Bush military record lies exposed on 60 minutes?

[Firscherscherling]

Notice the complete sentence structure there? "Suspended from flight status."

If you've read my, oh last dozen posts or so, I freely admitted he was suspended from flight status. But the statement from pearlz was simply that he was suspended without any further explanation. This implies something negative. But as I've said countless times before, it was routine for pilots to have their flight status suspended for reasons I enumerated countless times before. It was not a big thing as measured by Guard standards.

Just curious, could you be more specific, as this would be a kink in his armor, more than anything brought up regarding his Guard service.

As for the "jumping ahead of the line", even my father tried to get me in earlier than I did, him being a retired instructor at West Point and a Bronze Star recipient. It didn't work, but I will be forever grateful that my father tried. Would any of you, given the same opportunity, taken such an offer? Or would you have declined, and jumped on the first boat to VN?

I also mentioned that the movie-star, Dean Martin, pulled strings to get his son into my Guard unit. Welcome to the real world, gentlemen.

It's interesting all the liberal/Democrats are so adamant about calling Bush's enlistment in the guard as "shirking", and have so little memory of Bill Clinton's run to Europe (including Moscow). Selective judgment?

Context. It's about context.

I have no disrespect for those who worked to stay out of the war. I have no disrespect for those who did go.

I have disrespect for those in the Bush campaign who would attack Kerry's service in light of Bush's record of service. I have disrespect for those who tear Kerry part for his service, while totally ignoring Bush's clear failures.

I would have gone to Canada. Had I gotten into the guard, I would have at least fulfilled my duties there. Had I done either of those, I would never have dared to defame the service of those who did go if it was shown that he served honorably.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

Interestingly enough, there is more than one way to interpret that title.

 

[Borealis]

Context. It's about context.

You're absolutely right; it is about context.

I have disrespect for those in the Bush campaign who would attack Kerry's service in light of Bush's record of service. I have disrespect for those who tear Kerry part for his service, while totally ignoring Bush's clear failures.

The Bush campaign did not bring up Kerry's military service. Kerry did that himself. HE made the decision to say, "I served in Vietnam, so I should be president." That's IT. That is his campaign boiled down to its core. Hardly anything about what he did after the war, barely a word on what he did for twenty years in the Senate...it's all Vietnam, all the time.

When a candidate makes one issue the core of his election campaign, in ANY election, the opposition is going to try and undercut him on that issue, especially if they are in a weaker position (as the Republicans are, in that Kerry went to Vietnam and Bush didn't). And sometimes, there is an opportunity to undercut because of what the candidate has said. Kerry's own words have been used against him by the Swift Boat Vets. His actions are being questioned, because there are men who are extremely angry about the way he has portrayed them in his post-war career. Basically, it boils down to, who do you believe? For Democrats, it's Kerry. For everyone else, apparently, it's the Swift Boat Vets.

Now, I invite you to tell me just who within the Bush campaign (I'm not talking about 527s, I'm talking about Bush's campaign staff and highly-placed Republicans) has attacked Kerry's military service. No one did at the RNC; they attacked him based on his Senate voting record (Miller, Cheney, Steele, etc.). Cheney stated clearly that he respected Kerry for his military service. It's Kerry's political record, not his military one, that came under fire, and rightly so. If a man expects to be elected President, he'd better have a bloody good resumé that doesn't have to include 'Vietnam' on it.

I would have gone to Canada.

I hope you would have packed a snow suit.

Had I gotten into the guard, I would have at least fulfilled my duties there.

Bush did; the records are there, and a lot of highly-ranked former National Guardsmen have explained quite clearly what was going on at the time. He logged far more time than was necessary in the first couple of years; even in his last year, 1973, he accumulated enough points to complete his requirements (minimum is 50, he earned 56) and be eligible for an early dismissal (which many Guardsmen were doing because of the end of the war). Yes, he left early. So did John Kerry. So that's a wash.

Had I done either of those, I would never have dared to defame the service of those who did go if it was shown that he served honorably.

Note the qualification: 'IF he served honorably.' A lot of people are questioning that. But nobody in the Republican campaign has said so. 527 groups have, yes. No arguing that. But they have no more connection to the Bush campaign than Michael Moore, moveon.org, or any of the other Democrat 527s.

In other words, you've constructed an impressive strawman. I expect him to burst into song: "If I Only Had a Brain."

 

[Firscherscherling]

You're absolutely right; it is about context.



The Bush campaign did not bring up Kerry's military service. Kerry did that himself. HE made the decision to say, "I served in Vietnam, so I should be president." That's IT. That is his campaign boiled down to its core. Hardly anything about what he did after the war, barely a word on what he did for twenty years in the Senate...it's all Vietnam, all the time.

When a candidate makes one issue the core of his election campaign, in ANY election, the opposition is going to try and undercut him on that issue, especially if they are in a weaker position (as the Republicans are, in that Kerry went to Vietnam and Bush didn't). And sometimes, there is an opportunity to undercut because of what the candidate has said. Kerry's own words have been used against him by the Swift Boat Vets. His actions are being questioned, because there are men who are extremely angry about the way he has portrayed them in his post-war career. Basically, it boils down to, who do you believe? For Democrats, it's Kerry. For everyone else, apparently, it's the Swift Boat Vets.

Now, I invite you to tell me just who within the Bush campaign (I'm not talking about 527s, I'm talking about Bush's campaign staff and highly-placed Republicans) has attacked Kerry's military service. No one did at the RNC; they attacked him based on his Senate voting record (Miller, Cheney, Steele, etc.). Cheney stated clearly that he respected Kerry for his military service. It's Kerry's political record, not his military one, that came under fire, and rightly so. If a man expects to be elected President, he'd better have a bloody good resumé that doesn't have to include 'Vietnam' on it.



I hope you would have packed a snow suit.



Bush did; the records are there, and a lot of highly-ranked former National Guardsmen have explained quite clearly what was going on at the time. He logged far more time than was necessary in the first couple of years; even in his last year, 1973, he accumulated enough points to complete his requirements (minimum is 50, he earned 56) and be eligible for an early dismissal (which many Guardsmen were doing because of the end of the war). Yes, he left early. So did John Kerry. So that's a wash.



Note the qualification: 'IF he served honorably.' A lot of people are questioning that. But nobody in the Republican campaign has said so. 527 groups have, yes. No arguing that. But they have no more connection to the Bush campaign than Michael Moore, moveon.org, or any of the other Democrat 527s.

In other words, you've constructed an impressive strawman. I expect him to burst into song: "If I Only Had a Brain."

Oh sure. The Bush campaign LOVES Kerry. They think he is awesome. They don't do anything bad. Oh, no. No way. They are sugary sweet.

That's why we are in trouble. A complete lack of understanding by the general public of what the truth is and how these campaigns operate. Carl Rove is the master of dirty plolitics. He knows how to manipulate in order to win. and folks like you.... hook, line, sinker.

Just throw red meat. It doesn't matter whether or not its true. They'll snap it right up and run with it.

 

[Ryder]

Should be renamed, "60 minutes taken for a ride by fake documents on 60 minutes".

 

[Borealis]

Oh sure. The Bush campaign LOVES Kerry. They think he is awesome. They don't do anything bad. Oh, no. No way. They are sugary sweet.

I didn't say that. But let me ask you this: which of the two candidates is making personal attacks on his opponents? Which of them is denigrating their military service?

The Bush campaign does love Kerry; he's making their job monumentally easy. For a man who suddenly wanted to talk about issues, he's incredibly reluctant to actually talk about his views on them. Did you see the New York Times interview? Even the Times has just about had it with him.

That's why we are in trouble. A complete lack of understanding by the general public of what the truth is and how these campaigns operate. Carl Rove is the master of dirty plolitics. He knows how to manipulate in order to win. and folks like you.... hook, line, sinker.

So in other words, you're upset because Bush's campaign managers are better at managing than Kerry's campaign managers are. And here I thought the liberals were the great thinkers.

I don't fall for anything hook, line, and sinker; hook and line, yes. But not sinker. I know very well that Rove is a political mastermind. I also know that Kerry's got some of his own as well. Unfortunately for him, they're coming up with things like 'talk about how you served in Vietnam some more' and 'talk about how you have a plan. Don't explain it, just say you have one. We'll figure out what it is after the election.'

So who's falling for it now?

Just throw red meat. It doesn't matter whether or not its true. They'll snap it right up and run with it.

Actually I prefer chicken. And I sit down to eat it, because snapping it up and running is rather rude.

 

[Sinai]

Just throw red meat. It doesn't matter whether or not its true. They'll snap it right up and run with it.

Is that the CBS News Department philosophy?

 

[Firscherscherling]

You guys are hilarious....

The issue is a difficult one for me. On the one hand, I think Rove-style politics are absolutley disgusting and I can't believe the right doesn't raise hell about them. I don't want the candidates I support to play that way. I prefer honesty and I am not so stupid as to snap up every line of garbage.

On the other hand, hte lies and mischaracterizations are effective, apparently. If they are not answered in kind, then the democrats can expect to lose. Look at what happened to Gore. Look at what happened to McCain. They ignored the lies and smear and it cost them dearly.

So what are we to do? Ignore it and lose, or drop down to that level and be total slime? What is the lesser of two evils?

And, yes, Carl Rove is one of the biggest political geniuses of our time. A low, filthy, disgusting, scumbag of a genius, but his filth brings results. I mean, he took a mid-witted reformed drunk with no political knowledge and, through a series of hard core tutorials and tinkering, built him into the president in a mere 10 years. That's impresive.

 

[Sinai]

On the other hand, hte lies and mischaracterizations are effective, apparently. If they are not answered in kind, then the democrats can expect to lose. Look at what happened to Gore. Look at what happened to McCain. They ignored the lies and smear and it cost them dearly.

I also do not like the questionable and objectionable tactics sometimes practiced by politicians of both parties. Some--like Cheney's terrorism comments, Kerry's AWOL and coward comments, and the elder Bush's Willy Horton ads--at least border on being unacceptable. Others--such as Kennedy's assertion that Bush betrayed the country and Dean's similar comments--have probably gone over the edge.

So what are we to do? Ignore it and lose, or drop down to that level and be total slime? What is the lesser of two evils?

Thus far, it appears they have chosen the slime--and that is unfortunate but was predictable (from the advisors who have been added to the senator's campaign). What should he do? How about find some issue--make that some valid issue--to center on. The problem is that almost any issue Kerry chooses is likely to alienate part of his base, which is centered around the anti-Bush vote.

 

[Firscherscherling]

Until the general public stops snapping up this garbage and taking it as fact, we'll never break the cycle. The folks who listen to Rush and Hannity ans regurgitate the mischaracterizartions as fact are a prime example.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

You guys are hilarious....

The issue is a difficult one for me. On the one hand, I think Rove-style politics are absolutley disgusting and I can't believe the right doesn't raise hell about them. I don't want the candidates I support to play that way. I prefer honesty and I am not so stupid as to snap up every line of garbage.

On the other hand, hte lies and mischaracterizations are effective, apparently. If they are not answered in kind, then the democrats can expect to lose. Look at what happened to Gore. Look at what happened to McCain. They ignored the lies and smear and it cost them dearly.

So what are we to do? Ignore it and lose, or drop down to that level and be total slime? What is the lesser of two evils?

And, yes, Carl Rove is one of the biggest political geniuses of our time. A low, filthy, disgusting, scumbag of a genius, but his filth brings results. I mean, he took a mid-witted reformed drunk with no political knowledge and, through a series of hard core tutorials and tinkering, built him into the president in a mere 10 years. That's impresive.

So who was it that dug up the 25 year old DUI of G.W.'s?

Yes, those lies on CBS are exposed.

 

[Sinai]

Until the general public stops snapping up this garbage and taking it as fact, we'll never break the cycle. The folks who listen to Rush and Hannity ans regurgitate the mischaracterizartions as fact are a prime example.

Thus far, I have not caught Hannity making an untruthful statement or a misrepresentation of fact (similar to the CBS goof that forms the focal point of this thread). Yes, he is opinionated and biased--but we know that going in; after all, he is a conservative political commentator. Commentators--like editorial writers--are expected to give their opinions on the news; that's their job. Reporters and news anchors, on the other hand, are expected to present the news straight and without slanting it to favor one side over the other. Unfortunately, the news that is supposed to be presented without bias may sometimes be just as slanted as the overt political commentary.....

 

[PatrickM]

You guys are hilarious....

ditto.

The issue is a difficult one for me. On the one hand, I think Rove-style politics are absolutley disgusting and I can't believe the right doesn't raise hell about them. I don't want the candidates I support to play that way. I prefer honesty and I am not so stupid as to snap up every line of garbage.

Yet you must think the rest of the voting public is so stupid. Quite an arrogant stance, isn't it?

On the other hand, hte lies and mischaracterizations are effective, apparently. If they are not answered in kind, then the democrats can expect to lose. Look at what happened to Gore. Look at what happened to McCain. They ignored the lies and smear and it cost them dearly.

Well, algore did a pretty good job on himself (I invented the internet, my mom sang the Union label song to me as a 20 year old "child"), and McCain did oppose GW to his face regarding an ad. Could it actually be that We, the People do see past all this, and still vote as we do?

So what are we to do? Ignore it and lose, or drop down to that level and be total slime? What is the lesser of two evils?

Ah, the Dems on the horns of a moral dilema. What an oxymoronic statement.

And, yes, Carl Rove is one of the biggest political geniuses of our time. I mean, he took a mid-witted reformed drunk with no political knowledge and, through a series of hard core tutorials and tinkering, built him into the president in a mere 10 years. That's impresive.

You need to stop reading such redactive history.

"mid-witted"?? GW is the first president with an MBA, from Harvard, no less. Lemme guess, the omnipotent Bush's also pulled strings for that, too. That doesn't say much for the integrity of Harvard, then does it. Or for any of the other degrees they've conferred over the last 100 years.

"No political knowledge"??? Governor of Texas ring a bell? Owner of a multi-million dollar professional baseball team?

Speaking of building someone up from nowhere . . . How about taking a governor of a state that was ranked 50th in the US in every major category (AK) and turning him into president?

A low, filthy, disgusting, scumbag of a genius, but his filth brings results.

Oh, I thought you were describing the Carville/Begalla two-headed dragon, here . . .

 

[ThePhoenix]

ditto.
Yet you must think the rest of the voting public is so stupid. Quite an arrogant stance, isn't it?

Well, algore did a pretty good job on himself (I invented the internet, my mom sang the Union label song to me as a 20 year old "child"), and McCain did oppose GW to his face regarding an ad. Could it actually be that We, the People do see past all this, and still vote as we do?

Y'know, it's sad that of your two examples, one is made up (he never said that he invented the internet). So it's kinda puts your seeing past it in context.

Ah, the Dems on the horns of a moral dilema. What an oxymoronic statement.

Yeah. Usually the democrats don't have any real moral problems with their campaigns because they can't get their acts together long enough to sling mud. It was something I rather liked about the party. Of course the Republicans never seemed to have any moral qualms about it at all...
You need to stop reading such redactive history.

"mid-witted"?? GW is the first president with an MBA, from Harvard, no less. Lemme guess, the omnipotent Bush's also pulled strings for that, too. That doesn't say much for the integrity of Harvard, then does it. Or for any of the other degrees they've conferred over the last 100 years.

Citations please?

"No political knowledge"??? Governor of Texas ring a bell? Owner of a multi-million dollar professional baseball team?

Oooh, those are good ones. Owner of a baseball team, and he used his political clout to steal a bunch of homes to make the field (eminant domain was NOT supposed to be used that way). And governor of a state that gives its governors some of the littlest power that a governor enjoys in any state. They're like credentials, only not.

Speaking of building someone up from nowhere . . . How about taking a governor of a state that was ranked 50th in the US in every major category (AK) and turning him into president?

Enter: Making stuff up. Sorry, Mississippi is the lowest in school funding, results, and library funding. That's off the top of my head. New Jersey has the most superfund sites of any state, and has for a while. What categories are we talking about here, and why does this cry for evidence? Like, any?

 

[PatrickM]

Y'know, it's sad that of your two examples, one is made up (he never said that he invented the internet). So it's kinda puts your seeing past it in context.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.
Gore supported technological advances related to the advancement of the Internet, but to say that HE took the initiative in creating the Internet is a bit much.
(Sources: Transcript http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/18390.html )

Made up? That is what you'd like to believe.

And what about my answer about McCain standing up to Bush?

Yeah. Usually the democrats don't have any real moral problems with their campaigns because they can't get their acts together long enough to sling mud.

???? Kerry accusing Bush of returning to "Jim Crow" laws? You need to stop reading such redactive history.

"mid-witted"?? GW is the first president with an MBA, from Harvard, no less. Lemme guess, the omnipotent Bush's also pulled strings for that, too. That doesn't say much for the integrity of Harvard, then does it. Or for any of the other degrees they've conferred over the last 100 years.

Citations please?

Bush entered Harvard Business School in 1973. He was awarded a Master of Business Administration (MBA) in 1975, making him the first U.S. president to hold an MBA degree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

You should try actually reading history.

Oooh, those are good ones. Owner of a baseball team, and he used his political clout to steal a bunch of homes to make the field (eminant domain was NOT supposed to be used that way). And governor of a state that gives its governors some of the littlest power that a governor enjoys in any state. They're like credentials, only not.

You just contradicted yourself. First, he uses such political clout, while not actually being in government, so as to exercise eminent domain as an owner of a business! Then you say he had the littlest power a governor enjoys in any state!

Which one is it? Also, please provide any proof TX governors are so power-less.

And, please be realistic. Anyone who is governor of the third largest state deserves credit for having some political experience.

Besides, this begs the question. You said he had no political experience. Reality check.

Speaking of building someone up from nowhere . . . How about taking a governor of a state that was ranked 50th in the US in every major category (AK) and turning him into president?

Enter: Making stuff up. Sorry, Mississippi is the lowest in school funding, results, and library funding. That's off the top of my head. New Jersey has the most superfund sites of any state, and has for a while. What categories are we talking about here, and why does this cry for evidence? Like, any?

You are quoting today's info. I was referring to AK in 1992. Will get back to you on that, but is it your contention that Arkansas in '92 was ranked higher in economics, education, growth, than TX in 2000? Really?

 

[ThePhoenix]

Made up? That is what you'd like to believe.

And where in that quote was anything about inventing the internet?

???? Kerry accusing Bush of returning to "Jim Crow" laws? You need to stop reading such redactive history.

Redactive history? Come on! The 2000 campaign was an absolute joke from the Democrats point of view. They made no attempt to further any attacks on their opponents, and just generally dawdled around. Maybe my history extends further back then 6 months.

You should try actually reading history.

Ok. Just curious. Don't really care if he has one or not.

You just contradicted yourself. First, he uses such political clout, while not actually being in government, so as to exercise eminent domain as an owner of a business! Then you say he had the littlest power a governor enjoys in any state!

Yes, he had enough political clout to get the land taken under emminent domain. That political clout was from money, position, and family name. It remained while he was governor of the state (he certainly didn't lose any by having that position), but governor of Texas is not a high-responsibility or high-power position. Explain how that's a contradiction.

Which one is it? Also, please provide any proof TX governors are so power-less.

You ask. I give
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/html/exec/0402.html

And, please be realistic. Anyone who is governor of the third largest state deserves credit for having some political experience.

Besides, this begs the question. You said he had no political experience. Reality check.

What? Reality check, making up statements for me is rather bizarre.

You are quoting today's info. I was referring to AK in 1992. Will get back to you on that, but is it your contention that Arkansas in '92 was ranked higher in economics, education, growth, than TX in 2000? Really?

Where did I contend this? I said that placing Arkansas in the 50th percentile in every major category is absurd. You respond that I contended that Arkansas was ranked higher in economics, education, and growth then Texas. Why not just throw in that I contend Arkansas has a larger land area then Texas while you're at it?

 

[PatrickM]

And where in that quote was anything about inventing the internet?

I'll post it again, and hilight his words:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" Gore said when asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN on March 9, 1999.
Gore supported technological advances related to the advancement of the Internet, but to say that HE took the initiative in creating the Internet is a bit much.
(Sources: Transcript http://www.wired.com/news/news/poli...tory/18390.html )

I suppose you'll quibble over the words "took the initiative to invent the internet", like Gore's predecessor did with the word "is"

Ok. Just curious. Don't really care if he has one or not.

No, but you did care to call GW "mid-witted". Someone with a Harvard MBA is "mid-witted"? Credibility check here.

Yes, he had enough political clout to get the land taken under emminent domain. That political clout was from money, position, and family name. It remained while he was governor of the state (he certainly didn't lose any by having that position), but governor of Texas is not a high-responsibility or high-power position. Explain how that's a contradiction.

Sooo, now you're saying he did have political clout, but not TX governors in general? Irrevelant, as we're speaking of GW, not TX governors in general.

Also, please provide any proof TX governors are so power-less.

The main thrust here is your base-less Dem-talking-points need a bit refining.

 

[Sinai]

Because of abuses suffered during the "carpetbag" administration of Gov. Davis, the Texas Constitution of 1876 greatly limited the power of its governors. Thus, those surveys that are based upon the constitutional powers of governors generally rate Texas governors as being among the least powerful in the nation (generally ranking Texas governors somewhere between 44 to 50). However, as the figurehead of the second largest state (in both population and area), the Texas governor's actual power is much greater than that.

When Bush was Texas governor, he formed a very effective liaison with his Democratic Lt. Gov., Bob Bullock. Together, they helped move legislation that was generally much more concerned with getting the job done rather than it was with partison political infighting. Too bad it didn't work in Washington, D.C......