Asymmetrical Information

Yet it goes both ways. Both dolts are attacking the character and not the issues. They both have legitimate points that can be exploited.

However, I'm assuming the common person just isn't learned in the way of politics and identifies with emotional smears better than deep politics. "My opponent molests endangered animals at the zoo" carries more memory-holding appeal than "My opponent's view on the impact of overseas manufacturing is incorrect when considering the increased cost savings of Barbie Dolls©".

This is why I hate politics yet am so engrossed in trying to learn as much as I can to see who is trying to pull the most wool over my eyes.

...he did some rash things in his twenties that he now regrets... That is of course if he regrets them.

Well, Robb, to a point character really does matter.

Especially when you're running against someone like Kerry, who doesn't seem to be capable of clearly stating what his policies would be, in any sort of detail. It's hard to talk substance when there's no evident substance to talk about. I sincerely hope Kerry has some concrete ideas in some sort of detail. If onyl he would share them with us...

It's difficult to talk issues, in the other direction, when all you've got is "X is bad because Bush did it", which seems to be the core of the Democrat party lately. (Which is a damned shame, as they're useless as a counterbalance to the Republicans as long as they're in such a state.)

Kerry's performance on GMA was embarrassing. Did Charlie Gibson ask Kerry a question he was unprepared to answer? Sure. But the question was only asked because Kerry had said in interviews and on his own web site that the charge he had thrown away his medals was a smear by the vast right wing conspiracy AND because ABC had found a tape of Kerry claiming to have thrown away his medals. The taped interview was a clear contradiction of what Kerry has been saying recently and was, therefore, a fair topic to question.

Charlie Gibson wasn't even playing "gotcha" with Kerry. Had he wanted to make Kerry look bad, he would have played the tape AFTER Kerry had been asked about the charge he had thrown away his medals. Instead, Gibson played the tape (as part of the intro to Kerry's interview) and gave Kerry a chance to respond. It was a tough situation to be in, but not nearly as tough as ABC could have made it.

Kerry responded by blaming his questioner for raising the question, by claiming what Gibson had seen with his own eyes 33 years ago (and what everyone had just listened to Kerry on tape say had happened) had not happened, and by trying to change the subject to Bush's guard service. The problems with this defense are obvious: We spent February running down the details of Bush's guard service -- it's an old non-story. We had just heard Kerry say he had thrown his medals away. And, no one on the planet believes Gibson (or ABC) is out to get Kerry for political reasons. I mean, when did Charlie Gibson become a member of the VRWC? As the official VRWC membership chair, if Charlie is a member, I can tell you he way behind on his dues.

I agree that this is a silly non-issue. However there was something that came out today which is somewhat related in the fact that while Kerry has been claiming that he would be better at getting more countries to contribute to the reconstruction and security of Iraq (something he was unwilling to do when he voted against the $87 Billion), the only “foreign leader” (who is not an avowed enemy of the United States) who publicly endorsed Kerry just finished pulling their troops out of Iraq two months early.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040427/D827739G0.html

Rather puts the kibosh on the notion that Kerry would be any better at gaining foreign support than Bush. I have never believed that other national governments are going to change their policies based on who we have as President rather than having those policies driven by their own interests (e.g. France and Germany getting kickbacks from Saddam Hussein). Kerry’s volatility on the campaign trail by not being able to deal diplomatically with he issues that he chose to raise (Vietnam) undercuts his claims at being less “reckless, arrogant, and ideological” particularly when his own foreign supporters in Spain just cut his legs out from under him.

The genuine issue in this election can be explained at kindergarten level. Kerry likes Cops and Robbers, Bush likes Cowboys and Indians.
The rest is just girl talk.

The media clearly wants to bring up Viet Nam as much as possible these days. The idea is to brainwash the electorate into thinking Shi-ite fanatics are digging tunnels underneath Fallujah and will pop out of the rice paddies of Baghdad shouting "Death to imperialists!"

You see Jane, they have no message. That's the non-story here. Bush's Guard service? Viet Nam? What is it that Kerry is supposed to do better than Bush? Cross his t's and mind his q's?

Kerry made his name by being against the Viet Nam war. He appeared like Tiny Tim's brother and had an equal appreciation for performing on a stage. John Kerry realized early on that aligning yourself with the left brought you attention and power and he's been riding that gulfstream ever since.

One of the best things about Bush is that he is not a smooth politician. He was not born to politics and the fact that he came to it later in life has kept him much more grounded than Kerry. Kerry, who has been doing this performance for over two decades now, is playing the role of candidate and part of that role says you never admit mistakes as long as there is a negative spin in it for your opponent.

The Dick Morris' of the world present Kerry and the democrats with negative image words that pull down an individual. In 1996 with Dole it was "senior" - a word designed to trigger thoughts of his age, his being a cripple and frighten the social security recipients. With Bush, they are trying "Viet Nam" and hoping by association that these same seniors, as well as some newly minted ones, who remember Viet Nam will somehow vote out Bush. They clearly don't do this for the young folks. Most young folks couldn't find Viet Nam on a map and are hardly a significant or reliable voting bloc.

Kerry voted for the war. That limits his options. We have troops over there - if he speaks out it appears like he is repeating 1972 and it would likely backfire with huge voting blocs - oh yeah, "bigtime".

So he is stuck in these ambiguous Morris-esque statements such as he would have managed the war differently and involved the UN more prominently. He's backpedaling off that view now that the UN's massive corruption is coming to light - as this just makes Kerry look like more of an America selling-out dweeb.

If I were Kerry, I'd start touting how good my wife's deceased ex-husband's ketchup tastes. He might as well start talking about ketchup because throughout this whole pre-election cycle, except for a short convention bounce, he will probably be playing it.

;-)

SDAI-Tech1

Sigivald, I agree and this is why I prefer Bush over Kerry. But the whole idea of campaigning any more seems to be about who can sling the most mud while hiding the fact they're knee deep in a bog themselves. It's disgusting.

Would it infringe on anyone's liberty if political ads required that the advertisement only talk about the politician giving it and disallowed any sort of mud slinging? I'd much rather hear what someone is for or against (or in Kerry's nuanced position, both) rather than how bad the other guy is.

Excellent, Walter, except you're wrong about Kerry.

Kerry likes Times-Out and Tell-Sally-You're-Sorry.

Not for the first time I am reminded that neither of these guys is a campaign dynamo. Over a month ago, I remarked that that this contest would be like watching the Tigers play the Mets in the World Series. In light of the current standings, and recent events, it is apparent that I have done grave disservice to the Tigers. Maybe it is more like an Indians/Expos contest. In any case, it stills seems as if this contest will be lost rather than won.

Kerry hasn't been dissembling about his medals. His story has been pretty consistent. "Medals" includes ribbons, as I've learned during this news cycle. Seems to me the Bush campaign started this particular fight. Now don't whine when Kerry fights back.

Hmmm. Who to back? The ballsy guy who had the balls to fight in Vietnam and the balls to pubclicly fight the war at home. Or the dickless guy who couldn't find anything better to do than snort coke and drink while a war he supported was fought by others?

Robb,

While I empathize with your position, I only do so because I can understand where it comes from. Judges who have to deal with divorcing couples all day are the same way. They would like for once for a person to stand up there and just talk about how well he parents as opposed to trying to smear the other spouse. Going through a 30 month divorce myself, I know.

While, judges will probably wish for less conflict and less mudslinging, it isn't practiceable.

For over a year of the 30 month divorce, I tried nothing but positive, unfortunately, it got me into a worse position, because during that year there was a custody evaluation performed by a psychologist. While I didn't mudsling about the ex to the psychologist, she mudslinged about me and the custody evaluator created a report recommending that I have only 10% of the parenting time.

The people are like judges. They will sit and watch the "accusations" and think "well... if all of these accusation are only 1/2 true that makes Bush pretty darn bad so, Bush must be bad".

While I have had to spend $40,000 in the last year fighting a "report" showing document after document showing how inaccurate things were stated and showing that the ex is a "liar"....
...so have the Republicans have had to show document after document and prove that the Democrats are lying about Bush.

But some American people don't want to see all this bickering. Welp. Then they shouldn't vote. If the "judge/evaluator/American People" can't do the due diligence to figure out what is true then they should not do the judging/voting.

You stated you are new to politics. I'm sure you remember though that Republicans over the years have been accused of 1)being against the environment, 2)slashing Medicare, 3) racist, 4) sexist, 5) for the rich etc. etc.

Welp. Since the advent of talk radio, conservatives aren't as easily defined by the opponents anymore. We can define ourselves. We see that the 1995 Medicare bill proposed by Republicans did not cut, it increased. We see that there is good environmentalism and crackpot environmentalism. We see that we are for being judged on merit not on race. We see that we have a stronger understanding of the economy and you can't raise taxes to help an economy or vice versus.

I went long, but I hope I helped.

Robb,

To answer your question. It would be an abridgement of the 1st ammendment to the constitution to prohibit a person from trying to define the opponent.

It is incumbent upon us as Americans to figure out if Kerry did vote against all of the major weapon systems listed in Bush's commercials. If Kerry voted for them, then we would be able to see that Bush is lying. But unfortunately for Kerry, Bush isn't.

Kerry Supporter, he was caught on national television with a tape of himself claiming to have thrown his medals over the fence. He now says he didn't throw his medals over the fence. Those statements are not reconcileable; either he believes that the definition of medals includes ribbons, or it doesn't. He also claimed, in the interview he gave immediately afterward, to have thrown his bronze star, purple hearts, and so on, which he definitely didn't do, because he still has them. Moreover, the US military says that your ribbons are part of your medals, and hence the distinction he has been pushing is meaningless. And the part of the American public he's trying to appeal to by drawing such distinctions is unlikely to think "Oh, well, if he only threw his ribbons and then said he threw his medals, that's all right -- it would only be bad if he'd actually thrown those little pieces of metal". Trying to draw non-existant distinctions to excuse behaviour he doesn't want the voters to think about it not improving his image.

Now, as I say, I think the scandal is silly. But Kerry, who mentions Vietnam every fifteen minutes, can hardly cry that it's unfair that people are examining his service and his time in the antiwar movement. And as the less attractive portions of that story come to light--the medals story, the antiwar protesting while still in the reserves, the fact that he spent, what, four months in country before applying for a transfer based on collecting three wounds less painful than one would gather in an average high school football season--he's curiously indignant, as if running on his war record were no reason for anyone to, y'know, look at his war record. In my personal opinion, the decision to start attacking Bush's National Guard service is a mistake. It makes him look petulant and vulnerable, and Bush has never claimed that we should vote for him based on the fact that once upon a time he flew some planes in Texas--in stark contrast to Mr Kerry. Overall, I think trying to make this election about his service in Vietnam is a terrible mistake, especially since it wasn't particularly distinguished--that's a trick that can only really be pulled off by John McCain or Dwight Eisenhower. I sense he's trying to use Vietnam to paper over the fact that he doesn't seem to have much else, in the way of Senatorial accomplishements or policy ideas, to run on--and sense, too, that the voters are going to see through it unless he comes up with some campaign strategy other than shouting "Vietnam" every time he's asked a question.

"Medals" does not include "ribbons." Every medal has a corresponding ribbon, but there are ribbons that have no corresponding medal. Personal awards are medals, while unit awards are ribbons. On a dress uniform with medals, the unit award ribbons are placed on a different chest. On an ordinary every day service uniform, unit ribbons and personal ribbons are mixed together according to the rules of precedence. Some people, when they get too many ribbons and medals, forgo the unit ribbons on their service uniforms and wear only their personal ribbons.

Are we clear so far?

What Kerry did was to rip off his ribbons (mixed) from his service uniform and throw them over the fence. He also threw over some medals, but he's since said that the medals belonged to other people who couldn't throw them over. Not much dispute here.

But in an interview at some point after the medal-throwing incident, Kerry strongly gave the impression that he threw his own medals over the fence. That's what he's being called on.

The point seems to be that Kerry, like most shallow politicians, tries to tailor his message according to who the audience is, and plays fast and loose with the facts to do so. At one time, he says thus. At another time, he says such and so. Take it for what it's worth.

But I've never heard Bush do something similar.

Kerry Supporter,
Don't know your information sources, but ABC has shown the tapes where Kerry wasn't "consistent" (as you say) and did "contradict himself". Kerry even went on to say that he threw 6,7,8 or 9 of his medal. Later he says he threw someone elses and he only threw his ribbons.

The Bush administration hasn't been in this fray until Karen Hughes had a sentence or two about it on Sunday. Basically for anyone to accuse the Bush administration of the one "going negative" is silly.

Daily on talk radio shows you hear Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt being very very clear that they are not attacking Kerry's "patriotism" or "service". What they bring up from time to time is that Kerry voted against most of the major weapons systems over the years that we are presently using. Kerry has been in the Senate for a while and has a voting record. To point out this voting record is "free speech" and important for the American people to know what he thinks about us as Americans.

One more distinction between medals and ribbons. I don't know if things have changed, but at the time, ribbons could be bought at the PX, while medals were personally awarded and replacements could only be obtained through the supply system. Throwing one's medals away has a significance unlike throwing ribbons away, not just because the medals represent personal awards, but also because they cannot be easily replaced.

Rex,

That is true. (At least in 1994 it was true). You could buy ribbons at any Navy Exchange. Medals had to be given to you. Unless you were full of hate, most people chose not to throw them.

But, it doesn't matter. Kerry wasn't consistent and he's lying when he says he was and then ABC is able to pull the video clips showing he wasn't. He did claim he threw "6,7, 8 or 9" of his own medals. He claimed on GMA that he's been consistent. He wasn't.

watched the Good Morning America interview and thinks it's the moment when Kerry lost the campaign.

Jane Galt wrote:

I sense he's trying to use Vietnam to paper over the fact that he doesn't seem to have much else, in the way of Senatorial accomplishements or policy ideas, to run on--and sense, too, that the voters are going to see through it unless he comes up with some campaign strategy other than shouting "Vietnam" every time he's asked a question.

What else is Kerry going to run on? He can hardly attack Bush for Iraq, the Patriot Act, and No Child Left Behind since he voted for all three. He can hardly claim that he would get more foreign support in Iraq than Bush when the only democratically-elected foreign leader to endorse him just pulled his troops out today. He can hardly tout the virtues of relying more on the UN in light of the breaking scandal on the Oil for Palaces program. He can hardly attack Bush for being “fiscally irresponsible” when he wants to spend even more money than Bush and voted for most of the current spending levels (or higher) with the exception of the $87 Billion for our troops and Iraqi reconstruction (but I doubt he’d want to tout that particular vote). The “jobs” issue probably won’t have much traction as the consensus seems to be that the economy is growing strong and the jobs will follow (if they have not already).

So that leaves him with touting his four and a half months of service in Vietnam from thirty years ago and hoping that the ABB crowd is enough to get him elected. I doubt that they will be.

The campaign will come down to one issue: Post-war Iraq. The economy will be in decent shape, the world will generally be fairly peaceful because the Islamic extremists don't have the capability to anything too serious. The choice will be between George Bush, who stood his ground through difficult times (April and June/July), Kerry, who will continue to support the war but question the cost (basically equivocate) and Nader, who will go Spanish on us. The Kerry position is untenable, or maybe it's just "Bush Lite". The Nader position (pull out, close borders, disengage) is really the only logical conclusion for the hate Bush crowd.

This Viet Nam stuff is just peppering. The longer it goes on, the less time there is for Kerry to figure out the winning position on Iraq. Even though it makes both of them look silly, it doesn't damage W.

-Brad

It puzzles me why, in a nation of 300 million people, we can't get ONE major party candidate for president who:

(1) Is articulate enough to answer questions succintly, clearly, and with good grammar, and without nearly breaking out in a cold sweat of anxiety;
(2) Has a consistent position on the issues of our time and doesn't finesse it depending on the audience;
(3) Is honorable; has had a long-term, stable marriage and has no interns in his closet; has no significant skeletons in his closet to fear being exposed;
(4) Can hold a press conference on a weekly basis without needing intensive coaching ahead of time to avoid embarassing himself;
(5) Can speak plainly and straightforwardly about the specifics of what he advocates and how that is part of a consistent worldview, and doesn't need to stoop to attacking his opponent while "nuancing" his own position;
(6) Will actually answer direct questions with direct answers instead of the mumbo-jumbo politician-speak which answers nothing.

We've known political figures who embodied some of these qualities -- Washington's honor, Lincoln's eloquence, Kennedy's ability to manage a press conference, Bush's fidelity, Teddy Roosevelt's plain speaking. Why is it so hard to find just a few people in the whole country who embody several of them? I don't think Kerry embodies any of them at all. And Bush only scores on fidelity and, occasionally, plain speaking.

I know there are powerful incentives for a politician to equivocate and be vague. But there have been successful straight-talking leaders. I'm thinking of Churchill, perhaps Reagan to some degree. How come we have to go for decades between leaders like that?

The significance of the otherwise minor medal/ribbon issue is how Kerry handled it, which is to say, poorly.

You'd think that, basing his campaign on Vietnam, and bringing it up once or twice himself, that he would have bombproofed every conceivable question/answer regarding it. It is his issue to frame; after all, he brought it up.

Yet he seems to be caught flatfooted by questions regarding the medal tossing incident, and not to have anticipated that someone would dig up videotape of the incident. It's like getting into the boxing ring and being surprised by being punched. What did he think was going to happen - that everyone would accept his version of his activities in and concerning Vietnam, and let the matter drop? He flailed frantically, tried ineffectually to change the subject to Bush's service, and concluded by disparaging the interviewer as a pawn of the RNC. In short, he did everything except deal with the issue cleanly.

Similarly, in his gaffe concerning sub rosa endorsements by foreign leaders, he seems not to have anticipated the obvious question, "Who ARE these leaders?" Instead, he got huffy with a pensioner who pressed him on this, and finally told him it was "None of his business" (!). He thereby 1) publicly roughed up a retiree, 2) implied that foreign policy was not a legitimate interest of the citizenry, and 3) fueled the impression that he's an elitist snob. As above, did he not anticipate the question, which was an obvious one? Furthermore, did he seriously think that AMERICANS would vote for him because FOREIGNERS like him? Whoa.

The impression emerges of a thin-skinned, emotionally brittle person, who bristles at being called to account by others, who has difficulty in gauging the likely reactions of others to things he says or does, and who, ironically (in view of his criticism of Bush), fails to plan how to handle foreseeable problems.

"Color me unimpressed by the political acument operating here."

It's actually pretty smart - its a pretty candid reading of how the press operates. The press could care less about the giant policy differences between the candidates, and is more concerned about silly 30 years ago medal throwing. If they had only been this concerned about Bush's records that are still incomplete, I could see an advantage in trying to bury this issue. But it's only a full month after the release that this story is getting some traction - and it's because Kerry is pointing at it. Without Kerry basically saying, 'if you want to look at stuff from 30 years ago, let's look at all of it', this would be just another smear from the RNC.

The issue isn't why Karen Hughes has only said a few lines, but why has essentially the entire press run with this medals story. I've seen a few speeches by Kerry - he doens't really dwell on his service, he just brings it up as showing he has been active for DECADES in the public service.

Politics for some people isn't about right and wrong, its about winning. This is a tactic designed to win. Remember, those Bush records are not complete - they are missing the Human Reliability Program records. Now, I could care less what Bush did back then, but the press has show great diligence in looking at what Kerry did with his medals. By keeping the 'he said, she said' dialogue alive, Kerry is giving the press what it wants. You can hear them now 'Ah Ha! Look, Bush said his records were complete - but it's missing this!' And another stupid issue to debate is before the public. A debate that Kerry wins.

So I fail to see how this is a bad move for Kerry. Sure he thew medals, but Bush doesn't even have any. Bushes records don't really seem all that complete. And Kerry gets to talk about this every time someone brings up his medals! How is this bad for Kerry?

I know you all hate him, but really - how is this bad?

Mork,
Pray enlighten me, what are the Human Reliability Program records? If they have anything to do with the Air Force/ANG version of screening for handling nukes, then I think this is a non-issue, as such records were removed from my record book at some time, too. There are a lot of items that are removed from record books for one administrative reason or another, with the service member not being told that it is being done.

Kerrys only appeal to Democrats is his perceived ability to"Beat Bush", the more that Kerry opens his mouth, the more unlikely that becomes.

I've never seen a worse run campaign or candidate. I fully expect a "sudden health issue" to come out before June if Kerry can't establish and hold his beachhead.

Pardon me Mork, but you think Kerry doesn't bring up Vietnam at every possible opportunity?

Here are two recent examples for you. When questioned about having pets by the Humane Society, we got this:

“I have always had pets in my life and there are a few that I remember very fondly. When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog…”

http://www.humaneusa.org/2004_presidential/question/jkerry_2004.pdf

Or just last week when he was inspecting coastline erosion in Louisiana, we got this:

"I looked out at the shoreline and I commented that parts of it looked a lot like the rivers and coastline that I went through in Vietnam."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=6&u=/nm/20040421/pl_nm/campaign_kerry_dc

Frank Martin wrote:

Kerrys only appeal to Democrats is his perceived ability to" Beat Bush", the more that Kerry opens his mouth, the more unlikely that becomes.

Moreover, Kerry voted for the two things (authorizing the use of force in Iraq and the Patriot Act) which has supposedly upset the Democratic base. Since Kerry has discredited himself on foreign policy (voting against the $87 Billion for the troops, promising more foreign support while the only democratic government to endorse him just pulled theirs out of Iraq today, and calling for more UN involvement right before the Oil for Palaces bribery scandal broke) and has shown that he is even less likely than Bush to reign in spending, he really has nothing to offer Democrats except “I’m not Bush.”

That may be enough for the Party faithful and the ABB moon bats, but it probably will not persuade moderate and undecided nonpartisan voters.

I'm not voting for President based on who threw a medal over a fence or who did/did not do calasthetics in Alabama 30 years ago. All of this is pointless bickering, lazy media (who find it much easier to talk about this stuff than the actual campaign issues), and our nation's appetite for tabloid stories.

What I don't understand is why the Democrats insist on discussing the military. Like or dislike the president, it's obvious that he has clear and distinct positives (national security, war on terror) and negatives (economy, job creation). I would think his opponents would concede the national security issue and pound the economy/jobs issue for maximum damage, but that's not what's happening.

It's almost as if they feel they've already won the economy/jobs issue, but are morally outraged that Bush could possibly be perceived positively about any issue, so they harp on the war theme to disprove it.

You don't have to win all the battles to win the war, folks...

So he threw some medals over the fence thirty years ago - dumb, but he was young, grandstanding, and it probably got him laid. Good for him. Lots of vets are probably thinking "Damn, wish I'd thought of that!"

Problem is, thirty years later, he wants to be a war hero, so the medal issue is embarrassing. Rather than simply say, "Boy, I sure did some dopey things in my twenties, huh?" he frantically backpedals and chops logic and sidesteps, and looks like either an idiot or somebody trying to hide something. Likewise, the question of whether he owns a Suburban or not - a simple answer doesn't even come to mind, he has to dance around the question and toss out a simple minded claim that he doesn't, the "family" does. Or just the explanation that he did vote for the funding for the troops, right before he voted against it... he can't open his mouth without making himself look evasive.

When Clinton lied he gave the impression he enjoyed it, spinning yarns for fun, sometimes I think there was even a glint in his eye telegraphing "you're going to love this one," the equivalent of a conspiratorial poke in the ribs. Kerry acts as if nothing he says or does has any history and it's unfair for anyone to point out that his current statement is contradicted by his previous ones. Each time he speaks it's as though he is existing in a bubble of the now, divorced from any context. That's the real issue of the medals - it's just another episode of erratic, panicked behavior about what ought to be a trivial issue.

Bush's fitness as commander in chief isn't going to be judged by his Vietnam-era service; it's going to be judged by the three years he's just spent as commander-in-chief.

And he's been lying about his military service for those three years. He recently claimed that he had released all his National Guard records during the 2000 election. The next day, records were released that had not been released in 2000.

He lied.

And now, we find out that he still has not released all his National Guard records. Records that would determine whether or not he fulfilled his obligations are missing from what has been released, as Kevin Drum points out in his column at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003791.php.

He's still lying.

So what he did 30 years ago? Not the issue here. It's what he's doing today that's relevant, and one word sums that up - "lying".

felixrayjoebobman.

This is from 4/21/2004 NRO article:
"The controversy prompted Tim Russert to ask Kerry this past Sunday whether he would release all of his military records, including medical records and his officer evaluations. Kerry assured Russert that they're already publicly available at his headquarters. But they're not."

"The Boston Globe took Kerry at his word and headed to his campaign office to look at the records the senator claimed would be available, only to be told nothing further would be released. 'All' of the military records Russert asked about would not be made available after all, including the medical records from his second and third purple hearts, and his officer evaluations."

http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200404210833.asp

Apparently, Kerry did release most of his military records on 4/22/2004. At least according to CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/kerry.records.ap/

I personally do not consider Kerry's false statement to Tim Russert to be a lie. I suspect he had decided to release the records and at that point they were released in his mind. I am going to accept as fact what you said about Bush as I have not researched exactly how and when his military records were released. Having said that, if you insist that George Bush "lied" about the release of his military records, then you must admit that John Kerry "lied" about his. I prefer to give both men the benefit of the doubt since there appears to be absolutely no evidence that the men knew they were making false statements when they made them. Perhaps you are more judgemental than I (although that would not be easy).

Jim English
Chicago

Rex,

The Human Reliability Program records seem to be similar to your records that were removed. Even if this particular set of documents is a ‘ non-issue’, the mandatory written report about his grounding is missing. I find it unlikely that this would get thrown away. A grounding of a pilot is an issue, and why he was grounded is a big issue. I find it unlikely that these would get thrown away.

There are other records missing too. Some of them seem to be ‘summary style’ records about his service, like the accumulation of his retirement points, and not individual reports. Why would that get thrown away?

Also, why did he skip his physical? Has anyone asked Bush (not the press secretary) this question directly, as they have asked Kerry about his medals directly? Nope.

Who had access to Bushes records and or did they have any motives? This question is important because it shows how and where evidence can be contaminated. Usually, this is not an issue, but it appears to be one with Bush. Remember, he said he released all of his military records in the 2000 campaign too.

Thanks for the non-flaming style too.

Mork

Jim English,

There is a large difference between what Kerry did and Bush did. Two days after the reporters went to his headquarters and found this was not the case, Kerry voluntarily released all of his records. Bush relased some, claimed they were complete for 3 years, and then released more incomplete records under pressure and still claims they are complete. So I guess technically you are correct, but in the real world we live in, it is evident that one guy acted in good faith, and the other one did not.

Mork,

"So I guess technically you are correct, but in the real world we live in, it is evident that one guy acted in good faith, and the other one did not."

No it is not. If it were evident, there would be evidence. Please list the records that Bush has not released. Demonstrate that they exist. Demonstrate that Bush has possesion of them and/or has the power to release them. Demonstrate that Bush knew he had records in 2000 and elected not to disclose them. In the "real world" evidence is required. You may not like it, but it has not been demonstrated that Bush has lied or acted in bad faith. That's why the Bush AWOL thing is not getting ANY traction in the "real world".

One last thing. Do you consider it to be acting in good faith for Kerry's staff to withhold the documents from the Boston Globe after he had claimed to have released them on National television? Please site an example where Bush claimed to have released a specific document that his office later refused to release. Kerry acted in good faith my ass.

Jim English
Chicago

-----------quote----------
He lied.

And now, we find out that he still has not released all his National Guard records. Records that would determine whether or not he fulfilled his obligations are missing from what has been released, as Kevin Drum points out in his column at http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003791.php.

He's still lying.
---------endquote---------

There is no polite way to respond to the above. It is Kevin Drum who is lying. Bush's released records all point to him having met his obligations to the Texas ANG. As well, there are several of his colleagues from both the Texas and Alabama ANGs who testify to Bush having served as he was required, and in an exemplary manner.

And Megan is correct, Kerry is a fool to make the events of thirty years ago a focus of his campaign, because it won't be only the conveniently selected four months he was in combat that will be examined. Everything else about his service indicates he was having strings pulled to advance his political ambitions way back then.

"...he wants to be a war hero,"

Take off the blinders, folks. He is a war hero. Regardless of what he threw over a fence. Regardless of the fact that he was only in Vietnam for four months.

Silver Star. Bronze Star. War hero. Get over it.

Does he bring it up? Yes, but less often and with more cause than Bush brings up 9/11.

The fact is that Republicans have gone into turbo-slime mode on Kerry's military record, as they did on Cleland, because they can't stand the comparison.

An intelligent, responsible argument would be something like,

"Yes. Kerry is to be admired for his personal heroism thirty years ago. But that has little to do with his qualifications to be President today, etc."

But they are simply not capable of this much graciousness.

Mork,

I'm not sure how you know that certain records exist but are missing. Hey, I spent 11 years on active duty and 17 in the Reserves, and the contents of my record book changed every time I saw it! I never pretended to be an admin type, so I never bothered about whether certain records were supposed to be in there or not. "I" don't have a copy of my records, my service branch does, and I don't know where they are or what condition they are in or what they contain. They contain what they contain. All I care about is that my retirement points are calculated correctly so that when I eventually reach the magic age of 60, I can start collecting my retirement pay.

I saw a routine entry stating that Bush was no longer on flight status (not "grounded" as that term is pejoratively used, but "grounded" only in the sense that he no longer met the requirements to remain in active flying status) because he missed his scheduled flight physical. Happens all the time for various reasons, especially in the Guard and Reserves. Since he knew he was getting out the following year, why bother, especially since he knew he would not be able to fly (no aircraft of the type he was qualified in) while he was out of state.

I looked at his dril point record and saw nothing unusual about either the dates or the points, and yes, he got enough points for a good year (50). In his status, he did not have to attend regular monthly drills, but rather had to obtain 50 points per anniversary year. We've all been down that road. Units tend to have a lot of flexibility when it comes to permitting alternate drills or makeup drills.

I've been following this manufactured brouhaha for a year now, and I have yet to see anything, based on my experience, to make me believe that "Bush lied."

War Hero? War Criminal? its hard to tell, because it depends on who he is talking to at the time.

Can you claim credit for a Silver Star, Bronze Star when you rejected them and returned them?

Can you with a straight face say:

- that it was the ribbons and not the medals
- that you actually didnt want to throw the medals but others voted to throw the medals and you had to do it.
- that they werent your medals, but other peoples medals that were given to you.
- that you couldnt go home to get your medals?

War Hero? maybe. idiot?, certainly.

Jim,

I think you missed my point, and I think you might have missed it on purpose.

Bush waited three years to release all of these documents. Prior to that, he had claimed he released them. But he hadn't, and for 3 years - thats over 900 days, he claimed he had. I don't think waiting 3 years to release documents while claiming they've all been released is acting in good faith.

Saying they've been released, and then releasing them two days later, that's acting in good faith.

I granted you the technical lie. But in terms of good faith, well...

'Demonstrate that they exist'

I cannot demostrate they exist any longer. I can demostate they should exist, and probably did at one point. I can question why they are unable to be found.

"Do you consider it to be acting in good faith for Kerry's staff to withhold the documents from the Boston Globe after he had claimed to have released them on National television? Please site an example where Bush claimed to have released a specific document that his office later refused to release. Kerry acted in good faith my ass"

Now this is easier.

Feb 8th 2004

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way.

Patrick,

While there are people who will testify, his records aren't nearly as kind. The 'at the time' records' either show he wasn't there, or are missing.

Jim,

A few days later...

Scott McClellan: "No, I think the question was payroll records, payroll records that would show you served. It was relating to the issue of whether or not you served."

A little less than all.

Bernard - The Republicans are in "turbo-slime mode"? Name one major Republican who has been making unfair charges about Kerry. (Are there right wing fringe elements that are slinging mud at Kerry? Yes, there are. I wish that there were not.) Have major Republicans attacked his voting record? Yes. Have they attacked his record of taking three sides of every two-sided issue? Yes. Have they totaled up his spending promises and noted he cannot keep those promises without raising taxes or busting the budget? Of course. But, all of these things are fair game. If its unfair to talk about these things, what can Kerry's opponents say?

On the other hand, major Democrats have been slinging mud at Bush for months. The attacks have gone far beyond policy differences. They have said Bush lied about WMD (not that he was mistaken or that he relied on bad information, but that he knew there were no WMD and said that there were anyway). They have said that he is too stupid to serve as president. They have said he was AWOL and/or a deserter. They have said he started the war for political purposes. They have said it was reasonable to question whether Bush knew in advance about 9/11. Etc.

So, exactly who is in turbo-slime mode? Don't take my word for it. Morton Kondracke has been keeping score. By his account (sorry no link), major Republicans have been tough, but fair, to Kerry. By contrast, Democrats have been using a manure spreader against Bush.

Mork - In the 2000 election (and before that during his run for governor) Bush released a portion of his military records. (He kept back records, such as medical and dental records, that had nothing to do with his service.) He never claimed that it was his entire record in the sense that it represented every scrap of paper ever written about him. Recall, it was based on these records that some pointed out that there was not a documentary record of Bush serving in Alabama.

When the controversy resurfaced this year, Bush released all the records he or anyone else at the Whitehouse knew existed. Someone working at a storage center in Colorado, working on their own, looked to see if any of Bush's records were stored there. Turned out there were some payroll records. Bush released those, too.

In none of this was there a lie going back over 3 years. When I review someone's personnel file (as I do each year when setting compensation, making promotions, etc.), I don't expect to see a copy of each and every time report a person has submitted. Nor do I expect to see a copy of every receipt submitted for reimbursement or a copy of every continuing education certificate. We have ALL that information (somewhere) in our files. When I review a person's file this information is summarized and the bulk of the file consists of letters of reprimand or praise, formal evaluations, etc. Despite not looking at the time reports, receipts, and other "missing" documents, I still claim to have reviewed someone's entire file in setting their compensation for the coming year. Is that a lie? Get real.

Mork,

You wtrote:

"I think you missed my point, and I think you might have missed it on purpose."

Uh no, Mork, what I missed is the EVIDENCE to support your assertion. What documents did he claim to release in 2000? What documents did he claim had been released but in fact were not?

You wrote:
"I cannot demostrate they exist any longer."
As I thought.

"I can demostate they should exist,"
Please demonstrate that they should exist. My understanding is that some were destroyed in a fire. Do fires never happen on Ork?

"and probably did at one point."
Now you say they "probably" existed. My God, if George Bush doesn't release every military record that "probably existed at one point", then he must be a liar and not acting in good faith. What rubbish!

"I can question why they are unable to be found."
Yes you can. But that doesn't prove that George Bush has them and is not releasing them does it?

As for your response to my last point, again, please site an example where Bush stated that he had released a specific document and then when reporters requested that document, they were refused. Your example in no way demonstrates that. Nice try.

Jim English
Chicago

Everyone,

Are you high?

My first quote from Bush is where he agrees to release all of the records, then goes on to say he already did this 3 years ago. Just read his exact words!!!

My second quote from the white house press guy is where they 1) admit the records were not released and 2) Try to hedge about the word 'absolultely'
in reference to the words 'agree to release all records'.

This is a direct refutation of your point.

What did he think was going to happen - that everyone would accept his version of his activities in and concerning Vietnam, and let the matter drop?

Well, yeah. Kerry is from Massachusetts, a liberal and a US Senator: one echo chamber inside another inside another. Until last year, Kerry probably rarely had anyone -- staff, fellow senators, constituents, the media -- seriously question him about anything.

Academics are especially bad at this. I once interviewed a distinguished professor who proceeded to give a series of demonstrably false statistics about certain social ills. When I asked her where she got her figures from, she seemed horrified that I would dared to challenge her. "It's all common knowledge," she snapped.

Um, no it wasn't, and I was able to easily refute her with data in my head, complete with cites. She was not pleased, and terminated the interview. Touchy, touchy...

Kerry: Do you know who I am..?!
America: Not really, pal...and what we do know, we don't like much...

Mork,

We already know you are high, so I won't bother to ask.

The Bush Adminstration doesn't have them all. Bush agreed to allow the military to release them. You make it sound like Bush (or Kerry for that matter) has a big file cabinet where they personally go and pull out the big all encompassing manilla file folder and walk it over to the National desk at the WaPo. It doesn't work that way. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Please present evidence to suggest that the military maintains an all encompassing file that includes promotions, pay records, medical records, discharge papers blah, blah, blah and that they present a copy of this all emcompassing file to a person upon discharge. Then show me the law that requires that all veterans maintain this file for the rest of their lives.

The fairly obvious fact (obvious to anyone who has ever moved or lived in more than one town or gone to more than one school) is that records are geographically distributed. Some we have. Some the school, local authority or whatever has. Some get destroyed. Some get lost. Some we forget exist. Some we never knew existed. As people stumble across these records, they come out.

Can you produce all of your school records? Even if you gave permission for their release can you guarantee that they would all immediately be released?

Get off the freaking pipe and ask if maybe, just maybe, it is possible that people are releasing Bush's records as they stumble across them.

If you don't have the intellectual dexterity to do this then either produce the evidence I have repeatedly requested or shut up.

That's it for me Mork. See you at the playground in Golden Gate Park.

Jim English
Chicago

Okay, Mork,
You quoted:

"Feb 8th 2004

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way."

You want to tell me where Bush says that he released "all of the records" in the above? You are reading meaning into the phrase "everything to settle this" that just isn't there.

'We did so in 2000, by the way'

What else could this possibly mean? I am listening.

Mork - Let's try this one more time: I am sitting here with one of my employee's personnel files on my desk. It contains "everything" we deem pertinent about that employee's performance -- the file does NOT contain copies of every time sheet or receipt ever submitted by the employee, just performance evaluations and the like.

Now, suppose the employee runs for office and asks us to release his "employment records" to the press. We would release the stuff in his personnel file. Would the employee be justified in saying he had released "everything" upon our distribution of JUST his personnel file? Yes, he would. He wouldn't know whether we had any additional records (such as copies of his time sheets). All he would know was that we released "everything" we deemed important in evaluating his performance as an employee and it would be reasonable for him to assume it was all voters would need in evaluating his fitness for office.

In this very same sense, Bush was entirely accurate in saying they had released "everything" back in 2000. It was everything he knew existed and everything he could have reasonably expected someone would want to see.

"Patrick,

"While there are people who will testify, his records aren't nearly as kind. The 'at the time' records' either show he wasn't there, or are missing."

This is flatly a lie. I've seen the records at USA Today, they support Bush. He met his service obligations. The personal testimonies of other ANG personnel who knew him, also support what the records tell us. Either you have reading comprehension problems, or emotional problems.

Mork,

Last time, I swear.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way

>>>>

Would you "AUTHORIZE" the release of everything.

NOT have you released everything.

NOT will you release everything including those records that are not in your possesion.

NOT will you release everything including those records that you don't know about.

NOT will you release everything including those records that only probably existed.

NOT will you release every record including those that no longer exist.

Talk about someone who is intentionally missing the point.

Jim English
Chicago

Mork,

"Everything to settle this" means everything relevant to settling the drill question, which as far as I am concerned, means the record of drill points. No, that's not good enough for some people, who wanted payroll records also released, as if the payroll records would be a "more reliable" source than the drill point records that were the basis for the pay being authorized. Give me a break! Good thing Bush got paid for his drills, unlike a lot of drills I did! Read his words--he never said or implied that he had released "all" of his records, only the relevant ones, i.e., "everything to settle this."

That's it. Believe what you want, since you are unwilling to face facts.

David,

I appreciate the tone.

I don't feel that you've answered the quesiton though. 'All' has an specific meaning. Releasing the records that do not answer the specific questions that were being asked in 2000, well, that seems like deliberate obfuscation.

If someone asks me a specific question, and I provide some, but not all of the information they request, I need a good explaination. Even if I release all of the records that I have available to me. I addition, I would expect other questions about this area. I would expect them to verify what I said by other means. If I said this was all my records, I could expect people to ask why don't I have this or that record.

Further, if I was asked a specific question, people wouldn't expect me to dump everything on them and have them work it out. I would have to point out the important bits, and explain the missing important bits. Bush has pointed out the important bits, but hasn't really explained why he was missing those other important records. 'A Fire' doesn't cut it for the president - are there other files missing from other people, and why only the files that could settle this thing once and for all? I would expect a fire to be less selective, so there are probably other document that should be there that arent in other files. Usually, when important documents are lost, this is documented. Where is that document of the fire?

Also Jim, the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on Bush. Tell the IRS that you are missing some important records, see what happends. Tell basically anyone you are missing something that proves you did something, and see what happens. Also, I am pretty sure I could get just about any record I needed pretty quickly, as I've had to do this in the last decade. I include things like every place I've ever lived and worked and complete school records in this list. It's quite a bit easier than you would think.

David - even worse, he hasn't explained why he didn't take the physical. And I mean Bush himself, not someone else as a proxy.

David, in direct response to your point, there are important documents missing. I am not asking for every time sheet and paper that he signed, just the important reviews and records. There are several important records that are missing.

Finally, my original post only addressed these military records as a sideline. I asked why Jane thought why a focus on military records was a bad thing, as a political stunt. It's pretty obvious most people here have made up their mind for Bush or Kerry, my point what that he was aiming this at the undecideds and it was probably a good thing for Kerry. That the point of Janes original post, and what I was commenting on. I didn't really want to get into a stupid battle about stupid records - you can go back to my first post to verify this. I don't really care what happened 30 years ago, and I only slightly care that there might be lies about it. Policy will have much greater impact on my life than thrown medals or missed physicals.

Jane, you like playing with the trolls, don't you?

Jim,

Last time for me too. BTW I am in Chitown too. Nice day today, wasn't it? I apoligize for the 'are you high?' - humor doens't work on the net that well.

What does the Presidents second sentence mean?

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.
We did so in 2000, by the way.

It directly answers your point-

'NOT have you released everything.' Answering this one renders the rest not as important.

It means one of two things.

1. I authorzied the release in 2000, but didn't release it all. Since he didn't release everything, Why?

2. We released everything in 2000. As they a few days later tried to limit another release to a few records, its refutes your original point.

Rex, sorry - I missed your first post the first time around . It was good.

Bye-Bye!

Bernard Yamtov says:

"Take off the blinders, folks. He is a war hero. Regardless of what he threw over a fence. Regardless of the fact that he was only in Vietnam for four months.

Silver Star. Bronze Star. War hero. Get over it.

Does he bring it up? Yes, but less often and with more cause than Bush brings up 9/11."

I'll try being more civil than you, becaused perhaps you are simply missing the point. Which is not "did Kerry deserve his medals?" It is "What's the politically advantageous flavor of the week Kerry's morphed into now?"

He didn't consider himself a war hero on his return from Vietnam. He posed as the embittered veteran/war protestor, defiantly claiming to be a war criminal, and accused his comrades in arms of war crimes.

Today he apparently doesn't think that will play out as presidential, so he wants the mantle of combat heroism back. I don't deny that he deserves it, but I strongly object to his shifting and evading and nuanced maneuvers and labyrinthine explanations of what he really did or didn't do or say and why documenatry evidence to the contrary if a Republican plot.

And as to Bush having less cause to bring up 9/11? Huh? You are referring to September 11, 2001, right? The single most pivotal and defining date in recent American history, which occurred on Bush's watch and is the most important issue we will face for years to come? In case you were off planet that day, ask around or do a google search on that date. I know there are lots of people, with blinders on, who insist on personalizing 9/11, and if blaming it on Bush doesn't fly then they will just wish it away. I won't accuse you of being one of them, because such people are irredemiably, willfully stupid.

Mork,

I mean it this time!

You wrote:
"Also Jim, the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on Bush."

You could not be more wrong. George Bush was honorably discharged from the military. You need to demonstrate that the military was incorrect in granting this honorable discharge.

You wrote:
"Tell the IRS that you are missing some important records, see what happends."

Apples and Oranges. By law you must produce certain documents for the IRS. Your employer, bank and financial institution are required by law to produce them for you. Show me the law that says you must maintain your military records or that the military must produce them for you.

You wrote:
"I include things like every place I've ever lived and worked and complete school records in this list. It's quite a bit easier than you would think."

Please produce the form your doctor filled out in 1st grade and you submitted to your school to prove you had your proper immunizations. Not the doctors record, the form you submitted to the school.

Please produce a copy of the lease from your first apartment.

Please produce a copy of your learners permit issued prior to your drivers license.

Please produce copies of every college application you submitted. Not just where you were accepted, but everywhere you applied.

Please produce the check stub from the first paycheck you were ever issued.

Please produce a copy of every report card you ever got. Not just your transcript. The actual cards with the teachers comments.

I could go on for hours. All of these documents probably existed. I bet most of them still do in a file someplace. Some may have been converted to microfilm. Some may have been destroyed. Hard to say really. Now go get them all and post them so we can see how easy it is.

This conversation is going nowhere. You obviously have incredibly high standards in regard to personal record keeping. I don't see it as being a particularly important skill in a President. Especially since Mr. Bush has already released the only document that matters; his honorable discharge papers. Good luck with the crusade.

Jim English
Chicago

Mork - You are welcome for the tone. No need to be disagreeable just because we disagree, is there?

The fire that destroyed some of Bush's military records also destroyed the records of thousands of other veterans. It's not fair to say you will only conclude that he was NOT guilty if he is able to produce records that were destroyed decades ago. This is a particularly unfair position to take because the weight of the available evidence is decidedly in Bush's favor.

As for whether he should have expected additional questions and been prepared to answer them, I have to disagree. He was honorably discharged. His "points" showed he served at least the required number of hours each year (indeed, he served more than the required hours in most years). His fitness reports all said he had done a good job. So, why would he anticipate being asked to prove on which days he served while in Alabama? His points proved that he HAD served, how could he have anticipated that someone might care about precisely when? Recall that the question of when only arose because a Boston Globe reporter, looking for color, asked Bush's commanding officer in Alabama what kind of officer Bush had been. The guy could not remember ever meeting Bush -- and we were off to the races. (Note: Anyone familiar with the Guard would not have been surprised to learn a commanding officer did not remember seeing a junior officer after 30 years. Similarly, most former military folk are not surprised by much that has been "revealed" by Bush's records or lack thereof. This is why it would be useful if more reporters had military experience.)

One last comment: I am a tax CPA. In response to requests from the IRS, I frequently provide the Service with "all" the information about a particular item on a client's return. Having said that, I seldom have given them, literally, everything I might have. Instead, I give them "all" they need. For example, asked to document a home mortgage deduction, I would only provide a copy of the form 1098. I wouldn't give them a copy of the mortgage note itself nor would I give them copies of the closing documents. The IRS wouldn't need nor want those documents, but you could argue that the note and closing documents were part of the information related in some way to the mortgage interest deduction and that by keeping them I was somehow not giving the IRS "all" it asked for.

Bottom line: The IRS is willing to accept a form 1098 as documentation of a taxpayer's mortgage interest expense. By refusing to rely on Bush's "points" record, you (and the rest of his critics) are being tougher one him than the IRS is on taxpayers. Is that how you want to define "fair" in such a case -- assume the worst unless your guy can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the worst is not the case? I don't plan on holding Kerry to such a standard. Why do you insist on such a standard for Bush?

Mork and every other liberal out there,

I've identified what the problem is. You guys (yes I'm generalizing) have a problem with the English language.

People have gone to great lengths to tell you what happened (that Bush released all the records, then he went and released peripheral dental records a few months ago and other documents that weren't really part of the "personnel file".

This is a common place kind of debate in this web site. A liberal gets on and can't hear the reason that we conservatives spend so much time trying to work with you guys on. I have personally "converted" liberals to conservatives. I was converted from a liberal to a conservative in 1991. And my proudest conversion was an "African-American".

But I've gotta tell ya, you will help make our conversions easier if you can read the written word. :) :) :) :)

The AWOL meme is a classic example of Moving The Goalposts. Go back over the evolution of the meme, and you'll see that at each critical point when the White House provided information to the press, the response was to demand more and to pretend that the previous request had been ignored.

As has been pointed out already, the only piece of paper that matters is the one that says "Honorable Discharge" on it. In order to continue pursuing this meme, the Left must accept one of two propositions:

A) That the National Guard is corrupt/inept enough to issue honorable discharges for political/financial reasons;
B) That the honorable discharge doesn't matter.

Both of these propositions perform the same function: Throwing the honorable discharge into the toilet.

To haul this meme up again reveals the level of desperation on the part of the Kerry campaign. And why shouldn't he be desperate? Kerry doesn't have anything to campaign on, and he's rapidly becoming a man that the general public doesn't like very much.

I made an off-the-cuff comment to some friends a few weeks ago to the effect that there was a slim chance that Kerry wouldn't get the nomination -- that the DNC could turn into Wreslemania Smackdown 2004, with Dean emerging as candidate for Prez. They thought I was insane for even suggesting such a thing.

Think it still sounds insane? Do the Dems have the stones to pull such a stunt? Or do they throw Kerry to the wolves and hope for 2008 a la Bob Dole?

Kerry is "the candidate" for one reason. The dems believe that a candidate who is a demonstrable "war hero" military man can beat Bush.

Gen. Clark, clearly out of his league. good credentials, but couldnt hold up under media scruitiny.

Dennis K. - Seriously. Would his mom even vote for him? It bothers me that the dems put guys like this in front of the camera, its one of about 500 reasons why I stopped taking that party seriously.

Lieberman - Openly and unashamedly supports the war in Iraq. 'Nuff said.

Gebhardt - Couldnt even win Iowa, what chance has he got in San Diego or Miami.

Edwards - Not this time. Needs a little more seasoning. The tort lawyer taint is still a bit too heavy.

Sharpton - Now, frankly I thought the man did well in debates, but the subliminal "tawana brawley" message overtakes anything he has to say. again, people like this make me discount the party, not embrace it.

Dean- Now be honest with me here kids, this is the guy they all want, even now. But he had to go and do the freak-show in front of everyone didnt he - whcih caused everyone to go into panic mode.

So, you got instead:

Kerry - Vietnam vet, perrenial Jr. Senator from Mass. not too tart, not too sweet. A nice pedigree and a cool set of initials to go with it.

See, the secret is to get a candidate who can eat into the other guys voting base. The democrats know that Bush owns the national defense issue, so they really need someone, anyone whos actually been shot at to run. Enter Stage left,
Lt. John "f-ing" Kerry.

The Dems felt that with Kerrys military background that he would be an easy sell to the no-neck back country republicans. They felt that his vietnam record would innooculate him from the charges of not being serious about defending the country.

Thing is, they might be right about that. But Kerry in every other way is a really awful candidate. First off, He's old. I mean, he's really old. He looks like ichabod crane and talks like thurston howell III. He cant go more than 3 sentences without gasping both for breath and an idea. Check out the way he licks his lips after every third sentence. If you get a chance to play poker with this guy, do it. Hes got a "tell" brighter than the sign in front of the Bellagio hotel in las vegas.

Then, you get into "flip-flop" land. I mean, He gets mad at the VRWC, but really the stuff that damages him the most is his own big mouth. He suffers from what Lileks calls "senatoritus" and since Kerry has been operating in the small safe comfy pool of Massachusets politics as a Senator, he just naturally thinks that everyone, everywhere loves him as much as the Boston southies do.

So when reality hits him like a big dead fish across the face, when someone actually starts to hold him acountable, he freaks out and starts getting defensive, which makes him look petty and small, which really screws him in the polls.

Does he know how many people own SUV's? Does he understand that each and every one of them wants someone to stick up for them? He gets a perfect opportunity to do a 'sister soulja moment" and he blows it.

The palpable fear that you smell seeping out of every pore from democrats is that George Bush might, just might win re-election. As a result, the dems have started to "overcontrol', that is , trying too damn hard and being on the defensive.

Right now, Bush has been able to demonstrate that his base is solid. But the dems are seeing that their base is less than enthusiastic about this candidate. Many of them would rather have watched Howard Dean go down in flames than watch Kerry lope across the stage like a fatally wounded dog.

Kerry has no vision for what he wants the party to be, Howard did. Howard could inspire people. He had a good movement going on there. Kerry doesnt have that, and the absence is more than telling. If I were a democrat, I'd vote for Dean. As a Republican, I can comfortably say that I have much more respect for Dean than I do Kerry.

So, in the end , the one thing that the dems wanted Kerry to deliver has not only not worked, its brought the party under more scrutiny and in fact made their chances look even more remote than before.

From my side, I'm happy as hell that all Kerry is talking about is himself, vietnam and war. It means my candidate will win in an overwhelming landslide. If the dems ever wake up and start talking about anything but the war, they will start to see their numbers climb, until then, its a 40 state sweep for GWB.

Oh, and keep talking about "gay marriage" too. If that wasnt an election gift for the Republicans, I dont know what would be. Maybe someone should stat saying that flag burning is a good idea too, lets help make it a 45 state sweep.

Bush not born to politics? I'm a bit staggered by this. He was campaigning for dad while in the National Guard. He went to a prep school then launched the story that he was raised in Texas. He made his money gladhanding the Texas rangers a tax payer financed stadium and free land to develop in the vicinity.

I am absolutely stunned that individuals can so confuse image with facts.

Doug in C.A.,

I think you're on to something here. We've got another one. How on earth does stating that someone started campaigning for his dad when we was an adult equate to "born to politics"?

Show me the law that says you must maintain your military records or that the military must produce them for you.

Sure. I'm going to show you the law and forms that govern the production of that information, ok? That should be adequate.

From the NARA Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1228.168- "How can records be used in NARA records centers?"
"(b) Federal agencies must use Standard Form (SF) 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records, to obtain information from military service records in the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records). Agencies may furnish copies of that form to the public to aid in inquiries. Members of the public and non-governmental organizations also may obtain copies of SF 180 by submitting a written request to the National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records), 9700 Page Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63132. OMB Control Number 3095-0029 has been assigned to the SF 180.)

Standard Form 180 reads, in part:
"2. Restrictions on release of information. Release of information is subject to restrictions imposed by the military services consistent with Department of Defense regulations and the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974. The service member (either past or present) or the member's legal guardian has access to almost any information contained in that member's own record. Others requesting information from military personnel/health records must have the release authorization in Section III of the SF 180 signed by the member or legal guardian, but if the appropriate signature cannot be obtained, only limited types of information can be provided. If the former member is deceased, surviving next of kin may, under certain circumstances, be entitled to greater access to a deceased veteran's records than a member of the public. The next of kin may be any of the following: unremarried surviving spouse, father, mother, son, daughter, sister, or brother. Employers and others needing proof of military service are expected to accept the information shown on documents issued by the military service departments at the time a service member is separated."

The fire that destroyed some of Bush's military records

What are you talking about? Is this like the tornado that destroyed New York Yesterday in Dimention X? There Was No Fire. You Made This Up.

David,

My comment referred specifically to Republican attacks on Kerry's military record. These have appeared, for example, in NRO. Now I personally do consider that a lunatic publication, but my impression is that it is generally taken very seriously by conservatives. In addition Republican Congressmen have attacked Kerry's patriotism on the floor of the house because of his anti-war activities.

As for the attacks on Bush, well the National Guard papers argument has a life of its own, as we see here. But at least two things are clear from published material. First, Bush specifically asked not to be sent overseas. Second, he was less than totally conscientious in his duties. Legally, he wasn't AWOL, but using the term in a figurative sense is not a big stretch. As for the "honorable discharge" argument, it's been amply shown that this proves nothing. People have gotten honorable discharges who committed crimes while in the service, for Pete's sake.

Did Bush lie about WMD? I don't think he sat there and said,

"Well, there are no WMD, but I'm going to claim there are so I can invade Iraq."

I do think he heard what he wanted to hear, about WMD and al-Qaeda/Iraq connections, and wasn't interested in a lot of information that didn't fit his notions. And I think he was willing to exaggerate the menace.

Is it even remotely reasonable to say Bush knew about 9/11 in advance? Of course not. But I think it's reasonable to criticize, or at least investigate, the Administration's policies and actions in the preceding months. And while we're talking about slime, let's not forget the vicious attacks on Clarke, including utterly baseless charges of perjury by the saintly Dr. Frist, just because he dared to be critical.

Finally, I think Kerry is not the only one who has changed his position on a thing or two. Remember when Bush scorned "nation-building?"

Steve Skubinna,

Yes. That was 9/11/01 I was referring to. As you put it:

"The single most pivotal and defining date in recent American history, which occurred on Bush's watch and is the most important issue we will face for years to come?"

I think you misunderstood my point. Bush is trying to use the attack as justification for his reelection. The Bush campaign is trying to turn it to naked partisan purposes. They did it when they used it for fund-raising; they did it when the convention was scheduled for NYC; they did it when Karen Hughes brought it into a discussion of abortion; they will continue to do it, all to show Bush as the Great War Leader. The doofus who's afraid to appear by himself in front of the 9/11 commission is trying to use 9/11 to demonstrate his great leadership. What a joke.

Jane wrote "and Bush has never claimed that we should vote for him based on the fact that once upon a time he flew some planes in Texas--in stark contrast to Mr Kerry"

I think that hits the nail on the head. Kerry *has* to be scrutinized on every aspect of his Vietnam era experiences because *he* demands it. His campaign is essentially "well I was in Vietnam therefore I would be better prepared to blah blah blah..." Bush, on the other hand, doesn't mention his NG experience (four kick-butt years and two slacker just-get-by years) because he has other things he considers more relevant to his candidacy - such as his experience as President.

The idea that Kerry is being "attacked" by the Bush campaign about his Vietnam record is ridiculous. The typical exchange runs something like:

Bush campaign: "Kerry voted against the $87B for Iraq and against many weapons systems. Therefore, he is soft on defense."

Kerry: "How dare they insult my patriotism! I served in Vietnam! I *know* about defense!"

Kerry deliberately steers away from the attack and steers back to his Vietnam experience.

Since I introduced the "fire" into the discussion, I feel I should clear up what I can.

There was in fact a fire at a VA records facility in St. Louis in 1973. Many records were lost. However, the limited research I have done seems to suggest that George Bush's Air National Guard records were not among those lost. I do not suggest this is definitive, but the link below and at least one other document I have found limit the ANG documents lost to serviceman discharged in 1963 and prior.

http://www.va.gov/pressrel/99stlou.htm

The "lost in a fire" argument has been floating around. I have even heard it referred to as the "St. Louis fire". I would welcome any additional information on the matter.

I don't believe that introducing this information diminshes my argument. Until somebody can present evidence that demonstrates that Bush should not have been honorably discharged, the story is dead. I personally believe it is a loser for Kerry anyway but considering his whole platform is a loser, why would that make any difference?

In an age where yellow journalism seems to be the norm, I felt it would be refreshing to introduce some truth to the discussion rather than attempting to obscure it. Even if it does marginally damage my argument.

Jim English
Chicago

Bernard Yomtov wrote:

My comment referred specifically to Republican attacks on Kerry's military record. These have appeared, for example, in NRO.

Really, please provide examples from National Review Online in which they attacked Kerry for his military service in Vietnam.

In addition Republican Congressmen have attacked Kerry's patriotism on the floor of the house because of his anti-war activities.

Really and which Republican Congressmen said what exactly?

Bernard,

Another thing about liberals....(yes I'm generalizing) They ascribe motives to people. So, let's go through this exercise. I'll have answers below for ya. We'll see what liberals do.

1) State the specific instance that leads you to believe "Bush is trying to use the attack as justification for his reelection".

2) State the specific instance that leads you to believe "the Bush campaign is trying to turn [it] to naked partisan purposes".

Answers from a conservative (me) who only agrees with Bush 75% of the time on "issues":
1) Bush has never tried to use the attack as justification for his reelection. There has never been a time where Bush anywhere remotely said that because we got attacked, I need to be elected again. It is a legitimate discussion to point out how Bush stands on the "War on Terror" and Kerry stands on the "Police action" (Kerry himself said he doesn't want to call it a "war on terror". That isn't using 9/11 for political gain. That is having a legitimate discussion on the issues. While conservatives may only agree with 75% or 85% of Bush's decisions even on the "War on Terror".... we may not agree with all of the 1,000 decision points in this war.... liberals agree with Bush about 10% of the time on this war. It's a legitimate discussion to figure out where this country wants to go after November 2004 on this war.

2. I guess this all depends on your perspective. Naked partisan purposes? That would mean that Bush has taken a poll and is doing what he is doing to pander to America based on the poll. But there is plenty of evidence to show that Bush does not lead by polls. He doesn't seem to be doing anything for naked partisan purposes. Here are some examples:
a) There is a huge outcry by conservatives about having ANY amnesty program. Bush strongly believes in what he says. He tries to propose legislation based on what he believes EVEN THOUGH nobody likes his plan. Liberals hate his plan and Conservatives hate his plan.
b) There is a pretty big outcry by conservatives about the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement program. Bush lead with a proposal. Congress struggled to craft legislation that came close to his proposal. This, all against a lot of people's wishes.
c) Islamic fundamentalist policies. There is a large percentage of conservatives who have wanted Bush to be tougher on Islamic extremists. Instead of having the CAIR organization over for breakfasts and continually saying that Islam is a "religion of peace" when the Koran talks about what Muslims should do to the Infidel..... and trying to pick off each insurgent in Fallujah...
...conservatives have wished for a tougher stance. I'd say that the people of Fallujah need to learn quick that we won't put up with people firing on our soldiers. We should triangulate where the gun fire is coming from and drop a 2,000 pounder on that location each and every time there is gunfire. There will be collateral damage. We should be talking about Islam as it truly is, a religion that seeks to dominate and will not submit to non "Sharia following" governments. We should not be allowing for the terrorist organization CAIR to fund terrorists and then sit with them as legitimate.

Bernard, A difference of opinion is what it is. Because you disagree, you are ascribing motives to people that are incorrect.

Liberals do this on every subject. 99% of people want a clean environment but liberals actually believe that the 52% of Republicans out there want a "dirty" environment or that we don't care.

I hope you see what you do as a liberal. Honestly. :) :) :) :)

Bernard,
A defense of Karen Hughes that most conservatives will agree with.

It may serve you well to read this piece to counter the pieces you've read from McAuliffe that ascribe motives to Karen Hughes.

She is a good and decent person who had a legitimate point about this era of valuing life. There was no direct comparison of the "people on the mall" and the "9/11 terrorists".

It may serve you well to not ascribe motives to people that you can't back up in the future. :) :) :) :)

From Hipocrite's post citing the law:

"Employers and others needing proof of military service are expected to accept the information shown on documents issued by the military service departments at the time a service member is separated."

So accept it already! Or do you want to cite the law only for your purposes and ignore it for any purposes contrary to your position? There's a word for that, and you've already used it.

Another thing about liberals....(yes I'm generalizing) They ascribe motives to people.

Bingo. This is how many people (both sides, but especially liberals, who are more open to an emotional, as opposed to a factual, appeal) judge those in public life: not by what they say, not by what they do, but what the judges think is really in the cold, black hearts of the judged.

There's only one taboo left in America today: being un-hip. It doesn't matter what Bush (or any politician) actually says or does; we all know they're all a bunch of liars and bastards who would toss all of us wonderful free-thinking folks into jail if they got just half a chance. And that's especially true of Those People...the people who don't believe as we do.

Bush has a black female Security Advisor and a black Secretary of State? Sorry, doesn't count: we all know he's really a racist at heart who hates women. After all, we know the real truth. We're not stupid, y'know. We're hip. We're cool, unlike you.

The sad thing is:

Bush is to the left of conservatives on most of these issues.
Affirmative Action - George and Jeb Bush still think that "some" affirmative action is needed. Not as much as liberals want but "some" is still to the left of the conservative position which is that we should be judged on our merit not on the color of our skin. There is always the option of providing opportunities to "all" who are "economically disadvantaged" as Ward Connerly talks about. That would be lending your hand to every race who exists in "impoverished areas".

In CA we just voted FOR prop 209 a few years back and it was "upheld". This prohibits preferential treatment based on race and it passed by close to 60%.

Yet, liberals want to cast that 60% and Bush and conservatives as being racist and not "understanding" of the plight of the African American.

Liberals want to "feel", ascribe motives, cast aspersions and not debate the issue. Sorry for the generalization... But it's how I "feel" :) :) :) :)

Thorley,

Kate O'Beirne had a column that echoed the "his purple hearts were phoney" line.

In Congress Sam Johnson of Texas, talking about Kerry's antiwar activities, said "What he did was nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy."

Doug,

When you are ready to stop the moronic Limbaugh-style generalizations about liberals I'll respond to what you have to say. Meanwhile, do you seriously regard the Medicare bill as an example of Bush's integrity? They really do have you sucked in, don't they?

(By the way, what was that fund-raising letter with Bush staring resolutely out the window of Air Force One on 9/11 all about?)

RMc,

I don't think Bush is racist and I don't think I've ever said anything that could be interpreted that way. I do think there is a strand of racism on the right.

Bernard,

I'll take the "strand of racism on the right" to the boulevard wide yellow stripe that runs down the center of leftist idealism.

Once upon a time, the left stood for human liberty and the natural rights of man. Now, it stands for tyranny and the enslavement of mankind to hopeless soul stealing socialist idealogies.

If the left was still true to its ideals, it would insist on the liberation of the middle east, rather than continue to support the denigration of arab people under their imposed socialist dictatorships.

Today, It's the left that stands in the way of progress,not the right. It's the left that insists on the idiocy of a governments 'sovereignty' over the right of the populace to have basic human rights. It's the left that supports Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran, Syria all in the hope of perserving socialist political power and the lifes and rights of the enslaved populace be damned.

Don't sit there and lecture me about racism when your side is still engaged with the outright enslavement of members of the human race around the world.

Bernard, Attack mode. Typical liberal.. :)

You don't win converts by doing that you know. In fact you tend to help people see what the right is saying has merit.

You were ascribing motives to Bush. You never answered. You just went on the attack on me. I guess that means that you do not intend to dialog.

We migh've had something to learn from each other. But you (as most liberals do) tend to close that door.

Fine by me..... as the country moves from 52/48 to 53/47 I'll just stand there waving at ya. :) :)

But if you want to contribute one day. We'll be here.

Frank and others, I'm not sure why should ever respond to another liberal who "personally" attacks other contributors.

We can all take the attitude that we might learn something or when challenged we could lash out and attack.

If you want to engage Bernard, I posed questions up above that you chose not to answer.................................

"lacklustre"? Have you gone all British on us?

Comments are Closed.