Suck It!

Yes, you are correct. But you fight the fights that come swinging at you.
Kerry can't ignore Vietnam because the Bush camp is putting it front and center.

And why this didn't come out 4 years ago:
- a complicit, lazy media
- Bush released new documents in February(?) that helped to clarify things. I'm sure he thought they wouldn't. Remember when all those documents were dumped back in...February? And things died down? They died down because it was a bunch of random papers, not in any sort of order, and nobody wanted to take the time to analyze them. Well, somebody DID take the time and now questions are being asked again.

And while I deplore the news organizations for not investigating this sooner, that won't make me discount their findings now.

From:

I think that plays into the 'Pubs strength. They did talk about this four years ago but the military records weren't public at that time.

This is a review of existing documentation while the attacks on Kerry's service record rely only on the comments from people who did not witness his service.

Kerry is forced to use his service record to respond to attacks that he isn't tough enough. When looking at this campaign speeches, he spends a ton more time focusing on what he would do as President.

True, military service does not indicate leadership qualities but the pattern shown by both men shows a lot to me.

Kerry did not approve of the Vietnam war but he served anyway. When he served, all evidence showed he did so with honor and comittment. Bush did approve of the war but he joined the National Guard and may not have reported for duty.

I think that is relevant to the campaign and frankly given the amount of smear tactics practiced by Karl Rove and the Bushies, I think a little tit for tat is well deserved.

From:

pied-piper70.livejournal.com

True, military service does not indicate leadership qualities but the pattern shown by both men shows a lot to me.

My point is that why are they taking all this time discussing the past when they should be discussing the present day problems and the future?

The tit-for-tat is justified, yeah, but it's frustrating...especially when the Kerry camp is just playing these little Macchavalian news leak games; it makes them look like they're on the defensive rather than putting forth an agenda...

An agenda...what agenda? Does Kerry HAVE an agenda? Rather than defending his record or bashing Bush, let's have an agenda...I have yet to hear a definitive one from him...but maybe I'm missing something...someone want to clue me in here?

From:

He talked about Health care yesterday. His web site has a fairly comprehensive list of his domestic agenda. Most of his speeches talk about his plan for the future of Iraq.

But this is a campaign against a creepily popular president. You can't win if you don't assail the policies of the guy in power.

Read his speeches. All of them. Don't just listen to the sound bites. Same with Bush, Cheney, Edwards and anyone else. The information is there.

And it is broad. It doesn't cover all the details and - as with every political candidate - it is long on promise and short on how they would actually get it done. Same with Bush, Cheney, Edwards and so on.

His web site is better because it details what he thinks we should do in the way a campaign speech can't do. The purpose of a campaign speech is to get the people you are talking to energized.

The debates are where most candidates - if they are smart - really lay down what they want to do with the country.

And Kerry's speech at the Democratic convention was filled with policy ideas. Again, broad strokes.

It is out there. People getting discouraged is what the Bush camp is counting on. Kerry actually does have some good ideas and I think he does understand that Bush has done a lot more wrong than going to Iraq. His voting record shows that as well.

And like it or not, this Vietnam banter sways voters. The Swift Boat Veterans campaign cost Kerry votes with veterans. As long as the polls get swayed by what happened thirty years ago, it will still be brought up.

From:

pied-piper70.livejournal.com

I'll admit, I haven't been doing research on Kerry to see if any of my concerns were true (and I'm usually better about that)...so I appreciate the clarification...I'll have to go looking...

Even still, I guess I won't have a clear opinion of Kerry until the debates...really, for me, that'll be the deciding factor whether my vote is pro-Kerry or anti-Bush...and I'd prefer that it be pro-Kerry...

From:

I don't think it's a conspiracy in the sense that the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Journalists' Division) is holding secret meetings to plot the downfall of the Bush Administration - it's more a bunch of people with similar views doing what they can to "help" their candidate. It's more distortion by omission - ten minutes on the phone with a Vietnam-era ANG pilot would have sunk this story, but I guess fact-checking is a bit much to expect from the press darlings these days.

Yes, this all came out four years ago, and earlier this year, and had zero impact both times, so I can't imagine what Nick Kristof at the Times and the 60 Minutes crew at CBS (and this Salon writer) think they're going to accomplish this time. There's a fairly complete collection of links here on Instapundit on the subject, including a detailed breakdown of Bush's record here which goes into detail about precisely why W was released early (hint: convenience of the AF) and why he didn't take that flight physical. Not so damning after all.

Local bloggers Mitch Berg and Ed Morrissey have also blogged at length about this.

From:

What is your response to the increasing evidence that Bush used family ties to avoid serving in Vietnam?

And what of the memo that implies strongly that outside political pressure was being brought to bear to "sugarcoat" Bush's record?

Also, what do you think of the missing year in Alabama? My understanding is that regularions require "making up" time to be done within 30 days and Bush didn't show up for a year.

From:

What increasing evidence? If you're referring to Ben Barnes, he wasn't lieutenant governor of Texas until W was already in the TANG.

The memos that talk about outside influence show strong evidence of being forgeries. ...and as for the 30-day rule, IIRC that's a recent change -as in, after I left the Maryland Guard in 1983 so I could move up here.

From:

The person referenced in the article - who by the way is not a reporter - claims he has done research into the regulations in force at the time.

Bush did not serve ANYWHERE for a year. And once he went to Massachussetts, he did not serve ever again.

These are factual statements. Do you have evidence that I do not know of?

From:

See my reply to the same questions, which you posted on my LJ:

I think you are missing something. He was discharged, not transferred, and already had his 50 points in for the year. See the article Ed Morrissey excerpts - W was an F-102 pilot with not enough time left in his six years to be retrained on the F-4, and there was a glut of F-102 pilots. The AF was glad to let him go early since there weren't enough planes to give flying time to all the pilots.

If the non-reporter researched the regs, it seems apparent to me that he didn't understand them. As for not serving anywhere, I'm sorry, but the records don't bear that out. He accumulated points for drills, and you have to show up somewhere to get those. Numerous people have come forward to support W's claims that he was, in fact, drilling in Alabama when he said he was.

From:

Are we sure that the word "discharge" is not being manipulated or misunderstood?
He was "discharged" from his unit and should have shown up in Massachussetts and never did.

From:

"Discharged" as in "released from service". As in "we don't expect you to show up any more, thank you, good-bye, good luck, NEXT!" As in "Your DD214 is in the mail, L-T."

From:

I have not read at length about any of this. I will observe, however, that all of your links are to clearly biased sources (as I'm sure you are well aware).

I don't buy the liberal press BS and never have. I note that the Swift Boat Veterans ads got a ton of press for several weeks and it cost Kerry several points with veterans. As I'm sure you are well aware, it doesn't matter that the stories were debunking the ads.

The Rebuplican party is a master of the controlled news cycle. It didn't matter if the ad was right or wrong - only that the news cycle was controlled. It is masterful politicing.

A study of the articles written in 2000 showed that Bush had more positive news articles than Gore when considered country wide. That doesn't read like a liberal bias to me.

Liberal bias is a myth that is used to debunk any news story a coservative doesn't like. If they like the story, they can say that it must be true because the press is reporting it despite it's own liberal bias. If they don't like the story, it is because of the liberal bias.

The sites you list above have a clear conservative bias. Do you take that into account when you read them?

From:

I have not read at length about any of this. I will observe, however, that all of your links are to clearly biased sources (as I'm sure you are well aware).

The Hill is hardly a "clearly biased source" in the way that Mitch and Ed are, and neither is the Chicago Sun-Times, which is the second link in Instapundit's post. Neither is George magazine, which is also referenced in the latter post.

I'm not arguing liberal media bias here. I'm just saying the records are being interpreted by a bunch of civilians who don't know UTAs from Uranus or anything else about the subject on which they're writing articles, and who didn't bother to talk to people who do. Draw your own conclusions.

From:

The Hill is hardly a "clearly biased source" in the way that Mitch and Ed are, and neither is the Chicago Sun-Times, which is the second link in Instapundit's post.

But Instapundit is (and I need to read it more often because I like to know both sides of an argument). That suggests to me the liklihood that he will look for articles supporting his point of view.

From:

If Instapundit is biased, it's not in a clearly partisan manner. He appears to be more of a Virginia Postrel-type dynamist than anything else, and has had plenty of criticism for the current administration in the areas of airport security, biotechnology, and communications issues. I'd say he has more in common with Bruce Schneier than Bruce Bartlett.

From:

romeoa.livejournal.com

"What is your response to the increasing evidence that Bush used family ties to avoid serving in Vietnam?"

I really can't fault anybody for trying to get out of service in Vietnam (remember Clinton dodged as well). I hate Bush.... But I hate him for the last 4 years not for his conduct 30+ years ago.

From:

Well, I can fault somebody for getting out of the war and then using their "service" to advance their political career.
Fine, he didn't want to go - but he publicly supported the war at the time.
There's also the matter of his little flightsuit stunt on the aircraft carrier.

Bush wants to paint himself as a warrior and the only opportunity he has yet been given to actually face combat - he avoided it.

From:

romeoa.livejournal.com

"the only opportunity he has yet been given to actually face combat - he avoided it."

But so did Clinton. And people on the right were bashing him for the same thing anytime he faced a combat situation for our military. I understand that dems stand by the dems and pubs stand by the pubs, but I'm not going to fault someone for avoiding a war especialy when a president that I liked (Clinton) also avoided it.

Don't get me wrong. I would love nothing more than to see Bush digraced. But I think they a beating down the wrong road to do so.

From:

You keep missing the point.

ALOT of people avoided the war. Most of them admit it (Clinton among them).

Bush does NOT admit he avoided the war.
And he campaigns as a warrior.

He was too cowardly to face combat himself, but wants to send others into war time after time.

That is my issue. Clinton didn't campaign as a "war president" so his avoiding combat himself is not hypocrisy. Unlike Bush.

From:

romeoa.livejournal.com

Actually I'm not missing the point.

My point is this... Who gives a shit about what he did 30 years ago? Bush can be beaten on his record as President. But as long as the dems keep going after his National Gaurd service (now with the alligation that some of the new documents regarding Bush's service might be frauds), the easier it will be for him to win.

Everybody has skeltons in their closet. But the skeletons that our found have to be important to the american people's present daily lives for them to stand up and take notice.

Simple as that.

From:

I agree with the last four years statement but I do think there is a certain level of relevance as it relates to character.

Clinton didn't serve (as he has pointed out several times). He was also against the war.

Bush was for the war and didn't have the balls to serve in Vietnam.

That speaks volumes to me about his character. Of course the question of what he did while he was in his cushy National guard assigment is not as relevant.

Kerry was against the war but served anyway. He could have gotten out of is just like Bush or Clinton but he didn't. That says he is a man who believes that when his country calls, he will serve. I believe that is relevant.

As to what Bush did while in the National guard....I already think he's slime. Finding that he was slime 30 years ago doesn't change my opinion any.

From:

At least Bush served somewhere during that time period. Clinton never even joined the National Guard. Regardless of what he did or didn't do, Bush was still honorably discharged at the end of his service. End of story.

Frankly I don't care about this issue at all. Like Romeo said this election should be about current issues. I don't care about Kerry's service record either.

From:

You have to do something pretty heinous to get anything other than an "honorable" discharge from the military. Especially at the time in history. "Honorable discharge" was the default and the word "honorable" should not be taken to mean any sort of endorsement of Bush's military service.

From:

mesmericone.livejournal.com

Hi, I am a lurker and I was in the AF. Actually if Lt Bush did miss drills etc, he would have been written up and more than likely just get an general discharge. Please do not just assume that a honorable discharge is so easy to get. That is all.....I am back to lurking, thanks!

From:

Well, the article above certainly implies that they tried to write him up but got pressure into "sugarcoating" his records. No write up, no problem getting an honorable discharge.

And I have family in the Navy and have heard many stories of "honorable" discharges, so I'm cynical.

C'mon - a Bush family member not having enough political clout to get an honorable discharge no matter what?
I'm not that naive.

From:

mesmericone.livejournal.com

True.....I guess I try to think that everyone has ethics although I do know better than that. I am equally disgusted w/both parties bringing up very old issues that I believe has nothing to do with what they need to be talking about! Where they are going to get the money to do everything that they are "talking" about without raising taxes etc....

From:

At least Bush served somewhere during that time period. Clinton never even joined the National Guard.

I wouldn't have either if I could have helped it. The Vietnam war was a quagmire this country should have never been involved. Being against the war and chosing not to serve was - I think - an acceptable choice.

Clinton has admitted that he chose not to join the service because he didn't want to fight. Well you don't have to respect that choice but I respect his honesty.

I don't respect someone who plays the hawk throughout his life and when it counts, he hides in the national guard. That, for me, is the end of story. It does impact my opinion of his character.

What he did while he was dodging real military service is not my issue.

From:

The National Guard is a part of the military, whether it was used extensively in Vietnam or not. He still served somewhere. That's not dodging.

From:

Well I think we disagree on this point. Not much use in smacking the dead horse.

From:

He didn't face danger. He avoided it. He may have "served in the military" but he was far far away from any danger.

As President, he has put many others into danger that he himself avoided.

From:

Kerry tried to get out of the war, but his student deferment was rejected. He volunteered for Swift Boat duty at a time when they were doing nice, safe coastal patrols...whereas Bush volunteered to serve with an ANG unit that was sending pilots to Vietnam in the Palace Chase program. And once Kerry was in the Brown Water Navy, he gamed the system to leave eight months early, when other junior officers went back to duty after being patched together in field hospitals. There's a reason over 200 officers and men who served with him called him unfit to serve, and as Bob Dole said, they can't all be Republican operatives.

AFAIC, Kerry has been hoist on his own petard. He made a big deal out of his Vietnam service hoping nobody would notice that for the last 20 years in the Senate he has accomplished nothing and been on the wrong side of every defense and intelligence decision over those two decades. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

From:

200 officers and men? That seems like a lot of people to have a personal opinion of Kerry's abilities in Vietnam 30 years ago.
I note that not ONE of the men who actually served with Kerry have supported these claims.

As for these defense and intelligence decisions being touted right now - CHENEY supported the very same things that he is now bashing Kerry with. It's in the record. At the time these votes were made (20 years ago), it was the majority decision and a popular one that the military needed to be downsized. Kerry has also distinguished himself in the Senate as a prosecutor.

Cheney has been CEO of a company with fraudulent business practices that was handed a no-bid contract by our government and proceeded to bilk us out of millions (or was it billions?).

If you're gonna cry foul on the Bush service record and how it's being reported, then you need to do some investigating on these "votes" that Kerry has cast over his lengthy career.

From:

whereas Bush volunteered to serve with an ANG unit that was sending pilots to Vietnam in the Palace Chase program.

But he didn't go and he knew he wouldn't go.

There's a reason over 200 officers and men who served with him called him unfit to serve, and as Bob Dole said, they can't all be Republican operatives.

If you can't see that as a Republican smear campaign the same way you believe the questions of Bush's record are a Democratic smear campaign, I can't understand you. You seem far too intelligent to think it is anything but BS used for political positioning.

wrong side of every defense and intelligence decision over those two decades

It is not worth it to go into how wrong I feel you are here. I will point out he voted for military downsizing during the first Bush administration at the request of the administration. Now the second Bush administration paints this as being on "the wrong side."

Again, you seem too intelligent to fall for this kind of clearly biased smear campaign.

You are a Republican. Fine. You have every right to believe what you want to believe and support who you want to support. You have lots of good reasons. I think you should ignore the smoke screen of your own party.

From:

Frankly I always thought the idea of the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold-War was the wrong idea (especially after just finishing the Gulf-War) but Congress was pressuring the Administration to start balancing the budget. If you don't cut social programs, about the only other place you can cut is the military.

From:

In point of fact, I don't get any of my information from the party, and I do take the time to do my own reading and try and figure out what the facts are. I'm not particularly interested in these ad hominem arguments about "Oh, that's not a reliable source, he contributed to X/took money from Y/worked with Z/is married to somebody who once talked to A/(insert your favorite smear here)." I want to know what the facts are and what they mean.

I will admit up front that after his testimony to the Senate in 1971, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry for ANYTHING and never will. I had two uncles that served in Vietnam and a father who was in the Air Force at the time (oh, but he didn't serve in Vietnam so he must have been a draft dodger too, right?) and Kerry took a massive steaming dump all over them. The only reason I am even involved in this discussion at all (which as

romeoa correctly observed is completely irrelevant to the current situation) is because

windelina asked her conservative friends to comment on this moronic Slate article, speaking of biased media. I gave my reasons for thinking it was garbage and then the fun began.

I think you're too intelligent to support a horribly defective candiate like Kerry, but no doubt you have your reasons.

From:

In point of fact, I don't get any of my information from the party, and I do take the time to do my own reading and try and figure out what the facts are.

Which is why I am surprised you are giving the Swift Boat veterans campaign any credence at all. All research into the subject shows the people making the accusations never even served with the man.

I gave my reasons for thinking it was garbage and then the fun began.

I didn't realize we were involved in an acrimonious argument. In fact I was deliberately trying to avoid it. I though this was a fairly frank exchange of opinion.

I think you're too intelligent to support a horribly defective candiate like Kerry, but no doubt you have your reasons.

I wish I had more time to go into complete detail but the basics are that a) I believe your conclusions about him are wrong and b) I believe George W. Bush is a scourge on humanity who has done more harm in four years than any president in living memory.

He has raped the environment.

He has withdrawn from almost every major international treaty.

He has invaded a country that (I believe) was not an iminent threat and did not have anything to do with terrorism.

He has allowed his campaign staff to practice the worst kind of dirty politics I've ever seen.

He wants to ammend the Bill of Rights with verbiage meant to deny rights to a specific group of people. I believe it is called the "Bill of Rights" for a reason.

He has stated that God is on his side. I believe it is the height of Hubris to assume that God would take anyone's side in a political debate.

I could go on and on.

I completely recognize we disagree and I respect your reasons and your opinions. But I believe that I can be an intelligent individual and vote for Kerry.

From:

I will admit up front that after his testimony to the Senate in 1971, I wouldn't have voted for Kerry for ANYTHING and never will. I had two uncles that served in Vietnam and a father who was in the Air Force at the time (oh, but he didn't serve in Vietnam so he must have been a draft dodger too, right?) and Kerry took a massive steaming dump all over them.

I was actually going to go without saying something but seeing the anger directed at my opinion, I wanted to say make a comment or two.

First: I apologize if you felt I was being personally derisive in any way. That was not my intent. Nor did I intend to insult your father by stating my opinions of what Bush did in the war. I know nothing of your father. I believe that Bush was a rich son of a politically powerful family who supported the war but did not want to fight in it. Unlike several poor people (who may have felt the same way), he could do something about it.

My opinions aside, I would again respectfully apologize for anything personally derisive I said.

Second: I've read Kerry's comments extensively and re-read them after your post. I don't believe he took a dump over the men serving in Vietnam.

He did discuss - briefly - other testimony detailing atrocities in Vietnam comitted by US soldiers that I don't believe anyone denies took place.

He then engaged in a long discussion of failures of leadership. That is not the same as taking a dump on the soldiers who served there.

Granted, we have differing perceptions of his speech, but I feel you may have judged it far too harshly.

From: