New Questions Raised on Bush Military Record

Siji · Post by **Siji** » September 8, 2004, 4:32 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... vietnam_dc

BOSTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) fell short of meeting his military obligations during the Vietnam War and was not disciplined despite irregular attendance at required training drills, The Boston Globe said on Wednesday.

In a probe of the president's service in the Texas Air National Guard, the newspaper said Bush appeared to have broken his contract with the U.S. government by not joining an Air Force Reserve unit when he moved to Massachusetts from Texas in mid-1973.

The military records of Bush and of his Democratic opponent John Kerry (news - web sites), who was decorated for service in Vietnam, have featured prominently in the campaign for the presidential election on Nov. 2.

Republicans have made Bush's leadership of what he calls a global war on terrorism central to his campaign.

In February, the White House released hundreds of pages of Bush's military records that showed he was absent for long periods of his final two years of National Guard duty but said nonetheless he met service requirements.

However, the Globe focused on documents Bush signed in 1968 and 1973 in which he pledged to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

The Globe said in July 1973, before Bush left Houston to attend Harvard Business School, he signed a document saying: "It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months... "

Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post in 1999 that the future president had served at a Boston-area Air Force Reserve unit after leaving Houston. But Bush never joined a Boston-area unit, the Globe said.

"I must have misspoke," Bartlett, now White House communications director, was quoted as telling the Globe in a recent interview.

"HONORABLE DISCHARGE"

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, responding to the Globe report on Wednesday, said, "The president was honored to serve his country. He met his obligations, and was honorably discharged."

The Globe also looked at a 1968 pledge by Bush in which he committed to "satisfactory participation" in Guard training.

But the newspaper said he performed no service over a six-month period in 1972 and nearly a three-month stretch in 1973 -- erratic attendance that could have prompted his superiors to discipline him or order him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974.

Instead, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been "satisfactory," the Globe said.

The National Guard and reserves, rarely called up during the Vietnam War, came to be regarded as "draft havens for relatively affluent young white men," the Air National Guard says in a history on its Internet site.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, is scheduled to appear on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Wednesday night to discuss how he helped Bush get into the Guard in 1968, the network said.

In a videotaped speech recently posted on the Internet, Barnes told an Austin, Texas political rally: "I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas and I'm not necessarily proud of that ... I thought that's what people should do when you're in office: You help rich people."

The Pentagon on Tuesday released 17 pages of what it called newly found records that showed Bush flew 336 hours in a fighter jet, most recently in April 1972, and ranked 22nd out of 53 pilots when he finished flight training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1969.

The pages did not resolve the dispute over whether Bush completed the service as required.

Democratic National Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the details about Bush's service undermined his credibility. "These new documents show that the president did not serve honorably," McAuliffe said, accusing Bush of either lying about his record or suffering "some kind of severe memory loss."

A pro-Kerry group, Texans for Truth, plans to run television commercials this week questioning Bush's Guard attendance. A group backing Bush, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has said in its own commercials that Kerry lied about his Vietnam war record.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 4:42 pm

Siji wrote:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... vietnam_dc

A pro-Kerry group, Texans for Truth, plans to run television commercials this week questioning Bush's Guard attendance. A group backing Bush, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has said in its own commercials that Kerry lied about his Vietnam war record.

Texans for Truth? They should have at least called themselves Texans Into Truth or T.I.T.

Texans Into Truth Today & Yesterday. T.I.T.T.Y.

Post by **Sylvus** » September 8, 2004, 4:50 pm

I'm not really sure what that would accomplish, Winnow.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 5:06 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'm not really sure what that would accomplish, Winnow.

It would make it more memorable a few years down the road. These groups are quickly forgotten otherwise.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 8, 2004, 5:37 pm

I'm going with Winnow on this one...

In regards to Bush's server though, it's not surprising at all.

Marb

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » September 9, 2004, 3:46 pm

Well it's obvious I can no longer support Bush because of his actions 30 years ago. Of course there's no way I can support Kerry since his actions were immeasurably worse than Bush's. I guess I'll have to ask the Republican Party to reverse the ticket.

Cheney for President 2004!

Or perhaps we should dump Bush. I could support a Cheney/Miller ticket!

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » September 9, 2004, 4:19 pm

Metanis wrote:Well it's obvious I can no longer support Bush because of his actions 30 years ago. Of course there's no way I can support Kerry since his actions were immeasurably worse than Bush's. I guess I'll have to ask the Republican Party to reverse the ticket.

Cheney for President 2004!

Or perhaps we should dump Bush. I could support a Cheney/Miller ticket!

Please explain which actions of Kerry's are worse than Bush's.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 9, 2004, 4:25 pm

Toshira wrote:
Metanis wrote:Well it's obvious I can no longer support Bush because of his actions 30 years ago. Of course there's no way I can support Kerry since his actions were immeasurably worse than Bush's. I guess I'll have to ask the Republican Party to reverse the ticket.

Cheney for President 2004!

Or perhaps we should dump Bush. I could support a Cheney/Miller ticket!
Please explain which actions of Kerry's are worse than Bush's.

Kerry self inflicting wounds so he could only serve 4 months.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » September 9, 2004, 4:26 pm

Please explain which actions of Kerry's are worse than Bush's.

Tosh...arent you the pacifist? Didnt you claim all soldiers were babykillers?

If think I remember reading that a while back. And if you do hold to that, then Kerry 30 years ago was worse than Bush 30 years ago. Kerry killed. Bush dodged.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 9, 2004, 4:28 pm

Wait a cotton picking second, Bush should be the liberals hero for ducking out of vietnam. I smell Irony!!! If I remember correctly liberals were screaming that Clinton was there hero because he ducked out.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 9, 2004, 4:29 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Toshira wrote:
Metanis wrote:Well it's obvious I can no longer support Bush because of his actions 30 years ago. Of course there's no way I can support Kerry since his actions were immeasurably worse than Bush's. I guess I'll have to ask the Republican Party to reverse the ticket.

Cheney for President 2004!

Or perhaps we should dump Bush. I could support a Cheney/Miller ticket!
Please explain which actions of Kerry's are worse than Bush's.
Kerry self inflicting wounds so he could only serve 4 months.

He server *TWO* tours of duty, the second being 4 months on swift boats, which is duty he *ASKED* for.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 9, 2004, 4:30 pm

Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Toshira wrote:
Metanis wrote:Well it's obvious I can no longer support Bush because of his actions 30 years ago. Of course there's no way I can support Kerry since his actions were immeasurably worse than Bush's. I guess I'll have to ask the Republican Party to reverse the ticket.

Cheney for President 2004!

Or perhaps we should dump Bush. I could support a Cheney/Miller ticket!
Please explain which actions of Kerry's are worse than Bush's.
Kerry self inflicting wounds so he could only serve 4 months.
He server *TWO* tours of duty, the second being 4 months on swift boats, which is duty he *ASKED* for.

If he asked for it whay was he in a hurry to get out? I mean to go as far as self mutilation?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 9, 2004, 4:31 pm

He didn't and when he was told he could leave, he took over a week to decide.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 9, 2004, 4:31 pm

Cartalas wrote:Wait a cotton picking second, Bush should be the liberals hero for ducking out of vietnam. I smell Irony!!! If I remember correctly liberals were screaming that Clinton was there hero because he ducked out.

It's ye 'ole flip flop.

Republicans understand that the actions of both candidates 30 years ago aren't a deciding factor in today's elections. Democrats are flip flopping all over the place to try and make Bush look bad back then when they really would have loved him.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 9, 2004, 4:40 pm

Cartalas wrote:Wait a cotton picking second, Bush should be the liberals hero for ducking out of vietnam. I smell Irony!!! If I remember correctly liberals were screaming that Clinton was there hero because he ducked out.

Dunno, I know I never said or would say that about Clinton. If you get called to serve you should serve.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 9, 2004, 4:41 pm

Thess wrote:He didn't and when he was told he could leave, he took over a week to decide.

A whole Week!!!!! Must of been a important decision?

miir · Post by **miir** » September 9, 2004, 4:42 pm

Just put him on ignore, Kel.
You'll be happy you did.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 9, 2004, 5:06 pm

I was going to reply to Cartalas, but I decided to take Miir's advice instead.

noel · Post by **noel** » September 9, 2004, 5:12 pm

By all means, lets spend a shitload of time on another campaign non-issue.

There are so many, many things to criticize Bush for that he's done since he's been in office, I can't imagine why we need to now (four years after this information SHOULD have come out -- i.e. in the 2000 election) focus on something that has fuck all to do with his Presidential qualifications.

Focus on real issues that affect the future of our country and don't be sucked into non-issues like this, and Kerry's military service. It's fucking stupid.

Don't take this as an endorsement for either candidate. They both suck.

Adelrune Argenti · Post by **Adelrune Argenti** » September 9, 2004, 5:29 pm

No information coming out about these papers. Supposedly, they are looking like forgeries due to the font and typography used, i.e the little "th" after the 111th in some of the documents. That is not something that was possible 30 years ago. I will look for more info.

Ok found a link. This is a developing story. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007760.php

Probably a more succinct explanation. http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/000838.php

I am just putting this argument out there. Obviously many of you are going to say these sites are biased. However the others will argue that CBS is biased too.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 9, 2004, 6:14 pm

Sueven wrote:I was going to reply to Cartalas, but I decided to take Miir's advice instead.

Thank you,

4 more years pussies!!!!

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » September 9, 2004, 6:17 pm

Homercles wrote:
Please explain which actions of Kerry's are worse than Bush's.
Tosh...arent you the pacifist? Didnt you claim all soldiers were babykillers?

If think I remember reading that a while back. And if you do hold to that, then Kerry 30 years ago was worse than Bush 30 years ago. Kerry killed. Bush dodged.

Then you better go back and find your source. I said "killers". Come on now Homer. Has playing golf with Kilmoll really put that much of the zap on your brain? You're smarter than that.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 9, 2004, 6:34 pm

Thess wrote:He server *TWO* tours of duty, the second being 4 months on swift boats, which is duty he *ASKED* for.

Do we have to go over this again? His first "tour" was on a safe ship far from any action, with all but like a handful of weeks being miles and miles away from Vietnam- only technically could that be considered a "tour of duty." When he *ASKED* to be assigned to swift boats they were considered safe at the time (he's even admitted he didn't request them to get in on the action)- this fact in no way takes away from some of the good things he did WHILE in the unit, but to try to act like him *VOLUNTEERING* for a safe unit means shit is ridiculous. And, as always, I'm not in anyway trying to take away from a war record that seems pretty commendable.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 9, 2004, 6:39 pm

Brotha wrote:
Do we have to go over this again?

Yes, do we have to go over this again?

Both of your candidates hightailed, fucking hightailed out of duty.
You have no case. Your war hero reps are rich cowards

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 9, 2004, 6:55 pm

Brotha wrote:
Thess wrote:He server *TWO* tours of duty, the second being 4 months on swift boats, which is duty he *ASKED* for.
Do we have to go over this again? His first "tour" was on a safe ship far from any action, with all but like a handful of weeks being miles and miles away from Vietnam- only technically could that be considered a "tour of duty." When he *ASKED* to be assigned to swift boats they were considered safe at the time (he's even admitted he didn't request them to get in on the action)- this fact in no way takes away from some of the good things he did WHILE in the unit, but to try to act like him *VOLUNTEERING* for a safe unit means shit is ridiculous. And, as always, I'm not in anyway trying to take away from a war record that seems pretty commendable.

Ok you go if that isn't dangerous enough for you.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 9, 2004, 6:56 pm

Winnow wrote:
Cartalas wrote:Wait a cotton picking second, Bush should be the liberals hero for ducking out of vietnam. I smell Irony!!! If I remember correctly liberals were screaming that Clinton was there hero because he ducked out.
It's ye 'ole flip flop.

Republicans understand that the actions of both candidates 30 years ago aren't a deciding factor in today's elections. Democrats are flip flopping all over the place to try and make Bush look bad back then when they really would have loved him.

Winnow, do you still maintain the world is flat, or are you a flip flopper?

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » September 9, 2004, 7:06 pm

Who cares. I am sick of hearing about either one of these tards' military records from before I was even born. I don't care who earned what medal, who was awol from where, who was hurt, who was ducking. If this is a preview of how the debates will go I think I will go on a killing spree in a town near you.

I want to hear details of how we are going to get out of this Iraq situation, I want to hear their plans on alternate fuel sources as compared to their oponent, I want to hear why interest rates are going up, social security et al. Yell at each other about these things, not your freakin war record, I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHICH ONE OF YOU RICH PUKES IS MORE MACHO THAN THE OTHER!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 9, 2004, 7:16 pm

Sadly Krim, the analysts for each side don't think coming up with a solution strategy is important. One side needs to flex because every other policy has failed and the other needs the dummies that think a dodger is a tough guy out for America's best interests and not his own.

noel · Post by **noel** » September 9, 2004, 8:13 pm

Krimson Klaw wrote:Who cares. I am sick of hearing about either one of these tards' military records from before I was even born. I don't care who earned what medal, who was awol from where, who was hurt, who was ducking. If this is a preview of how the debates will go I think I will go on a killing spree in a town near you.

I want to hear details of how we are going to get out of this Iraq situation, I want to hear their plans on alternate fuel sources as compared to their oponent, I want to hear why interest rates are going up, social security et al. Yell at each other about these things, not your freakin war record, I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHICH ONE OF YOU RICH PUKES IS MORE MACHO THAN THE OTHER!

Holy shit! Krimson for President!!!!!

Seriously, I'm glad someone besides me gets it. If the rest of you idiots want to get lost on political conjecture, have at it, but even giving this bullshit more than a moment's thought is why our political system is so fucked up in the first place.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 9, 2004, 8:27 pm

I really find it to be ashame that it's come to this in this election. Both candidates are talking about issues - but you have to go to their speeches to find this out.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 9, 2004, 8:42 pm

noel wrote:
Krimson Klaw wrote:Who cares. I am sick of hearing about either one of these tards' military records from before I was even born. I don't care who earned what medal, who was awol from where, who was hurt, who was ducking. If this is a preview of how the debates will go I think I will go on a killing spree in a town near you.

I want to hear details of how we are going to get out of this Iraq situation, I want to hear their plans on alternate fuel sources as compared to their oponent, I want to hear why interest rates are going up, social security et al. Yell at each other about these things, not your freakin war record, I DON'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT WHICH ONE OF YOU RICH PUKES IS MORE MACHO THAN THE OTHER!
Holy shit! Krimson for President!!!!!

Seriously, I'm glad someone besides me gets it. If the rest of you idiots want to get lost on political conjecture, have at it, but even giving this bullshit more than a moment's thought is why our political system is so fucked up in the first place.

I agree whole heartedly, but whats pretty damn sad is most americans would agree also...but swift boats or texans are the kind of things that actually change there votes, issues are too complicated and boring for most americans to pay attention too, they wanna know the dirty stuff and which canidate can talk more shit about the other

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 9, 2004, 9:32 pm

I think it's a fairly important issue. stuff like this shows character. character is important in a presidential election. kerry has a lot of character. bush has none.

Asheran Mojomaster · September 9, 2004, 9:50 pm

kyoukan wrote:I think it's a fairly important issue. stuff like this shows character. character is important in a presidential election. kerry has a lot of character. bush has none.

Nah, Kerry doesnt have any character either, in fact Kerry will probably be a terrible president either way. But its better than Bush getting us all killed.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 9, 2004, 9:52 pm

Asheran Mojomaster wrote:
kyoukan wrote:I think it's a fairly important issue. stuff like this shows character. character is important in a presidential election. kerry has a lot of character. bush has none.
Nah, Kerry doesnt have any character either, in fact Kerry will probably be a terrible president either way. But its better than Bush getting us all killed.

He and John McCain negotiated an agreement with Vietnam to provide a full accounting for POW-MIAs.

He wrote the first bill reducing acid rain.

He has repeatedly led the charge in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling.

He has passed legislation that shut down money laundering activities of terrorists and drug traffickers.

He headed the Iran Contra investigation.

John Kerry has taken on the special interests and won.

He fought against Newt Gingrich’s anti-labor and anti-environmental regulatory reform.

He has fought to raise the minimum wage.

He has worked to shut down wasteful corporate subsidies.

And John Kerry played an important role in the effort to reach a settlement with the tobacco companies that ended marketing to children and teenagers.

Uh no character? He also was a prosecuter before he became a senator.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 9, 2004, 9:58 pm

I hate to admit it it but Cartalas is right, Bush would have been a liberal poster boy in 72. And Kerry a conservative one.

Then kerry threw away his medals and became a liberal, and Bush bought his and became a conservative.

Both wrong.

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » September 10, 2004, 12:39 am

Winnow wrote:Republicans understand that the actions of both candidates 30 years ago aren't a deciding factor in today's elections.

LOL

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 10, 2004, 4:03 am

Just some updated info on those being false doc's:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Sep9.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ ... 1984.shtml

http://www.drudgereport.com/cbsd.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics ... 909-1.html

Heh..gotta love politics.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » September 10, 2004, 4:37 am

I hate to admit it it but Cartalas is right, Bush would have been a liberal poster boy in 72. And Kerry a conservative one.

Then kerry threw away his medals and became a liberal, and Bush bought his and became a conservative.

Both wrong.

Uh no, bush was in no way a liberal back then. There's a difference between staying out of war because it goes against your ideals and staying out of war because you are a cowardly, spoiled peice of shit.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 10, 2004, 4:43 am

Keverian FireCry wrote: Uh no, bush was in no way a liberal back then. There's a difference between staying out of war because it goes against your ideals and staying out of war because you are a cowardly, spoiled peice of shit.

sure there is

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » September 10, 2004, 6:23 am

Remember kids, like cap'n cheney says - a vote for kerry is a vote for the terrorists.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » September 10, 2004, 1:03 pm

Now the White House is accusing Kerry of coordinating the attacks. I'm not sure if I agree with that (the evidence here is pretty slim), but I think this is correct in pointing out how the republicans (the ones in office atleast) have handled the service issue compared to the democrats.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040 ... -6717r.htm

The White House yesterday accused John Kerry of "coordinating" attacks on President Bush's National Guard service in response to the president's widening lead in the polls.

"You absolutely are seeing a coordinated attack by John Kerry and his surrogates on the president," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters aboard Air Force One. "The polls show Senator Kerry falling behind, and it's the same old recycled attacks that we've seen every time the president has been up for election."

Mr. Kerry refused to denounce Texans for Truth, a group known by its tax code classification as a 527, for running TV ads that criticize the president's National Guard service. Last month, the Kerry campaign demanded that Mr. Bush denounce ads by another 527, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which questioned Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service.

Asked about the veracity of the anti-Bush ads yesterday, Mr. Kerry twice told an Associated Press reporter: "That's for the White House to answer."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy accused the Massachusetts Democrat of employing a double standard.

"When given the opportunity to put it to rest, Senator Kerry instead kept it alive," he said of the flap over Mr. Bush's service. "Nor did he condemn the ads, even though he had called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat ads."

For more than six months, Mr. Kerry has been questioning whether Mr. Bush fulfilled his military obligations after transferring from one National Guard unit in Texas to another in Alabama. The White House says the president's honorable discharge is proof that he fulfilled his duties.

"Was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be?" Mr. Kerry demanded in February. "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."

Yesterday, the White House contrasted Mr. Kerry's attacks on the president's military record with Mr. Bush's praise of Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service.

"His going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets," Mr. Bush told NBC on Aug. 28. "He was in harm's way; I wasn't."

Although the Democratic National Committee (DNC) yesterday issued a statement saying "Bush lied" about his National Guard service, the president took a different tack when asked by a reporter whether "Kerry lied about his war record."

"I think Senator Kerry served admirably," Mr. Bush replied on Aug. 23. "He ought to be proud of his record."

Such sentiments have been echoed by Vice President Dick Cheney, former Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot and White House political strategist Karl Rove. By contrast, Mr. Kerry, in addition to attacking the president, has slammed Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove for obtaining deferments during the Vietnam conflict.

"I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and who misled the nation into Iraq," Mr. Kerry told a rally last week.

Yesterday, the president's military record was savaged by DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe and Sen. Tom Harkin, Iowa Democrat, at a press conference.

"George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling," Mr. McAuliffe said. "George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews sugar-coated."

Mr. Harkin said Mr. Bush "lied to the American people." He said the "real difference" between Democrats' claims and those from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is that documents support Mr. Kerry's war record, while undercutting Mr. Bush.

"Those other people who made these ads were lying," Mr. Harkin said of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "The documents back up Senator Kerry."

The remarks drew a sharp rebuke from Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican.

"Harkin's vicious attacks today crossed the line of acceptable political discourse," he said. "John Kerry and his fellow Democrats are unable to move beyond what happened 35 years ago."

Although the Kerry campaign and press have been quick to claim links between Mr. Bush and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, there was little outcry yesterday over links between Mr. Kerry and Texans for Truth.

The group's biggest donor is Daniel O'Keefe, who gave $100,000 for production of the anti-Bush ads. Mr. O'Keefe, a Hollywood producer, also donated $10,250 to the Kerry campaign and $24,000 to the DNC, according to the Political Money Line Web site.

By accusing Mr. Kerry of "coordinating" with Texans for Truth, Mr. McClellan essentially was accusing him of flouting the McCain-Feingold Act, which prohibits such coordination.

"Senator Kerry will do anything he can to avoid defending his record and talking about the clear choices that the American people face," the presidential spokesman said.

Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart, while not addressing the substance of Mr. McClellan's accusations, said he "seems to have lost his cool."

"Rather than deal with real issues with real candor, Mr. McClellan is resorting to hurling nonsensical, inaccurate and baseless charges at the Kerry campaign," Mr. Lockhart said. "This is a classic political tactic: When you can't tell the truth or you don't know the truth, blame your opponent."

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » September 10, 2004, 1:15 pm

Well, I saw something interesting on the news today regarding these recent documents.

Seems there is some suspicion/allegations that some or all of them were done on a word processor.

Will be following this for sure, could get juicy.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 10, 2004, 1:22 pm

Aruman wrote:Well, I saw something interesting on the news today regarding these recent documents.

Seems there is some suspicion/allegations that some or all of them were done on a word processor.

Will be following this for sure, could get juicy.

They didn't have Office 2000 35 years ago?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 10, 2004, 1:26 pm

Typical underhanded democrat political attacking of their opponents. They'll stop at nothing to slander their adversaries! Then again, it could be a genius move by the Bush campaign to keep the military service issue in the spotlight all the way up to election day. It's sort of like putting out a forrest fire. You start little fires to contain the bigger fire.

The amount of time spent from both sides breaking down military service is mind boggling. If Kerry had a clue, he'd see that it didn't matter in 2000 and it won't matter n 2004. Kery should focus on telling everyone how he's going to raise taxes and take money from them to reduce the deficit. That should win some votes.

What sounds worse to a voter?

A. We have a large deficit. What a bummer.
B. We're going to raise your taxes to pay off the deficit.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 10, 2004, 1:33 pm

or C. Bush will create an even larger deficit screwing you even more in the future.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » September 10, 2004, 1:46 pm

The whole military service issue wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for people looking for dirt to discredit Bush and Kerry taking a hour to promote is war record at the DNC.

These guys should tell thier 527's to chill out so they can talk about issues that influence our lives today and on thier record from the past 10 or so years.

The moral of this story is...Keep the past in the past.

I am sure we all have done some pretty dumb ass things in our twenties. Wether it be skipping out on a drill or shooting yourself to get a medal, I am sure both canidates if given the same situation today would act differently. The main thing is that they both served and wore a uniform. As a vet I respect that. With that said their military records will not change how I am voteing.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 10, 2004, 1:51 pm

Last two attempts to smear Bush's National Guard service have been debunked. Boy those Dems sure play an ugly game of politics. I bet more people would vote for them if they cared more about our country and the people in it and their future, than about gaining political power and just being negative.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 10, 2004, 1:54 pm

The Dems had good teachers. Nobody plays dirtier than Reps.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 10, 2004, 1:55 pm

You talk like the Reps are innocent angels. Just remeber who started the anti ads.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 10, 2004, 1:58 pm

I'm gonna pull a Winnow and say

WEEEE round and round we go! Same arguements, stated infinitum.

VeeshanVault

New Questions Raised on Bush Military Record

New Questions Raised on Bush Military Record

Re: New Questions Raised on Bush Military Record