|
Democrats accuse Bush of lying about his Air National Guard service (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Don't waste my time next time...pls |
You do that all by yourself. ;) |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
You do that all by yourself. ;) |
You're the one throwing insults around like some kind of cave man.
Like I said, If you are not going to debate the topics and refute them because you can't think of a rebuttal on your own..then go post in the Chill Out forum....plenty of people similar to you. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
You're the one throwing insults around like some kind of cave man.
Like I said, If you are not going to debate the topics and refute them because you can't think of a rebuttal on your own..then go post in the Chill Out forum....plenty of people similar to you. |
Hey jerky, you're the one posting off topic in a thread I created.
Why don't get your black pot and kettle out of here and start your own thread? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Hey jerky, you're the one posting off topic in a thread I created.
Why don't get your black pot and kettle out of here and start your own thread? :rolleyes: |
I told you I did you a favor and created a debate on page 1..due to you disliking my "wheres the beef pic" in the other thread.
Too tired to start a thread tonight...might tomorrow.
Michael Moore is releasing DVD soon (oct)....very interesting situation there. |
|
|
| Cyrus King |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Hey jerky, you're the one posting off topic in a thread I created.
Why don't get your black pot and kettle out of here and start your own thread? :rolleyes: |
Ignore the douche bag... after he changed his post and accused me of changing his quote in my post to make him look stupid.. i realized what level of loserness he fell in.. hes truly pathetic.. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Damn, you know it's election season when the posts become flame wars so easily here.
Take it easy, guys. Let me try to address your points, speed:
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Blah blah...Democrats on the offensive. To you fellas its a big deal. |
True, however some might believe this is exactly what the Dems. needed to do in the first place. Kerry's plea to have a positive debate was completely in vain, and I think Kerry knew that anyway. They can only be defined by the Repubs. for so long, it's their turn to attempt to define the Repubs. on their own terms.
8 weeks is a helluva long time. I'm starting to wish it would come sooner, regardless of who wins.
| quote: | The American public wont be affected. Let me give you some reasons as for why:
1) Its something that is isnt new. Al Gore's campaign brought this issue up already in 2000. Quite frankly it really wont have any affect because the public already knew about this....and it was always a fuzzy issue that never had a deep impact. |
True, it's not new, but the new documents and details outlining the case against Bush's account of his record IS new, and is becoming more and more damning.
| quote: | | 2) Bush said already, he made mistakes in the past and regrets them(dui,etc,) Unlike John Kerry who still hasnt mentioned why he threw away his purple hearts and also met with the N.Vietnamese during the war, and also came back and defamed his soldiers. But thats already been debated. But like I said, Yes its wrong, but from a political point of view this will be a nonissue in a few days. |
I tend to agree, though it is a much more decisive case against Bush verses the case against Kerry's record by the Smear Boaters, who've been riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements.
This case against Bush is not merely a handful of guys with a supposed personal account of eyewitness events that contradict a handful of other guy's TRUE eyewitness account as well as the Naval record. Rather, this is a case involving actual documents that are revealing the discrepencies between what Bush has said and what is actually on record.
There's still a 5 month gap of unexplained events, however, which none of these new documents have explained, nor has Bush. Furthermore, by failing to show up under a direct order, it was by authority of the National Guard to place Bush under involuntary active duty, and would have likely sent him to Vietnam. This did not happen, nor did this happen either:
| quote: | On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.
But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.
And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics..._duty_at_guard/ |
Additionally, the documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are somehow missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20.../D84TK0SG0.html
Funny how those have gone "missing", huh?
And though the Pentagon has finally released Bush's flight records, which demonstrate a 5 month gap in flight time, Bush also has yet to provide:
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
-Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
-The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
-Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
So what we really have at issue here is not just Bush going AWOL, but the Air Force willfully covering up the issue through favoritisms being invoked from the powers that be (i.e. Daddy Bush).
That's a double whammy, and we can see now why the Pentagon has been dragging it's feet on finding these missing records over the months.
| quote: | | 3) Bush didnt center his campaign around this service unlike Kerry which it took a stab at the heart of his campaign with the swiftboat ads. |
Don't be fooled by the Smear Boaters and their ads - they were gonna go after Kerry regardless. Keep in mind that Hoffmann was "infuriated" by that Boston Globe writer's biography on Kerry back in February, and the Smear Boater's campaign against Kerry with a book of their own in tow started up in late April. They had accumulated a good amt. of money by late June, and were gearing up their negative ad campaign at that time to hit Kerry immediately after the Dem. Convention. Regardless of what Kerry was gonna state, this smear campaign was gonna come after him no matter what.
However, I do agree that Kerry could have downplayed his medals and Vietnam record a little more, and could have focused on present day issues a little better like he is now.
| quote: | | 4)People know Bush has made mistakes and are looking for Kerry to present himself to the public...which he has yet to do. The public knows Bush's record..its blurry. They are waiting to see who Kerry is; when 527s attack his record they have a more lasting effect due to the public not knowing the man very well. Dwelling on the past 35 yrs will only hurt Kerry and feed the 527s to attack him more. In a mudslinging contest Kerry will lose....plain and simple. |
I agree, though not quite on the conservative spin level as you depict.
| quote: | 5)Its basically a complicated issue the American public doesn't want to deal with....for example: Kerry's swift boat attacks:[SIMPLE] ''Kerry WAS Bad MAN-HE SLANDER WHEN HE COME BACK, KERRY LIE ABOUT PURPLE HEARTs''....The general american public looks towards those meaty issues.
When you begin to take apart this......FOR WHAT? How? WHat exactly will this accomplish? Bush's flaws were out in the open already.....Like I said this will only feed the fire of 527s...We can all disect this issue to the bone but in the end of the day it will not have a lasting effect. |
Now you downplay Bush's flaws and state that they have been out in the open, yet in point 5) you concede that Bush's record is blurry?
Slightly contradictory there, but nevertheless I disagree with you. Neither candidate has demonstrated very well that they have flaws, which is exactly what you would expect come election season. There is a myriad of flaws that Bush could concede to a little better, some which I think would actually help his position IF he actually admitted to them. Regardless, both candidates are trying to act "presidential", which means flaws are pushed aside as far as possible.
| quote: | 6)The GOP party will counter this with more 527s, Kerry is not attacking the issues. This will destroy his entire campaign if he doesn't pursue the economic(domestic issues). The public will wonder if going negative on the past 35yrs will serve any purpose? He is playing right into the GOPs Campaign's hand by staying on the past. The public already knows what kind of leader Bush is and thats why the polls show where he stands today on foreign policy against Kerry. Kerry isnt suppose to fight Bush head on ....as far as leadership on foreign policy, he will lose.
My 2cents.;) |
I disagree. I see Kerry finally attacking the issues the way he should have about 2 wks. ago. If you've watched any of his stump speeches you'll notice that Kerry has abandoned his Vietnam rhetoric almost entirely (as he should).
I also doubt that this new stuff about Bush's questionable historical record will bring out Kerry talking about his Vietnam record again. If Kerry does go this route, THEN I would say it is a mistake. People want to hear today's issues that effect them now. And I do agree with you for the most part that this issue of Bush's Guard record will receive significantly less playing time than Kerry's, primarily because the public is likely tired of it. Even though I believe it deserves just as much time (if not more), it's likely not gonna happen. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Damn, you know it's election season when the posts become flame wars so easily here.
Take it easy, guys. Let me try to address your points, speed:
True, however some might believe this is exactly what the Dems. needed to do in the first place. Kerry's plea to have a positive debate was completely in vain, and I think Kerry knew that anyway. They can only be defined by the Repubs. for so long, it's their turn to attempt to define the Repubs. on their own terms.
8 weeks is a helluva long time. I'm starting to wish it would come sooner, regardless of who wins.
True, it's not new, but the new documents and details outlining the case against Bush's account of his record IS new, and is becoming more and more damning.
I tend to agree, though it is a much more decisive case against Bush verses the case against Kerry's record by the Smear Boaters, who've been riddled with inconsistencies and contradictory statements.
This case against Bush is not merely a handful of guys with a supposed personal account of eyewitness events that contradict a handful of other guy's TRUE eyewitness account as well as the Naval record. Rather, this is a case involving actual documents that are revealing the discrepencies between what Bush has said and what is actually on record.
There's still a 5 month gap of unexplained events, however, which none of these new documents have explained, nor has Bush. Furthermore, by failing to show up under a direct order, it was by authority of the National Guard to place Bush under involuntary active duty, and would have likely sent him to Vietnam. This did not happen, nor did this happen either:
Additionally, the documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are somehow missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20.../D84TK0SG0.html
Funny how those have gone "missing", huh?
And though the Pentagon has finally released Bush's flight records, which demonstrate a 5 month gap in flight time, Bush also has yet to provide:
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
-Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
-The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
-Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
So what we really have at issue here is not just Bush going AWOL, but the Air Force willfully covering up the issue through favoritisms being invoked from the powers that be (i.e. Daddy Bush).
That's a double whammy, and we can see now why the Pentagon has been dragging it's feet on finding these missing records over the months.
Don't be fooled by the Smear Boaters and their ads - they were gonna go after Kerry regardless. Keep in mind that Hoffmann was "infuriated" by that Boston Globe writer's biography on Kerry back in February, and the Smear Boater's campaign against Kerry with a book of their own in tow started up in late April. They had accumulated a good amt. of money by late June, and were gearing up their negative ad campaign at that time to hit Kerry immediately after the Dem. Convention. Regardless of what Kerry was gonna state, this smear campaign was gonna come after him no matter what.
However, I do agree that Kerry could have downplayed his medals and Vietnam record a little more, and could have focused on present day issues a little better like he is now.
I agree, though not quite on the conservative spin level as you depict.
Now you downplay Bush's flaws and state that they have been out in the open, yet in point 5) you concede that Bush's record is blurry?
Slightly contradictory there, but nevertheless I disagree with you. Neither candidate has demonstrated very well that they have flaws, which is exactly what you would expect come election season. There is a myriad of flaws that Bush could concede to a little better, some which I think would actually help his position IF he actually admitted to them. Regardless, both candidates are trying to act "presidential", which means flaws are pushed aside as far as possible.
I disagree. I see Kerry finally attacking the issues the way he should have about 2 wks. ago. If you've watched any of his stump speeches you'll notice that Kerry has abandoned his Vietnam rhetoric almost entirely (as he should).
I also doubt that this new stuff about Bush's questionable historical record will bring out Kerry talking about his Vietnam record again. If Kerry does go this route, THEN I would say it is a mistake. People want to hear today's issues that effect them now. And I do agree with you for the most part that this issue of Bush's Guard record will receive significantly less playing time than Kerry's, primarily because the public is likely tired of it. Even though I believe it deserves just as much time (if not more), it's likely not gonna happen. |
Thanks for responding...someone with a brain unlike cyrax*:eek: and trancerX...
Im going to my marketing class..I'll read it and see if i can respond when i get back:cool: |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| "Texans For Truth".. the comeback to Veterans for Truth.. at least, this IS THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH!! no twisting or anything like.. the veterans.. its a backstab to the republicans, for messing around so much.. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by LiquidX
"Texans For Truth".. the comeback to Veterans for Truth.. at least, this IS THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH!! no twisting or anything like.. the veterans.. its a backstab to the republicans, for messing around so much.. |
Not to worry, Kerry has plenty more skeletons that are going to come out...painfully. |
|
|
| speedracer_mec |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Damn, you know it's election season when the posts become flame wars so easily here.
Take it easy, guys. Let me try to address your points, speed:
True, however some might believe this is exactly what the Dems. needed to do in the first place. Kerry's plea to have a positive debate was completely in vain, and I think Kerry knew that anyway. They can only be defined by the Repubs. for so long, it's their turn to attempt to define the Repubs. on their own terms.
8 weeks is a helluva long time. I'm starting to wish it would come sooner, regardless of who wins.
True, it's not new, but the new documents and details outlining the case against Bush's account of his record IS new, and is becoming more and more damning.
This case against Bush is not merely a handful of guys with a supposed personal account of eyewitness events that contradict a handful of other guy's TRUE eyewitness account as well as the Naval record. Rather, this is a case involving actual documents that are revealing the discrepencies between what Bush has said and what is actually on record.
There's still a 5 month gap of unexplained events, however, which none of these new documents have explained, nor has Bush. Furthermore, by failing to show up under a direct order, it was by authority of the National Guard to place Bush under involuntary active duty, and would have likely sent him to Vietnam. This did not happen, nor did this happen either:
Additionally, the documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are somehow missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20.../D84TK0SG0.html
Funny how those have gone "missing", huh?
And though the Pentagon has finally released Bush's flight records, which demonstrate a 5 month gap in flight time, Bush also has yet to provide:
-Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
-Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
-Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
-Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
-Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
-Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
-The contents of his UIF (Unfavorable Information File w/results from grounding)
-Anything proving service (not just receipt of pay) by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973?
So what we really have at issue here is not just Bush going AWOL, but the Air Force willfully covering up the issue through favoritisms being invoked from the powers that be (i.e. Daddy Bush).
That's a double whammy, and we can see now why the Pentagon has been dragging it's feet on finding these missing records over the months.
|
I don't care if he went AWOL,This really won't be a big deciding factor among the public. This story has no BIG BUZZ..other than the NY TIMES and BOSTON GLOBE hyping it up. Fact of the matter is he could have been laying on a beach on South Padre Island smoking hash. I could care less, he has a track record as President and Kerry has a track record that he can't run on because it has no consistency except to note that it is a very liberal voting record when he was there to vote (about 1/4 of the time). Bush also didn't come back from the ANG to testify in front of congress falsely accusing his fellow soldiers of war crimes and atrocities and meeting with NV officials while he was still in the Uniform of the United States Navy. There is a reason why John Kerry is enshrined in the Vietnamese Museum of War Heroes, John Kerry helped them to win a war against the US.
| quote: |
Don't be fooled by the Smear Boaters and their ads - they were gonna go after Kerry regardless. Keep in mind that Hoffmann was "infuriated" by that Boston Globe writer's biography on Kerry back in February, and the Smear Boater's campaign against Kerry with a book of their own in tow started up in late April. They had accumulated a good amt. of money by late June, and were gearing up their negative ad campaign at that time to hit Kerry immediately after the Dem. Convention. Regardless of what Kerry was gonna state, this smear campaign was gonna come after him no matter what.
However, I do agree that Kerry could have downplayed his medals and Vietnam record a little more, and could have focused on present day issues a little better like he is now. |
I agree but I still think the damage on Kerry would of been less if he didnt make it the center of his campaign and about 80% of his acceptance speech
| quote: |
I disagree. I see Kerry finally attacking the issues the way he should have about 2 wks. ago. If you've watched any of his stump speeches you'll notice that Kerry has abandoned his Vietnam rhetoric almost entirely (as he should).
|
Well for some reason he wants to dwell on the past and the GOP will enjoy playing this game. I see more 527s attacking Kerry because he wants to attack the past of Bush. It goes hand and hand if the Kerry campaign wants to continue attacking Bush's service.
Remember this is the actual campaign and lawsuits against Bush here.
here is a quote that is being used to attack BUSH:
"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," says an Aug. 1, 1972 memo by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who is now dead.
And this 30 year old information has what to do with today and the issues we face?
You know what? I could care less who went to Vietnam and who didn't now...Im tired of it and im sure the public is as well. Kerry has even flipped flopped on campaigning...HE SAID he wanted to run a nice nonnegative campaign at his acceptance speech and/or other speechs...now he is derailing from that. Bush HAS NEVER made any issue over his service (or lack there of) and HAS NEVER questioned Kerry's service record.
Kerry made it the central thrust of his convention speech and has kept it as a main theme for his campaign. Kerry opened that can of worms on his own.
I can also gurantee that if I were a parent during Vietnam, I would have done everything possible to prevent my child from going over there as well. IF a draft is started for the War on Terror and it continues in the same pattern it is currently being waged, I will derail all of my plans to send my son to study in another country for 10 to 15 years on his 17th birthday.
Now, if he makes the chocie on his own to go fight when he is 18, I will honor that request, but I will not have the government tell me or my son that he has to go fight in something we do not agree with.
Bush NEVER has questioned Kerrys bravery.. in fact he said Kerrys service was more courageous than his..
Its not Bush's fault that the military is inept at finding records.. these records are not filed at the white house
He signed the form 180 that authorizes the release of ALL records.. its up the military to find them..
Meanwhile Kerry has REFUSED to sign form 180..But I say lets just get over the past 30yrs.... :)
As far as the GOP PARTY is concerned this will add fuel to the fire....the games of attacking the past have only begun. |
|
|
| Seventil |
| Wasn't there something about the superscript "th" not being on typewriters when it was supposedly typed? I read an article about it but I can't find it anywhere... hrm. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Seventil
Wasn't there something about the superscript "th" not being on typewriters when it was supposedly typed? I read an article about it but I can't find it anywhere... hrm. |
http://www-1.ibm.com/ibm/history/history/year_1941.html
;)
Right now it's being fought out in blogland. It remains to be seen whether this one particular memo is a forgery ... |
|
|
|
|
