Is it just me or is there no point to posting about politics at T-Nation. There are very few liberals and not many of them can write an intelligent response. The political forum seems to be dedicated to smearing Kerry and anyone in his favor, and glorifying Bush. 50 Republicans praising Bush accomplishes little, to bad theres no good discussions about Kerry and Bush that are worthwhile to read.
DLM wrote:
“Is it just me or is there no point to posting about politics at T-Nation. There are very few liberals and not many of them can write an intelligent response. The political forum seems to be dedicated to smearing Kerry and anyone in his favor, and glorifying Bush. 50 Republicans praising Bush accomplishes little, to bad theres no good discussions about Kerry and Bush that are worthwhile to read.”
Hey, that was mean!!!
Perhaps the left has very little to promote.
I disagree with your condemnation of the liberals on this site. As a matter of fact, my friends lumpy/rsu/danh, regurgitate the dnc party line verbatim most of the time. They faithfully repeat the misconceptions fed to them by the media and the liberal elite. I think they do at least as well as McAullife does spouting their tag-lines.
As for your comments about people who support Bush, I think you are unduly harsh. I refer you to any of Boston Barrister’s posts. He is thoughtful and well-researched. His is the standard from which all other posts are measured.
If you have an argument, observation, or question, please feel free to join in.
Welcome,
JeffR
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I fully expect a dirty campaign. Why would this election be any different than most others.
Four years ago the democrats brought out the DUI Bush had just two days from the election. This year you have the swift boat group…I really hate that stuff and so wish they would debate the issues.[/quote]
Hey, ZEB – what do you think of that DUI on Bush’s record?
[quote]DLM wrote:
Is it just me or is there no point to posting about politics at T-Nation. There are very few liberals and not many of them can write an intelligent response. The political forum seems to be dedicated to smearing Kerry and anyone in his favor, and glorifying Bush. 50 Republicans praising Bush accomplishes little, to bad theres no good discussions about Kerry and Bush that are worthwhile to read. [/quote]
I agree with the disproportionate numbers around here, but I take offense to your opinion of the liberal responses on this board!
[quote]DLM wrote:
Is it just me or is there no point to posting about politics at T-Nation. There are very few liberals and not many of them can write an intelligent response. The political forum seems to be dedicated to smearing Kerry and anyone in his favor, and glorifying Bush. 50 Republicans praising Bush accomplishes little, to bad theres no good discussions about Kerry and Bush that are worthwhile to read. [/quote]
DLM:
Go check the number of responses to the threads I opened to talk about the economy and Kerry’s Senate record. I try, but I need some effort from the other side… =-)
[quote]tme wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Do you think the Swiftboat ads will be the 2004 version of the Willie Horton ads thank sunk Dukakis in 1988?
Really? You think bush lite is as sleezy as his daddy? I do, but I’m kind of surprised to hear if from someone like the rainman.
Seems to me that, regardless of the trash the dems will try to come up with, the swiftboat ads will be the millstone around Kerry’s neck - especially if he insists on running as a war hero.
You’re probably right here. Unless the Kerry campaign is willing to sink to Rove’s level, they won’t be able to come up with enough mud to matter. Rove is a total piece of shit who will always go for the knees, no matter how low that means he has to go. That’s why georgieboy has relied on him all these years.
Well that and the hummers of course, but there are no cigars involved so they don’t really count. If Laura wasn’t too prudish to slobber on the knob once and a while we probably wouldn’t even be in this mess now. Karl wouldn’t be providing that “need” for georgie, and politics would be a whole lot cleaner.
[/quote]
This what i meant be my comment on liberal responses Right Side Up, I didnt mean to insult anyone who actually has an opinion and articulates it. Republicans have plenty of people who act like this but they also have enough people posting to get their ideas through. While this was the only liberal post before yours out of how many? 20?
More smears – although we knew this one was coming…
The smear begins
Now we know one of Kitty Kelley’s big scoops:
[Begin Mirror excerpt] Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s.
She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either." [End Mirror excerpt]
Point one: We all know Bush used drugs in his youth; his coy admission cum denial is all the proof I need. Point two: Sharon Bush is Neil Bush’s “bitter ex-wife.” North County
Talk Left has some juicy details from an old Vanity Fair article, including:
[Begin excerpt] Sharon exploded when she found Neil and [his new wife] Maria at a smoothie shop, calling the Mexican-born Andrews a "Mexican whore" and "Mexican trash." [End excerpt]
And then there’s this one:
[Begin excerpt] The former President Bush refused Sharon's request for a $467,000 loan to keep her Houston mansion, telling her to find something cheaper. "The divorce is final," the elder Bush wrote, "[and] the best thing for you to do is get on with your life. Close the unhappy chapter with Neil, find a job, and look to the future, not the past." [End excerpt]
Do you think maybe Sharon might be out for a bit of vengeance against the Bush clan? (If not, get your meds checked.)
Kitty Kelly has about as much credibility as Mike Moore. This will go no where.
RSU:
I think the DUI on Bush’s record is even less important that John Kerry saying he was in Cambodia when hundreds of others claim he was not there.
Personally, I don’t care about Bush’s DUI or Kerrys memory problems. Human beings make mistakes. I think these things can be forgiven especially in light of the fact that they happened so many years ago.
I care about the issues. Who will protect our country best. Who will lower my taxes. In short, who will do the best job as President. That man is President Bush and he is on his way to a second term!
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_09_05_corner-archive.asp#039327
KURTZ ON KITTY [Tim Graham]
In today’s Washington Post, Howard Kurtz nails down how many media outlets are going to offer publicity for trash-for-cash Kitty Kelley, starting with three days of interviews on Today starting Monday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3665-2004Sep7.html (registration required for link)
Know that in April of 1991, the same program gave Kelley three days to trash the Reagans – interviewed softly by the delightfully objective Bryant Gumbel. Also note that “Today” has so far failed to interview any member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who somehow are placed lower on the reliability food chain than the woman who claimed Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra were having an affair in the White House.
Mark my words: the coming Kitty Kelley media boomlet is another indelible example of the liberal media’s lack of reverence for fact-checking and their enthusiasm for unproven smears when the target is Republican. This is where the liberal media earns the label.
Posted at 08:33 AM
Good, long post on President Bush and the Air National Guard, and on the former Lt. Gov. of Texas CBS is interviewing, if you follow this link:
More good Bush/Guard stuff, from an article back in February when the first brouhaha of this campaign was in full swing:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html
(registration required)
Media failed to find facts behind Bush’s service record
February 11, 2004
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB
President Bush has had a rough 10 days, beginning with the Tim Russert “Meet the Press” interview on Feb. 1 of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who charged Bush was “AWOL” and “never served in the military.” Only a week later, Bush asked to appear on Russert’s show in a clear attempt to stem the damage from these charges. For over a week they were endlessly repeated and never analyzed by the news media.
But the only basis for these charges was summarized by London’s Sunday Telegraph on Feb. 8: “If the Vietnam veteran John Kerry becomes the next president, there will be one man to thank above all others: retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed.”
It all started with a report by the Boston Globe during the 2000 presidential election questioning Bush’s National Guard service. Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.
But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson’s reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush’s service. For Bush to be “AWOL” or “away without leave,” he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.
Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.
Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.
Sen. John Kerry got in on the act on Sunday, asking, “was he [Bush] present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don’t have the answer to that question.” But as Turnipseed points out, Bush was never “supposed to be” anything in Alabama. And Kerry doesn’t have “the answer” because he is taking advantage of a partisan political fantasy that has stayed aloft this long because of the lousy job done by the press in reporting on it.
Now, Robinson is beginning to have second thoughts. His latest column states: “President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 – a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston – according to two new documents obtained by the Globe.” How could Robinson have gotten it so wrong?
The most charitable explanation for this distortion is the almost total ignorance the press of the realities of military service and its record-keeping. Yet Turnipseed has been repeatedly called by news organizations since the Globe reporting four years ago, and no one has chosen to correct the errors he has tried to point out or cover his denials.
The most startling aspect of this story is that the press has continually treated this affair as a political debate rather than a matter of fact.
An Air National Guard officer such as George Bush left an extensive paper trail of service. The vital summary sheet of a military record is a simple form called the DD214 or NGB 22. It covers all the basic questions being asked about Bush today. Every military veteran has one.
Kerry has one. On it are listed his dates of service, the nature of his discharge and the medals and service ribbons he has every reason to be proud of. It was filed away at the time of discharge and is almost impossible to alter.
Did a single member of the thousands in the press take the trouble to look up just one DD214 or NGB22 – President Bush’s?
Apparently not. And that is the saddest part of the story.
There was already an exhaustive look at Bush’s National Guard records published and available on the Internet to any reporter who has written on this in the last week. None of whom bothered to look it up. It’s title? “The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, But Not AWOL, Either.” It was “the first full chronology” and concludes “he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.”
The article included the pasteup pay records just released by the White House. It also included the “two new documents obtained by the Globe” by Robinson.
It was published four years ago in George Magazine. Its publisher was that well-known GOP supporter – the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.
Thomas H. Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York.
Summary of Bush’s Guard Service, from “The Hill”:
http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
[UPDATE: This is probably the best article, and it deals with the entire timeline, including the new claims]
Finally, some info on Texans for Truth, which is going to attack Bush on the National Guard issue – Note that Texans for Truth was apparently started with a generous contribution of funds from MoveOn.org:
Give Kerry the benefit of the doubt about his service, about his medals, about the shrappnel in his leg. But do not forget that while we had men rotting in the Hanoi Hilton Kerry was telling the world that these men were war criminals. He help cause their stay to be longer and more painful. What Kerry is guilty of is treason. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy. This man helped cause the humiliation, verbal,physical and mental abuse of our vets as they returned to their homes.
No, Sen. Kerry does not deserve the position of commander in chief based on his treasonist actions.
One more on the details of Bush’s Guard service:
Bush Guard Service, The True Story
By Gordon Bloyer (08/31/04)
This is the only place that you will get the full and true story of President Bush?s Air National Guard service. There are no UNANSWERED questions. There are no missing records. He did not miss any meetings. The truth is known. You can find everything in this article, in other publications but none of the others are complete. You have to put them all together to get the full story. It
First, in answer to the charge that Bush was AWOL or missed meetings, George Bush was NEVER assigned to the Alabama Guard. This is a myth promoted by the “objective” media. Here is what really happened. Here is what the head of the Alabama Guard said.
Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.
Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance. This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.
This was reported in the Chicago Sun-Times and has never been picked up by any other news organization. Turnipseed then also added.
For Bush to be “AWOL” or “away without leave,” he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.
For the liberals reading this, go back and read it again. You see, Bush did NOT miss any meetings. The whole argument is nonsense. He got permission from his commanding officer to go to Alabama and attend meetings as a courtesy so he could attend when he could. Another part of this attack is that no one saw Bush at the meetings he did attend. It was reported that Turnipseed never saw Bush. Read what was reported about that.
Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John “Bill” Calhoun went public to say that not only did he remember Bush in Alabama, but that it was Turnipseed himself that introduced the two. Oops. And really…the media is completely asleep at the switch on this one. How many people that you saw a few times do you remember from 30 years ago?
Why didn?t fellow pilots see Bush in Alabama? The planes being flown by the Alabama Guard were not the same as the F102 that Bush was trained on. Why would pilots see him if he was not flying? That is why Lt. Col. Calhoun came forward to say that was Bush was in his office for study and drill time. Remember he was not assigned to the unit, he did NOT have to be there.
The following is from a letter by Col. William Campenni Ret. published in the Washington Times.
There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2?? years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren’t getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys. The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush’s tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one’s life.
Here is some information that the “objective” media avoids telling you. John Kerry joined the Navy Reserve, he did not JOIN the Navy. The Reserve was just like the National Guard. Kerry did NOT know he would be sent to Vietnam.
George Bush joined the Guard for a SIX-year term. If you are drafted, you only have to serve TWO years. Bush probably did not need to pull strings to get into a jet fighter unit. Jets required a greater time commitment than normal Guard postings. Pilots from the unit that he joined were being sent to Vietnam. All the publications that have researched this have concluded that there is NO evidence that he used any influence to get into the Guard. The liberal publications will say that there is no evidence, but it is still suspicious. That is a good journalistic standard? So, do you get it, Bush joined a unit that at the time was serving in Vietnam.
The following is research from aerospaceweb.org …
Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, pilots from the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a program called “Palace Alert” from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for periods of three to six months for frontline duty. Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush’s who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.
As he was completing training and being certified as a qualified F-102 pilot, Bush’s squadron was a likely candidate to be rotated to Vietnam. However, the F-102 was built for a type of air combat that wasn’t seen during that conflict, and the plane was withdrawn from southeast Asia in December 1969. The F-102 was instead returned to its primary role of providing air defense for the United States. In addition, the mission of Ellington AFB, where Bush was stationed, was also changing from air defense alert to training all F-102 pilots in the US for Air National Guard duty. Lt. Bush remained in the ANG as a certified F-102 pilot who participated in frequent drills and alerts through April of 1972. … By this time, the 147th Fighter Wing was also beginning to transition from the F-102 to the F-101F, an updated version of the F-101B used primarily for air defense patrols. Furthermore, the war in Vietnam was nearing its end and the US was withdrawing its forces from the theater. Air Force personnel returning to the US created a glut of active-duty pilots, and there were not enough aircraft available to accommodate all of the qualified USAF and ANG pilots. Since USAF personnel had priority for the billets available, many of the Air National Guard pilots whose enlistments were nearly complete requested early release. The ANG was eager to fulfill these requests because there was not enough time to retrain F-102 pilots to operate new aircraft before their enlistments were up anyway. Bush was one of those forced out by the transition, and he was honorably discharged as a first lieutenant in October 1973, eight months before his six-year enlistment was complete. Bush had approximately 600 flight hours by the time he completed his military service.
The folks at aerospaceweb concluded…
While Bush did not see combat in Vietnam, it is also obvious he was not seeking a way to avoid the risk of being sent to Vietnam. At the time he was training to be an F102 pilot, ANG units and that aircraft type were based in Vietnam.
In conclusion, there is no evidence Bush got special treatment to join the Guard. He did NOT miss any meetings, he was not assigned to the Alabama Guard. The reason the so called “objective” media holds on to this myth is that it lets them keep asking, where was Bush? The issue of his being grounded is also answered because he would no longer be flying since his plane was obsolete and he did not have enough Guard time left to train in a new jet. You don?t need to report for a physical if you are not flying. Duh!
Kerry joined the Navy Reserve and did not expect to go to Vietnam. When Kerry did go to Vietnam the swift boats were not during river patrols. They were doing coastal patrols and were not in much danger. That is when he volunteered to join the Swiftee?s. The assignment of those boats was changed after he was accepted for the duty. Surprise, he got action and the rest is disputed history.
The information in this article was published in “George Magazine”, “New York Times”, “Washington Times”, “Chicago Sun-Times”, “Washington Post” and aerospaceweb.org.
NPR did a few minutes on Bush’s National Guard service. I didn’t hear anything new, but I guess if the democrats are going to go dirty they have to keep making the election about something other than Kerrys Senate record. However, the Guard stories are not going to change even one mind, it’s all old stuff.
Here’s one on what can most charitably be called journalist ineptitude (and, uncharitably, unethical reporting) by the NYT re: Bush and the Airguard:
W/r/t the most recent allegations, from someone who is familiar:
“or the pressure to rate Bush even though he hadn’t been seen in Texas and nobody in Alabama could be found to rate him…”
If there is evidence to support this claim, it ought to be given. Pressuring superior officers is a very serious charge, and would completely change the complexion of the dispute. Of course, it would be much more telling concerning the people doing the alleged pressuring, as none of the claims seems to be that Bush engaged in pressuring anyone.
If, however, this claim is based on the fact Bush received a “non-observed” fitness report (a very common practice), the charge is very, very thin.
“1LT Bush then refused a direct order to complete his flight physical, thus grounding himself.”
A serious claim. “Direct order” isn’t really defined under the UCMJ, but the common usage is for an order given in person by a superior officer. Obviously the willful nature of disobeying such an order makes it more serious (and is the difference between article 90 and article 92). But AFAICT there’s no evidence of such an order being given to Lt Bush–so his failure to get a flight physical was the garden variety failure “to obey any lawful general order or regulation.” The absence of any investigation afterward implies his commander didn’t have any major heartburn with it–and may even have granted permission–which would make it a non-event.
This whole issue is hilarious. The same accusations the Kerry camp made about the Swifties (i.e., politically motivated liars) are far more valid when applied here. The obvious payback intent further erodes credibility, as does the concerted attempt to rehash old scandals. But the bottom line is: “who cares”? Bush isn’t running on his National Guard service, he’s running on the last four years. TANG records are of little interest to anyone but historians at this point, and the desperate attempt to sling some mud and hope some sticks is particularly unattractive. The MSM’s disparate treatment (vs the Swiftvets’ ads) also provides a stark contrast. This has “backlash” written all over it.
Evidently, Dan Rather is now a spokesman for the Kerry campaign.
Did anyone catch the 60-minutes piece on Bush?