on a plane? 1b) I would not expect the records to show either way weather the transfer was legitimate, since the paperwork is the LAST place such evidence would show up. 2) See 1a above, and 'possibly due to drug means' is a unacceptably low burden of proof. Do you dislike Bush possibly due to unresolved childhood sexual attractions to your mother? Or is that an unfair question? 3) Given that Bush didn't write the records, the bar of proof here that I would require would be VERY high. But if that bar was met, and the manipulations were done during his presidency, I'd want the bastard impeached. 4) I rather doubt this scenario, since the records are being released. The real question here is: what is your definition of 'to the point of fraudulence'? There may be errors. How are you going to seperate those from fraudulence? Or are you just going to assume fraud? I fully expect that if there is any discrepency as to weather Bush attended 5 drills rather than 4, or weather his assigned quarters changed during the say, that the screams of 'fraud! fraud!' will erupt from Atrios, moveon.org and Democratic Underground. The only question is weather it will spread to this place as well. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 11:15 PM | PERMALINKTime to bring in the DH for Ryan. Looks like, for the benefit of the Bush defenders, I'm going to have to print Kleiman's summary of the real questions -- along with the Washington Post's notes tonight that the records released today don't respond to any of them. First, Kleiman: "The Baseball Crank, in a post and email to several bloggers, challenges some of Kevin Drum's interpretations of 1st Lt. Bush's military record, and demands that those of us interested in the issue answer 14 questions he poses or drop it. "I'll let Kevin respond point-by-point, if he's so inclined, but I think that one of the Crank's premises, at least, is shaky, and that he misses some other relevant points. "When he says that 'most of the military bloggers' think this case is nonsense, he seems to be leaving out Phil Carter at Intel Dump, who doesn't think it's nonsense at all. "Here's the case as I see it: "1. Lt. Bush missed a flight physical in 1972. He has offered an explanation of that which doesn't pass the giggle test: that he was in Alabama while his physician was in Texas. But of course flight physicals are peformed by AF flight surgeons, not by private physicians. So it's still relevant to ask what the real explanation was. His press spokesman refuses to address the question. "2. The records released on Tuesday indicate that Lt. Bush failed to meet the minimum requirement for the year in question. It also shows periods of months in which he did no service at all. His spokesman could provide no explanation for either of those facts. (It's possible that the Crank's sources are correct, and that Lt. Bush, having served enough days on active duty to meet his contract, wasn't actually obligated to do anything more by mid-1972. But then why doesn't he just say so?) "3. Having served in the ANG with someone who is now the President of the United States is something to boast about. Why, if he actually served in Alabama, has no one come forward to recount his experience as Lt. Bush's comrade in the Alabama Guard? (See Phil Carter's must-read post on this.)" [Since then, of course, Bill Calhoun has come forward. See below.] "4. President Bush on Sunday promised to release all the relevant records. By Monday that promise was no longer operative. All he has to do is sign a Privacy Act waiver. If he has nothing to hide, why won't he keep his promise? "5. A number of bloggers have noted that Lt. Bush could not have been AWOL under the UCMJ, since the UCMJ doesn't apply to Guardsmen except when on duty. But there's a parallel provision in the Texas Code of Military Justice that does apply. Yes, he was honorably discharged. But not everyone who violates the law is prosecuted for it." [According to the New Republic, MOST Guard members who violate the law aren't punished for it -- including Bobby Rush, who got an honorable discharge after going AWOL to help organize the Black Panthers, and Washington Beltway sniper John Allen Muhammad, who got an HD after two courts martial for being AWOL and a week in the brig for slugging an officer.] "So while it may turn out to be incorrect to say that Lt. Bush went AWOL, it's not foolish. Only the records will tell us. "6. In at least one case, the President has made a demonstrably false statement on this matter. He claims in his autobiography to have 'continued flying' for 'several years' after completing flight training. In fact, he completed training in June 1970 and missed his physical in May 1972, never flying a military aircraft again until he landed on the carrier deck last year. So unless 'several' means 'less than two,' the statement in the autobiography -- not an off-the-cuff statement, but one that Mr. Bush had ample opportunity to review -- was incorrect. "For what my opinion is worth, I agree that Lt. Bush's conduct in 1972-73 is only tangentially relevant to his fitness for office today. But his current level of veracity is very much relevant to his fitness for office, and since veracity about easily ascertainable fact -- Did he make a promise on Sunday and welch on it Monday? Do the records confirm or refute his account? -- is more easily comprehensible to reporters and voters than his veracity about, say, the budget deficit, I think this issue is worth pursuing. "And if it's to be pursued at all, in the face of White House flummery and stonewalling, someone has to pursue it 'monomaniacally.' " Kleiman, incidentally, is hardly a kneejerk Bush hater -- his latest blog entry defends Rumsfeld's decision announced today to hold Guantanamo inmates indefinitely with only annual reviews of their status. Now, then, to tonight's Post account: "The records show Bush was an eager fighter pilot who said he wanted to spend a lifetime in aviation. But they provide no evidence that he did any military service in Alabama, to which he had requested a transfer in May 1972 to work on a Senate campaign that ended in November 1972. "And the records showed officials from Bush's home base in Texas declining to provide details of his activities between May 1972 to April 1973, even though such documentation was requested by National Guard headquarters... "A 1971 evaluation described Bush as 'an exceptionally fine young officer' with 'sound judgment' who 'is mature beyond his age and experience level.' Bush 'is a natural leader but he is also a good follower of military discipline,' it said. A 1970 letter recommending him for a promotion from second to first lieutenant called him 'a dynamic outstanding young officer' who 'clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot.' Bush, it said, 'is a tenacious competitor and an aggressive pilot.' "But the tone of Bush's military file changed abruptly, and with no documented explanation, in May 1972, when Bush sought to transfer to Alabama. That began a period of months in which, the documents suggest, Bush did not actively pursue Guard service and the Guard did not actively pursue him. "For Bush's fifth year in the Guard, May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a total of 41 'points' for his service and was granted another 15 'gratuitous' points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records showing he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972. "On May 24, 1972, Bush sought to transfer from his Houston Guard unit to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron for an unpaid assignment. Two days later, the unit's commander accepted him but added: 'The continuation of this type unit is uncertain at this time and we may last 3 months, 6 months, a year or who knows! With this in mind, if you are willing to accept assignment under these circumstances, welcome! We're glad to have you.' "There is no evidence Bush reported to the reserve unit. Retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, the commander who wrote Bush's acceptance, told the Birmingham News that Bush never showed up. 'He was looking for a place to hang his hat, but he never came by,' Bricken said. "On July 31, 1972, the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center overruled Bricken and returned Bush's application, calling him 'ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron.' "The next move from Bush apparently came in a letter on Sept. 5, in which he requested permission to perform 'equivalent duty' with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala. "The request was immediately approved, and on Sept. 15 the Alabama Guard approved Bush and directed him to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed. Turnipseed has said he has never met Bush, and the only documentation that Bush was at a Guard facility in Alabama was a one-page dental exam from January 1973 that was previously released by the White House. "Back in Houston, the Guard, in a Sept. 5, 1972, memo, announced Bush's 'suspension from flying status' as of Aug. 1 because of a 'failure to accomplish annual medical examination.' "On May 2, 1973, Bush's evaluation form stated: 'Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.' "But the evaluation was returned from National Guard headquarters to the Texas Guard in June 1973, with a 'suspense date' of Aug. 6. 'An AF Fm 77a should be requested from the training unit so that this officer can be rated in the position he held,' it said. "The officer should have been reassigned in May 1972 since he no longer is training in his AFSC or with his unit of assignment.' "The form requested, the 77a, was sent by the Texas Air National Guard personnel office on Nov. 12, 1973, and said simply: 'Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.' "Records show sporadic Guard activity at unspecified locations between late October and May 1973, when Bush appeared to resume active participation back in Houston. On Sept. 5, Bush filed an 'Application for Discharge' effective Oct. 1, seven months before his six years were up. 'I am moving to Boston, Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School as a full time student,' he wrote. 'I have enjoyed my association with the 111th Ftr Intcp Sq and the 147th Ftr Intcp Gp.' The discharge was granted. "One of the latest documents was another request from Bush, while at Harvard. 'I would like to discharge from standby reserve,' he wrote in an undated letter... "The White House did not release 44 pages of medical records that Bush's aides received this week, but it allowed a small pool of reporters to peruse them for 20 minutes. [White House communications director Dan] Bartlett said that was to maintain a zone of privacy. "A 'Medical Recommendation for Flight Duty' that was his last physical as a pilot put his flying category as 'unconditional,' or unrestricted. The form was dated May 15, 1971, and said he had recorded 625 hours in the cockpit. The qualification expired July 6, 1972, and was never renewed. "One of the most prominent mysteries about Bush's military record has been why he did not take another flight physical, resulting in the suspension from flying status. Bartlett said, as he has in the past, Bush made that choice 'because he was no longer flying,' since he was reporting to the Alabama Air National Guard, which did not have the plane he was trained to fly, an F-102 fighter. ' "It was a practical thing,' Bartlett said. 'There was no reason to take a flight exam when he wasn't flying and wasn't going to fly.' " As for Bill Calhoun's account, see CBS: "John 'Bill' Calhoun, a former Guard officer, says Mr. Bush was assigned to him. " 'He sat in my office he would study his training manuals, read safety magazines. military type stuff,' Calhoun told Roberts. Calhoun provided records to CBS News to prove he was on the base at the time. He says the President regularly drilled during the months of May through October 1972, when Mr. Bush was working on an election campaign. " 'I know he was in there on drills, uh, four months. And it could have been five and it even could have been six.' "But Calhoun's account appears to be at odds with records released by the White House. They show that President Bush logged no Guard duty -- anywhere -- from April 17th until October 28th. "And former Guard Pilot Bob Mintz -- who was with the Alabama unit at the time -- says the base was all abuzz about a politically-connected Lieutenant coming in. But Mintz claims he never saw Mr. Bush -- and expects the newcomer would have stood out. " 'I just don't see how you could, ah, walk into a military squadron of people who are intimately familiar with each other and their jobs and things and not recognize him as a stranger, ya know?' said Mintz." So Calhoun is either honestly mistaken about the times he saw Bush, or lying. And Kleiman's point remains: did he engage in monkey business during May 1972 to May 1973, and were the Alabama and Texas Guards covering up for this? Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at February 13, 2004 11:31 PM | PERMALINKMarkey: I directly addressed each and every one of the scenarios Anarch presented. You cannot possibly be illiterate whough to not understand this, so I am forced to dismiss your utterly content-free complaint. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 13, 2004 11:32 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, I think I ripped off that riff from you. P.S.: For whatever it's worth, note the clash between Bush's own (absurd) explanation of why he didn't take another flight physical, and Dan Bartlett's explanation for why he didn't take another flight physical. Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at February 13, 2004 11:38 PM | PERMALINKWashington Post "He said he wanted a career in politics," Calhoun recalled. He said Bush used to talk about how hard he worked on the Senate campaign. "He'd come in on a Saturday morning and say, 'Man, I've been going like crazy,' " Calhoun said. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution "He showed up. He sat in my office. He signed in," Calhoun said. "He
was very determined to be there. He was in uniform and he did what he
was supposed to do." -------- Wow, Moomaw. But the tone of Bush's military file changed abruptly, and with no documented explanation, in May 1972, when Bush sought to transfer to Alabama. That began a period of months in which, the documents suggest, Bush did not actively pursue Guard service and the Guard did not actively pursue him. If he hadn't been such an enthusiastic executioner and much else besides I'd be inclined to cut him some slack. Not now. Posted by: bad Jim at February 13, 2004 11:40 PM | PERMALINKMemories place Bush in Alabama if records don't Bush was a frequent guest at Blount's home, and Blount sought him out as a tennis partner in doubles matches. Laughing... Here the lot of you are, crying AWOL!, disobeying Orders!, Falsification of Records!, Coverup!, and the best you can up up with is: "But the tone of Bush's military file changed abruptly..." (egads!) Yeah, you just keep telling yourselves that's gonna kill Bush. PLEASE. Keep telling yoursleves that right up until the ballots are cast. Can you even HEAR yourselves, and what you are saying? More importantly, can you even grasp the concept of applying the same standard of skepticism to yoy own arguements? "Y'know, Bill Blunkett's tone on who actually heard what changed recently, so..." I'm going to wait until I hear Kevin's answer to my original question, since I am reluctant to dismiss the man himself for the feces-throwing monkeys that hang out in his comments section. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 14, 2004 12:09 AM | PERMALINKRyan: 1. There ARE however serious questions as to weather a person who was not assigned to flight duty at the time actually needed to take the physical in question But, as far as we know, Bush was assigned to flight duty at the time he was supposed to take the physical - he was taken off flight-duty because he refused to take the physical. Or so it appears from the timing: the records will clear this up, if Bush ever does agree to release the full records. Do you seriously think that if the Alabama guard was acticvated and sent to Vietnam while GWB was there, they would have brought him along and put him on a plane? The Alabama NG unit that Bush insisted on being assigned to (again, the records that we have seem to show that he went to Alabama and then requested reassignment, to a unit convenient for him... a unit with no planes he could fly). The full records should clarify exactly what happened, but if they show that Bush went to Alabama and then (a) ignored a NG refusal of transfer to Alabama (b) did not show up for a required physical - not ever and (c) never flew again, not even after he was supposed to have returned to Texas - then are you still going to defend him? 1b) I would not expect the records to show either way weather the transfer was legitimate, since the paperwork is the LAST place such evidence would show up. Not even if the paperwork shows that Bush's transfer to Alabama was refused initially, and then accepted months after Bush had gone? I can think of a number of ways an illegitimate transfer would stand out - signatures from officers who didn't usually concern themselves with lowly NG lieutenants, for one thing. 2) See 1a above, and 'possibly due to drug means' is a unacceptably low burden of proof. Depends what reports there are on Bush in those records that Bush doesn't want to release, doesn't it? 3) Given that Bush didn't write the records, the bar of proof here that I would require would be VERY high. But if that bar was met, and the manipulations were done during his presidency, I'd want the bastard impeached. Very nice, since the only account we have of Bush's records being manipulated was in Texas while he was Governor, not after he'd been appointed President. 4) I rather doubt this scenario, since the records are being released. The real question here is: what is your definition of 'to the point of fraudulence'? There may be errors. How are you going to seperate those from fraudulence? Investigation, Ryan. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's how the Niger yellowcake documents were proven forged back in November 2002. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 14, 2004 12:20 AM | PERMALINKVery nice, since the only account we have of Bush's records being manipulated was in Texas while he was Governor, not after he'd been appointed President. Then why didn't you correct the fools on this thread who were going off about 'Rove's magic marker'? Unless you think they were talking about Rove altering files during G.W.'s governorhood? Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 14, 2004 12:29 AM | PERMALINKRyan, Given that I went through a fair amount of effort to help you out not 24 hours ago, the least you could is show me a bare minimum of courtesy. I'd take explicitly referring to me by name, instead of "Troll", for a start; a nice addition would be actually responding to my question with more than a guffaw. Second, here is your post in question. Let me excerpt the key point: Assume the records are released... [Option 1 is to] Take it at face value, since it's exactly what you've asked for, and since there is no real proof that he DIDN'T show up, is proof you had zero right to expect (that whole innocent before proven guilty thing, I know it annoys you sometimes, when you JUST KNOW he's guilty)... As near as I can tell, you most emphatically did not "directly address each and every one of the scenarios Anarch presented" for the simple reason that in the scenarios I presented the allegations were true. You have been implicitly assuming that once the records are released, Bush will be cleared; a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. Regardless of anyone else's participation (or lack thereof) in this thread, failing to acknowledge that assumption puts you in the same intellectually dishonest camp as the people you rail against: prejudging the matter before the truth is known. Let me reiterate: I don't think there's a there here. I don't think there's anything particularly scandalous contained in the records, and I hope that, if I am right, this whole affair will slink into the oblivion where it belongs. However, due to the shifting stories, the puzzling omissions and the bizarre releasing of documents, I can no longer say that with any great surety. An honest man, such as yourself, should have no trouble admitting that due to these oddities there is a [reasonable, yet slim] chance that Bush really is trying to cover something up and phrase his questions accordingly. Posted by: Anarch at February 14, 2004 12:31 AM | PERMALINKGood grief. I apologize, Ryan -- I appear to have missed your answers to my questions, having misinterpreted your post immediately following mine as the only answer. I'll respond appropiately in a moment, but I wanted to put this disclaimer up ASAP. Sorry about that, - Anarch Posted by: Anarch at February 14, 2004 12:33 AM | PERMALINKAnarch: I made a mistake. That mistake was not to explicitly state whom I was replying to. I never called you a troll. Look ABOVE your post. I'm working on the reply to the rest while eating, hold on please... Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 14, 2004 12:40 AM | PERMALINKL'Affaire du collier was telling, if tangential, in the Bourbon downfall. The primary issues could not have been more serious, but the loss of legitimacy made it substantially easier. My perspective may be skewed, since I think it's perfectly normal to
fly in a private jet to a ranch to shoot ducks. I seem to remember that
not everyone does that, at least not often. > Low-key in one quote, typical aggresive pilot Maybe he means low-key for a typical agressive pilot? *snicker* What cracks me up is these trolls who say, "if this is all you got, you guys are desparate." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You know, if the premise were true, I might agree. But there are so very many issues of crucial importance for which bush is vulnerable in one way or another, that the insinuation is laughable. What have we got? * 3 million lost jobs, with no sign of a turnaround just to name a few. The issues are there. This matter is far from the most pertinent, or the most damaging. However, it has been around for quite a while, and only now gets airplay because of Jenning's backhanded question to Clark during a debate. What a shame the voters of this country didn't have this material laid out before them prior to the 2000 election. But there's one last chance to stop the hemmorhaging this year. I don't think Kerry is the best one to do it, but he has a chance, and he won't even have to bring up W's dereliction of duty to score big points. Posted by: 0rganism at February 14, 2004 12:43 AM | PERMALINKOh, wait nevermind. You go first, though my reply might have to wait till tomorrow. (sleepy) I want to make it clear that I wasn't including you in the 'feces-throwing monkeys' crack, either. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 14, 2004 12:45 AM | PERMALINKDid anybody catch Darin Kagan's live by satellite interview with Calhoun earlier tonight on CNN? Kagan apologized to the listeners for the sound difficulty. Calhoun was on the Nascar race track, with cars whizzing past him. The cars' engines were drowning Calhoun out. That was the only place that CNN could interview this guy? On the track at Nascar? Not even outside? Isn't Bush scheduled to be at Nascar tomorrow? This thing is getting stranger by the hour. Posted by: Carrie at February 14, 2004 12:45 AM | PERMALINKHas anybody here sent away for James R. Bath's files under FOIA? Posted by: Carrie at February 14, 2004 12:47 AM | PERMALINKJust to respond to two of "Old Hat"'s many repetitive, content-free posts: 1) James Baker isn't defending the Saudis against 9/11 families. The law firm where he works is. 2) Bin Laden's family wasn't allowed to fly on Sept. 12th. And I'm not sure why you think they "should have been held for questioning," or why a relationship between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family is interesting to you. Family. Not him. And we're not talking about mom, dad, and 2.3 kids here; we're talking about hundreds of people, from a family that OBL was kicked out of, years ago. Posted by: David Nieporent at February 14, 2004 01:03 AM | PERMALINKOnce again, I apologize for the tone of my previous remark; how I missed your answers, I do not know... [And it's "appropriately", of course. Tells you how ticked I was at myself.] I will answer your counterquestion, Anarch, but in reality I shouldn't have to since my original question is still unanswered. What I am doing here is opening myself up for counterattack without getting what I seek in return. I would ask you to consider that courtesy when replying. Duly noted. Since Jesurgislac hit most of the factual points already, I'll try to limit myself purely to the argumentation. 1) There ARE however serious questions as to weather a person who was not assigned to flight duty at the time actually needed to take the physical in question, I have heard persuasive arguments from both sides on that issue, and am still undecided. I've not heard the arguments from the other side; my understanding that a physical was required of everyone in the Guard. Do you have a cite? Also, I think Jesurgislac is right that, as far as we currently know, Bush was suspended from flight-duty because he refused to take the physical, not the other way around. Have you heard a persuasive argument to account for that? [For that matter: Does ANYONE know where one can obtain a copy of the TXANG regulations from 1972-73? I'm getting really tired of not knowing what was, and wasn't, *actually* against the rules...] 2) See 1a above, and 'possibly due to drug means' is a unacceptably low burden of proof. Do you dislike Bush possibly due to unresolved childhood sexual attractions to your mother? Or is that an unfair question? Oh yeah? *Yo* mama! No, wait. I asked the question badly: what I meant was, what if the physical had showed actual drug use, or, more likely, said that Bush might have used narcotics? 1972 was, IIRC, the year that the Armed Forces switched over to random urine tests for drugs, and it is possible that Bush still had THC or possibly even cocaine in his system. I'm not sure how such results might be marked in his records, however, especially if Bush made a conscious effort to clean his system out (as do all the stoners I know) prior to the tests. By "possibly due to drug means", I meant that there might be a report claiming that Bush had "suspicious THC levels" or however the ANG medicalese might have phrased it, without necessarily being conclusive. Point being, drugs are bad, mmmkay? And maybe he's hiding that. 3) Given that Bush didn't write the records, the bar of proof here that I would require would be VERY high. But if that bar was met, and the manipulations were done during his presidency, I'd want the bastard impeached. Naturally, and good. We're on common ground there, at least. :) May I assume you also include manipulations done to the state-level records during his governorship? BTW, this is purely a hypothetical question, since I doubt one could ever really prove it to anyone's satisfaction, but: how would you feel about Bush if someone else, without his knowledge, had tampered with his records and removed potentially embarrassing information? I have to admit that this question intrigues me, not because I think it provable or even likely -- it isn't either -- but because I honestly don't know what I'd think. On the one hand, he didn't do anything; on the other, he has to have at least a decent idea of what's in his records, so he should know that key incidents haven't surfaced. Tricky, tricky -- and pointless -- question. 4) I rather doubt this scenario, since the records are being released. The real question here is: what is your definition of 'to the point of fraudulence'? There may be errors. How are you going to seperate those from fraudulence? Well, some of the records are being released, that's for sure; hopefully we'll get all of them eventually. This scenario was meant to incorporate the various inconsistencies of testimony v. records, like Calhoun's recollections not matching up to Bush's time in the Guard. There might well be an innocent explanation underlying all this confusion -- certainly I can think of several -- but it could also betoken some form of witness-tampering, hence my use of "fraudulence". Or, to quote Jesurgislac, the answer is: "Investigation". Truer words...
I want to make it clear that I wasn't including you in the 'feces-throwing monkeys' crack, either. Clearly, we've never met IRL. Ook! ;) Posted by: Anarch at February 14, 2004 01:16 AM | PERMALINKRyan, Then why didn't you correct the fools on this thread who were going off about 'Rove's magic marker'? Because life is too short (and these threads are too long) to
contradict every single fool. I haven't inquired why you aren't
challenging the fools who are slinging idiocies on your side of the argument. Were it not for the flyboy prance on the carrier, who would care about the National Guard story? But he did do that. He had to do that. "Mission accomplished." Good boy! Forgive me if this has been repeated upthread but I looked and did not see this thought. Is this really a release of the records. I will not be satisfied until the press/public can obtain the records from the agencies involved, not the white house copies. How do we know that the white house did not remove damaging information from the records. There is no trust here. This reminds me of Nixon telling us that there was nothing on the tapes, when we finally get the tape 20 minutes was missing and that was and "accident". I'm sorry but I am not buying this "release". Posted by: FarmerJack at February 14, 2004 03:57 AM | PERMALINKMorning, y'all. Someone posted above that I'm a neo-con. If so, it's been late in coming. I didn't vote for Reagan or for Bush1. I even held my nose and voted for Gore. But I'm having a hard time seeing myself vote Dem this year. One problem the Democratic party has got itself into is that it has nothing it stands for except "more of our old policies" and "I hate Bush". And that just won't cut it anymore, because the world really has changed. The purge of this party over the last 2+ decades of most people with any interest in defense issues is now bearing fruit. If the best the Dems can come up with is to run Kerry or, god help us, Clark in order to be "credible" on defense, then maybe there really is nothing here for me. How many people in this party have any real military experience any more? Some of you will say "thank god we don't" - which makes my point. And for those who are sure that I must be an Islamaphobic, racist who hasn't a clue about what things were or are in Iraq ... well, I've been to the middle East, done business with both a major Arab country and with Israel, eatien in both Moslem and Jewish homes and speak a (small fading amount) of both languages. Do you? I don't think that makes me an expert, but I do have some first hand experience that contributes to my own assessments. Most of you seem to have nothing but prejudices and a childish hatred of Bush. And that blinds you to the serious challenges we face. I do believe that Islamacist terror networks pose a serious threat to us all, including to moderate Moslems. And so does the nuclear proliferation that has emanated out of Pakistan. And I do believe that we do not have international mechanisms to deal with this. The existing mechanisms grew out of WWII, served their purpose (no strategic nuclear war), grew corrupt and now hinder rather than help. In my opinion the UN did not, could not and never would have dealt with either the Islamacists or the nuclear black market. By and large, they didn't even want to. I'm not thrilled about voting for Bush. To the commenter who suggested I need to lose my awefilled adoration of Bush's manliness, well ... I've been married 29 years and am post-menapausal and frankly, not all that susceptible to the macho image. I will vote for Bush, if I do, because I see him doing a credible job of addressing Islamacist terror networks while also a) working hard to avoid anti-Islamic action and feelings and b) provoking the changes needed in the middle East and elsewhere - changes needed both for our own sake and for that of the people who live there. And, comments here notwithstanding, I think his administration is doing a fair (not good) job of balancing homeland defense with civil liberties. It won't be pretty as these changes are made and it won't look stable in the short run. When things get out of balance as badly as they have in the middle East and elsewhere, ANY change is destabilizing, including change that promises improvement. And, it won't be risk free. We could fail and so could they. But if we do fail, it won't be my own highest aim in life, or that of people like me, is to destroy Bush no matter whether the charges are true or whether there are more serious issues at stake. And that is what I see Kevin and many others here doing. Grow up, guys. There's too much at stake right now. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 04:01 AM | PERMALINKOkay, that should be, " it won't be because my highest aim" You probably figured that out. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 04:06 AM | PERMALINKRight-Wing Vegetarian sez: Now that it has been proven that you lob bullshit charges, the Sheeples will ignore things like Palme. I commend you! Few Americans pay attention to what is happining outside the US borders The assasination of Olaf Palme was a tradgedy and has hurt the human-rights movement.
I do believe that Islamacist terror networks pose a serious threat to us all, including to moderate Moslems. And so does the nuclear proliferation that has emanated out of Pakistan. So why are you planning to vote for Bush, when it's evident that he and his administration can and plan to do nothing about Islamacist terror networks? As far as Bush & Co are concerned, Pakistan is a loyal ally. I can understand refraining from voting if there is no one whom you consider to be acceptable to vote for. I cannot understand how you can decide to vote for someone who has been a miserable failure on issues that you yourself say are important to you. because I see him doing a credible job of addressing Islamacist terror networks while also a) working hard to avoid anti-Islamic action and feelings and b) provoking the changes needed in the middle East and elsewhere - changes needed both for our own sake and for that of the people who live there. What world are you living in that you see Bush doing a "credible job"
at any of these things? Offer examples - cite reports that prove your
assertions. Merely claiming that it's so is not credible - in fact, it's
standard Bush & Co tactics, to say one thing when the facts are to
the contrary. "2) Bin Laden's family wasn't allowed to fly on Sept. 12th. And I'm not sure why you think they "should have been held for questioning," or why a relationship between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family is interesting to you. Family. Not him. And we're not talking about mom, dad, and 2.3 kids here; we're talking about hundreds of people, from a family that OBL was kicked out of, years ago." Frankly, this is a distinction without a difference. The complaint is that the Bush administration missed an opportunity to question a large number of people with potential knowledge of OBL amd AQ. I think it strikes a lot of people as strange that rich, well-connected Saudis were allowed to leave while, subsequently, virtually anyone who was an immigrant from the Middle East was potentially subject to investigation and questioning. Frankly, when I heard that the admnistration was acting to protect Saudis after 9/11, I was pleased because I shared a lot of people's concern about a backlash. Nevertheless, I was shocked that many people who might have important information were simply allowed to leave, particularly because Saudi Arabia's track record on cooperation vis-a-vis terrorism has been mixed, at best. And it is disingenuous to say that because OBL was kicked out of the family, that makes the family uninteresting. We know, for example, that contacted persisted between OBL and his mother. We also know that a large number of Saudi charities have turned out to be fronts for the financing of terrorists, and so on and so forth. That the Bush administration has, and continues to, place good relations with Saudi Arabia above the goal of fighting terrorism is hardly surprising -- it fits a pattern in the Clinton and Bush I administrations. But it should raise doubts about their grand strategy, such as it is. Posted by: dn at February 14, 2004 05:08 AM | PERMALINK"when it's obvious he can and plans to do nothing about Islamacist networks" What universe do YOU live in? A significant part of the original leadership of al Qaeda has been detained or rendered less effective, forcing less patient new leaders like Zarqawi to emerge. He will be a problem in Iraq and elsewhere for a while, but he will go down too eventually. Funding sources have been significantly dried up, not only for al Qaeda and some of their affiliates but also (to a lesser degree) for some of the hate-spewing madrassas. That is a work in progress, much of it entailing pressure on the Saudis - but not so much pressure that Nayyaf can seize control there. Convictions have been sought and won against domestic cells, especially those in Oregon and NY. Is it enough? Of course not - this is an ongoing effort that will take years. Has progress been made - absolutely. Are we entirely safe from future attacks? Nope, and I don't think we'll ever be. Has a lot been done - yes, and some of it is very effective. Other things are stupid, but predictable bureaucratic reponses - it annoys me greatly that I can't take a 2" rounded tip needlepoint needle onto a plane with me to work during a long flight. But I can live with that, you know? Bush has made a point of distinguishing Islam from the Islamacist networks in every major speech he's given on these issues. He has given moderate Muslim leaders every opportunity to speak for their communities and their countries. Some have taken that opportunity, others are silent. We can't make them take back their religion and their countries from the influence of the terror networks but we can encourage that to happen and that's what Bush is doing. The role of Jordan is a good example. Uncovering the black market in nuclear technology didn't just happen. It took a good deal of intel footwork, a willingness to take actions that got criticized (stopping the ship with missiles bound for Libya, via Yemen) and the behind-the-scenes diplomacy and confrontation that made Ghaddafi yield. I know a few people in the intel world. Whether you like Bush or not, that was a significant success. Libya's open declaration of its program and of the SOURCES of that program made it possible to begin applying increasing pressure on Pakistan, and has had an impact on European leaders. Companies and people in Europe and the middle East have been identified as conduits and participants in the black market - some of them were know or suspected for years, but the trail can now be laid out so that they get put out of business. These are all achievements that deserve recognition. There are great challenges ahead, though. Islamacists aren't the only terror networks out there. And ultimately it will take a generation or more to bring many of their countries into the international community in ways that benefit their people. That process has just begun. It is risky and there is no guarantee it will succeed - but it CAN succeed with perserverence and commitment. Doing nothing would have been equally risky, or more so. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 05:16 AM | PERMALINKsnopes links are irrelevant to this discussion anymore, as there was a small furor over the fact that Snopes mocked Michael Moore for his statements, but when it turned out that Moore had been more accurate than Snopes, Snopes changed its page without noting the correction or acknowledging their partisanship. Snopes is no longer considered an impartial or honest source by anyone who remembers the Saudi plane post 9/11 incident. Posted by: badger at February 14, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINK
Boy Bush is in trouble On May 24, 1972, Bush sought to transfer from his Houston Guard unit to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron for an unpaid assignment. Two days later, the unit's commander accepted him but added: "The continuation of this type unit is uncertain at this time and we may last 3 months, 6 months, a year or who knows! With this in mind, if you are willing to accept assignment under these circumstances, welcome! We're glad to have you." There is no evidence Bush reported to the reserve unit. Retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, the commander who wrote Bush's acceptance, told the Birmingham News that Bush never showed up. "He was looking for a place to hang his hat, but he never came by," Bricken said. On July 31, 1972, the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center overruled Bricken and returned Bush's application, calling him "ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron." The next move from Bush apparently came in a letter on Sept. 5, in which he requested permission to perform "equivalent duty" with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala. Posted by: Maccabee at February 14, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINKStay on track: Why did W fail to show up for a medical exam, and so become suspended from flying? Is this what you would expect from a willing volunteer to fly in 'Nam? This is the question for Tuesday. It's what the WH is trying to smokescreen. Posted by: Tubino at February 14, 2004 05:23 AM | PERMALINKLet me add one other thing: I have spoken with about a dozen friends and close acquaintances who have been or still are in Iraq. Most are Army officers, a few are NCOs and one is a civilian who came out of retirement to work with the Iraqis in constructing a functional banking system that can be part of the international banking organizations. All of them have criticisms of this or that decision. The Army guys think the CPA is a set of bureaucratic suits. They're right. The CPA guy thinks the Army guys are pretty tactical in their thinking, which is okay for doing their own jobs, but that there are long term issues to work slowly. I think they're both right. It will be long, hard and expensive, but in the end it may be possible for Iraq to emerge as a multi-ethnic, functioning country with a strong middle class, industries that go beyond oil extraction and a reasonably representative government. If that doesn't happen, I believe it will be because we gave up too soon, not because it was a mistake to try. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 05:23 AM | PERMALINKRE: DD form 214 Hey, I'm with you on Bush being a cowardly deserter, but his unit was never activated therefore he isn't going to have a DD-214. The NGB form 22 that lists his TANG duty is the equivalent. The ARF unit should issue another covering what the NGB-22 covered as well as his last 7 months 26 days. DD-214s do not show duty stations BTW. Posted by: Bob Sakowski at February 14, 2004 05:25 AM | PERMALINKI want to personally thank Kevin Drum for his valiant efforts to get GWB to release all of his service records. I really look forward to the clamor to get John Kerry to reciprocate. This is yet another case of Be careful what you wish for. John Kerry's records will reveal the extent of his three shrapnel wounds -- the ones that earned him three Purple Hearts, And a quick (and voluntary) exit from his combat tour (FOUR -- COUNT'EM 1,2,3,4 MONTHS!) Ya see, Kerry's scratches were so severe he had to miss almost a day and a half of service. Now we'll find out if they even required stitches! And we'll get to see his write-up of the action that earned him the Silver Star (Ya see, JFK was the senior officer on the scene -- so he got to write up the action and presumably the recommendation for a commendation). A lot of folks are telling really nasty stories about what really happened THAT day (not the day after -- when he took a film crew back to "recreate" the incident). It seems that some of our folks on the scene say that JFK leaped off his boat to pursue a WOUNDED soldier, who was CRAWLING AWAY. And heroic Hanoi John capped him. Right there. Then. What a hero! And, we'll get to see John's psych records -- did he seek counselling before he went public with his remorse? To John's credit, he felt bad for murdering that wounded soldier -- and he compensated by accusing ALL US forces of being war criminals. In fact, he became quite pro-commy. John's left quite a record. Thank y'all for creating the firestorm that will compel him to reveal it. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 05:44 AM | PERMALINKSomething occurred in 1972 that changed Bush's attitude toward flying completely. The documents describe someone who'd been an aggressive, competitive, excellent pilot, who really seems to have wanted to fly for a living - rather like a Maverick in "Top Gun". Something happened. This something is so far undocumented, but seems to have wrecked his attitude toward flying, something he apparently loved. In 1972, Bush just seems to have said, "F*ck it, this ain't gonna work out." He skips his physical, figuring he'll never fly again. He starts to look for something else to do - he is hooked up with a pal of his father's, who's running a political campaign. He's drinking too much. whoring too much. He asks for a transfer to any old unit - hell, who cares if they don't have planes he can fly, he can't fly anyway. Maybe the medical records will shed some light on what happened. Did he really, as is rumored, crash a plane while drunk and was perhaps treated? Did he have a substance abuse problem that would have affected his ability to remain flying? Totally off the records topic - were the planes Bush was flying solo pilot jobs, or did they carry additional personnel? Posted by: Louise at February 14, 2004 05:46 AM | PERMALINKFor Louise: What happened in 1972 and thereafter is that the US of A retired the F102 -- the plane that GWB was qualified to fly. The Air National Guard's mission at the time was to counter the Soviet Strategic threat -- not the Tactical ops in Viet Nam. Hence, no F102's in Viet Nam and no Air National Guard deployment. Alabama didn't have a 102 wing -- hence no flight time in AL. Oh dear, have I punctured another nut's conspiracy theory? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 05:55 AM | PERMALINKWhich is why I started my comments on this site by saying that the wildass attempts to read scandal into Bush's service record is a dead end. At least it is if you care about the truth. If, on the other hand, you don't care what really happened so long as you can spin it to deceive the public, then you an are not the people I want in power during a time when major changes are happening in the world. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 06:00 AM | PERMALINKWelcome home, rkb. It has been fun and entertaining watching you all in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The opening sentence of this article encapsulates it: The search for proof that young Lt. George W. Bush worked weekends at an Air Force base in Montgomery, 32 years ago has taken on a strange, forensic quality. Emphasis on strange. Posted by: Bird Dog at February 14, 2004 06:14 AM | PERMALINKlistening to NPR... Didn't Phil Carter tell us a week ago that we weren't likely to see a DD-214, and that the separation form for the NG which had previously been released was likely all that there was for a member of the TANG? That is, is Kevin really this fucking stupid? Does he know less than the rest of us knew a week ago? I'm guessing that he knows better, but wants to have a new line for the scandal. Meanwhile, the rest of the wonder, where in the world is Alex... Posted by: Thomas at February 14, 2004 06:16 AM | PERMALINK"snopes links are irrelevant to this discussion anymore, as there was a small furor over the fact that Snopes mocked Michael Moore for his statements, but when it turned out that Moore had been more accurate than Snopes, Snopes changed its page without noting the correction or acknowledging their partisanship." They did post an apology and acknowledge they had been wrong, as you can see by actually following the link. Norman Rogers: OK, they phased out the F102, so that's a good reason, I suppose, that Bush didn't fly anymore. But, he was ordered to take a physical to maintain his pilot's rating but blew it off. The NG didn't ground him, he unilaterally made himself unfit to serve as a pilot, contrary to NG orders and policy. At the time he still had about, what, two years commitment left? Couldn't he be trained to fly other jets during that time, assuming he didn't unilaterally disqualify himself from flying? That seems to be the NG's intent in requiring him to take a flight physical. So, yes, the retirement of the F102 would be a sufficient reason to explain why Bush didn't fly anymore. But then you'd expect the NG to issue orders to the effect that Bush didn't need to be a pilot anymore and assign him to do something else. But the problem is that Bush himself took himself out of the pilot game, contrary to NG orders. Posted by: aplomb at February 14, 2004 06:17 AM | PERMALINK?Congratulations Kevin - you?ve become this year?s Kenneth Starr. This AWOL story has much relevancy to the Bush presidency as Whitewater had to the Clinton Maybe someone already made this point but: it is time for a
hypothesis as to what GWB was doing when he was supposed to be in
Alabama. From the fact that they are still witholding medical records
and from GWBs reputation as a drug and alchohol user isn't it reasonable
to suppose he was being de-toxified somewhere? For Aplomb (a plum? not a peach?) You still don't get it (watta surprise!). In order to keep flying GWB would have to been qualified on another jet (I think it was the Thunderchief -- but I may be mistaken. This was a LONG TIME AGO). In 1972 President Nixon was winding down Johnson's war. We were reducing force levels. We were reducing draft assessments. Guard units were downsizing. GWB got an early release (six months or so) to go to grad school (as did many others). GWB moved on. And the nation thanked him for his service. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 06:40 AM | PERMALINKTo expand on Norman's last post, the Air Force, Reserves and ANG were awash in pilots being given early discharges by 72-73. Many who wanted flight time to stay flight qualified couldn't get it. Many who wanted to stay in had to get out ... some stayed as long as possible in the vain hope they'd be one of the ones that were kept, others accepted formal or defacto discharges. I have 2 cousins who were pilots then. One was able to cobble together a military flying career for a few more years because he had been a Russian Affairs major in college, although he never managed an embassy attache job. The other couldn't get enough flight time to stay qualified in the military and couldn't get a commercial flying job, despite being an excellent pilot with combat awards, because there were so many deactivated pilots out competing for the airline slots. It's probably hard for those who weren't around at the time to realize just how chaotic things were that last year of the war. I can guarantee you, the things you're questioning in Bush's record were very very common then, do not constitute a scandal that calls his current moral stature or leadership into real question. Assuming you care about that as a real issue, of course. I'll say it yet again - there's lots to take Bush on over, but this
ain't it. Not if you're serious about winning the White House and
LEADING the country through the next few challenging years. some troll writes: yeah, in the meantime Chaos and War Leave Iraq's Hospitals in Ruins At Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Children, gallons of raw sewage wash across the floors. The drinking water is contaminated. According to doctors, 80 percent of patients leave with infections they did not have when they arrived. Doctors say they have been beaten up in the emergency room. Blood is in such short supply that physicians often donate their own to patients lying in front of them.
To the America-hating AKR-in-NYC: Why is any of the chaotic scene in Iraq America's fault? Do you believe the good peoples of Iraq were much better off under the benevolent dictatorship of Saddam? Do you care that the Islamicist crazies are fomenting what you decry? Why do you nuts hate America? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 07:09 AM | PERMALINKThe last time the American sense of military fair-play suffered this kind of abuse was the court-martial of Billy Mitchell. Bush is turning somersaults but he hasn't come close to stilling the clamor that his punk kid act imposed on the guard and that continues to insult the country's traditions. The lies will surface if the press (and men-of-the-year like Kevin Drum) keep at it; as to whether the story has longevity, there haven't been legs this good since Betty Grable. Posted by: Sam Spade at February 14, 2004 07:10 AM | PERMALINKGWB moved on. And the nation thanked him for his service. Not this part of the nation. My dad was IN Vietnam, while Bush was partying in Texas and playing tennis with politicians. He joined to avoid the War, but then claimed to support it. That's pretty much all I need to know about his "service", thank you very much. That he couldn't even be bothered to show up enough to garner a record that can stand up to scrutiny is a sad, pathetic joke. Let alone that he may very well have gotten strings pulled to cover up some crime by doing Community Service. What, you say? No proof of that? Well, then...why won't he answer a simple yes or no question about the Project PULL stint? It's a simple proposition. When a kid who broke a window won't answer a question about who broke the window, it's a pretty fair bet they had something to do with it. Posted by: Monkey at February 14, 2004 07:19 AM | PERMALINKDear Sam, I agree with you, let's keep this going. I can't wait to see John Kerry's service records. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 07:20 AM | PERMALINKYes, we are all well aware that the F102 was being phased out. If Bush wanted to be a fighter pilot, loved it, and was rated excellent at it, why wouldn't he have wanted to be trained to fly something else? Why would the military spend over a million bucks to train him and then just say, "Ooops, sorry. You can't be of any further service to us."? It would make sense if Bush had attempted to become qualified to fly some other plane that also was supposed to "counter the Soviet Strategic Threat" - it's not like the F102 was phased out because the threat disappeared. My interpretation, looking at the sum of the information that has been released as of this morning, and the reports of Bush's own behavior, is that something occurred that made him believe that a career in flying was no longer an option for him. This coincided with the period that he describes as his "nomadic" one. So, no, Norman, your statement of facts previously known don't "puncture some nut's conspiracy theory." I don't have a conspiracy theory as to what occurred that affected Bush so. All we know is that we have a good deal of evidence that something did occur. There could be a variety of reasons, including a health incident or the parental kibosh on a Great but Inappropriate Love Affair. Of course, my interpretation is mine alone, and will not be of interest or consideration to anyone with a non-speculative or open-minded nature. Posted by: Louise at February 14, 2004 07:21 AM | PERMALINKDear Monkey, I'm glad your dad served in 'Nam. Like most middle class Americans of my generation, I managed to avoid service (as did your hero, Bill Clinton). And, I applaud your efforts to keep this non-story in the public eye. It will force John Kerry to release his service records so's we can get a better look at this "hero". Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 07:23 AM | PERMALINKNorman and rkb: Look, I get it -- the F102 is retired, too many pilots for too few slots, war winding down, people getting early discharges left and right, "Kung Fu Fighting" climbing the charts, etc. That would explain the NG telling Bush, "Sorry, bub, we don't need you as a pilot anymore. Maybe you can sort mail or read magazines, because we do have a slot for that." That's not what happened. The NG told Bush to take a physical to maintain his pilot rating. The NG refused Bush's May 1972 request to transfer to Alabama because it was inappropriate to have a pilot take a non-flying duty. (Bush's September request to serve in Alabama was approved, because by then Bush had unilaterally disqualified himself from being a pilot.) The NG didn't ground Bush, he grounded himself. You point out that lots of pilots were being grounded at that time, fine, but it misses the point: where the hell does Bush get off disregarding orders and grounding himself? You'll probably respond that the NG would have grounded him anyway eventually, and that's not a bad assumption, but it doesn't change the fact that the NG told Bush to take a physical and he said "nope", and that Bush asked for a non-pilot job and the NG initially said "nope", until Bush himself unilaterally decided to become a non-pilot so the NG was forced either to say "OK" to a non-pilot job or bring him up on disciplinary charges. That the NG decided to let it slide is explained by the overabundance of pilots at the time, but that doesn't change the fact that Bush disregarded orders in the first place, does it? Posted by: aplomb at February 14, 2004 07:28 AM | PERMALINKDear Louise, I'm sorry to say that you are on the mark. It's true. The world cares no more about your silly scandal mongering than it does about Hanoi Jane's vagina (she's taken a decidedly pathologic interest in the damned thing of late -- probably because most of us men-folk have lost interest). If you want your pet theory exploded, read rkb's post -- there was no further opportunity for him to fly in the ANG. But please keep it up. Your ardor will be reflected in the demand for Hanoi John to reciprocate. I can't wait for the spotlight to shine on his career. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 07:29 AM | PERMALINKSome of the immediate chaos in Iraq, insofar as there is chaos there, is in a sense due to our presence. That's not bad. Sometimes you leave a sore wound or an infection alone and try to treat it locally. But when that infection begins to poison the whole body, you lance the wound knowing it will hurt because that is the only way to begin the healing process. At when you do lance it, at first what you get is gobs of puss and blood pouring out. There are some significant festering wounds that threaten to poison our world at large. The most significant of these IMO is the nexus between Islamacist terror networks and nuclear / chem / bio knowhow. I don't give a damn whether or not Saddam had stockpiles of WMD warheads. I know he had knowhow, I know we found traces of both ricin and VX at the Ansar al-Islam camps along with chemical weapons cookbooks, I know he was fostering Palestinin terror and I know he was maneuvering, with the complicity of France, Russia and some German companies, to evade the sanctions and establish dual-purpose systems with which to reconstitute WMD when he chose. And I don't give a damn if we did it "unilaterally" or not. If it was right to do, then we should have done it if we could. If it was wrong to do, having the approval of Kofi Anan (whose oil for food director is now accused of accepting bribes from Saddam) or of Chiraq (who has evaded corruption trial only by changing the law to protect him while he's in office) wouldn't matter one bit. I wish there were a way to remove the threats we face thing without any side effects or impact on innocent civilians. There isn't, so it's not something we should do lightly. But that is not a sufficient argument IMO to never act. In this case I think we were right. And, I'm prepared to do what I can to improve things for Iraqis. I'm willing to pay the taxes to do this and I personally volunteered to join a group doing some work there that could make use of my own expertise. (That group is not taking civilians yet, which is why I didn't go.) Finally, the hospitals in Iraq were a bloody, under-equipped mess under Saddam. They will take time to be replaced by modern adequate facilities. That's not ideal, but it is better than they would have had otherwise, except perhaps for a privileged class in and around Baghdad. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 07:33 AM | PERMALINKDear plumb-bob, Gee, you sure can read a lot out of thin air. Please point me to your evidence that GWB refused a direct order from his Guard unit. Oh! Doesn't exist? Too bad. Please keep this up. I can't wait to see Hanoi John's records. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 07:34 AM | PERMALINK> In order to keep flying GWB would have to been No, if you were actually doing your civic duty and READING the information, it could've been yesterday. It was the F4. But, heck, why read when you can trust the foam on your lips? Why understand an issue when you can rant like a twit and take refuge in your ignorance and stupdidity? Much easier that way. Posted by: Ivor the Engine Driver at February 14, 2004 07:35 AM | PERMALINKrkb- Hate to tell ya - you may be thinking about Haiti. Or Saudi Arabia? Posted by: GWPDA at February 14, 2004 07:41 AM | PERMALINKWell, actually, it wasn't. It's banking system was a fraud. Many of its people were going hungry. The south had deliberately been turned into an evironmental disaster to punish the marsh Arabs. The agriculture system was near collapse. Hospitals and other infrastructure were crumbling. Only the elite in Baghdad got electricity all day. Several colleagues of mine visited Baghdad University a few weeks ago. The textbooks they were using in most courses there dated from the 1960s. The labs were mostly unusable, the computer systems nearly nonexistent, the library a farce and there was no Internet connectivity. Vibrant middle class, functioning country - what nonesense. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 07:46 AM | PERMALINKThe world cares no more about your silly scandal mongering than it does about Hanoi Jane's vagina...(Republican self-mortification)) How's that for style and elegance? But as Frankenstein's doctor supposedly said, "I know he has a civil tongue. I sewed it in myself." Posted by: Sam Spade at February 14, 2004 07:46 AM | PERMALINKOh, and those colleagues who went to Baghdad University last month? I personally emptied my professional bookshelf of over $800 worth of recent technical books to send to the university library and sent CDs of software they could use without paying license fees. I'm pretty familiar with the specifics of the state of Iraq (good and bad) in certain areas of the country, based on firsthand accounts of people I have reason to respect and trust. So don't make claims you can't back up in detail. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 07:50 AM | PERMALINKFor Ivor: FYI, the F4 Phantom was a tactical airplane, primarily used by the Navy and marines and saw lots of action in Vietnam. The Air National Guard's mission was to counter the Soviet Strategic threat and the F102 was phased out in favor of the F15 Eagle. You wouldn't remember, but at the time the threat was the Mig25. Please let me know before you drive your engine in my neighborhood, so's I can try to help clear the streets. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 07:56 AM | PERMALINK>>Some of the immediate chaos in Iraq, insofar as there is chaos there, is in a sense due to our presence. That's not bad. Of course you aren't there, are you! >>I know he had knowhow >> I know we found traces of both ricin and VX at the Ansar al-Islam camps along with chemical weapons cookbooks... Which is in the north where Saddam had little if any control. No fly zones and such. >>I know he was fostering Palestinin terror and I know he was maneuvering, with the complicity of France, Russia and some German companies, to evade the sanctions and establish dual-purpose systems with which to reconstitute WMD when he chose. How do YOU know this? >>But that is not a sufficient argument IMO to never act. Again this simple-minded bianary. It was never an argument about whether to act or not act. It was WHAT actions to take. The inspectors were there and they were doing there jobs. See Blix. >>I'm willing to pay the taxes to do this and I personally volunteered to join a group doing some work there that could make use of my own expertise. (That group is not taking civilians yet, which is why I didn't go.) I'm glad you are willing to pay taxes for this mess since you really have no choice unless you don't live in the USA. pax ps On a purely personal note. At this time I feel more threatened by my own nations actions then I do by Islamists and I live in NY. When a kid who broke a window won't answer a question about who broke the window, it's a pretty fair bet they had something to do with it. That assumes Bush is a kid. Although that's true -- he does act like a kid, especially in the way he makes simple lies up to sqeak out of being accused of something bad -- I would say THAT is the bigger criticism of Bush and the thing to be proven, not the thing to be assumed as evidence of something else. Posted by: DavidByron at February 14, 2004 08:01 AM | PERMALINKAbNorman: "Please point me to your evidence that GWB refused a direct order from his Guard unit." Who said anything about a direct order from his Guard unit? The physicals were required of all pilots. It would take a direct order to EXCUSE Bush from taking it. Look at his suspension from Aug. 72: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif "Reason for suspension: failure to accomplish annual medical evaluation." That was a requirement, and Bush was obligated to fulfil his requirements. It didn't require a "direct order from his Guard unit" to create the obligation, it was a basic expectation created by NG-wide regs, which I'm sure he was ordered to follow as a basic term of his service. Note that the suspension doesn't read "excused from medical evaluation because of excess pilots in the NG" or "suspended from flight because the F102 is being retired" or any other bullshit reason you're peddling. Bush "fail[ed] to accomplish" a basic prerequisite for remaining a pilot. You're trying to excuse him because of the circumstances of the times, but the record doesn't reflect that. He was expected to take a physical, decided to flip the bird to the NG instead, and the NG was forced to suspend him. How do you get around that? You know what, don't answer. I suddenly realize I'm nothing more than troll chow at this point as far as you're concerned. Maybe rbk has a plausible response. Posted by: aplomb at February 14, 2004 08:03 AM | PERMALINKDear Sam, I'm sorry to have offended you. I too think Jane Fonda used to be pretty hot (That nudie scene in Barberella could take your breath away). But, the world has moved on -- except for you America hating freaks. I think this is great! It's gonna force Hanoi John to release his service records. Bring it on! Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:03 AM | PERMALINKUm...... rkb? What do you suppose happens to a functioning country with a strong middle class after some decades of international isolation? Is it a great surprise to you that textbooks, purchasable in foreign currency, might be less consistently available than they might have been in oh, say, 1988? Or is that too long ago a time to grasp? You think maybe that that functioning middle class might, just maybe, have done what other middle classes do when under the kind of attack Irak has been - leave? Go somewhere else? I really am coming to believe that the greatest difficulty with the current bizarro-world is a complete absence of both historical knowledge and the complete inability to deal with the concept of cause and effect. On the other hand, such a little knowledge is so very dangerous. I'm sure your lavish gift will in itself reverse all the damage and soon Irak will emerge into the light, and then you can get some more practice re-invigorating failed countries by helping Iran, or Malaysia, Argentina or perhaps even Canada. All those places filled with people who are following inappropriate and inefficient dogma. Posted by: GWPDA at February 14, 2004 08:08 AM | PERMALINKDear plumb-bob, So now you've backed off your claim that GWB disobeyed a direct order. All you can accuse him of is being late to take his physical which resulted in his disqualification to fly planes the ANG had stopped flying. Oooh, what a bad man! And they let him out early to go to grad school? OooH! This is terrific. Let's see John Kerry's Service records. How can he refuse? GWB has divulged his -- and you morons can't give it up. Wait'll we see what a rat bastard Kerry was (is?) Bring it on! Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:09 AM | PERMALINKPlease keep this up. I can't wait to see Hanoi John's records. The last time this kind of hope roamed the land the John Birch Society was on the loose and accusing Ike of being a communist. Though the American political traditioin has, as Hofstandter made clear many times, always included a surplus of yammering nuts, from the Know-nothings to McCarthyites, you have to keep thinking that extreme ideologies will on occasion be infected by taste. Posted by: Sam Spade at February 14, 2004 08:11 AM | PERMALINKFor GWPDA, rkb can certainly speak for herself -- but I miss your point. How is any of what you cite Amerika's fault (I repeat your spelling of Iraq -- Am I wrong to assume you're an America hater?) Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:12 AM | PERMALINKMr. Rogers, Is there some law that says people must love Amerikkka? :) If there is would you point it out. My own preference is to love women and that alone is enough for me. \/ Posted by: ed at February 14, 2004 08:18 AM | PERMALINKDear Sam, The funny thing is, I was alive and of age during the fifties. If you're truly interested in the history of this country, I suggest you do some research into Ike's attitudes toward Whitaker Chambers. Oh, don't know who he was? Never heard of Alger Hiss? The Pumpkin Papers? If you can hold your nose long enuff to learn something, try reading Ann Coulter's Treason. She actually did her research and has maticulously footnoted her sources (she went back to the orginial minutes of both the Senate and the House committees). If you can get through it, you'll discover that your sense of smell has changed. What was sweet will now be sour. Good luck. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:20 AM | PERMALINKDear Mister Ed, No, you don't have to love America. And, most of the American Communist party (aka the Democrat party) do not. And, most of the Republican party do love their country -- and respect your right to be an asshole. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:24 AM | PERMALINKGWPDA, Of course my "lavish" gift won't do much - it was simply intended to help as a stopgap until the university can be re-equipped. It was intended to give upperclass students some knowledge and some tools they could use to contribute to their own country's rebuilding while the university's overall needs get addressed. As for historical knowledge, the oil for food program had exemptions which could have been used for textbooks. Saddam chose to build palaces and lavish bribes on those who could help him stay in power and who could help erode the sanctions without him having to comply. As to cause and effect, yeah, I'm pretty familiar with that too. I know that French and Russian attempts to undercut the sanctions emboldened Saddam to step up attacks in the no-fly zones. I know that Tariq Aziz is on public record as saying officials from both those countries assured Saddam right up until March 2003 that he would face no real consequences from the US. Unfortunately for him, there really WERE effects caused by that advice and by his actions. Funny how that works. Blix was getting nowhere in Iraq. Nor was he likely to. He was forced on the US as team lead by France when the UN finally decided at US urging to send inspectors back in after an earlier team were kicked out because they were beginning to uncover a chain of information about the WMD programs. And, WMD and the inspections process is not and was not his area of expertise. Moreover, he publicly stated last Spring that a major objective of his was not to give the US information that we might use to go to war on. Pretentious twit, Blix. His ass got fired and his substantial ego got bruised. I could deal with his political stance and even his ineptitude, but his posturing interview on MTV was more than I was willing to support. As far as my evidence about dual use equipment and the intent to continue WMD programs, my source is David Kay's report to Congress. Go read it, as you obviously haven't, and see what he said. Those assertions he stands by today, whatever his dispute with the White House about stockpiles of armaments might be. Specifics, people. You need to get beyond the kneejerk reactions
and the sloganeering and deal with the specifics of the real world. Having made complete and total asses of themselves over the bogus awol issue, will the tinfoil hat wearing W haters now turn their attention to Kerry's unreleased military records? Of course not. This was never a search for the truth. Posted by: Stan at February 14, 2004 08:26 AM | PERMALINKMr. Rogers. You have my pity. Now scat. Posted by: Sam Spade at February 14, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINKrkb ? It will be long, hard and expensive, but in the end it may be possible for Iraq to emerge as a multi-ethnic, functioning country with a strong middle class, industries that go beyond oil extraction and a reasonably representative government. If that doesn't happen, I believe it will be because we gave up too soon, not because it was a mistake to try. Sounds great! Who wouldn't want Iraq to blossom into the flower of progress you've described? I'd love to win the Lotto, too; if glorious outcomes are merely matters of time, I'll start shopping for my H2 this weekend, never mind that I buy about three tickets a year. Sistani is sticking to his demand for direct elections and we can't just smack him down (literally or figuratively) since he directs a lot more armed Iraqis than we do. The UN (that irrelevant pack of weasels we've been begging to help us out, please please pretty please) isn't likely to agree that elections are feasible by our (arbitrary except for domestic politics) deadline of June 30 ? not as long as police recruits are being slaughtered and prisoners sprung from jail by the score. The incidence of crimes such as burglary, robbery and rape has skyrocketed since the invasion, a fact which has not inspired joy and gratitude among the Iraqi populace. The Iraqi national infrastructure still hasn't been restored to pre-invasion levels, which were by all accounts not great. The newly liberated women of Iraq have less personal liberty and are threatened with losing most, if not all, of the legal assurances of equal rights provided under the loathsome yet secular Hussein regime. And on, and on. But I hear quite a few schools have been painted, which is good. It's February 14 (Happy VD, all!) and we've controlled the country for over 10 months; our progress in that time has been... well, I'd say it's not been progress as much as regress. What makes you think any of this will be any better within 3-1/2 months? Just because a peaceful, unified, democratic Iraq is a worthwhile, desirable goal does not justify any old bone-headed, ill-advised action with that professed goal. Manifestly, it was a mistake to undertake this project at the time and in the manner we did: with domestic support based on inaccurate and now irrelevant justifications, inadequate international support, and delusional-to-nonexistent planning for occupation and transition. Who's responsible for this appalling botch? Why, I believe that would be the same people you trust to make everything work out okay from here on out. The same people who've shown no indication that they've learned any sort of useful lesson from the debacle. You're a skillful, facile writer; you're clearly intelligent, in the Stanford-Binet sense; yet your thinking defies rational analysis. Did 9/11 terrify the logic right out of you? Apparently that happened to a lot of people (hey, where is Joe Schmoe, anyway?) but relatively few of us in New York have reacted this way. I wonder why you're the exception. Which brings up the fact that this slo-mo catastrophe, this brutally expensive and just plain brutal boondoggle, has not deprived al Qaeda of a dollar of support or an acre of refuge. Certainly it's your privilege to vote for whomever you choose. But if you choose to justify your vote in this public forum, it's our privilege to point out that your justifications are honking, drooling, batshit crazy. Posted by: nina at February 14, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINKKevin; I'll stop by once in a while to see if you're better. Hope this episode of psychosis doesn't last too long. Posted by: Mike K at February 14, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINKDear Sam, What a witty rejoinder. Scat? Aw, afraid to do some real reading? OBTW, did you even read, the Maltese Falcon -- or are you just a silly movie buff? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:34 AM | PERMALINKHe was expected to take a physical, decided to flip the bird to the NG instead, and the NG was forced to suspend him. Aplomb, I don't know if that happened or not (and neither does anyone else here). But what I do know is that that period was really chaotic. Keep in mind that computers consisted only of awkward mainframe systems and many records were kept manually. Also keep in mind that commanders were retiring right and left or were scrambling to try to ensure they could find a billet that would allow them to stay in longer. Even flight surgeons were getting out - one of my pilot cousins had a hard time making an appointment for a flight physical when he got back from Vietnam. From what my close relatives experienced, even in the main services, lots of standard procedures got waived or ignored for people who were probably going to be mustered out. Imagine how much more chaotic things might have been with regard to someone who was in the ANG in one state but was drilling on a flexible (and authorized) basis with a Reserve unit in another state. Again, I don't know what the facts are about Bush in particular. But the facts you cite can have a very different interpretation than the one you made. Hope that helps. (smile) Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 08:34 AM | PERMALINKrkb, >>No, you don't have to love America. And, most of the American Communist party (aka the Democrat party) do not. And, most of the Republican party do love their country -- and respect your right to be an asshole. Mighty white of you Mr. Rogers. I mean it. \/ Posted by: ed at February 14, 2004 08:37 AM | PERMALINKDear nina, rkb can speak for herself -- but I don't get your point. Are you saying we should elect people like John Kerry who did their level best to help us lose the war in Vietnam? What would John do differently in Iraq? What are the Democrats FOR, anyway Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:38 AM | PERMALINKThe real question is why the President pissed away a million dollars of taxpayer money by his refusal to take his physical.cjs Posted by: cleve at February 14, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINKDear Mr. Ed, No, I don't need to call you comrade -- I'm not a communist, although you may be. I prefer to call you Mr. Ed because you appear to be a talking horse's ass. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:43 AM | PERMALINKNina, we'll just have to disagree on what's happening in Iraq. My assessment is based on recent information from people who are there -- and many are not particular fans of the Bush administration, either. As far as Sistani goes, I'm neither surprised nor dismayed at his demands. He has taken an important role as a moderate leader pushing for Shia rights and in doing so, he not only benefits his people, he also keeps the Iranian proxies like Sadr in check. The Sunnis who back the insurgency are going to have to deal with the fact that they will never again dominate this country. If they play nice and start acting responsibly, they will get to have a proprtional share of power. If not, we back off and let the Shias deal with them or they get fenced into a regional entity that has far less wealth and influence than the country as a whole. Yup, it's going about how I expected. We haven't let either the Kurds or the Shia slaughter the Sunnis, as many would like to do. We're quietly building up local councils chosen by local leaders, to take over responsibility for their towns and we're providing money and materials to many of them for this purpose. The question of how the country should be organized and run is being debated openly by Iraqis with heat and passion but without violence except on the part of the Baathist losers. Good progress so far in a country of which over 80% don't remember a time before Saddam seized power. Mr. Rogers, I like you! But not that way...nudge, nudge...wink, wink. Posted by: ed at February 14, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINKDear cleve, How exactly did our President (as a young man), piss away a million dollars of taxpayer money? His airplane was being phased out, the Guard was downsizing, and he was moving on. Do you have evidence of his REFUSAL to take a physical (or are merely noting that fact that he did not take one). I can't wait to see Kerry's records, can't you? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINKQuote : "So now you've backed off your claim that GWB disobeyed a direct order. All you can accuse him of is being late to take his physical which resulted in his disqualification to fly planes the ANG had stopped flying. Oooh, what a bad man! And they let him out early to go to grad school? OooH!"
a) He wasn't late in taking his physical, he never did take another flight physical, unless you are claiming he might yet show up for that physical sometime next week thereby rendering this whole thing mute. b) He didn't become disqualified to fly airplanes he was grounded. To a pilot (and I should know since I earn my living as one) being grounded is a very serious matter, like a physician being struck off or a lawyer being disbarred. c) The ANG had not stopped flying the F102 in 1972, yes it was being phased out, but his Texas unit was assigned to fly it's replacement the F106 (original designation F102B, basically an improvement of the F102). Had GWB remained current medicaly he would have continued to fly the F102 or been transitioned into the F106. Pointless I know, but at least I got something off my chest without resorting to partisan political bickering. Just the facts mam. Regards Democratic Veteran has a good post on the release of records... http://www.usndemvet.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/710 Posted by: jillian at February 14, 2004 08:53 AM | PERMALINKScotty, why did Bush fail to take his physical? "Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview. Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969. "Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said." Why did Bush fail to take his physical, Scotty? http://tinyurl.com/2a8ss I've been a loyal Democrat for thirty years. although the last Democrat president I admired was LBJ (and he left office 36 years ago) but really I'm a real Democrat. even though i love reagan. but i'm a dyed-in-the-wool member of the Democrat Party. but NOW you, my fellow Democrats, have forced me out of the party. it's true, bush's policies endanger our security, he sent hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of iraqi civilians to their deaths on the back of a lie, and no president has had a net loss of jobs since hoover, but if you won't take dear leader's, i mean bush's, word about his service to his country during wartime, then i'm out of here. did i mention i've been a loyal Democrat for thirty years? Posted by: Retarded Klan Bastard at February 14, 2004 08:57 AM | PERMALINKDear Poster, a) I miss your point. Do you repeat the claim that GWB REFUSED to take his annual physical? If so, put up! Oh, you're agreeing that he didn't take the physical, not that he refused a direct order -- and of course you folks think he should have been shot. b) Clearly you are a pilot -- and not a semanticist. Most of us would agree that being "grounded" is exactly the same as being disqualified to fly -- especially since he had have passed his annual physical in order to continue to be QUALIFIED to fly. But what do I know? c) You agree that GWB would have had to be specifically retrained and requalified for the F106A or any other jet -- and that the F102 was being phased out and the ANG was downsizing? So, what's your point? What do you claim GWB did in 1972 that would disqualify him in your eyes to lead our country? And aren't you just salivating to see John Kerry's service records? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:02 AM | PERMALINKRorschach, what I object to about the current Democratic front runner, among other things, is that his military service was far less than you are making out. He is trying to milk it for all it's worth, but the fact is HE manipulated the system to leave after just a few months in Nam, while also taking a high profile position as a "decorated veteran" -- after which he made outrageous claims in Congress and elsewhere about the behavior of really brave people who stayed, including people close to me. And then shortly afterwards, and totally predictably, he ran for office. I hear lots of words from Democrats like Kerry about staying until the job is finished, but it's pretty clear he thinks the UN is an international government to which we should humbly go for forgiveness. I think the UN is a corrupt bureaucracy that has long outlived its usefulness in its present form. I think that if they had done their jobs, and if the French / Russians and to some degree the Germans hadn't been playing a duplicious game for years, Saddam could have been dealt with without a war. I also deeply fault the senior Bush for abandoning the Shia after Gulf I and for failing to take Baghdad in the vain hope it would keep the Saudis and others on our side. Also, I suspect, in the hope that OPEC wouldn't cut off oil, tanking the US economy and causing him to lose office. In poetic justice, he lost anyway. As for your other concerns, I share some of them but not all and maybe not the majority. I have to go off to a commitment offline, but will return later today and if the thread is still active will comment more. But I want to make clear what I meant by "grow up". The sort of
points you make are worth debating. The sort of nonsense I'm reading
here about Bush's last period in the ANG isn't - it's a juvenile fantasy
of revenge for Clinton and a way to avoid the hard work of dealing with
a messy world that, despite the opinions of some, isn't all or even
mainly due to US actions. Dear retarded klan bastard, Your party needs you. Don't desert the Dimocrats in the hour of need. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:04 AM | PERMALINKBy Bush's own records he was a miserable soldier after he went to Alabama. He had only 9 active duty days he squeezed in the last weeks possible with the normal requirement being 12 to 15. He only made the National Guard requirement of points for a year because they were giving bonus points. He disobeyed written orders three times. He did not take a required physical when ordered to do so and was grounded. By his own records he came very close to being AWOL, if he wasn't technically so. Finally he appears to have been punished for this and has been engaged in trying to hide this punishment. This undisputed record speaks of a miserable coward who is a disgrace to the uniform. What do you claim GWB did in 1972 that would disqualify him in your eyes to lead our country? Joined the Guard to get out of going to Vietnam. Had strings pulled (documented) to get into the Guard. Managed to (at best) record a spotty record of attendance at even that. Then claiming to have supported the war he so valorously avoided fighting in. That's enough for me. You may have different criteria, but cowardice and lackidasical service while the country is at War is pretty much enough for me. Cheers, The Monkey Posted by: Monkey at February 14, 2004 09:08 AM | PERMALINKDear Lupin, I don't see ANY of your claims in the records. Where is there a fitness report declaring GWB to have been a "miserable soldier"? Where was he cited for disobeying THREE written orders? Close to being AWOL? Is that like having marginal intelligence? BWAAHAAAHAAA! Where's your citation for GWB's "punishment" All I see is an honorable discharge and our country's thanks for his service. Can you imagine what we'll find in John Kerry's service records? How many stitches do you think were required to close all three of this "wounds" -- the ones he used for his quick ticket out of harm's way? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:20 AM | PERMALINKSince Bush obviously had clout, as shown by the ease with which he got into the NG and pilot training, I think it is obvious that if he wanted to continue to fly by transitioning to newer aircraft it would have happened. EXCEPT, if there was something so bad in his record that not even his clout could overcome it. Norman Rogers Ann Coulter is not a reliable reference for anything. She makes your average wing nut look liberal. Posted by: ____league at February 14, 2004 09:20 AM | PERMALINKDear Monkey, So, how would you apply your criticisms of GWB to Bill Clinton? GWB served his country, honorably. Clinton was a lying draft dodger (ok, he "finessed" his deferment. No, he lied to get it). Did you or would you have voted for Clinton? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:24 AM | PERMALINKNorman Now I get it. GWBs hemorrhoids hurt him worse than JFKs wounds, so therefore JFK is bad and GWB is good. GWB made darn sure that he never needed any kind of ticket out of harms way. Posted by: ____league at February 14, 2004 09:28 AM | PERMALINKDear bushleague, Actually, it's unlikely that GWB could have gotten the ANG to train him for F106A -- we had a surplus of pilots. But if there is something rotten in his file, please tell us about it. And, please be as diligent at ferreting out the bad stuff in Hanoi John's folio -- he appears to have been a real stinker. OBTW, Ann Coulter ISN'T a reference -- SHE CITES REAL REFERENCES. I understand real research is anamolous to you kiddies reared on Cliff Notes. And, sadly, most of you self styled "liberals" ARE WingNuts. What are you guys FOR? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKDear Bushleague, You're right, George Walker Bush never murdered un unarmed, wounded enemy prisoner. He never fudged up an excuse to exit combat after four months. And he was never a communist agent working against his own country. I can't wait to see Kerry's service records. Thanks to all of your for your help Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:31 AM | PERMALINKLook out! Commies Everywhere! Posted by: Sen. Norman McRogers (R-WI) at February 14, 2004 09:34 AM | PERMALINKNorman GWB served his country by having it spend a million dollars teaching him to fly and then promptly got himself grounded so no use could be made of that expenditure. Of course, that is chickenfeed compared to what he has wasted and destroyed in the past 3 years. Clinton said he did not approve of the war and abvoided it. Bush approved of the war and avoided it. I consider the second the less honorable course of action. Posted by: ____league at February 14, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKDear BushLeague, Are we running out of nasty things to say? Why are all of GWB's service evaluations exemplary? Clinton lied his way out of service to his country. GWB servered honorably in the ANG. By your lights every serviceman of the Vietnam era who didn't see combat was a shirker. Shame on you! Nearly 100 Guardsmen lost their lives in Vietnam. Oh boy, can you imagine what we'll find in Kerry's file? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:43 AM | PERMALINKNorman Congratulations. I don't know if you are the first to figure it out or just the first to mention it. Maybe there is some hope for you. How did Kerry fudge up an excuse? "Please Mr. Viet Cong. I don't want to be here so please shoot near me so I get a minor shrapnel wound and can go home." Dear BushLeague, You miss the point (why am I not surprised). What we'll find when Kerry finally releases his files is not WHETHER he got a scratch, but HOW he parlayed three minor scrapes into an early ticket out of combat. HE SPENT A TOTAL OF FOUR MONTHS in NAM! His medical records ought to be revealing. And, perhaps he sought psychiatric help for his feelings of remorse for murdering the wounded prisoner he used as justification for his commendation (he wrote the recommendation himself -- he was the senior officer on the scene). Thank you so much for raising such a stink about GWB's service records that Hanoi John will have to reciprocate. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINKAgainst my better insticts here we go in reply to Mr Rogers, "Dear Poster, a) I miss your point. Do you repeat the claim that GWB REFUSED to take his annual physical? If so, put up! Oh, you're agreeing that he didn't take the physical, not that he refused a direct order -- and of course you folks think he should have been shot." Read it and weep. Written confirmation of a verbal order grounding GWB for failure to take a flight physical and a written order to take the physical. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
my only point was the use of everyday language "disqualified" does not accurately reflect the very specific and deadly serious nature of the offense of allowing a medical to lapse that is conveyed by the word "grounded" and well known to all pilots.
Yes, but the re-training and qualification would have been nominal not substantial, akin to a doctor boning up on a new treatment not re-taking his MD. Whether the ANG was upsizing or downsizing is irrelevant.
Well that's a political question not a factual one, (in the absence of any substantiation of current rumour and speculation) and I specifically restricted my post to factual points.
Norman From my conservations with people who served in the military I understand that extreme grade in fitness reports is the norm. Anything less than "outstanding" was the kiss of death for your career. I am getting sick of this wrapping GWB in the mantle of Guardsman who actually served, suffered and sometimes died. You, sir, insult their memory. Posted by: ____league at February 14, 2004 09:56 AM | PERMALINKDear Poster, So, where is your evidence that GWB REFUSED to take his physical? Where is the record of a disciplinary procedure against him for wilful disobediance? OH, there isn't any? Why am I not weeping? What exactly have you put up? Why do you think the Texas ANG would have offered to retrain GWB on the F106A (I don't think the AF had even transferred any to Texas until the late seventies, OBTW). There was a surplus of pilots and things were winding down. Would you care to speculate on what we'll find in Kerry's service records? Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 10:00 AM | PERMALINKHey BushLeague, let's talk about insults. I have high school classmates who didn't come back from VietNam. You don't know what you're talking about. GWB's fitness reports were way above what would have been "normal" -- he was rated "outstanding" and "one of the best" pilots his superior officer had ever commanded. Let's see what you morons can do when we get Kerry's files. And thank you for stirring things up enuff so he won't be able to refuse. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 10:04 AM | PERMALINK One thing that really gets to me about W is him saying that he
wants to "Spread democracy across the globe"........ what Democracy? Think about it, we have the beginnings of a world democracy in the U.N. but if it doesn't agree with his agenda he ignores it and does what he wants. Thats like filing charges against someone.....losing in court and then executing the person anyway? How can a man who doesn't have even that much understanding of how Civilized Society should work Protect our Security? The poeple that he disenfranchizes will have only the Bin Ladens of the world to turn to for justice. We may be the single most powerful nation on the planet but we can"t (nor should we have to) fight the rest of the world. Posted by: Tom at February 14, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINKGWB served his country by having it spend a million dollars teaching him to fly and then promptly got himself grounded.... This is a use of "promptly" -- three and a half years? -- with which I'm unfamiliar. Why did Bush fail to take his physical, Scotty? Because he was in Alabama and not flying. (And no, you morons, missing a flight physical is not disobeying an order.) Finally he appears to have been punished for this and has been engaged in trying to hide this punishment. This demonstrates the preternatural foresight of the TANG, since the only document you have to point to for this was dated 1967 -- the day Bush enlisted. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKOK Norman If you want to get into insult mode; did you go? And if not, why not? Posted by: ____league at February 14, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKPoor Tom, 1) You're off-topic (I guess I've exhausted y'all) 2) Did you ever take a civics course? How can call the UN, the beginnings of a world democracy? The UN is a run by a collection of despots. Who in the UN represents a democracy (true, YOU'D have to take off your shoes to count'em -- but they're far outweighed by repressive regimes). 3. You want to turn to Bin Laden for justice -- and you expect anyone to listen to ANYTHING you have to say? Bin Laden is a murderer! I lost dozens of friends and co-workers in number one WTC! But, like I said, you're off topic -- we want to get to Kerry's service records in this forum. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 10:14 AM | PERMALINKWhen Bush1 went to Japan and could only talk about preserving jobs in the US auto industry, I gagged. See, you do have something in common with Bush(41). Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINKDear BushLeague, I won the lottery. Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 14, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKrkb writes: but the fact is HE manipulated the system to leave after just a few months in Nam, Oh. My. God. THREE purple hearts is "manipulating the system", and yet GWB's National Guard service -- or lack thereof -- isn't an issue? Hey, I'm with you on that GWB has done a few things right with regards to the War on Terror, and that includes the treaty with Liberia and the sort of undercover actions that you've mentioned. That, for me, even if isn't pretty much basic stuff that anyone would do, it's far, far, far outweighed by the damage Bush is wreaking on this country both internationally and domestically. Remember all that international goodwill after 9/11? Bush went through it the same way he went through the budget surplus -- recklessly, and without even the least thought for the future. Hey, I used to be a beliver in all that Islamofascist stuff, too. I loved the idea of getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but I also knew that getting rid of him could open a hornet's nest, and I saw absolutely no evidence back then that the Bush Administration knew, or was even concerned, about the hornet's nest it was stirring up. And that doesn't even bring up the issue that the whole WMD issue turned out to be bogus. (Spare me the "But Clinton had the same info!" crap. Clinton made the right decision. Bush made the wrong decision.) I'm absolutely perplexed at why, if these structural changes in the US economy are coming down, you would trust Bush over Kerry or even Bush over Dale Earnhardt Jr. to handle these changes to benefit the greatest number of Americans. I find absolutely nothing in the Bush record that shows that he has any concern for the America your daughter will inhabit when she's your age. Frankly, if Bush were doing his job either domestically or internationally, Democrats wouldn't be turning out in record numbers in caucuses and primaries. But he's not. I'm more concerned for this country than I ever have been before in my life. And that's precisely why me and millions of other people are opposing Bush. You might think that this whole National Guard issue is the only one Democrats have. You'd be absolutely wrong, too. The Bush record is, as the military folks say, a target-rich opportunity. The only reason this came up now is because of a Michael Moore comment in introducing Wesley Clark at a rally last month. There's plenty of other issues out there, too. There's the Valerie Plame case, where your hero is unconcerned about the outing of a CIA agent who worked on issues related to WMDs. There's the Bush Administration's refusal to cooperate with the 9/11 commission. And let's not forget that Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net loss of jobs. If you want to be an enabler in his seeking to duck personal responsibility for any of these issues, be my guest. As a friend of mine quipped recently, "Bush must have a sign on his desk that says 'The buck stops with the previous administration.'" If that's the sort of leadership you're proud of, then you're welcome to vote for George W. Bush. But for me, as an American, I'm proud to oppose him. Posted by: Jacknut at February 14, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINKSo, yesterday, I speculated what Kevin's response to the full release of the National Guard records will be: Kevin's response will be "this raises more questions than it answers"... regardless of what it answers. Well, today, Kevin has unethically (joke!) gone to see his mother instead of analyzing the documents. So I don't get to see his reaction. I did see the DNC's reaction, though: "Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong. Posted by: Al at February 14, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINKso norm calls me "america hating" for decrying what my country is doing to another country. you're right, i'm upset as hell what my country, the USA, has done to the people of Iraq, maiming and killing thousands of Iraqi civilians, allowing 500+ servicemen come home in body bags with thousands more crippled and maimed (read more here and the loss of our prestige and respect around the world. you, you're right, i hate what my country is doing and i'm not happy about it. Posted by: AKR in NYC at February 14, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKA significant part of the original leadership of al Qaeda has been detained or rendered less effective, forcing less patient new leaders like Zarqawi to emerge. We know that some people, claimed to be the original leadership of al-Qaeda, have been detained, sure. We have no idea if this is a significant part of the original leadership of al-Qaeda. Funding sources have been significantly dried up, not only for al Qaeda and some of their affiliates but also (to a lesser degree) for some of the hate-spewing madrassas. That is a work in progress, much of it entailing pressure on the Saudis ...which is noticeably absent. Bush & Co don't want to put pressure on the Saudis. Nor do they want (quite evidently) to do the one thing that would help prevent boys being sent to the madrassas - which is to end the IMF ruling that free education is a luxury that nations in debt to the World Bank shouldn't permit themselves. So long as the madrassas provide the only free education around, so long will families send their sons there. But Bush isn't interested in taking a radical step like that. And while ordinary Muslims have been scared out of contributing to
Islamic charities for fear the US will discover some link, however
tenuous, to a terroist organization, efforts to ensure that large sums
of money can no longer be freely and untraceably moved around the world
from bank to bank have consistently come to nothing - because while
moving large sums of money untraceably around the world is vital for
terrorism, it's also the most useful tax dodge there is. And Bush &
Co care rather more about allowing the very rich to escape paying taxes
than they do about stopping terrorist funds moving round the world.
Again, a radical step that Bush & Co didn't want to take. And bin Laden's family - Osama bin Laden attended a family wedding months before September 11 - were allowed to leave the US days after 9/11, unquestioned by the FBI. Meanwhile, hundreds of people guilty of nothing more than being Arab or Muslim, were detained and questioned. Not the actions of an administration determined to find the truth. Rather the actions of an administration intent on flourishing actions that would accomplish little, while not offending rich Saudis with significant financial/business connections to the Bush family. Oh hell, I don't want to go on picking this apart. It would be easy enough, but if you're determined to believe that what Bush has done has been useful, I doubt if I could convince you. I'll just note one thing: and the behind-the-scenes diplomacy and confrontation that made Ghaddafi yield. This took years, RKB. More years than Bush has been in action. The behind-the-scenes diplomacy started under a Democrat administration - while the outrageous attacks on Libya were committed under a Republican administration. That process has just begun. It is risky and there is no guarantee it will succeed - but it CAN succeed with perserverence and commitment Yeah - I agree. So why do you want to vote for a President who has
demonstrated that he has neither perserverence NOR commitment - nor, if
this matters to you, the slightest respect for the intel community? Dear Dittoheads, Yours, Apparently, you don't find it the least bit peculiar that none of the 30 or so pilots with that Alabama ANG unit, not to mention the commanding officer, remember serving with a man who eventually became the Governor of Texas and President of the United States. Let's expand this a little bit, eh? Is "no" sufficient, or must I be explicit about my derisive laughter at this relatively ludicrous question? Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 11:31 AM | PERMALINKYes, we are all well aware that the F102 was being phased out. If Bush wanted to be a fighter pilot, loved it, and was rated excellent at it, why wouldn't he have wanted to be trained to fly something else? Why would the military spend over a million bucks to train him and then just say, "Ooops, sorry. You can't be of any further service to us."? Oh, would it were true that the military ever makes this much sense. But seriously, one way that Bush probably was more aware than the usual pilot was that he had enough political contacts to know that a pilot RIF was coming; he certainly knew that his plane was being phased out and his unit was transitioning to a training mission for which he was unlikely to be selected over active duty pilots with thousands more hours in the right aircraft about to become available, so the remainder of his career was going to be as a supernumary officer doing laundry inspections and inventorying ammunition belts. This also explains the missed flight physical (although that doesn't really need explanation, since as dozens of actual military have explained, that wassn't unlikely at all for a Guard pilot), so it doubly explains the missed physical, since the CO sure as hell wouldn't give him an article 25 for missing a physical when they'd already agreed that he was leaving flight status at the same time he went to Alabama. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 11:44 AM | PERMALINKDear Dittoheads, If this is a non-issue, why are you here? Debating means you doubt yourselves. Dear Master baiter: Another slip, guys (a little late, but still....) His unit did not go to Nam, his unit was never going to go to Nam, that's why he was in it. In fact, his unit did go to Nam and was in fact in Nam at the time Bush enlisted. I cruise by here every day to see if common sense has broken out. Nope. Not yet. The Bush ANG story was interesting and it looked for a day or two that Kevin was on to something serious. It doesn't anymore. Keep hoping but nothing much is going to happen now. Some of the posts would look good in an RNC mailer. The defeatism and pacifist sentiments so prominent here help to explain why the Democrats have so much trouble electing a president. The exceptions were Carter, an poor response to the Vietnam war and the Nixon scandals, and Clinton, when the Cold War was over and it seemed that the world had turned harmless. Kerry is trailing a 30 year record of policy flip-flops, special interest money trails and a record of antiwar activity that is going to mobilize a lot of military veterans to oppose his candidacy. He is on every side of every issue for the past 20 years and by November that is going to be very well known. Posted by: Mike K at February 14, 2004 12:47 PM | PERMALINKI've been away for 10 minutes. THREE purple hearts is "manipulating the system", It is when they are earned for minor injuries and then used as an excuse to bail out after just 4 months. Look, I'm not all that interested in what either Kerry or Bush did re: service and Nam. I'm much more interested in what they've done since. But - if you are going to paint Kerry as a war hero, it tells me you don't know much about what a real war hero does. My family has its share of silver stars and real war heros. My uncle/godfather earned a Silver Star with *3* oakleaf clusters in WWII. Some of you reading this may have some idea what that means. Twice he was very badly wounded, nearly died, but still chose to return to his unit rather than return home. Two of his awards came when he singlehandedly took machinegun pillboxes after his squad were all wounded or killed. A third time he crawled nearly a quarter mile, while wounded, to warn troops of an impending ambush. That is a war hero. My father spent 18 mos. in a body cast and rehab after the plane for which he was a gunner was shot down over the Pacific Isles. They were providing close support to Marines fighting on the beaches. My aunt's husband, my uncle by marriage, was in the first wave of paratroopers to hit the beach at Normandy. He came home held together by stainless steel pins in his spine and hips, along with pain that never quite ever ended. Their youngest brother and two of my cousins served multiple tours in Nam, one of them flying treetop recue missions. So don't tell me Kerry was a war hero. The very idea is an insult to those men who were. Posted by: rkb at February 14, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, "Dozens" of people have explained that missing a flight
physical was no big deal in the ANG? Excuse me? I've seen numerous high
ranking officers say it was a very big deal, and should have provoked an
official inquiry. by the way, rbk---go F*** yourself. LOL.. I"m scrolling up, and it's funny how the thread has been taken over by Freepers. rkb I agree that there are war heroes in your family. Given that I find it even more difficult how you can support someone who carefully avoided ever getting near anywhere where he could get shot at compared to someone who put himself in a position where he could have died or been as badly wounded as your father. I'm much more interested in what they've done since. What Bush has done since Vietnam is to be bailed out of buisness
failures twice, use government clout to get land for his baseball
stadium, be governor of a state that ranks near the bottom in a number
of social indices. Then as president turn a surplus into a large
deficit, start one war that was needed, start another that is much more
expensive and was counterproductive, preside over the largest job loss
since Hoover. "LOL.. I"m scrolling up, and it's funny how the thread has been taken over by Freepers." ... on Valentine's Day. You do the math. ;-) Posted by: thomas at February 14, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKmarky, you haven't a clue what is real and what isn't. You haven't been paying attention, or you would know that I've said all along that I come from a military family and am married to a retired officer. A few people emailed me at the address I gave and got my name and other info in return. I'm not a troll or a fake -- but I'm also not impressed with what I'm seeing coming out of the 'anyone but Bush' crowd and the 'GWB awol / Kerry hero' meme, to say the least. ___League, Bush was a rich kid who couldn't get his act together and Kerry was a richer kid who has been angling for the appearance of power and prestige without doing much to earn it. A lousy choice. I'm not happy to face these as the two main candidates this year. BUT ... of the two ... I will probably vote for Bush rather than Kerry. Bush rose higher than his ordinary performance after 9/11. A lot of his administration's performance has been bungling. His overall strategy, his articulated principles and his determination to dismantle the terror networks and the states that sponsor them OTOH is making credible progress IMO. Kerry, on the other hand, has few principles he's ever articulated. When I look at the ones he has articulated, my reaction ranges from dismay to disgust (i.e. his actions after Nam and his statement that he would put the use of US military under UN control / veto). So what to do???? Unlike some here, I'm not automatically put off by SOME of Bush's actions and appointments to office. And the ones that bother me, I think we can survive and fix later. But getting the terror and Islamacist thing right .. that we can't fix later if we botch it. And for all that there have been some real fumbles by the Bush team, there is also a clear resolve and clearly stated goals which are beginning to yield results. And yes, I know what's going on in Iraq - at least as well as most people here since I'm in regular contact with a few friends and other acquaintances there. If I thought there was ONE Democrat who would do at least as well, while also fostering social policies I care about, I would vote for him or her in a heartbeat instead. My despair is that I don't. And the fact that Kerry is being touted as a war hero ... well, not only is it insulting, even worse it just underscores the incredible poverty of leadership right now on the Democratic side. That poverty is dismaying and will cost us dearly until it is repaired - and THAT will require people to take defense and security issues seriously and to acquire real familiarity with them. Waving the "GWB awol/Kerry hero" banner is such a ludicrous substitute, it makes me want to shout in frustration. I guess that's just what I've been doing here. Look "rkb", rkb My father was a WWII veteran. At work I talk with a Vietnam vet (28
years, active and reserve). You have not fought, neither have I, we are
both working from second hand knowledge. To Charlie and all the other wingnuts who continue to defend GWB's "service" despite mounting evidence of "self-service". It's all a question of choices made in the context of options available. For someone who has previously stated his support for his country during the vietnam war he had the option, once his college deferment ran out, to : a) Do nothing run risk of being drafted as a Grunt Unlike the majority of those who served and were killed or wounded in vietnam (conscripts) who had fewer options and therefore little choice, he exercised his choice to serve safely stateside in the guard. Was his choice "honorable" ? you decide. Once in the guard he had the option to fulfill his 6 year commitment or to weasel out. He served 4 years, decided he'd done enough, the war was winding down and nobody cared anyway, so he blew off the last 2 years of his commitment, whilst carefully preserving his "honorable discharge" status for future use. Was his choice "honorable" ? you decide. During his subsequent political career he had the option to be low-key and humble about his "service" or to embellish and distort the record for political advantage (his biography, the carrier stunt etc. etc.) When confronted with the reality of his minimal "service" record today he has the option to come clean or hid behind his the "honorable discharge" of his surrogates. Is his choice "honorable" ? you decide. Which definition of Chickenhawk and Hypocrite do you have trouble understanding. You know you really ought to get out more, try watching an occasional news program other than Faux News or reading news articles and opinion pieces by other than the bitch queen Coulter. Just occasionaly understand, I'm not advocating cold turkey for someone in your advanced condition.
Just one more word for the wingnuts who come up with plausible
explanations for why Bush quitting flying and refusing his physical was
no big deal. Ecstatic, you'd be ever so much more convincing if you weren't (a) skipping over a number of the actual facts, and (b) managing to insinuate that everyone who joined the Guard, the Reserves, or the regular military rather than being blindly drafted was a dishonorable bastard. Including Clinton (used an unfulfilled ROTC committment to get a draft reclassification); Al Gore (used at least a better knowledge of the rules to get an early out and a fast return from combat); and, oddly, John Kerry, who enlisted in the Navy rather than being drafted in the Army, and took a voluntary early out (the "three Purple Hearts rule isn't mandatory) to get out of combat after four months. Oh, and me (ROTC, enlisted rather than drafted -- in fact I'd won the lottery -- but not sworn in due to a previously-undetected medical problem, followed by 20 years as a civilian contractor doing what I'd have done as a military noncom.) Notice that I'm not claiming any of these -- especially me! -- as being dishonorable. I'm just pointing out that it's a consequence of your argument. I would be happy to forward you my address and a suggested meeting time if you would like to discuss whether I'm a "chickenhawk" or "hypocrite" in person. I mean, if suggestions of personal cowardice are really the issue. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 02:25 PM | PERMALINKPersonal cowardice? Did someone talk about how Bush avoids press briefings like the plague? If these reasons are so good, why doesn't the White House use them? Because the mere fact that Bush accumulated sufficient time in service to complete his obligation (he was already eligable to go inactive based on days in service when he got the early out), wasn't reprimanded, was evaluated as an outstanding officer, and received an honorable discharge is enough for anyone who hasn't had their eyesight and hearing impared by having their head up their ass. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 02:29 PM | PERMALINKYeah, personal cowardice. Bush was doing something a helluva lot riskier than posting stupid and ignorant insults on the internet under a pseudonym from an anonymous freebie email account. Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at February 14, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINKMY POST : For someone who has previously stated his support for his country during the vietnam war he had the option, once his college deferment ran out, to : a) Do nothing run risk of being drafted as a Grunt YOUR REPLY : Ecstatic, you'd be ever so much more convincing if you weren't (a) skipping over a number of the actual facts, and (b) managing to insinuate that everyone who joined the Guard, the Reserves, or the regular military rather than being blindly drafted was a dishonorable bastard.
Charlie, the DC sniper got an honorable discharge, even though he
struck an officer. I don't think the honorable discharge says much by
itself. Weekly press briefings plus 2ce weekly appearances before the house/senate where questions can be asked including follow-ups and not forgetting public appearances before senate and house investigative committees. Maybe then we could hope for some accountability. Hope being the operative word I'm afraid at this point. Posted by: ecstatic at February 14, 2004 02:57 PM | PERMALINKI would be happy to forward you my address and a suggested meeting time if you would like to discuss whether I'm a "chickenhawk" or "hypocrite" in person. Ah, yes, the thinly-veiled threat of physical violence. Typical. Have smart people made your life difficult, Charlie? Does Rush make you feel like a man every day? Posted by: thomas at February 14, 2004 03:01 PM | PERMALINK"Yeah, personal cowardice. Bush was doing something a helluva lot riskier than posting stupid and ignorant insults on the internet under a pseudonym from an anonymous freebie email account." ... said by someone posting stupid and ignorant insults on the Internet under a pseudonym from an anonymous freebie email account. LOL! Posted by: thomas at February 14, 2004 03:03 PM | PERMALINKCharlie (C) Do you note the contrast between the clear and simple way in which you explained your near military service and the vague and wandering way in which the military of GWB is explained? He is hiding something and he obviously does not want us to know what it is. He can always resign and go back to Crawford if he does not want to tell us. He is the president and I consider this an important factor in judging his qualifications. I suspect that I will be able to excuse whatever he did. After all he was young and drunk at the time. However, his evasions lead me to suspect the truth of anything else he says. I read the transcript of Helen Thomas and other reporters asking Scottie if Bush ever did community service. If this wasn't so important it would be hilarious. Posted by: ____league at February 14, 2004 03:13 PM | PERMALINKHey Norm If you lost all those friends in the World Trade center you must be reallllly pissed that shrub has been fighting the 9-11 commission just like he is fighting releasing his guard records. What has he got to hide there? after we burn him for this guard thing we'll move on to that then Plame then the economy etc etc... Posted by: Tom at February 14, 2004 03:21 PM | PERMALINKArach: I'm back. Long delay, but a sleep cycle and 2 jobs can do that to ya, mm'kay? Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that I think it wisest not to commit oneself either way as to the content of Bush's records. No, its not wisest to do so. But in essence that's what I've asked Kevin (with no answer so far) and you've asked me to do. I'm starting to think my answer will come when Kevin actually does B, C, or D without bothering to answer beforehand (or at all). I've not heard the arguments from the other side; my understanding that a physical was required of everyone in the Guard Remember that I'm on dialup and read a great deal online, so finding all or even most of the arguments 'from the other side' that I've seen would be extremely difficult. I'll have to ask you to take my word that there's plenty more. (Of course, if you really really need additional cites, and believe they'd make a critical difference in the discussion, I could proably find more with a longer search) First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly ? the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc. As you can see, its a twofer: It also explains why it's not very logical to assume that drug testing was what he's avoiding. As to the rest, I think I'm going to have to break up my replies into several postings to avoid plopping a enormous block of text into everyone else's discussions. I'm sorry to hear that you plan to let " Jesurgislac hit most of the factual points", but I'll reluctantly treat his/her/its reply as yours, and respond accodingly. Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 14, 2004 06:29 PM | PERMALINKAnswer to 1a (What if the records show that Bush was derelict in his duty, by not showing up for his physical?): Jez sez: But, as far as we know, Bush was assigned to flight duty at the time he was supposed to take the physical. It makes no rational sense for Bush to be 'on flight duty' at the time. The plane he was trained on was phased out and there was not enough time left to justify training on another, AND there was a general, guard-wide glut of pilots at the time. Remember that the last day he was paid for Guard duty was July 30, 1973(He left 6 months early for Harvard). You seem to have it backwards here: Because there was no need for Bush to remain on flight duty, he let it lapse shortly before he left. The fact that no one objected to the lapse for 30 years is telling. But then, 30 years ago he didn't have a pack of howling lunatics clawing and scraping their hands bloody for something, ANYTHING to attack him with. Answer to 1b (What if the records show that Bush was derelict in his duty, by getting a illegitimate transfer?): I just realized that this is breakable into two situations, let me address each: 1b sit.1) Bush got his transfer as a political favor, much the same way that people have accused him of getting into guard service in the first place. In that case, It would be unseemly, but not illegal by any stretch of the imagination. It also would be far more likely than situation 2. I can easily see a governor or suchlike ensuring that a Guard LT got a favorable assignment so that he could particiapte as part of a election campaign. He wouldn't even need to be 'connected', as they say. Governors reguarly ask favors from the local brass... I remember that one guy got yanked from my basic training unit because his mother (who was not 'connected', so far as I know) sent a letter to the governor. So in this case, I would be disappointed, but underwhelmed unless there was more to the scandal. Remember that this scenario is plausible, but 'plausible' is a hell of a far cry from 'proven'. Plenty of people consider the Loch Ness monster 'plausible'. I wonder if anyone has interviewed the then-governors of those states? 1b sit.2) Mysterious and unknown agents (ninja turtles?) snuck into the records room, altering records to cut new orders for G.W. As I said earlier, I don't think anybody who's going to be altering records is ALSO going to be incompetant enough to leave clear tracks, so the record wouldn't likely show it. Its also far less likely than the 2 alternate scenarios (political favor, and accepted without such a favor). For god's sake, was his daddy even ambassador to China yet? And he already has gathered evil, records-altering minions to his black banner of doom? AYIEEEE! Its the AntiChrist! Posted by: Ryan Waxx at February 14, 2004 07:16 PM | PERMALINKRyan, if missing the flight physical wasn't a big deal, then By the way, it's possible that missing the physical is related to something else the white house doesn't want let out. Still, that wouldn't explain why the very question of missing the physical won't be answered by them. Posted by: marky at February 14, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINKPosted by Ryan Waxx: "It makes no rational sense for Bush to be 'on flight duty' at the time [May, 1972]. The plane he was trained on was phased out ... " So you say. But according to the F-102's operational history, the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron to which Bush was attached in Texas flew the F-102A until 1975, when they transitioned to the F-101B. See: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f102_2.html Ryan Waxx: "No, its not wisest to do so." You were referring to committing one way or the other regarding whether Bush's records indicate his having lied about certain matters or hidden them. My opinion is that the total of your remarks show a rather devoted commitment to believing Bush. Please tell me how that belief squares with this Bush quote from his 1999 autobiography: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." Bush earned his wings in June of 1970. After April of 1972, twenty-two months later, HE NEVER FLEW AGAIN. What definition of "several" do you suppose he was using? Bush also claimed in his autobiography that he had volunteered for duty in Vietnam, but that he'd been turned down because he hadn't logged enough hours to qualify. Please tell me where in his recent dump of records or elsewhere is there evidence for his claim? I can show you very recent evidence (Meet the Press, Feb. 8) which disputes it: Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go. How wise really is your faith in Bush? Posted by: jayarbee at February 14, 2004 08:25 PM | PERMALINKI want to thank all of you folks who have raised such a remarkable clamor for GWB to release all of his service records. This will result in an unstoppable demand to Kerry that he do the same (it's just like tax returns -- no law they must make them public, but no way to avoid it. This is why Howard Stern dropped out of politics). I can't wait to see Kerry's medical records. Did any of his three shrapnel wounds require stitches? Is it likely he cut himself to gain a quick pass out of harm's way (he bugged out of Nam after 4 months! -- Less time than even Al Gore!) Just what was in the action report that won Kerry the Silver Star? Who wrote it (Kerry was the senior officer on the scene). How many sailors saw Kerry cap that wounded VC as he was crawling away? Did Kerry seek psychiatric counselling for his remorse for this murder? Is that why he went commy on his return stateside? In his congressional "testimony" he accused himself (and, of course, all US soldiers) of being war criminals. Was he just compensating? I can't wait to see this stuff -- and we would never had built the groundswell without your support. Thank you all. OBTW, since Kevin Drum has led the call to see ALL of GWB's records, let's see if we can get Kevin to release some of his personal records. As I read Kevin's bio, he flunked out of Caltech (he couldn't do even sophomore level math), then eventually bumbled his way to a degree in JOURNALISM? from a state school -- and he's been out of work for several years (how else would he find the time to run a blog?) Now, I may be misreading this, but since y'all think our President (who has an undergraduate degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard -- all completed in regulation time) is a bumbling idiot, and Kevin Drum is your GOD, I think it's only fair to ask Kevin if his academic and employment history is as bad as it looks. So, let's demand that Kevin release his academic and employment records. This guy was enrolled in California schools well after grade inflation first set in and he still flunked out of Caltech! Kevin, what were your SAT's? Come on, give it up! Posted by: Norman Rogers at February 15, 2004 05:20 AM | PERMALINKWhy is it if one politician claim one thing and the press will believe him, with no documentation, it has to be the truth, but some one else, provides documentation it's greeted with skepitcism,let me think, the press really is non-partisan Posted by: tip at February 22, 2004 09:05 AM | PERMALINKTo be poor without bitterness is easy; to be rich without arrogance is hard. Posted by: Stafford Ted at June 30, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKOnline Casino : Virtual City Casino - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino - All Poker Casino - The Sands Casino - 49ER Casino - Show Down Casino - Vegas Towers Casino - 7 Sultans Casino - River Bella Casino - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - casino 3k Internet Shareware: Evidence Eliminator - Internet Eraser - History Kill Posted by: Vegas Palms Casino at July 1, 2004 12:10 AM | PERMALINKI have found the best online pharmacy for buying Generic Viagra online Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - Is it true or not? Could the pill work for me? Get more information! 4822 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 24, 2004 03:28 AM | PERMALINK3013 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 07:23 AM | PERMALINK2459 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 07:27 AM | PERMALINK3289 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
