So no one watched the debate in NH last night? For those of you who heard Peter Jennings (some left-wing Canadian, huh?) badger Wesley Clark over Michael Moore's description of Dubya as a "deserter" when Moore endorsed Clark this week.... Moore has posted a response on his website, along with this article:

George W's missing year in the Air National Guard (TomPaine.com)


Convinced?

It is absolutely a great story. It is also -- sadly -- yet another issue that Gore failed to do anything with in 2000 beacuse he didn't want to "go negative".

Excuse me, but I watched the debate last night, on Fox News Channel of all stations, and the RIGHT WING PUNDITS LET CLARK HAVE IT! They were whipped up into a frothing hissy fit over his failure to defend the "Commander in Thie...Chief"! Fred Barnes (is that his name), Sean " Hannity, Bill "Gambler" Bennett, and "moderate" Morton Kondracke all basically said he was a kook and a loon for not denouncing Moore. The various moderators all agreed, without ever addressing the substance of the issue--which was the case back in 2000. Al Gore COULDN'T use this, or any other of the serious problems in W's past, because the media just won't stand for it. They wouldn't in 2000, and they really won't now. They are simply enamored of W as a "war" president, and an exploration of the facts is simply not going to happen.

Why would ANY veteran support the punk-ass-chimp? The man turned his back on his country when he had pledged to serve...well, actually, he turned his back on Texas in his courageous fight to keep the Vietcong out of El Paso. Monkeyboy should be court-martialed!

You'd expect it of the Faux News pod people, but Jennings harrumphing was quite a sight.
The media is more sycophantic toward W than Cincinnatians toward Pete Rose.

Ahhh, the silence of the "hit me, please" queer GOPers...

Here are the documents boys for the AWOL chimp...

A scanned copy of Bush's request to transfer

A scanned copy of Bush's denied transfer

A scanned copy of the memo confirming Bush's suspension from flying duties in the Air National guard for \"failure to accomplish annual medical examination.\"

An analysis

[ January 26, 2004, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Because of his heroics to keep the skies of Alabama safe, well, on the days where he actually showed up.

And denying combat pay to the service folks in Iraq...

Actually, from my reading of the links bobby so thoughtfully provided - by his own admission he only managed to serve one day in Alabama.

Bush is planning to release his pay records from the National Guard to prove he actually served his time:

CNN Report

However, a little item in the Washington Post caught my eye - from Richard Cohen, one of the paper's columnists who also served in the National Guard during the Vietnam War. His own words:

You see, Cohen admits to playing a bit of cat-and-mouse with the military during his \"service\"

Clearly, if the military was still paying someone who did not show up (and this was just before Bush's missing year), then release of the pay records really don't demonstrate anything but military incompetence - and that is an old story.

Cohen's column in today's Post

[ February 10, 2004, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: CPT_Doom ]

While I was beginning to believe these records were recently "created" to satisfy the masses, I now see how someone could have been paid while not really doing a damn thing at all...well, other than get drunk and coked up all the time.

Bobby, I read that article as well this morning and I figured that Bush must have done the same thing. Unfortunately, most people will not take the time to read an article and find that this type of work avoidance is possible. They'll just look at the pay records and believe the Bush burden. In my opinion, it's a losing argument, if the democratic nominee pushes this with no further evidence, it will become a weak argument and the nominee will look like a weak whiner, even though we might know he's right.

I read somewhere this morning, that part of the proof is the pay stubs. It appears that some of the dates that Bush is supposed to have attended in Texas, and got paid for, were during the time he was in Alabama.

Sounds like a VERY sloppy coverup

What a bunch of @#$%^& hypocrites most of you are. When Republicans and other Clinton haters stupidly brought up Clinton's military issue--and unlike Bush Clinton left the country and actively protested his own military--Democrats screamed that it wasn't an important issue, that it was no big deal. Leftists here have consistently whined that it should be put to rest, that it wasn't a big issue. (For the record, I agreed that it wasn't a big issue.)

Now, the same people are foaming at the mouth about Bush's military service, or alleged lack thereof, elevating it to front page status as if it's the news of the century (never mind that this was all hashed about in 2000). Plus, Kerry denigrates service in the National Guard, obviously forgetting that almost 6000 members of the Guard died during the Vietnam War. Perhaps we should scratch their names off the Vietnam War Memorial.

Oh! The hypocrisy!

[ February 10, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

no hypocricy at all, outside your over-active imagination, that is.

you are comparing apples and oranges, a favorite trick, indeed when the apples to apples comparison doesn't go your way.

clinton was taking heat for not serving in the military, and using an educational deferrment instead. perfectly legal. done by many. no big deal.

bush used the national guard to avoid active duty overseas. perfectly legal. done by many. no big deal.

but there the similarities end.

no one questioned whether bill clinton ACTUALLY WENT TO OXFORD. he got a deferrment for graduate school and followed through by actually attending graduate school. so, as people were claiming at the time, it was no big deal -- just republicans desperate for an issue in an election they were clearly going to lose.

there are significant questions as to whether george bush ACTUALLY WENT TO GUARD DUTY AS SCHEDULED. he made a deal (guard duty in exchange for no overseas military service), but didn't obviously follow through. this speaks to the man's honesty and integrity. and given that he is mister personal responsibility, it also speaks to his credibilty.

the apples to apples comparison that doesn't go so well for you is: did each person live up to their commitments? the answer: don't know yet.

the false comparison you would prefer: did either person do anything improper by using the avenue they did to avoid overseas military service? answer: no.

[ February 10, 2004, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: thersis ]

EXACTLY - in fact, Kerry has repeatedly said he does not question anyone's actions in deciding whether to go to Vietnam or not, but once people made a commitment, they should follow through. I don't think anyone of the era would have been surprised that Bush was allowed to slide during his guard duty - in my previously posted Richard Cohen column he makes it clear that Guard duty, during that time at least, was a cushy way out and the military did not do much to make sure you completed your commitment. Of course, that was during a draft, when the military did not need the Guard and Reserves to the extent they do now - so those services are exponentially more important in the current military than in the Vietnam-era military.

That is the rub - if in 2000 Bush had said "I joined the Guard, I tried to transfer to Alabama when I was working there - the paperwork got messed up and I ended up not having to appear for a year, then I fulfilled my service," this would all be a non-issue. But Bush has, at the very least, obfuscated about his actual service, and continues to do so now. It is another sign that this man (NOT this Republican, but this MAN) does not have the character necessary to fulfill the post of President.

Once again, thersis, you label your hypocrisy as "apples and oranges." You can call it whatever you want, it's still hypocrisy and nothing less.

Clinton leaves the country to avoid service. He goes to a foreign country and actively protests against his own country and its military. But that's OK, because, well...it's "different" (meaning, it's a Democrat who did that, and as we all know, Republicans are held to higher standards by the Left, standards that obviously don't apply to liberals).

BTW, if Bush had used education as an excuse to avoid service, you'd be foaming at the mouth about THAT!

The blatant hypocrisy is so thick it's disgusting. Never mind the fact that Kerry has so callously dismissed the deaths of almost 6000 men who served in the Guard. Of course, THAT is "different," too. After all, he's a liberal and gets a pass in such matters.

[ February 10, 2004, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

The absence of the Usurper and Dick "I Had Other Priorities" Cheney from the Vietnam War differs from Bill Clinton's because, unlike him, they claim to have supported the f**king war, yet let others do the dying. Hence the label "chicken hawk."

Some people are just ignorant of facts. The issue about Bush and his "service" is his honesty about the issue. Bill Clinton ran off to England and protested the War and he NEVER denied having done that. Whereas the Punk Ass Chimp Coward hunkered down somewhere bewteen Texas and Alabama and hid for a few months (maybe he stopped off in New Orleans and never finished the trip!). Not one single commander in Alabama has come forward to verify him being there. It is astounding...when John Kerry is sworn in, there will need to be a good ol' Catholic exorcism ritual performed in the Oval Office just to get rid of the evil spirits that have overtaken the place during the last three years.

Get off your high horse, dude! Republicans aren't held to ANY DAMNED STANDARDS. If so, W wouldn't be president. He was far and away the most lackluster Republican candidate we've had in years. Had his father not been VP and President, NO ONE would have taken W seriously, because then he'd just have been another rich, stupid politician.

Clinton was tagged as a draft dodger by many of the same idiots who couldn't bother even to serve in the National Guard. Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, all these buffoons trashed BillyBob, who at least had the courage to admit he was in Britain, AS A RHODES SCHOLAR (which is more than can be said for the intellect of any of these cretins), protesting as any patriotic American should have a disastrous, deadly war. It was a terrible war that we should have ended in 1968 or 1969. That thousands more American and milions of Vietnamese lives were lost after this point is just unconscionable. Max Cleland and other veterans like him are testimony to the damage this war cost.

John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Colin Powell, Al Gore, John McCain...these men actively served this country in Vietnam. W was f*cking AWOL, and even in the released documents he can't account for THREE MONTHS! Cheney couldn't even bother to fight--no, that pathetic chickenhawk of darkness was pro-Vietnam, but let hundreds of others give their lives in a fruitless, awful war--that could have been ended had Henry "Strangelove" Kissinger not stuck his evil paws in the negotiations.

Defend W all you want, but his conduct was disgusting then and continues to be. Why can't he EVER just tell the freaking truth? It's always lies, evasions...and now this legalistic issuing of documents without a full, truthful accounting. I mean, if he really did serve as he claimed, produce some people you served with, tell the truth, and shut the opposition up! He can't do it because once again, he's only got lies to lay at America's doorstep.

It was interesting watching Scott McClellan on a C-Span rebroadcast of the briefing yesterday where Bush's incomplete records were released. To avoid answering the same questions twice (and being caught in a lie), he would say, "I answered that already." If it is the truth, why would you not answer the questions. This is more White House gimmickry to lie and not be caught in it by saying something contradictory. Pure genius from the most evil White House in history.

A very Republican attempt to account for the missing year -- payroll records, which do not address attendance one damn bit. "I was paid, therefore I was."

Democrats seek more proof of Bush service....the most telling and defamatory quote from the entire bunch of B.S. that Bush's corrupt team has been releasing to the press came from White House spokesman Scott McClellan himself yesterday when he said, in response to whether or not the White House has been able to produce EVEN ONE fellow guardsman who could attest to Bush's attendance at National Guard meetings and drills in Alabama, "obviously we would have made people available if they had been found".

From what I saw on Today this morning, there is still a 6-month gap without any pay (not that payment equals service), and as gamecock pointed out, absolutely no Guardsmen who remember serving with Bush during the period in question. In fact, there apparently was a reward during the 2000 campaign for anyone who could come forward and corroborate Bush's story, and no one did.

Hmmm...paid, but no attendance? Might we have a fraud issue herer as well?

Oh! The hypocrisy!

Repeat after me: Regime change begins at home. :mad:

All the relevant records were delivered to the White House but Barney the dog ate 'em.

Case closed.

Move on to something important like steriod use in pro sports.

Where are the personal eye witnesses Mr. Shrub. AS you would say, bring them on!!!!

Ya'll are so blinded by your own hypocrisy it's truly stunning, and laughable.

Anyone catch Mario Cuomo lately, who just scolded fellow Democrats for making this an issue? As he explained, "We're going to get killed in November if the Democratic presidential candidates make Bush's military service an issue. First of all, it's not an issue. Secondly, it is angering many veterans, especially those of the National Guard. I suggest that we Democrats focus on real issues that will beat Bush."

ABC News reported this story this morning.

[ February 11, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Correction Mr. Cuomo and Mr. "MIB":

It's angering veterans who chafe at the vision of the Chimp-in-Chief posing in a flight suit while sending Americans to fight and die in a war in which we have no business, especially when said CiC knew full well that he failed to fulfill his Guard duties. :mad:

p.s. The proper contraction for "you all" is "y'all," as in "Y'all vote for Anyone But Bush, 'kay?" wink

Bingo Jamie!! You said it honey.

but there might be a method to all this madness.

people didn't particularly like bill clinton. polls show they certainly didn't trust him. but they liked his policies, and it was enough to carry him through.

current polls show people aren't thrilled with bush's policies, and don't think he's doing a particularly good job. but they like him and trust him. and this trust is bolstering his approval ratings. if the dems can open enough 'trust' issues like this (wmd or no wmd? did he serve or not? planned war before 9/11?), and not push too hard and shoot themselves in the foot, they can burst bush's aura of trustworthiness. and then there's no there there.

There's no reason any American should be alarmed, MIB, that the entire administration cannot even find ONE person to come forward and confirm that he served in the national guard with W in Alabama during the time period in question and that the incompetent chimp was present as he claims?....you know damn well the "reward" and level of priority in finding this person is as big as finding Bin Laden right now.

Hell, yesterday Shrub's OWN PRESS SECRETARY (who we know ALWAYS tries to put a "positive spin" on any fact that even remotely refers to Bush's lies) did everything but say they have been searching the globe feverishly to find JUST ONE LIVING PERSON who would confirm the story and finally was forced to admit, "obviously we would have made people available if they had been found" .....yeah, that quote from HIS OWN ADMINISTRATION sure makes me believe the "leader" of our country is being truthful, doesn't it!?

Weren't you clinton freaks screaming just a few years ago that billybobs run away during the war was OK?

What has changed now? Other than you have a vet running?

Didnt y'all learn anything from the clinton haters? Try some smart hate, not blind hate...

But yes most of you are just blind.

I agree with MIB on this one that it is not a good issue to press too hard. It will risk making the Democrats look shrill in the face of real issues and will in the end help the President.

However, I always think it's dangerous to lob the hypocrisy criticism around. politics is rife with hypocrisy and always will be. I'm sure every one of us has condemned one politician for something we'd ignore in a politician we like.

I would think the 210,000 Veterans would also be upset that the Bushitter is considering cutting their health benefits.

I still think it is okay to protest a war where ever you are in the world. John Kerry protested the war after his honorable and brave service was completed. I don't think it is okay to say you are going to serve your country then hide out God knows where for any period when you are supposed to be serving your country.

That's quite funny bluebird.... If you see no problem with clinton running off during the war out of protest, you should see nothing wrong with W not going to war. Arent they really the same thing? I'm sure you didnt even see anything wrong with Dean-O's ski trips.

The only difference is that one is a dem and one is a republican.

Blind hate.

[ February 11, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

Where did I say there was something wrong with Bush not going to war? I didn't and if you can find it, please post this proof in a reply. The problem I have with Bush is that he said he would do something and, wow, surprise, he didn't do it. You really do lack a lot of common sense. When did Bill Clinton pledge to serve his country? He didn't! Bush did and cowered away somewhere for several months instead of showing up in Alabama. Let me repeat since you don't seem to understand. Clinton NEVER signed up to serve in the military and Bush did but failed on servering several month of the 6-year requirement. How difficult is it for you to understand...oh yeah, I almost forgot who I am talking to.

Now, now, guys, let's ease up on the Distinguished Gentleman from Arizona a bit. It's been a tough day for him - he's already admitted (in another thread) that there's a possibility that he won't vote GOP this fall.

You gotta give him credit for backing off from the PunkAssChimp. There are plenty of other folk here who will cling to said simian all the way to the homosexual reeducation camps. :mad:

You are shittin' me! Good heavens, as Whitey said on "One Tree Hill" last night, "The temperature in hell just dropped a few degrees."

[ February 11, 2004, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

You know this is my point.

Dean-o averted the system and didnt serve because of his bad back... then went Skiing. Ok in everyone's book.

Bubba went to other nations rather than be drafted for the war... OK.

W has a nice cush cush position where he would never fight.

What is the difference?

All of which were not going to fight in the war. If you accept one dems excuse for not fighting, you accept all of the others.

However, you wont accept bushies excuse because you dont like him... at least admit that.

Once again you make accusations of someone else (me) on this board and fail to prove I said the things you have wrongly accused me of saying. Why am I not surprised? You are about as credible as that buffoon baboon in the White House.

Booby

W could cure cancer and you'd find someway to twist it to a bad thing, you know this... i know this... everyone knows this.

I'm just letting you know that you've thrown your support to folks who have done the same thing, maybe worse, than W and his military career. Yet you overlook them... that's all.

By the way, gee, thanks for editing your original message (which ended up being editing in my responses where I attached it) to change the complete accusative meaning of what you originally typed. I guess the White House CYA is rubbing off on you.

Once again Phillyfan, and we'll do this slowly - neither Bill Clinton nor Howard Dean gave any commitment to serve their country (and BTW - harping on Dean's skiing trip is ludicrous - being in the service requires the ability to pick up and carry a lot of weight. Skiing does not. I have a bad back and cannot easily pick up heavy loads; it is not bothered by skiing.). Dan Quayle made a commitment and apparently followed through on it. Bush made a commitment and failed to live up to it.

No one is decrying Guard service as a bad thing. No one is saying everyone who didn't go to Vietnam is ineligible for office (hell, we wouldn't have a government if we said that). What we are saying is that this President, whatever he might have done in the past, is simply not being truthful with the American people. He was not truthful about his DUI, and it does not appear he is being truthful now.

You keep agreeing with me and people here are going to demand you undergo a psychological examination.

As Clinton supporters i'd think that shouldnt bother you so much.... the truth that is.

No...it will be a lobotomy.

Here's the Lady Ann's take on the whole non-issue of President Bush's "avoiding" his military service - and an interesting revelation, for me, at least - of exactly how Max Cleland was maimed. How many others knew the exact circumstances of his loss? Coulter on Cleland

I think I will say that as Democrats we should move on, and give this story up, at least for now anyway. WE all know, well most of us already know that Shrub has a bad problem with credability! I don't beleive much of what he says. There are so many important issues that we must face in this all to important election, like how about the 45 million Americans with no health insurance?, getting people back to work in this country?, and then there is the mess in Iraq. Now it seems the right is trying to start a smear attack against Kerry by saying he was somehow tied in with Jane Fonda. Ridiculous. While I still feel the whole issue of Bush's service is questionable, and filled with gaps and holes, at best, I think its best we move on, and get this regime change we have been talking about for so long.