Bush The AWOL Thing [Archive] - Online-Sweepstakes.com

jenninshelby

February 12th, 2004, 9:58pm

How do any 'real' veteran's out here feel about Bush going AWOL? Just curious.

Bush AWOL: Washington Post Buries Embarrassing Details Near End of Article

As all veteran newsfolk know, the average reader reads only the headlines and the first 2 or 3 paragraphs of any news article. The corporate media are taking advantage of this to try to prop Bush up over the AWOL case. If you read just the headlines & first few paragraphs, you might imagine Bush has been vindicated. But read on! In the Pentapost spin job, you find the REAL story at paragraphs 8 & 9: "According to the documents, Bush was performing service or unit drills in early 1973, at a time when his commanding officers wrote that they could not evaluate him because 'he has not been observed' at Ellington Air Force base in Houston. No one who served in Bush's Alabama unit at that time has come forward, despite years of publicity on the subject, to confirm the president's assertions about his service. The brigadier general Bush was to report to in Alabama has said he has no recollection of Bush's doing so."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28838-2004Feb10.html

Guardsmen Serving Continuous Time in Iraq Will Be Unimpressed by Bush's Alleged 'Nine Days' of Service

Even if Bush CAN prove he served a lousy NINE DAYS in the National Guard from 1972-1973, who is going to be impressed? Certainly not the less "fortunate sons" who were drafted and shipped to Vietnam because their Daddy's couldn't "fix it" for them and pay their way out and into Harvard. Certainly not the National Guardsmen who are in Iraq, some having served CONTINUOUSLY for over 200 days in a war zone. Bush even has the audacity to claim that even though he had not volunteered to go to Vietnam, he would have gladly done so. If he was such a patriot, what was he doing at Harvard while the war was STILL ON? This is still a sorry and pathetic record for a man so willing to send others off to die.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3477833.stm

superchickee

February 12th, 2004, 10:39pm

This story was on Tuesday and has been updated on the News channels, He was never AWOL and had a sargeant/admiral speak on his behalf on t.v. on wednesday . Check out other newspapers. He submitted all his pay records during that time also.

jenninshelby

February 12th, 2004, 11:07pm

You mean the black out crapola that has been presented? Are you aware that his aids have been accused of destroying certain things? Why is it that the commander of the Alabama unit Bush 'claimed' he served in during his year-long absence said "[Bush] never did come to my squad. He was never at my unit." Here are a few more articles: Something just does not add up in my book.

National Guard Chief Told to Clean Out Bush's Files

Dallas Morning News reports: "Retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett said Tuesday that in 1997, then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, told the National Guard chief to get the Bush file and make certain 'there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor.' Col. Burkett said that a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can. He said he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms. Bush aides denied any destruction of records in Mr. Bush's personnel file. 'The charges are just flat-out not true,' said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021104dnpolguard.b4fed.html

2 Former Alabama Guardsmen Say Bush Was a No-Show

The Memphis Flyer reports, "Two members of the Air National Guard unit that Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain." Both men assert that, since there were only 25 to 30 pilots assigned to their air base, they would certainly have met Lt. Bush if he'd shown up for duty. They were told to expect him, they kept a lookout for him, they never saw him.
http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2834&onthefly=1

Bush Was Denied Request to Move to Alabama - But Went Anyway!

"George W. Bush left his Texas Air National Guard assignment and moved to Alabama in 1972 even though the Air Force denied his request for a transfer, according to his military records. In fact, Bush did not even ask for an official transfer until nine days after he moved to Alabama in May 1972. The Air Force quickly rejected Bush's request, saying the fighter pilot was 'ineligible' to move to the Alabama unit Bush wanted - a squadron of postal handlers. Nevertheless, Bush stayed in Alabama until his Texas commanders finally gave him written authorization five months later to train there."
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7932511.htm

The Next Twist in the Bush AWOL Saga - McClellan Releases Curiously Pointless Dental Records

Josh Marshall writes: "This is getting a little bizarre. Scott McClellan says no blanket release of the president's military service records. No medical records. No disciplinary records, if they exist. But dental records? Bring it on! Late on Wednesday, the White House released 'a copy of a dental evaluation President Bush had in the National Guard in Alabama during the Vietnam War...' The White House says that this dental exam at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973 provides further proof that the president completed his duties in Alabama. Why it proves that, I'm really not sure. Then there's this: 'The record was accompanied by a statement from Dr. Richard J. Tubb, the president's current physician, who stated that he read Bush's records, which covered a period from 1968 to 1973, and concurred with the doctors' assertion that Bush was 'fit' for service. 'The records reflect no disqualifying medical information,' Tubb said.' What's going on here?"
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002551

McClellan Refuses to Answer AWOL Questions

"Another aspect of Bush's service that continues to prompt questions is why he missed a physical in 1972 that caused him to be suspended as a pilot. In 1999, Bush spokeswoman Karen Hughes said Bush missed his physical because he was in Alabama, and there were only a few special doctors who could do physicals. McClellan would not even let the question be asked Wednesday. When a Daily News reporter tried several times to ask about the missed physical, McClellan said, 'I'm not going to engage in gutter politics. I'm going to focus on what we're doing to make the world safer, to make the world a better place.' Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense for personnel and a Navy flier in Vietnam, said a pilot losing his flight status was a serious matter. 'We spent $1 million to train him to fly,' Korb said. 'You're supposed to be ready to fly if we need you. If you didn't show up for your flight physical, good heavens!'"
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/7932511.htm

Bush's Loss of Flying Status Should Have Spurred Probe

"Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time... Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. 'There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals,' said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_probe/

Ex-Officer: Bush File Details Caused Concern
As Texas Gov. George W. Bush prepared to run for president in the late 1990s, top-ranking Texas National Guard officers and Bush advisers discussed ways to limit the release of potentially embarrassing details from Bush's military records, a former senior officer of the Texas Guard said Wednesday. A second former Texas Guard official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, was told by a participant that commanders and Bush advisers were particularly worried about mentions in the records of arrests of Bush before he joined the National Guard in 1968, the second official said. Bill Burkett, then a top adviser to the state Guard commander, said he overheard conversations in which superiors discussed "cleansing" the file of damaging information.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-11-bush-guard-usat_x.htm

tncorgi

February 13th, 2004, 10:04am

George W. Bush and John Kerry both spent their mid twenties in uniform. The similarities end there.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/02/02_400.html

suelee000

February 13th, 2004, 11:33am

My brother is loading up for the big sandbox (Kuwait/Iraq). In his unit of some 300, 20-30 left last year for Iraq/Kuwait, and now my brother's unit of 20-30 is going over as well.

The commander said that the rest of the unit will be deployed by the end of the year.

They will all spend a year to a year and a half activated. Last year, my brother was also activated spent 3 months out of state in training. Getting activated twice in the space of a year has caused alot of hardship. Saying goodbye so many times is pretty hard.

In the 60's if you missed too many drills in the Guard, you were on a plane to 'nam. Unless, of course, you were in one of the "Champagne" units for the sons of the rich and powerful. Then you could swan off and miss drills and physicals and still get an honorable discharge.

gcomstock

February 13th, 2004, 1:18pm

I'm no fan of the Bush family (except Barbara...the grandma, not the daughter)...but then again, none of the other potential candidates are breaking through my cynicism over the entire political system.

During the 60's I was staunchly against the Vietnam War, as were many college students. If my results from the draft had been different, who knows what I may have done...but serving in the military was sure not my first choice. So I can't much fault GW if he did flake out on his National Guard service during that period.

But whatever happened...it was 30 years ago. It doesn't matter now, anymore than "war hero" Kerry having consorted with Jane Fonda way back when.

This is the beginning of the dirty campaigning, the disinformation and all the other monkey business that fuels my disrespect for the process. The whole scrounging for skeletons in the closet game is out of control. I'm much more concerned with what the candidates have done recently, and that is a much better indicator of what they'll do over the next five years.

Tametaz

February 13th, 2004, 1:51pm

carogonza

February 13th, 2004, 2:31pm

Sorry George, I disagree. It does matter if you use it for your own gain. GWB has used the fact that he "served" in order to do a lot of military things. TO later find out that he really never served and got out of his duty because daddy probably helped is wrong. Look, if I were a guy back then and got drafted I would have been on the first bus to Canada but that's not the point. Don't use your military "record" to say I can be commander and chief and lead us into war. Be honest about it. Don't get on military aircraft carriers and pretend to have been a big military guy. I think that really is a slap in the face to those who have served and serve today and are putting their life on the line.

I do however agree with you about the dirty campaigning that is going on. It's just shenanigans to distract us from the real problems that are going on. I dislike politicians in general and frankly nobody running impresses me at all. BUt we are in for a real nasty few months of negative ads, accusations etc.

gcomstock

February 13th, 2004, 2:59pm

Sorry George, I disagree. It does matter if you use it for your own gain. GWB has used the fact that he "served" in order to do a lot of military things.

It's all rhetoric to me. Franklin Roosevelt certainly never served in the military, but as President he was automatically Commander-in-Chief, and got us into what might still be seen as the Big One. The President is, by definition, an Exectutive; the seperation of powers was designed to specifically hold the military accountable to a more balanced perspective. It's a testament to America's warlike nature that we're (not only getting into to so many wars, but) seeing military service as an important resume item for the office.

On the other hand, the fact that GW's early career was far less than spectacular (can you say "callow youth?"), and that his later political success has been achieved with help from conspicuous revisionist editing...that is nothing new. That's my point, we've already seen his warts, and the AWOL thing doesn't seem like any kind of big revelation (and I'm no-way his advocate). If it were criminal or actionable, it would have already been wrung out during his first campaign, or his gubanatorial days.

Yes, the fact that he will probably build his campaign on a War theme will lead to more facetious photo ops with him wearing a flight jacket or what not. But since I'm personally more anti-war....the whole image of him strutting around with a side arm and touting anything like military intelligence is distasteful / laughable to me, whether it's fake or not. I'm just saying...

jenninshelby

February 13th, 2004, 8:41pm

I think it does matter if Bush never served. I think the public has a right to know these things before they decide 'Not' to vote for this man. heh. Personally I would not be upset over the fact that he went AWOL but be honest about it. That is all.

This is politics and Bush though so I guess honesty may be asking a little too much.

sweepyhead

February 13th, 2004, 8:44pm

I would like to mention something that annoys me about Bush's so-called "service" that is blatantly overlooked by the media. He stated that he had strong support for the Vietnam War, but he obviously wiggled out of serving in a combat capacity. I don't begrudge anybody for not wishing to get their assess shot up by the Vietcong, but it is this man not a hypocrite? His attitude was let somebody else's son go to Vietnam, whether they support the war or not. I didn't vote for either Bush, but Papa Bush, hero of WWII, was twice the man as his son.

Sweepy:sleep2:

MarilynBr

February 13th, 2004, 11:08pm

His colonel has come forward to confirm Bush's service. Bush was a safety officer, always showed up on time, and always put in his full day's work.

tncorgi

February 14th, 2004, 12:17am

By Josh Levin and Timothy Noah
Updated Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004, at 2:25 PM PT

http://slate.msn.com/id/2095256/

The documents released by the White House on Feb. 10 don't clear up all the questions surrounding President Bush's whereabouts when he was in the Air National Guard. There are still zany discrepancies between documents and discrepancies between documents and the recollections of National Guard officials, and there are still periods when President Bush's whereabouts remain weirdly difficult to establish. (Slate's Josh Levin has produced what we hope is the most comprehensive Bush-National Guard time line available anywhere. See below.) Nonetheless, the documents do narrow the period of Bush's apparent absence from Guard duty from one year to six months. They also establish that, if you use the most generous measure available, Bush squeaked by with enough service "points" to justify his honorable discharge. His early discharge in October 1973 to attend Harvard Business School still seems undeserved, given his poor attendance record, his apparent failure to meet the minimum-training requirement, and his suspension from flying (for failing to show up for a physical) during much of his time in what was, after all, the Air National Guard. Taken together, though, these documents indicate that it's probably unfair to state, even metaphorically, that Bush went AWOL. Bush's Guard service merits a D, not an F.

Important caveat: Chatterbox is assuming these documents have not been tampered with. Given their mysterious appearance now rather than four years ago, when the Boston Globe's Walter V. Robinson put this story on the map, it isn't completely paranoid to question their authenticity. (For what it's worth, the National Personnel Records Center says it has no record of any changes being made.) We should further remember that the early 1970s, when these documents were first filed, was a golden age of executive branch corruption. Taking these factors into consideration, Chatterbox estimates that there's a 5 percent chance that the White House-released documents are phony. A less rude way to put this is that there's a 95 percent chance the documents are genuine. So that's what we'll assume.

To say that Bush squeaked by on his National Guard requirements doesn't mean that he served his country in any meaningful way during the Vietnam War. The Republican National Committee and the Bush White House have been struggling mightily to change the subject from Bush's truancy to the disrespect Bush's critics are showing for the National Guard, from which the Army and Air Force currently have 100,000 troops mobilized. The Guard has already sent more than 60,000 troops to Iraq, and many more will follow. It's a serious fighting force worthy of gratitude and respect. "I would be careful not to denigrate the Guard," Bush warned Tim Russert in his Feb. 8 Meet the Press .

It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't is because there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.

But what really denigrates the National Guard of 2004 is to compare it to the National Guard of the early 1970s, when it was a haven for people who wanted to avoid the Vietnam draft. Not the cushiest haven, perhaps—not as good as divinity school, for instance—but a haven nonetheless. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen confessed on Feb. 10 that, like Bush, he joined the Guard to stay out of Vietnam.

[B]ack then the Guard was where you went if you did not want to fight. That was the case with me. I opposed the war in Vietnam and had no desire to fight it. … I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed. … The National Guard and the Reserves were something of a joke. Everyone knew it. Books have been written about it.

Cohen's hooky was not, in fact, legal, but it wasn't something you had to worry much about being punished for. During those waning days of the draft (and the war), National Guard officers weren't eager to baby-sit draft-dodgers, so the ones who agitated to leave often got their wish. Out of a total combined force of roughly half a million, the Guard sent 8,728 troops to Vietnam during the entire war, of whom 83 died. These deaths were tragic, but they weren't large in number. To put it crudely, the mortality rate for National Guardsmen during the Vietnam War was lower than the mortality rate for rock-throwing antiwar protesters and bystanders in the Prentice Hall parking lot at Kent State on May 4, 1970, when Ohio National Guardsmen killed four of them.

It does the current National Guard no disservice to say that the Guard of that earlier era was not exactly Charlie Company. But it does John Kerry a serious disservice to deny that President Bush evaded the draft during the Vietnam War.

MarilynBr

February 14th, 2004, 10:02pm

To refer to the National Guard folks during the Viet Nam war as draft dodgers is an unfair exaggeration of fact. My brother-in-law was in the National Guard during that time. He knew that he could be called into active duty to go to Viet Nam at any time. He worried about it a lot.

Also, my brother had a very high lottery number in the draft, so he was never called to serve in the military in Viet Nam. He never served in any branch of the service at all, because Uncle Sam never asked him to. He is certainly not a draft dodger.

bulldglit

February 14th, 2004, 10:10pm

Vietnam is over. I want to know "What have you done for me lately"?

BJo

February 14th, 2004, 10:40pm

c1986goose

February 14th, 2004, 10:44pm

» More From Today's Birmingham News
» Special Report: HealthSouth accused of accounting fraud

News

Bush recalled in Guard unit

Ex-officer says Texan read training manuals

02/14/04

STAN BAILEY and TOM GORDON
News staff writers

MONTGOMERY - President Bush released all of his Vietnam-era military records Friday, the same day a former member of an Alabama Air National Guard unit said Bush reported to him and spent time in his office during drill weekends in 1972.

John B. "Bill" Calhoun, a former member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group, said Bush, a pilot with the Texas Air National Guard, spent his time reading flight safety reports and training manuals because the 187th did not have the aircraft in which he had trained to fly.

From Our Advertiser

"When he first came in, he came in and reported to me .. He hung out in my office. When he was making his drills, he was up at my office," Calhoun said.

Bush's time with the Alabama Air Guard has surfaced as a campaign issue, as Democrats have suggested he used that assignment to shirk his duty with the Texas Air Guard.

Friday, Bush released hundreds of pages of documents detailing his more than five years of Air Guard service in Texas and in Alabama, where he worked in the late Winton "Red" Blount's 1972 campaign for the U.S. Senate. Bush arrived in Alabama in May 1972.

Calhoun, a 69-year-old Atlanta-area resident, said Bush checked in with him in May or June 1972 and spent weekend drill duty with the unit at its headquarters at Dannelly Field in Montgomery. He did not specify when Bush came for drills.

"When he first got there and said he was working in the campaign, the only thing he talked about was working long hours," Calhoun said.

Another former 187th member, Joe LeFevers, told The News earlier this week he had seen Bush at the unit's headquarters in 1972.

According to records Bush has released, he received no military pay from mid-April to late October 1972, and he was not approved for service with the 187th until September. He had applied for assignment with an Air Reserve unit composed of non-active members who received no pay.

His application ultimately was withdrawn because his superiors said it was not part of a combat-ready unit and did not perform work equivalent to what Bush's training regimen as a pilot required.

When Bush was with the 187th, he attended equivalent training drills in a non-flight section of the unit "because we didn't have the airplane he was checked out in," said Calhoun, who was the 187th's safety officer. "If you go to another (unit), all you have to do to make that is to be there, and you have to stay there on that base for eight hours. He did that," Calhoun said.

"He read safety reports, accident investigation reports, he studied his training manuals, things of that nature because that was all he could do. He had no assigned duties, because we didn't have anything to assign him to."

Calhoun said he and Bush would have a meal together "every now and then."

"I felt like he was a good fighter pilot," said Calhoun. "He was dedicated to the Guard, to what he was doing in the Guard. We talked about flying mostly ... . But I did ask him if he was going to be a politician, and he said, `I don't know. Probably.' It was very nonchalant."

Bush's military records released Friday included medical records that showed Bush was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush didn't take the exam because "he was in non-flying capacity in another state" and knew he'd be there for months, The Associated Press reported. "There was no need or reason for him to take a flying exam."

The White House also earlier in the week released a copy of a dental exam Bush received at Dannelly Field on Jan. 6, 1973, as proof that Bush had been at the base. Other records showed Bush was paid for 25 days from May 1972 to May 1973, but they did not say where Bush served or what duty he performed.

No new documents:

No new documents were released Friday about Bush's serving in Alabama.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush had fulfilled his pledge to release all his records. "The record documents that the accusations by some are false," he said.

But Democrats kept up their criticism.

"Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong. "It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."

When the issue of Bush's Air Guard service in Alabama came up in 2000, Calhoun said, he contacted Bush's campaign and he was told he would be contacted if they needed him. They never did, he said.

When the controversy broke a few days ago, Calhoun said, he sent e-mails to the White House and elsewhere, but got only automatic responses and no follow-up. His wife finally contacted Georgia Republican Party officials, who put him in touch with Bush's regional campaign, he said.

Calhoun said he had difficulty believing retired Gen. William Turnipseed's quoted remarks that he didn't remember Bush showing up at the 187th's headquarters in 1972, because it was Turnipseed who sent Bush to his office.

Turnipseed said Friday his memory just may be bad, and he would be inclined to believe Calhoun's report. He said he worked with Calhoun for years and believes him to be truthful.

"I have no reason to think that he would tell it any other way than like it is," Turnipseed said.

Initially, Turnipseed said he believed he would have remembered Bush if he'd shown up for training. But Friday he said, "The more I hear of this, the more I'm convinced that my statement that I would have remembered Bush is inaccurate. And that hurts me

jenninshelby

February 15th, 2004, 7:27pm

W. was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession but ... In order to expunge the record,
however, Bush had to complete community service at Project PULL in Houston

These rumors have been around for years in Texas, I think with the new heat on the matter the truth may finally come to light.

Bush Busted! 2 Arrests, 2 Speeding Tickets and 2 Collisions by Age 22
"The White House released details of Bush's arrests and traffic violations as a young man amid questions about his military service at the height of the Vietnam War. Scott McClellan revealed the information because of questions stemming from the fact that they were blacked out on National Guard forms given to US media, sparking more questions about Bush's actions 30 years ago. McClellan said Bush had previously disclosed arrests for stealing a Christmas wreath while a student at Yale, and for rowdiness at a football game. McClellan also listed speeding tickets from July and August of 1964 and two collisions, one in 1962 and another in August 1962 -- downplaying the Guard's decision to black out the information. 'I'm just amazed by the kinds of conspiracy theories that some have chosen to pursue,' he said on board Air Force One.'" Oh - you mean the alcohol/drug abuse that grounded Bush in 1972, and led to community service at Project PULL? Hey Scott - we're trolling for truth!
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040212/ts_alt_afp/us_bush_arrests_040212183630

Bush's Cocaine Bust: Amy Goodman's 2001 Interview with J.H. Hatfield

"AMY GOODMAN: Now explain the story exactly as you understand it. What was he picked up for? J. H. HATFIELD: Possession of cocaine. I believe, although my source denied it, one of them, I believe that one of them might have been there when it happened.. 17:30 AMY GOODMAN: Where did they say it happened? J. H. HATFIELD: Harris County, Houston. AMY GOODMAN: Where? J. H. HATFIELD: Oh I don't know exactly where. But, on the street or something and they were taken to the jail. AMY GOODMAN: Were they buying at the time? J. H. HATFIELD: I don't think so. I think it was just pure possession, was the way the story was told to me. But we've received email and stories from other people that went to school with him that said he was selling drugs when he was at Yale and a lot of people were starting to respond to that now, so I think there may be a little bit more to the story than we have in the afterword of the book."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/11/1447218

stonybuff

February 16th, 2004, 10:23am

ups91

February 16th, 2004, 12:30pm

I think someone posted earlier that about the President should have military service to be Commander in Chief. I seem to recall that our former President Clinton didn't serve his country, in the National Guard or any other form of military service.

Defenderofthefaith

February 16th, 2004, 1:15pm

I really hate dirty politics. We have ALL made mistakes in our youth. Voters should view what the politicians have done politically in the past decade. I am a Christian, pro-life for capital punishment, against homosexuality and a registered voter and I am supporting/voting for George Bush as is every fundamentalist Christian I know. Gore would never have been able to lead this country after Sept 11th... :soapbox:

jenninshelby

February 16th, 2004, 11:06pm

lissajean, What makes you think Gore could have never lead this country after Sept. 11th?

deakon24

February 18th, 2004, 12:41am

The problem with the what has He done for me lately question is difficult for Bush to answer.
He has swung a 500 billion dollar surplus into a 500 billion dollar deficit. He hasn't found his much promised WMD in Iraq. He has insulted the western allies and the UN. He has relaxed clean air and water standards for campaign contributors in the chemical and energy production industries. He is holding out vital whitehouse documents from the 9-11 commission. He did praise Americorps and then cut budgets 60 percent. He railed against substance abuse and then cut money from these budgets. This president's every policy serves to enrich the rich (his people)whether through tax policy, lax oversite of environmental policy violations, capital gains, death taxes. It's sad to read the comments of these day to day straight ticket republicans in this forum who haven't realized GEORGE BUSH IS OF THE rich BY THE RICH AND FOR THE RICH. Everyone knows he didn't complete his military service. It was a test of character that he obviously failed. GOP dolts can no longer howl tax and spend with this president in office, this here boy don't tax and then spends. I don't know if Kerry will be better but how can you get any worse than this president?

Rapunzel676

February 18th, 2004, 12:58pm

c1986goose

February 18th, 2004, 7:11pm

If GWB did not complete his military service, then how did he get an HONORABLE DISCHARGE?. You do not buy them at the candy store. If he is for BIG government then why is he giving you more money thru tax cuts? Why not keep it all in D.C. and use it there? They have not found WMD-may not- When you give a rogue country 6 months, they can hide them pretty well, or send them to Syria. Clinton, many European leaders and Iraqi scientist stated that there were WMD. The man has character. He has not had oral sex with any of his interns. He did not exclaim to inventing the Internet (Gore), He has not drowned anybody in a car. He did not dodge the draft, or protest against the government. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone!!! Everybody has done something in there past that they are not proud of. My Grandmother always said that these episodes build character.

Rapunzel676

February 18th, 2004, 8:53pm

Did you actually read anything I wrote, Goose? Your reactionary nationalistic rhetoric bores me, and your depiction of the world in black-and-white terms is disturbing. Democrats bad, Republicans good. I wish the world were as clear-cut as all that, but unfortunately for those of us who actually choose to think for ourselves, it's not. Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. Where did you get that from, Saturday Night Live? Furthermore, there are plenty of Republicans who did things that aren't exactly noble--Newt Gingrich divorced his dying wife. Oh, and by the way, Ted Kennedy wasn't convicted of "drowning" anyone. (Talk about dwelling on the past!) His brothers had just been murdered. I'm not defending his actions, but why don't you try walking a mile in his shoes before you start making unsubstantiated allegations.

Oh, and if Bush is so concerned with the problem of "big government," why is he promoting a constitutional amendment to legislate morality? I guess it's only "big government" when it's issues like education and social welfare; when it comes to telling people what they can and can't do in their own bedrooms, or the imposition of the death penalty, then it's suddenly the government's business. What kind of double standard is that? Have you ever actually examined your beliefs to find out their origins, or do you just accept the status quo and let politicians do your thinking for you? (That question was for no one in particular; it's purely rhetorical.)

And the threat of a totalitarian state looms even larger on the horizon. . . . :worry:

c1986goose

February 18th, 2004, 9:19pm

Gore and the Internet
"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.

stonybuff

February 18th, 2004, 10:33pm

tncorgi

February 18th, 2004, 10:57pm

Surprise...surprise..

February 19, 2004
Scientists Say Administration Distorts Facts
By JAMES GLANZ

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/19RESE.html

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.

The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systemically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke during the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried, who is also chairman of the board of directors at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the administration had a "cavalier attitude towards science" that could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

Dr. John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, said it was important to listen to "the distinguished scientific leadership in this country." But he said the report consisted of a largely disconnected list of events that did not make the case for a suppression of good scientific advice by the administration.

"I think there are incidents where people have got their feathers ruffled," Dr. Marburger said. "But I don't think they add up to a big pattern of disrespect."

"In most cases," he added, "these are not profound actions that were taken as the result of a policy. They are individual actions that are part of the normal processes within the agencies."

The science adviser to Mr. Bush's father, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, went further. "You know perfectly well that it is very clearly a politically motivated statement," said Dr. Bromley, a physicist at Yale. "The statements that are there are broad sweeping generalizations for which there is very little detailed backup."

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape. The report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare, much longer than originally planned, and was released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who spoke during the call and served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue."

The letter was signed by luminaries from an array of disciplines. Among the Nobel winners are David Baltimore and Harold Varmus, both biomedical researchers, and Leon M. Lederman, Norman F. Ramsey and Steven Weinberg, who are physicists. The full list of signatories and the union's report can be found at www.ucsusa.org.

Aside from some new interviews with current and former government scientists, some identified in the report and others quoted anonymously, most of the information in the documents had been reported previously by a variety of major newspapers, magazines, scientific journals and nongovernmental organizations.

According to the report, the Bush administration has misrepresented scientific consensus on global warming, censored at least one report on climate change, manipulated scientific findings on the emissions of mercury from power plants and suppressed information on condom use.

The report asserts that the administration also allowed industries with conflicts of interest to influence technical advisory committees, disbanded for political reasons one panel on arms control and subjected other prospective members of scientific panels to political litmus tests.

Dr. Marburger said he was unconvinced by the report's description of those incidents. "I don't think it makes the case for the sweeping accusations that it makes," he said.

But Dr. Sidney Drell, an emeritus professor of physics at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who was not a signatory to the statement, said the overall findings rang true to him.

"I am concerned that the scientific advice coming into this administration seems to me very narrow," said Dr. Drell, who has advised the government on issues of national security for some 40 years and has served in Democratic and Republican administrations, including those of Presidents Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson. "The input from individuals whose views are not in the main line of their policy don't seem to be sought or welcomed," he said.

Rapunzel676

February 18th, 2004, 11:37pm

Wow, that's a bit of "selective Googling" if I ever saw it! Reminds me of that line from Emily Dickinson: "Tell the truth/But tell it slant." Anyway, if you'd dug a little deeper you'd have found that what Gore actually said was this: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." Gore may be guilty of a little self-aggrandizing (find me a politician who isn't) and of using poor syntax, but he certainly isn't claiming to have "invented" the internet. Taking statements out of their original context is unethical journalists and late-night pundits looking for a cheap laugh are so good at--not to mention politicians!

And once again, my arguments go completely ignored in favor a red herring designed to throw us completely off topic. . . :worry:

BJo

February 19th, 2004, 10:08am

suelee000

February 19th, 2004, 1:44pm

I get weary of trying to inform those who will not be informed. They are sure they know the "truth" because they heard it on FOX "News" or from some RW talking head. It is so much easier to be spoon fed than to read a variety of opinions and come to the truth.

From: The Christian Century, Nov 29, 2003 v120 i24 p10
Truth, lies and the media: wartime misperceptions. William F. Fore.

WHY, WHEN almost every major denomination on record opposed unilateral U.S. action in Iraq, did most people in the pews support it? In recent months researchers have begun to address that question by examining knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about involvement in Iraq. The findings reveal a deeply disturbing gap between the facts and the public's beliefs.

"Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War," the most recent study, was released in early October by the Program on International Policy Attitudes of the Center on Policy Attitudes and the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland (UM). The primary question asked was, "Are average Americans 'misperceiving" information about Iraq and the war?"

Between January and September of 2003, after conducting seven different polls, researchers found that the answer was yes: "A substantial portion of the public had a number of misperceptions that were demonstrably false, or were at odds with the dominant view in the intelligence community.... [These misperceptions] have played a key role in generating and maintaining approval for the decision to go to war."

Early in 2003, for example, 68 percent of respondents believed that Iraq played an important role in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, while 13 percent went on to claim that they had seen "conclusive evidence" of such involvement. At that time, both propositions were unsupported and in some cases denied by the U.S. intelligence community. In August a Washington Post poll reported that 69 percent of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was "personally involved" in the attack on the Twin Towers. And as late as September, approximately half of respondents said that the U.S. had actually found evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with al-Qaeda. As President Bush clarified on September 17, Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

.....
These studies make it clear that Americans are full of misperceptions about the war and, in particular, about three issues--the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and the nature of world public opinion. Why? The chilling answer is that their "misperceptions" are closely related to their news sources.

....
In fact, Fox News watchers were three times more likely to hold all three misperceptions than those watching the next most watched network. In the NPR-PBS audience, an overwhelming majority had none of the three misperceptions. If one looks at each of the categories, the differences are dramatic. Sixty-seven percent of Fox viewers had a wrong perception about links between Iraq and al-Qaeda (16 percent for the PBS-NPR audience). On the existence of weapons of mass destruction, 33 percent of Fox viewers had the wrong perception (11 percent for PBS-NPR). On world opinion, 35 percent of Fox viewers had misperceptions (5 percent of PBS-NPR viewers). In all three cases, the misperception percentages decreased when moving from Fox to CBS to NBC to CNN to ABC, to print media, to PBS-NPR.

The UM report also found that "supporters of the president are more likely to have misperceptions" than nonsupporters. Potential voters for the president were more likely to misperceive the three issues and support the war; potential voters for a Democratic nominee were less likely to misperceive or to support the war.

gcomstock

February 19th, 2004, 3:46pm

George, I beg to differ. What happened 30 years ago DOES matter, just as what happened 100, 500, 1000, and even 1,000,000 years ago matters. Why do you think history is taught in classrooms? Do you think it absolutely no impact on current events, that every era takes place in a vacuum totally removed and unconnected from previous eras? If you do, I suggest you read a biography of Napoleon, or Hitler, to find out just how much history matters and how dangerous willful ignorance of the past can be. I wish I could dismiss history so cavalierly as some of you but I truly believe in the maxim that we cannot know where we are going unless we know where we've been. Furthermore, as someone whose father and uncles served in Vietnam, I am not only deeply disturbed but highly offended by your attitude.

True relativism is not incompatible with value systems, you know.

Rapunzel, I'd forgotten how erudite and vigorous a debater you can be! I'm delighted when anyone disagrees with my viewpoints, but would like to distinguish between my "actual" viewpoint and what you projected into a complete rejection of "history" LOL. I think we've gone over this general topic (about "revisionism in history" vs. "history as the gospel") but I'm not sure.

Anyway, without it feeling like I'm picking apart your quoted post I do want to counter...and console...your feeling offended by my attitude. I'll readily admit to being somewhat "cavalier" in my attitudes, but don't think that deciding to not be concerned with GW's military service constitues "willful ignorance." Maybe I'm dismissive of the importance of some details in GW's "history" but I'm not being disrespectful or disdainful of folks who DO think they're important.

Napoleon and Hitler obviously aren't running for office, and the body of information about their lives is obviously much larger than what's available concerning GW. New info, and analysis concerning their lives is indeed still being brought to light; but by and large we know their whole story. Changes to our body of knowledge and beliefs about those characters would constitute what I'm referring to as "revisionist history." But, at least what is currently being generated about those two characters is generally scholarly and thorough.

GW's "history" is much less carved in stone. Thanks to our aggressive political atmosphere, and the extreme access to info now available, "his story" is unfolding daily...but often in the form of soundbites and sensational revelations. But most details of his "checkered career" were already disclosed during the last election. I (think I) already know that he was no great scholar or patriot during his youth, that he used his family's wealth and influence to get himself off many hooks, and gain many benefits. The *specifics* of whatever lies and manipulations may have helped him cake-walk through his National Guard service, or covered up the fact that he did so...just don't strike me as "news." I (think I) already know that he was a bit of a playboy and cad back during those days, and any new disclosures about the details aren't going to change my opinion.

But it's kind of flogging a dead horse, imho. The last several administrations, and most every politician, are deeply involved in polishing their resumes and hiding any of the demerits that should rightfully be there. I figured Nixon sucked long before the White House Tapes surfaced, so I wasn't all that surprised or appalled when they did. I figured Clinton was a womanizer way before Monica's dress was stained. This isn't "history" as much as it's politics. All the deception and spin control is despicable to me, but they all do it.

If I were Uncle Sam and GW came a'courting my daughter (my strained metaphor for the Presidential elections) many of the same issues would be front and center. Is he committed to my daughter's best interests, does he have what it takes to protect and provide for her. Objectively, I'd know that my dear daughter is a handful herself, with her own long history of mischief and lurid affairs, so I'd expect that anyone interested in her hand would himself have some trashy stuff in his past. But again, objectively, it's going to, by necessity, be a choice between the actual suitors who are actually knocking on the door...not some ideal Prince Charming.

Me personally (not Uncle Sam) - I hold all the candidates to the same low standards I set for myself, so it's all good (or bad, depending on your viewpoint). :halo:

PS- about your "True relativism is not incompatible with value systems, you know" statement, I don't really know what that means, sorry. Please feel free to explain it, but please don't scare the kids. :)

Mary Beth

February 19th, 2004, 5:03pm

If GWB did not complete his military service, then how did he get an HONORABLE DISCHARGE?

Um, maybe you didn't know this, but George W. Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, was a member of Congress from Texas when George W. was joining the National Guard. He also ran for Senator during the 1970s when his son was in the Guard. He lost, BTW. As an interesting note, the son of the winner of that Senate contest was in the same Guard unit as George W.

Now for the reality check: it doesn't matter what you know - it matters who you know.

Sorry to burst anyone's balloon, but no one in the military is going to do anything except bend over backwards for someone when their father is a Member of Congress, even if they're not currently serving. In fact, no member of the government is going to do anything to annoy someone when father (or mother) is a Member of Congress. That's reality.

ifionly1

February 19th, 2004, 8:20pm

Still flogging this dead horse issue I see. :nono:

Maineiac

February 19th, 2004, 9:22pm

"Oh, and by the way, Ted Kennedy wasn't convicted of "drowning" anyone. (Talk about dwelling on the past!) His brothers had just been murdered. I'm not defending his actions, but why don't you try walking a mile in his shoes before you start making unsubstantiated allegations." Posted by Rapunzel

I don't want to get off topic here, but he was DRUNK and left her in the car to drown. Didn't even try to get help for her...got off scot free. Fact, period. He spent the next 9 hours trying to cover up the accident. Of course he wasn't prosecuted...talk about your political families having clout. And to make an excuse that his brothers had been assassinated is ridiculous, absolutley ridiculous. So, that gives him a valid excuse to leave a woman in a car to suffer and drown? All while trying to save his own skin and reputation...what a man.

Walk a mile in his shoes?...no thanks. Good Lord, Rapunzel if this was anyone but a political magalomaniac that you side with politically, I'd bet you'd be singing a much different song. Frankly, I'm surprised you'd find his actions anything but cowardly and criminal.

And yes, I do like the Kennedy clan, but this is a prime example of the political push and influence prominent families have on justice and preferential treatment. Anyone else would have been prosecuted and sent to the clink.

Rapunzel676

February 20th, 2004, 2:57pm

Well, obviously I won the argument here, Maineiac, because instead of arguing against the points I've made you've chosen, as usual, to attack me personally. I will just say this: What you choose to see as "fact," I view instead as your selective interpretation of events at which YOU were not present. How do you know what really happened at Chappaquidick? Were you there? And just for the record, I was not defending Ted Kennedy's actions there, just making the point that there are more ways to look at something that yours, and perhaps it's worthwhile to consider the forces at work in Mr. Kennedy's life in 1969, just as it is equally worthwhile to examine those forces at work in Mr. Bush's life during the 1960s which led to his decision not to serve in Vietnam. Furthermore, it's highly insulting to me that you are so quick to dismiss the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy as apparently insignificant; would you do so had they died Republicans? The fact that they died--were murdered, in case you've forgotten--is pretty damn significant to me (and I wasn't even born yet) and I can't even imagine how their deaths must have affected their family members. I guess losing your brothers only counts when you're a Republican. :rolleyes:

I'm not quite sure who you're calling a megalomaniac and I find it intriguing that you apparently have the ability to read my mind or presume that you know me so well that you're able to predict with complete accuracy that I would or would not "side" with someone simply because I agree with that individual politically. You don't know me, you don't know my background, and you have no idea what motivates me or my political beliefs. Do I think Ted Kennedy did something wrong? Absolutely. I think he is probably guilty of neglient homicide. Am I excusing what he did? Of course not. My point (which always seems to get brushed aside by those who find it preferable to slam me personally) was that there are very few among us who don't have something in our past that we might be ashamed of. However, we don't all try to hide behind nationalistic rhetoric and pretend that we did something we didn't, then use what we didn't do to support our actions. That's about as hypocritical as it gets. I don't see Ted Kennedy trying to pass drunk driving legislation. In fact, he's made a couple of "mea culpa" speeches basically admitting that what he did was wrong. I don't see Mr. Bush doing that. I didn't see Bill Clinton do that either, for that matter.

On another note, I want to thank George for clearing up those points for me without resorting to personal attacks. I can see that I jumped to certain conclusions regarding his intentions in previous posts. I'm a bit hypersensitive when it comes to history, so of course if I perceive that someone is devaluing it I'm quick to react. I do, however, still see Mr. Comstock as a bit of a relativist, as I myself am. :gvibes:

Maineiac

February 20th, 2004, 7:59pm

Where were you ATTACKED personally? Do you really think everything revolves around YOU, or do you just use that same banal response every time someone doesn't agree with what you say. If you re-read the quote from your post I responded to, what you stated defending Ted Kennedy's actions are still ridiculous...period.

You are the insult thrower here, insinuating I "dismiss" the assassinations of two good men. And to add more insult because they aren't Republicans? You have a screw loose to actually believe something like that about people. I've observed for some time how you constantly twist well intentioned peoples posts into your own swan song. It's become so common place now that it's predictable and boring. I'm not going to continue this shameless banter with you, because frankly I think you are wrong, yes wrong, and that's your perrogative just as it is mine to use FOR THE FIRST TIME in four years the almighty IGNORE button. Gawd, I feel better already.

Rapunzel676

February 21st, 2004, 12:49am

Clearly you have issues with me, Maineiac, and have for quite some time. Please try to keep them out of the forums.