Here it comes. The 2008 Presidential Elections.

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: vi_edit
Vilsak is interesting. I lived in Iowa from 1996-2005.

He seems like a decent guy.

Humble, soft spoken, no real skeletons in the closet.

He'd certainly gain my vote over any of the other names that are being tossed around.

What does skeletons have to do with anything???

It's nice having a politician that doesn't have a closet full of baggage following him around. Is it too much to ask for a politician that doesn't have a storm of controversy swirling around them?

No matter: controversies can be manufactured faster than you can say "swift boat".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You guys really hate the Swift boaters. It is amazing, just before election we get a Bush was arrested for DWI in 2000 and then in 2004 we get the fake memo story, but you don't see us on the right throwing around hatred.

But bring up the Swift boat thing and the left goes crazy. From what I saw it was a bunch of guys who served with Kerry and who were upset at how he made himself out to be a hero when he was in Vietnam and then went home and attacked the very same people. Three purple hearts in a couple of months and not one scar worth talking about? Plus the first one was most likely accidentally self inflicted (set off motor to close)

Then he goes home and calls them baby killers and throws some medals over the fence, but they weren't his medals, such bravery on his behalf.

Then 20+ years later we should remember him as Vietnam hero and not the protestor who said "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country. "

You are a fool if you think this won't come up again in 08 if Kerry runs, it may not have much impact but there is a still a lot of left over bitterness and anger over what Kerry said and did.

BTW: From my understanding most of that speech above was based on BS stories told by people who were not even in Vietnam.

Yeah, and if his anti-war work was all they were talking about, I'd welcome their opinion and tell them to go nuts. But that's NOT what they were doing before the election in 2004, they were going around telling people that Kerry lied about how he got his medal and he hadn't earned them. As it turns out, the Swifties were actually lying, and while rightwingers who weren't there will almost certainly be questioning Kerry's service for the rest of eternity, they, like the Swifties, did not "service with Kerry" and were NOT there and do NOT know what actually happened. The people that do, like the folks that really did serve with Kerry, tend to back up the facts behind how he earned those medals. If you're wondering why I hate the Swift boaters, it's because I tend to object to sleezy attacks that also happen to be viscious lies. Now maybe this isn't what Republicans mean when they slap "support the troops" bumper sticks on their Tahoes, but I happen to think that visciously attacking the service of someone who fought for his country and earned a number of medals doing it, just for political gain and lying through your ass in the process, is NOT an ok thing to do. Especially when you're doing it on behalf of someone who spent the same war barely serving in the air national guard, stateside. This isn't about politics at all, it wouldn't have mattered to me if Kerry was a Republican, there are some things that should just be above politics. At least I think so, clearly the Republicans and the Swifties don't agree.

As for the DWI and fake memo stories, I don't see how they are comparable. The DWI story, so far as I know, was totally true...which is the opposite of the bullshit that spewed from the Swifty side of the fence. As for memo-gate, I believe the error was admitted and Rather resigned...while you guys are STILL flogging the Swiftboat bullshit. And the "liberal" media spent far more time on the Swiftboat story than on either of the two other stories, covering it for a long time before doing ANY fact checking at all. When they found out that the story was not exactly factual, they retracted their stories, but the damage had already been done. A left-wing media, hell a PROPER media, would have thrown the Swiftboat crap in the trash where it belonged.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481
Jeb has been pretty clear on the fact that he's not going to run in '08... likewise, Rove has said that he's done with politics after GW.

But bring up the Swift boat thing and the left goes crazy. From what I saw it was a bunch of guys who served with Kerry and who were upset at how he made himself out to be a hero when he was in Vietnam and then went home and attacked the very same people. Three purple hearts in a couple of months and not one scar worth talking about? Plus the first one was most likely accidentally self inflicted (set off motor to close)

correct me if I'm wrong -- it was a long time ago -- but didn't, like, none of the swift boat people serve with Kerry? the big complaint about the whole affair was the non-stop media attention and their (the media's) refusal to give it a fair coverage... at the time, it really reminded me of the Rove "McCain has a black baby from an affair" thing that smashed McCain in the '00 SC primaries.

The Bush was AWOL story is equally as old and the people pushing the story were not even in the Air National Guard. They used an obviously fake memo to ?prove? their false allegations. Any yet the story was thrown up on CBS news a month before the election and got just as much attention as the Swift Boat story.

So let?s just say both sides tend to play this game.

What Kerry did when he got home from the war is out in the open for everyone to see and to judge for themselves if is worthy of being President after such behavior.
Unfortunately, Bush was not being followed by a news crew in 1973 so the evidence backing up his story is not as solid. However, no one has yet to find 100% proof that Bush was AWOL or deserted or what ever you wish to say about him.

Factcheck.org Was Bush a deserter?
Factcheck.org Was Bush AWOL?
Swift Vets

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You guys really hate the Swift boaters. It is amazing, just before election we get a Bush was arrested for DWI in 2000 and then in 2004 we get the fake memo story, but you don't see us on the right throwing around hatred.

The swift boaters were amazing slime, taking a guy who was wounded risking his life and lying about him, *making fun the shrapnel didn't hit him worse* with little bandages at the convention - while the drunk driving story was *true* and Bush had tried to cover it up, with the help of Alberto Gonzales who just happened to then become his attorney general later.

The story the memo was for was *true* too, supported by a lot of other evidence - the worst cbs did was to get caught by using something quite plausible which not even the multi-million dollar investigation headed by a republican said could be conclusively said to be authentic or phony. A far cry.

Do you begin to get why the democrats see the difference, and republicans should?

Craig where is this evidence to back up the AWOL story?

The official records give Bush an honorable discharge, just like the official records give Kerry high remarks for what he did in Vietnam. I guess the records for Kerry are true, but the ones for Bush are not?

On a side note, one of the people who wrote of Kerry with high praise in Vietnam was a member of the Swift Boat group.

I see no point in talking about what happened in 1973 or earlier unless someone can bring something new to the table.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
So let?s just say both sides tend to play this game.
...

Of course they do, that's how politics works. And while I don't like it no matter who is doing it, the Republicans are FAR nastier about it...both in visciousness and volume. Nothing is more emblamatic of the difference between the two parties than the keynote convention speeches in 2004. The Republicans had lying psychopath Zell Miller ranting and raving about Kerry "gutting the military" (again, not so tremedously factual) and challenging people to duels. The Democrats had Barak Obama talking about working together as Americans and looking past the red state vs blue state nonsense.

Politics can be a fundamentally nasty activity, and both sides do some not so nice things, but they are clearly not equal in the application of those nasty things. It's like boxing. It's fundamentally a violent sport that involves hurting your opponent, but while both boxers hit each other, the Republicans are like a boxer who puts weights in his gloves, bites, and kicks you in the crotch when the ref isn't looking...they take something that's already pretty bad and find a way to make it much worse.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

You guys really hate the Swift boaters. It is amazing, just before election we get a Bush was arrested for DWI in 2000 and then in 2004 we get the fake memo story, but you don't see us on the right throwing around hatred.

The swift boaters were amazing slime, taking a guy who was wounded risking his life and lying about him, *making fun the shrapnel didn't hit him worse* with little bandages at the convention - while the drunk driving story was *true* and Bush had tried to cover it up, with the help of Alberto Gonzales who just happened to then become his attorney general later.

The story the memo was for was *true* too, supported by a lot of other evidence - the worst cbs did was to get caught by using something quite plausible which not even the multi-million dollar investigation headed by a republican said could be conclusively said to be authentic or phony. A far cry.

Do you begin to get why the democrats see the difference, and republicans should?

Craig where is this evidence to back up the AWOL story?

The official records give Bush an honorable discharge, just like the official records give Kerry high remarks for what he did in Vietnam. I guess the records for Kerry are true, but the ones for Bush are not?

On a side note, one of the people who wrote of Kerry with high praise in Vietnam was a member of the Swift Boat group.

I see no point in talking about what happened in 1973 or earlier unless someone can bring something new to the table.

On the Swift boat topic, we don't need "something new". The existing data proves beyond almost any doubt that Kerry's account of what happened is exactly what happened, the vast majority of the evidence backs him up and proves the Swiftboaters to be liars.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

You guys really hate the Swift boaters. It is amazing, just before election we get a Bush was arrested for DWI in 2000 and then in 2004 we get the fake memo story, but you don't see us on the right throwing around hatred.

The swift boaters were amazing slime, taking a guy who was wounded risking his life and lying about him, *making fun the shrapnel didn't hit him worse* with little bandages at the convention - while the drunk driving story was *true* and Bush had tried to cover it up, with the help of Alberto Gonzales who just happened to then become his attorney general later.

The story the memo was for was *true* too, supported by a lot of other evidence - the worst cbs did was to get caught by using something quite plausible which not even the multi-million dollar investigation headed by a republican said could be conclusively said to be authentic or phony. A far cry.

Do you begin to get why the democrats see the difference, and republicans should?

Craig where is this evidence to back up the AWOL story?

Here's a start for you. The question is, can you get past the partisan views enough to ask the question and deal with the facts, or are you too biased to do anything but ask for more and more proof of a negative whatever the evidence shows, the way some still deny the moon landing?

The aptly named awolbush.com

The official records give Bush an honorable discharge, just like the official records give Kerry high remarks for what he did in Vietnam. I guess the records for Kerry are true, but the ones for Bush are not?

An honorable discharge is not proof at all that he was there. The son of an up and coming member of congress/chairman of the republican party/director of the CIA needs an honorable discharge - gee, couldn't be any covering for him, could there. If he'd gotten a dishonorable discharge, that'd mean something, but an honorable one is quite inconclusive.

Consider the different nature of the documents - one a centralized document approved by someone far from the scene, in this case filled with political issues - the other documents without any political pressure filled out by people close to the scene with many details. The Kerry documents are far more credible than the discharge.

If it were a democrat you were attacking for being awol with the evidence there is about Bush, I've little doubt you would have long ago been convinced.

On a side note, one of the people who wrote of Kerry with high praise in Vietnam was a member of the Swift Boat group.

That doesn't show his 'fairness', it shows his blatant contradiction of his statements - one made before Kerry return, the other after Kerry returned and infuriated some of the right-wing service people, and this was the officer's chance for revenge on Kerry. he dishonored himself by lying.

I see no point in talking about what happened in 1973 or earlier unless someone can bring something new to the table.

Read the info you haven't yet, and take off the partisan view and it'll help.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
So let?s just say both sides tend to play this game.
...

Of course they do, that's how politics works. And while I don't like it no matter who is doing it, the Republicans are FAR nastier about it...both in visciousness and volume. Nothing is more emblamatic of the difference between the two parties than the keynote convention speeches in 2004. The Republicans had lying psychopath Zell Miller ranting and raving about Kerry "gutting the military" (again, not so tremedously factual) and challenging people to duels. The Democrats had Barak Obama talking about working together as Americans and looking past the red state vs blue state nonsense.

Politics can be a fundamentally nasty activity, and both sides do some not so nice things, but they are clearly not equal in the application of those nasty things. It's like boxing. It's fundamentally a violent sport that involves hurting your opponent, but while both boxers hit each other, the Republicans are like a boxer who puts weights in his gloves, bites, and kicks you in the crotch when the ref isn't looking...they take something that's already pretty bad and find a way to make it much worse.

Come on Rainsford, remember the NAACP add with the chains being dragged behind the truck and the voice over "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to sign hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again" That is about the most hateful ad I have ever seen or heard. Bush had nothing to do with that crime and yet they want you to think he did, or that he doesn't want to see people who commit such crimes punished. Bush's view was that Texas did not need more laws and that two of the three men who committed the murder were already on death row. The whole ad was just a vile attack ad created to get blacks out to vote.

And the NAACP claims the ad was a nonpartisan act of education, what a bunch of BS.

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, you accuse me of partisan views and then post a web site called "awolbush.com" come on now. Find me a non-biased news site with some stories that back up your assertions, lest I place a link for BushisGreat.org as evidence of what a great President Bush is.
Try these from my factcheck.org link

George Magazine reported in October of 2000:

It's time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.

The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:

But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush?s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.

The Washington Post also reviewed records and concluded:

It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.

Also, please clarify what exactly you think is true about the CBS story. That Bush was AWOL, deserted etc etc.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig, you accuse me of partisan views and then post a web site called "awolbush.com" come on now. Find me a non-biased news site with some stories that back up your assertions, lest I place a link for BushisGreat.org as evidence of what a great President Bush is.
Try these from my factcheck.org link

George Magazine reported in October of 2000:

It's time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.

The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:

But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush?s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.

The Washington Post also reviewed records and concluded:

It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.

Also, please clarify what exactly you think is true about the CBS story. That Bush was AWOL, deserted etc etc.

YES..plz speak up...this ought to be a woozy of a tale!!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
So let?s just say both sides tend to play this game.
...

Of course they do, that's how politics works. And while I don't like it no matter who is doing it, the Republicans are FAR nastier about it...both in visciousness and volume. Nothing is more emblamatic of the difference between the two parties than the keynote convention speeches in 2004. The Republicans had lying psychopath Zell Miller ranting and raving about Kerry "gutting the military" (again, not so tremedously factual) and challenging people to duels. The Democrats had Barak Obama talking about working together as Americans and looking past the red state vs blue state nonsense.

Politics can be a fundamentally nasty activity, and both sides do some not so nice things, but they are clearly not equal in the application of those nasty things. It's like boxing. It's fundamentally a violent sport that involves hurting your opponent, but while both boxers hit each other, the Republicans are like a boxer who puts weights in his gloves, bites, and kicks you in the crotch when the ref isn't looking...they take something that's already pretty bad and find a way to make it much worse.

Come on Rainsford, remember the NAACP add with the chains being dragged behind the truck and the voice over "So when Gov. George W. Bush refused to sign hate crimes legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again" That is about the most hateful ad I have ever seen or heard. Bush had nothing to do with that crime and yet they want you to think he did, or that he doesn't want to see people who commit such crimes punished. Bush's view was that Texas did not need more laws and that two of the three men who committed the murder were already on death row. The whole ad was just a vile attack ad created to get blacks out to vote.

And the NAACP claims the ad was a nonpartisan act of education, what a bunch of BS.

Of course I remember that kind of crap, I never said the Democrats DON'T do things like that...but my observation has been that the Republicans are far worse when it comes to attacking the other side. It's not well known on P&N, but I was a Bush supporter and considered myself at least somewhat Republican well into the beginning of the war in Iraq. But one of the things that really soured me on the party as a whole was that ANYONE who questioned or disagreed with anything Bush did in the name of fighting terrorism was called an anti-American traitor (not always in those words, but that was the message). And that wasn't some right-wing fringe view, that was (and still is) a mainstream view of the Republican party. I'm not saying Dems can't be just as mean spirited and viscious, but it doesn't seem to be an all pervasive feature of their party the way it is with the Republicans. Again, look at the convention keynotes...the Dems were able to step back and express a positive ideal that this country has been missing for a long time, something that could really bring us together...the Republicans just had one more round of spittle emitting screaming (both literal and metaphorical) about Democrats being traitors.

Obviously my views on the more volatile political issues tend to be more liberal than conservative (gay marriage, civil liberties issues), while the issues I lean right on tend to be the more calm and rational issues (economic policies). So maybe the fact that I tend to disagree with Republicans on the issues more likely to result in charged emotions is biasing my viewpoint here. But I still find myself disgusted when the Dems stoop to the really nasty negative tactics, and I also notice it when they rise above those things...with the Republicans, I notice a lot less "rising above".

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Bush will be the Dems "Clinton" after '09?

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Bayh FTW!!

Keep out of this Canadian.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Bush will be the Dems "Clinton" after '09?

Nah, he'll be more like America's Claudius.

 

[Paddington]

I think Mitt Romney could have a decent chance, if he wasn't a Mormon. Many Americans, and especially many non-Mormon Christians, strongly dislike the Mormons.

I'd like to see Ohio governor Bob Taft throw his hat into the ring, just to see him be laughed at.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: fitzov

Originally posted by: Stunt
Bayh FTW!!

Keep out of this Canadian.

Nope.

 

[Craig234]

John, you are clearly unwilling to deal with the facts - the reason you give in this case is the site being 'partisan'. You apparently are not distinguishing between when to be concerned about that, and when partisan sites can be accurate.

I can see why that's hard because the right-wing partisan sites are filled with so much misinformation and the left-wing partisan sites are so much more accurate - though there're some bad ones there too. There are things 'bushisgreat.org' would be useful for and things it wouldn't.

I'm not saying to take everything at awolbush.com at face value; I am saying it's useful as a pointer to a list of te facts on the issue, and you can filter from there.

However, your purportedly mainstream references have their own errors.

You are right to question the info on sites, partisan or not, but you are wrong to simply assume that all info on a partisan site is wrong. Partisan itself is a vague word: does it mean favoring one view because you have determined you think it's right, or does it mean you blindly support one side and use lies to further its cause? Both happen.

I compared research in the article on another site, democrats.com, with the research in the George magazine article which attacked the democrats.com article, and my impression is that democrats.com got it more 'right' than the article in George Magazine.

With that, you should awolbush.com for a handy list of the case for Bush being AWOL, and here are responses to your NY Times links and George magazine links:

The NY Times article itself had more info not quoted in your one source:

Mr. Bush was assigned to the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, from November 1969, last flying there on April 16, 1972.

In a report dated May 26, 1972, his commander, Maj. William D. Harris Jr., said Mr. Bush had ''recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for the United States Senate.''

Mr. Bush went to work for Winton M. Blount a few days after Mr. Blount won the Republican primary in Alabama on May 2, 1972.

From that time until after the election that November, Mr. Bush did not appear for duty, even after being told to report for training with an Alabama unit in October and November.

That's just one article though, which does not get into the details of much of the topic, lacking things for example about later in 1973.

Here's an article on democrats.com analyzing the criticism in the George Magazine article of its article on the topic. Lot of useful info.
Rebuttal article

As for the 60 Minutes II story, here's links to a couple articles on the very credible Media Matters for America web site - liberal, but with a track record of accuracy.

The right has no known similar counterpart site.

The Dan Rather report other than the memos

Using a CNN segment as an example, they report:

(The reporting) made only passing mention of the allegations against Bush -- and it made no mention at all of the substantial and uncontested evidence that Bush didn't show up for duty when he was supposed to, that he skipped a required physical for as-yet-unexplained reasons, that he was grounded from flying, and that he mysteriously received an honorable discharge anyway.

Show host Judy Woodruff and CNN White House correspondent Dana Bash focused almost exclusively on the Bush team's defense and on controversial documents released by CBS that are not the primary evidence against him; the specific criticisms of -- and evidence against -- Bush have been ignored.

Article reporting how stories widely ignored the substance of the Dan Rather story

But as Media Matters for America has documented, evidence pertaining to Bush's preferential treatment and suspension remains, regardless of the authenticity of the memos.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Bush will be the Dems "Clinton" after '09?

100% for sure.
During Clinton's eight years we never got "but bush 41" type of comments because nothing of consequence happened during his term.
But you can be certain they will blame everything they can at Bush's feet after he leaves.

Case in point, how many times has someone brought up the meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam that took place in 1982?

 

[ProfJohn]

Craig, it is obvious that there is no way we are going to agree on this Bush thing.

You will post sites showing what you think he did was wrong and I will respond with sites that say he did the right thing.

On the Alabama thing, there are quotes from people who worked in the campaign who said it was well known that Bush was in the Air Guard and that he spent some time doing drills or something along that lines.

There is no HARD evidence that Bush did anything wrong, just lots of questions about his time and where he spent it. There is evidence that he spent more than enough time on duty to qualify for a honorable discharge.
Here is another article from a non-partisan source, unlike everyone you seem to post.
New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)

And in direct contradiction to the NY Times piece you quote about Alabama service.

The records show Bush was paid and credited for drills on October 28 and 29, just days before the 1972 election. The records don't show where the service was performed, but this would have been toward the end of his time in Alabama. Bush was also paid and credited for four days November 11-14, 1972, around the time his aides say Bush was in Alabama briefly following the election.

And in fact, Bush was at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery as late as Jan. 6, 1973, according to a document released by the White House Feb. 11. The document is a record of a dental examination of Bush on that date. The payroll records released two days earlier show Bush received pay and credit for service for Jan. 6 and for five other days closely clustered between Jan. 4 and Jan. 10.

and on whether Bush put in the amount of time needed to meet requirements, which seems to be something a lot on the left question.

The records show that National Guard officials credited Bush with enough points to meet minimum requirements for the 12-month period ending May 26, 1973, the period of the original alleged "gap" in his records. An Air Force "Reserve Personnel Record Card" shows Bush received a total of 9 points for active duty training, 31 points for inactive duty training, and 15 points awarded for his membership in the reserves. The points total 56, exceeding the 50-point requirement for satisfactory service during the period, though barely.

Please tell me what it is that Bush did wrong. I still have no clue what accusations you are making about him.
Did Bush spend time in Alabama, check. Did Bush meet his requirements, check. Did Bush get nice treatment because of who his dad was, check. But so did Al Gore and his time as a reporter.

 

[Craig234]

John, you post a NY Times article and complain that sites I posted are biased. I then quote the same article you posted, with other things you had not quoted, and you then say that it's now not a fair source. That's special.

Look, on the one hand, some of the left sources on this issue ignore some facts partially exonerating or suggesting things in favor of Bush not having done everything that's been raised. On the other hand, many right-wingers, and you are doing this too, are being terribly partisan, looking only at one side of the facts.

You have huge double standards in how you rate the evidence; you highlight things on one side of the issue and ignore things on the other side.

There are also some gray areas.

First, an example against the left; some sources say there's no evidence Bush was ever at the Montgomery base; however, the dental exam in early 1973 is credible that he was there then.

Second an example of gray areas - a girl who dated him who says he told her that he was spending some days on the base. Now, I've heard rumors that on rare occassion in human history, a person tells someone they're dating they're somewhere they're not. She has no direct evidence he ever went to the base - she never took him there, saw him there, etc.

In fact, this is a pretty dark gray because you have all the people they can find in the unit he was supposedly in saying they never saw him. The unit leader says he had heard the sone of a powerful politician was transferred and he looked forward to meeting him, and did not ever see him. Which evidence is more credible?

There was even a reward up to $50,000 for anyone who could provide evidence proving Bush was at the base during that period. The evidence suggests he was not there. Maybe he was by the end of October, finally - having violated direct orders to report previously; there's one piece of evidence, a pay stub, suggesting it.

And there's all kinds of evidence you are just ignoring - for example, his ignoring the order to take his physical. Now, let's see if you are fairly looking at the issue. You are off to a bad start as you don't even mention it in your summary, as I read it.

Not taking the physical was a serious issue. It meant he was grounded when he was supposed to be a pilot. Now, let's ask what the chances were it involved substance abuse. The year he refused the physical, 1972, was the first year they began random drug testing, which he knew. No satisfactory explanation has been provided for his not taking the physical.

What else? In his own statements, he's always said he did not take illegal drugs *since 1974*. Now, if he had never taken them, why would he draw the line the way he did, turning a simple denial into a carefully parsed phrase to leave open the possibility of drug use before 1974? If it wasn't shortly before 1974 - the 1972/1973 period in question - why wouldn't he have drawn the line earlier? He all but admits to illegal drug use in the time frame in question with these statements, and this fits perfectly with his refusing the physical which was subject to drug testing.

The evidence also suggests special treatment for him all along from his getting a spot in the guard by being bumped ahead of others, to discipline - not taking the physical was serious enough that there was a mandatory investigation his commander was supposed to have ordered when that happened. What happened with that?

John, there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, but you are not interested.

Let's look at an example of the outrageous double standard the right has for the evaluation of evidence: they went to extremes to try to discredit the memos that were a secondary part of the story by Dan Rather, ignoring such relevant facts as that the secretary of the offier who was the purported author said that whether they were originals or reproductions, they accurately were his views at the time. Oh, let's just ignore than fact, the right says. The multi-million dollar investigation by the former republican attorney general and the former head of the AP say that they could not determine whether the memos were authentic or false, and yet you refer to them as factually completely false. The idea they could have been reproductions of authentic memos, as the evidence suggests if they werenot originals, with accurate content - you ignore the issue of their accuracy and merely attack whether they were originals.

On the other hand in contrast, when the White House came up with a bizarre document that was torn and damaged, nowhere showed Bush's name or markings linking it to Bush - and it even had handwrittern alterations by an unknown source - the right accepted it unquestioningly.

That's a double standard in the extreme.

You are like a paid propagandist currently on this issue, perhaps even worse because paid propagandists seem to know when to concede a point in the face of overwhelming evidence. I'm not saying that all the criticisms by some Bush opponents are accurate - but you are not giving even remotely fair responses to the other evidence.

 

[Craig234]

"Am I the only one who gets the feeling that Bush will be the Dems "Clinton" after '09?"


100% for sure.
During Clinton's eight years we never got "but bush 41" type of comments because nothing of consequence happened during his term.
But you can be certain they will blame everything they can at Bush's feet after he leaves.

Thanks for clearing up what he meant. There's always been a bit of blaming the predecessor. The republicans are far, far worse about it than the democrats that I see.

Bush will give his successor of either party more to complain about than any president in memory (I suspect the republican nominee will run against Bush a lot). Apart from the situation in Iraq, wherever that is, Bush will hand him the huge deficits, huge trade gaps, the great destruction of American manufacturing and jobs, the huge loss of America's reputation in the world and goodwill build for decades, a horrendous Supreme Court group now 4 and threatening to be 5 soon, all kinds of bad precedents in the way the government works, destructive redistribution of wealth to the very top (the 0.01% especially), worsened environmental conditions and laws, devastated government agencies (for example a CIA purged of many good people who won't do as they're told), a weakened military (which may be a blessing in disguise), and much more. Repairing Bush damage will never fullly happen but many say it's a decades-long effort.

Let's look back - can Bush blame Clinton for much? Quite the opposite when it comes to the warnings on Al Queda that Bush ignored for 8 months until 9/11. There was a recession which had just started, but Clinton had done far more good with the economy, giving him a surplus budget which Bush trashed.

Clinton was light in his blame of the Reagan/Bush people before him, who had created the terrible massive debts for 12 years. He did not blame them for the first World Trade Center bombing that happened just weeks after he took office, that they did not prevent. Bush 41 invaded Somalia just before leaving office, leaving Clinton a mess to deal with.

Republicans, of course, constantly blamed Carter for huge issues from inflation to loss of US reputation. Not entirely without some justification, but greatly hyped (perhaps Carter should have borrowed vast sums and called it 'wealth', too).

Carter did not blame his predecessors enough - his economic problems were largely the result of problems from Nixon, including the oil embargo and other economic problems (even the republicans disown Nixon's wage and price controls, for example). He concentrated on healing.

Nixon *could* have blamed his predecessor more for inhereting Viet Nam - except that he supported the war and expanded it. He had sabotaged the peace talks (making him a traitor IMO), promised a phony 'secret plan' to end the war, secretly went into Cambodia, etc., so he had little room to complain.

Kennedy inherited the mess in Southeast Asia from Eisenhower and the Bay of Pigs plans which nearly forced him to let the invasion proceed (how would the public have seen JFK had he cancelled a plan to let Cubans overthrow Castro, who Americans saw as the leading threat in the world at the time, when the CIA and military said success was 100% guaranteed?)

But Kennedy did not put much blame on his predecessor. And so on.

Case in point, how many times has someone brought up the meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam that took place in 1982?

Let's answer your question. First, the visit by Rumsfeld - intended to reward Saddam, and increase our alliance with him, happened in December 1983. Let's look at the timeline around that meeting.

Before the meeting, we'd been secretly arming Saddam because we didn't like Iran; in 1982 we took them off the terrorist list to do so. Earlier in the year before Rumsfeld's meetings, we had reports of Saddam using WMD both against Iran and the Kurds. The following year, in November 1984 the Reagan administration restored diplomatic relations with Iraq.

So, you have the Reagan administration *ignoring* the use of WMD against Iran and 'his own people' the Kurds, yet 20 years later, the US cites those acts they earlier responded to with *increased* alliance as evidence that Saddam is a monster who must be invaded.

Now, it's hypocritical enough for the nation to do so - but regimes change. However, Rumsfeld is one guy, and he symbolizes the hypocrisy: the same guy flying to shake hands with Saddam and increase our relations *within months after* Saddam's use of WMD, and then later defending and running the war against Saddam by citing those same attacks.