Bush military record lies exposed on 60 minutes?

PatrickM said:

Argh! He was not SUSPENDED. He was removed from flight status. Did you know there are hundreds of officers in the Guard, and only a fraction have flight status? It is entirely routine to be an officer and not have flight status!

Face it, you have nothing, nothing that shows he lied. Please get your facts, and not just your desire to bash him. Again, I ask, have you ever been in the Guard? I repeat, I saw all this happen all the time without even blinking an eye. No one, the base commander, unit commanders, even the Tactical Air Command saw this as anything but routine, but all you civilians seem to see what the commanders themselves do not.

And I resent your implication that by "pulling strings" all ANG regulations can be simply avoided. Aside from "what you've been hearing", do you have any proof his discharge was anything other than routine?

Click to expand...

"On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered."
August 1, 1972 memo by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian

Looks like the White House released its own copies of the 'special treatment' memo, which makes one wonder what else they've got that they're not releasing.

Starscream said:

Just came across this link.

So Bush disobeyed a direct order?

Also, in the link, another Col. Killian memo complains of how he is being pressured from above to give Bush a good review.

BTW, I especially like this part ...

Got that right! Time to pay the piper.

Click to expand...

Oh no!!! Heaven forbid...

And you're perfect? What's the big deal here? You setting a higher standard for the President than you're setting for yourself? Is it ok for you to make mistakes? Maybe even rebel as a teen? Then why is it good for you and not for the President?

This is just another load of rubbish that you've brought on in another attempt to slander a good man.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Yes. And didn't they say, back in Feb. that they have released all the documents they have?

Click to expand...

Hey, maybe Bush just happened to have misplaced the less-than-flattering documents. And maybe it's true that this just happens to have happened several times (a call for more docs, more are reluctantly released, 'There, that's all of them.' a call for.......).

Word on the street is that Rove/Bush is having all FOIA requests funnelled through the White House. They must have misplaced some even better stuff.

drfeelgood said:

Oh no!!! Heaven forbid...

And you're perfect? What's the big deal here? You setting a higher standard for the President than you're setting for yourself? Is it ok for you to make mistakes? Maybe even rebel as a teen? Then why is it good for you and not for the President?

This is just another load of rubbish that you've brought on in another attempt to slander a good man.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Click to expand...

They can smear Kerry with undocumented sources and the words of people who forged other peoples names, and the words of the people who have changed their stories...

That's all good.

But point out proof that someone lied for the past 5 years about something, documented (and hidden, til now!) and he's just human.

That's fair.

Well, not fair. But not unexpected, either.

Yeah, Bush deserves this. Big time [/Cheney]. Had he just said that the Swift Boat nonsense was unfair and irrelevant to the issues at stake, I'd be the first to say this is all uncalled for (since it's pretty irrelevant, unless you're one of those for whom character is the biggest determinant. I am decidedly not). But, he's cool with dirty campaigning, so let him reap the reward of that stance.

Voter said:

They can smear Kerry with undocumented sources and the words of people who forged other peoples names, and the words of the people who have changed their stories...

That's all good.

Click to expand...

This is quite inaccurate and unfair, speaking of unfair. Bush publicly complimented Kerry on his military service and called for an end to the smear attacks. He wasn't behind the Swift Boats campaign.

It's Kerry and his chronies that are responsible for the Democratic attacks on Bush though.

Bush...called for an end to the smear attacks

Click to expand...

Oh, not at all. He called for the end of 527s. They could be running ads against the torture of puppies, and they'd fall under his proposed blanket ban, regardless of whether they were smearing or not.

drfeelgood said:

This is quite inaccurate and unfair, speaking of unfair. Bush publicly complimented Kerry on his military service and called for an end to the smear attacks. He wasn't behind the Swift Boats campaign.

It's Kerry and his chronies that are responsible for the Democratic attacks on Bush though.

Click to expand...

The ones that started in 1999, when he first answered falsely, and refused to release documents?

Kerry was behind THAT?

Wow. He thinks WAY ahead!

He'll actually HAVE an exit strategy for any wars that he's involved with.

Wow. He thinks WAY ahead! He'll actually HAVE an exit strategy for any wars that he's involved with.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you hate America so much; my bestest pal Bush told me that if we think ahead, the terrorists have already won.

As you can see, the 'catastrophic' Iraqi reconstruction is actually proof that the terrorists are losing. I mean, it's just common sense.

drfeelgood said:

This is quite inaccurate and unfair, speaking of unfair. Bush publicly complimented Kerry on his military service and called for an end to the smear attacks. He wasn't behind the Swift Boats campaign.

It's Kerry and his chronies that are responsible for the Democratic attacks on Bush though.

Click to expand...

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/08/19/politics/campaign/20040820swift_graph.gif

Shows that Bush had connections to the people running the Swifty Smear. Tenuous, in some cases, perhaps. But there are a LOT of them, and most are pretty solid.

Add in the lawyer on his campaign who was working for the Swifties. And the Swifties on various administrative appointed committees. And probably more I'm forgetting.

That, versus the White House line that there was no communication between them (versus the aide who said that Rove WAS in touch with them...)

The White House line which has proven to be lying to us for the past 5 years about something as inconsequential as Bush's service in the ANG.

Why would we believe them now, knowing that 1) They lie. 2) They lie about little stuff that they could have worked out, like what Bush was doing 30 years ago. 3) There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to question the whole Swifty Bush connection.

burrow_owl said:

I don't know why you hate America so much; my bestest pal Bush told me that if we think ahead, the terrorists have already won.

As you can see, the 'catastrophic' Iraqi reconstruction is actually proof that the terrorists are losing. I mean, it's just common sense.

Click to expand...

ICG says U.S. efforts to rebuild the country have been plagued by an absence of planning, high staff turnover and institutional confusion in Baghdad, as well as turf battles in Washington between the State Department and the Pentagon

Click to expand...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=7&u=/usatoday/20040909/ts_usatoday/reportspaniraqreconstruction

Voter said:

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to question the whole Swifty Bush connection.

Click to expand...

I read everything that you said, Voter, but I just want to comment on this one sentence if I may. I don't buy into circumstantial evidence, and it matters not on what side of the fence the evidence may fall, whether against Kerry or Bush. I rely on solid evidence, facts that prove without a reasonable doubt. I'm not about to crucify a President(ial candidate) based upon circumstantial evidence.

drfeelgood said:

I read everything that you said, Voter, but I just want to comment on this one sentence if I may. I don't buy into circumstantial evidence, and it matters not on what side of the fence the evidence may fall, whether against Kerry or Bush. I rely on solid evidence, facts that prove without a reasonable doubt. I'm not about to crucify a President(ial candidate) based upon circumstantial evidence.

Click to expand...

If the majority of the conservative posters on the Swift Boat threads in August had that view, I'd have a lot more respect for them.

And I respect completely what you say...

Starscream said:

You'll have to explain what you mean here. I suppose when a conservative mentions his military records (like registered members cenimo and Gunny) that's "crying"?

Oh come on, you know they waivered. What did Elliott say about Kerry back in '96? What does he say now? What did Elliott himself say about Cambodia, then and now?

And note how know you do want to discuss military records and the past, as long as Kerry is target.

Let's see how Bush stands up to the same treatment, huh?

Well then you've got nothing to worry about. Let's allow this to play itself out fully. We've got some more documents to go on this time. I don't think Bush will be able to dance around them so easily.

Right now it looks like Bush was a pampered youth who shirked his duties. Compared to 5 medals won in combat that looks pretty weak.

It was an invitation for you to share something with us besides sarcasm.

Click to expand...

Here you go! hit go to top funraisers under "B" for Barnes

MethodMan said:

Here you go! hit go to top funraisers under "B" for Barnes

Click to expand...

I understood that Barnes first brought this out in 1999, when it was ignored by the media.

I guess the media is getting tired of ignoring stuff.

And there's lots more to this than getting an easy in because of his daddy. I mean, everyone pretty well KNEW that, right?