« Out of step, but not yet out of time: Democrats search for the right play on Alito | Main | One more serving of goose-sauce »

Republicans Urging Bush To Release Abramoff Meeting Records

This is interesting. I think it's strategy. A rope-a-dope maneuver, if you will.

Bush's immediate stonewalling of the media has them absolutely salivating to get their hands on the records. It also has all the leftist pundits pushing all sorts of innuendo about what those records will reveal. In reality, though, I don't think those records of meetings between White House aides and Abramoff hold anything all that damning at all.

So what's going to happen is this: Bush is going to let the calls for the records build to a fevered pitch. Congressional Republicans are going to ask Bush to release them so that they look like good guys interested in transparency and "getting to the bottom of things." Then, in the next week or so, Bush will release the records. Everybody will see there's nothing all that important in them and the whole thing will go away with those in the media and on the left who cried the loudest for the release of the records looking a little foolish.
Of course, this is all just speculation on my part, but if you think back it is exactly what happened with Bush's military medical records. The media kept pushing and demanding to see the records and Bush kept resisting. Finally, when the demands had reached their peak, Bush released them and the media was stuck having to report to the public that the most important thing in these all-important records they'd demanded was some details about the removal of a hemorrhoid from Bush's bottom.

You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com


Comments (48)

...but if you think back... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

...but if you think back it is exactly what happened with Bush's military medical records.

..Which still did nothing to prove that Bush satisfied his duty of protecting Texas and Alabama from the vietcong.

Why the delay in the Abramoff record release? Isn't this suppposed to be a straight talkin' guy?

Which still did no... (Below threshold)
Which still did nothing to prove...

The burden of proof is normally on the accuser, not the accused. To those who were convinced purely by the accusation, no amount of exculpatory proof would be enough.

Instead, by continuing to push the "Bush AWOL" myth, the BDS sufferers actually helped re-elect Bush in 2004.

Don't think we're not grateful for the help, Gloaty.

..Which still did ... (Below threshold)
kbiel:
..Which still did nothing to prove that Bush satisfied his duty of protecting Texas and Alabama from the vietcong.

That's right, don't let the facts get into the way of your delusions. If crazy is fun, you must be laughing youself to death.

Why the delay in the Abramoff record release? Isn't this suppposed to be a straight talkin' guy?

Obviously you did not read the post or your reading comprehension is abysmal.

Actually Bush DID complete ... (Below threshold)
89:

Actually Bush DID complete his service. And Kerry's service was more valuable than his. As Bush said himself. Welcome to 2006 n00b.

"This is interesting. I thi... (Below threshold)
robert lewis:

"This is interesting. I think it's strategy. A rope-a-dope maneuver, if you will."

Yeah, Bush being known for his imaginative use of complex strategic thought. Like his "bring it on" statements on Iraq, which resulted in the rapid and total defeat of the insurgency; his lightning response to the Aug 2001 memo that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the US, resulting in the over-confident terrorists being trapped and imprisoned when they tried to bring down the WTC; or the cool hand he showed during the Katrina crisis, where he allowed critics of FEMA to attack him unmercifully before revealing the "heckuva job" that Brownie and the Bush Administration did for the residents of New Orleans, thus answering his critics once and for all.

rl's incredible whit in tra... (Below threshold)
Ed Colletta:

rl's incredible whit in transformaing Brown's name with the "ie" suffix has convinced me to vote Democratic next election.

**rl's incredible whit in t... (Below threshold)
KC:

**rl's incredible whit in transformaing Brown's name with the "ie" suffix has convinced me to vote Democratic next election.**

By "whit", I assume you meant wit?

And since you obviously didn't get the joke re: "Brownie", take a look at the interview in question.
Bush publicly called Brown "Brownie."

Yes, I did misspeel wit. G... (Below threshold)
Ed Colletta:

Yes, I did misspeel wit. Got me again. Overwhelmed by your arguments.

Overwhelmed by my arguments... (Below threshold)
KC:

Overwhelmed by my arguments?

You mean the one, after correcting your "mispelling", where I explained the origin (publicly) of the term "Brownie"?

You see, in case you didn't get it BUSH CALLED HIM BROWNIE! You know, right after the bang-up job FEMA did in not even knowing about the extent of the hurricane damage. Brownie was busy sending glib emails and asking when he could "clock out."

But I guess you knew that, right? That's sorta why he got fired, and kinda why he never shoulda been there in the first place.

I think the picture of Bush... (Below threshold)
lindata:

I think the picture of Bush, Abramoff, and the Indian leaders in the oval office will stick in the craw of a lot of American's. Particularly if the press has the guts to show the payment history and email traffic surrounding the meeting.

lindata,Why do you t... (Below threshold)
Robert:

lindata,
Why do you think the press will show the payments history?
You do know that might take work, don't you?

To 89,
Still waiting on that proof that GW DID complete his service.
Please provide the link.

Robert Lewis,
Quit using facts to make your arguement, or else you'll be smeared.

Imagine if the picture of B... (Below threshold)
jim:

Imagine if the picture of Bush and Abramoff that they're hiding, is one of Abramoff handing Bush a huge oversized check???

Quite likely, just that sort of photo op is done quite often with all sorts of public fundraising, from campaign's to charity...

KC,Not the one, but ... (Below threshold)
Ed Colletta:

KC,
Not the one, but the zero

The big news here is how Bu... (Below threshold)
Randy:

The big news here is how Bush is obsructing justice by offering the Abramoff prosecutor a lifetime court appointment. Is anyone really naive enough to believe this is a coincidence? Abramoff's ties to the white house and especially to Rove are obvious. For starters, Abramoff got tribal representatives in for a face-to-face with Bush for $25,000. Oh, yeah and Abramoff's chief of staff went on to work for Rove. There's so much documented corruption in the Republican party that reaches all the way to the top. Bush has been involved with the culture of corruption since the days when he sold short on his oil stocks and surely before. The Republican culture of corruption. Has a nice ring, doesn't it?

"I don't think those record... (Below threshold)
Devil's Advocate:

"I don't think those records of meetings between White House aides and Abramoff hold anything all that damning at all."

Then there are no good reason NOT to release them!


..Which still did nothin... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

..Which still did nothing to prove that Bush satisfied his duty of protecting Texas and Alabama from the vietcong.

F-102s are interceptors. Those in Texas would have been tasked with protecting Texas, its cities and oil facilities, from Soviet attack.

I know Democrats like to pretend the Soviets didn't exist. But you're not winning many freinds amongst the many veterans of Air National Guard units that did this important work.

In the mid-1980s, my dad and I stopped by off the runway at Selfridge, an air base north of Detroit. By chance, we saw a training launch. The hangars were closed initially and it looked like nothing was happening. In less than 5 minutes, two F-4 Phantoms were shooting off the runway, headed north at high speed.

Those were Air Guard guys.

Come on. Soviet air attack?... (Below threshold)
jim:

Come on. Soviet air attack? Please. The early 70's were already the era of the nuclear missile. No serious military analysts expected an unprovoked, unnoticed Soviet airplane invasion from South America. The very idea is ridiculous.

It's good to be prepared for the unexpected. And it's a good thing we had and have an Air Guard. But it remains a fact that the National Guard of the 60's and 70's was where parents with political pull sent their kids so they'd be safe from Viet Nam, but still technically fulfill their obligations to the Draft.

To pretend anything else is to ignore the basic facts of history.

Explain this again.<p... (Below threshold)

Explain this again.

You posit that this information is not damaging.

OK. You have zero basis for this but hey, it's your blog. So help us out here.

How does sitting on this harmless information and forcing congress to take time out of their schedules to compel this harmless information and forcing your own WH legal department to argue against releasing this harmless information a clever thing?

If the WH successfully resists giving up these records, then people will simply assume it is damning. If the WH relents, and the information is not damning, then people will wonder why the waste of government resources resisting? How, when there is bipartisan interest in these records, can anyone "win" by this fantasy scenario you've cooked up?

I could see the argument that this WH resists giving up any information about anything and they are just being consistent. But this 'rope a dope' strategy is pure nonsense. Surely our government has better things to do than pretending that some information is relevant in order to half-heartedly drum up ill-placed interest in it.

This is not like 30 year old military records. The administration's contacts with an indicted lobbyist is relevant. People want to know. The fact is, only the Bush administration and Mr. Abramoff knows the extent of their contacts.

The more probable reality is the records are mildly damaging and the Administration is waiting for something distracting, like the disappearance of some white girl in Jamaica or something, before they release it.

Building up a fever pitch on a story the Whitehouse would just assume went away before the majority of the country even found out about it is the stupidest idea yet.

But it remains a fact th... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

But it remains a fact that the National Guard of the 60's and 70's was where parents with political pull sent their kids so they'd be safe from Viet Nam, but still technically fulfill their obligations to the Draft.

For some, perhaps. There were easier ways to do that than fly the F-102, which was known to kill its pilots on a regular basis. There was no waiting list for pilots in the air guard, unlike the other National Guard slots.

Also, you might want to explain the "political pull" part. Texas was almost 100% Democratic at the time. The Bush family was Republican.

Bush has said he doesn't KN... (Below threshold)
Ummm:

Bush has said he doesn't KNOW Abramoff ... so if there's any record of a Bush-Abrahmoff meeting, there doesn't need to be anything more incriminating. Not that it'll matter two whiffs to the Bushanistas who would follow the Boy Prince over a cliff cause, ya' know, 9/11 changed everything or something ...

Bush has said he doesn't... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

Bush has said he doesn't KNOW Abramoff ... so if there's any record of a Bush-Abrahmoff meeting, there doesn't need to be anything more incriminating.

Um, do you remember everyone you've ever met in the last five years? I know of at least one photo of me that has people in it I don't know from the last two years. And I'm a not-photographed-often engineer. How many tens of thousands of people has the President met and been photographed with in the past five years?

As I was reading this I was... (Below threshold)
beth:

As I was reading this I was thinking 'Isn't that how the military records thing went down' and sure enough ....

I like the rope a dope plan! lol

Come on. Soviet air atta... (Below threshold)

Come on. Soviet air attack? Please. The early 70's were already the era of the nuclear missile. No serious military analysts expected an unprovoked, unnoticed Soviet airplane invasion from South America. The very idea is ridiculous. -Jim

A few points: In the 1970s, the Soviets and their allies did not have spy sattelites. They did not have a U2 or SR-71 analog. They got their recon through spies and through the kind of aircraft that interceptors were designed to, you know, intercept.

In 1969, the Soviets sent a naval squadron to Cuba, including a Kynda guided missle carrier, 3 nuclear subs and 2 guided missle destoyers. in 1970 another squadron was sent, and Cuba provided landing facilities for Tu-95 Bear bombers, configured for recon. The same planes were designed for nuclear bombs and missles. And the F-102 was designed to... intercept bombers.

Cuba also hosted Soviet MIG27 fighters, with a 1500 range with nuclear payloads.

In fact, the 111th FIS, out of Ellington Air National Guard Station, was tasked with patrolling and intercepting along the US Gulf coast, in F-102s. Those Tu-95s? They flew in teh same skies, just outside the borders of US territory.
BTW, the 111th FIS was part of the 147th FIG. What unit do you think Bush was part of, in his F-102? Another BTW, those Tu-95s that tooled around the Gulf of Mexico had escorts. MIGs.

AS to your statement about nuclear missles, why then did the USA and USSR continue to field, design and build nuclear bombers well past the 1970s?
As to why nobody was seriously worried about Soviet air attacks from South America? 1) We were watching Cuba. 2) We had USAF and ANG units whos job was to keep tabs and sheperd any stray bears that might wander too close to our territory.
While I'm on the subject, what might a Tu-95 want to enter US air space? Could it be targeting ICBM launch sites and military bases?

Also, the F102 had an accident rate of 13.69 per 100,000 hours. Compare that to the F16s 4 per 100,000. Nobody thought the F102 was a safe way to sit out the war.
Certainly not as safe as being an Public Affairs Officer, as an example.

Also, you might want to ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, you might want to explain the "political pull" part. Texas was almost 100% Democratic at the time. The Bush family was Republican.

What's to explain? People who had political pull used it to get their kids into safe positions. Regardless of their party affilations.

George Herbert Walker Bush was a very well connected Congressman. He clearly used his pull to get his draft-age kid into a safe position.

In 1969, the Soviets sen... (Below threshold)
jim:

In 1969, the Soviets sent a naval squadron to Cuba...Cuba provided landing facilities for Tu-95 Bear bombers, configured for recon...Cuba also hosted Soviet MIG27 fighters, with a 1500 range with nuclear payloads....What unit do you think Bush was part of, in his F-102? Another BTW, those Tu-95s that tooled around the Gulf of Mexico had escorts. MIGs.

And which do you think was a higher probability - getting shot down in Texas by a Soviet MIG, or getting shot by a Viet Cong sniper in Viet Nam?

AS to your statement about nuclear missles, why then did the USA and USSR continue to field, design and build nuclear bombers well past the 1970s?

Probably because both sides felt that it was better to be safe than sorry.

This still doesn't mean that an unprovoked, unpredicted Soviet air invasion of the American South is anything less than an astronomically remote possibility.

So, I just don't think that Bush did something brave, by risking Soviet invasion in South Texas, as opposed to going and actually fighting in the war that he thought it was just dandy for **other** American men to fight and die in.

Um, do you remember ever... (Below threshold)
jim:

Um, do you remember everyone you've ever met in the last five years? I know of at least one photo of me that has people in it I don't know from the last two years. And I'm a not-photographed-often engineer. How many tens of thousands of people has the President met and been photographed with in the past five years?

Question A: How many people have personally given you $100,000 ? Do you think you'd remember that person?
Question B: How many people have you met, that you **refuse** to release photographs of yourself with?

So, I just don't think t... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

So, I just don't think that Bush did something brave, by risking Soviet invasion in South Texas, as opposed to going and actually fighting in the war that he thought it was just dandy for **other** American men to fight and die in.

He volunteered for a special F-102 unit that was to be sent to Vietnam as an experiment. He was turned down for too few flight hours.

Question A: How many peo... (Below threshold)
JohnAnnArbor:

Question A: How many people have personally given you $100,000 ? Do you think you'd remember that person?
Question B: How many people have you met, that you **refuse** to release photographs of yourself with?

Campaign limits make "A" impossible.

As to B, I don't publicly release photos of myself with ANYONE. So there. ;)

He volunteered for a spe... (Below threshold)
jim:

He volunteered for a special F-102 unit that was to be sent to Vietnam as an experiment. He was turned down for too few flight hours.

Well that's quite an interesting spin on things.

Was the whole air guard turned down for going to Viet Nam, because none of them had enough hours? Or did other pilots fulfill their hours, and go to Viet Nam?

Bush being turned down for too few flight hours, seems like just another way of saying that he didn't fulfill his obligation.

Had he actually wanted to go to Viet Nam, he could have found any number of different ways to get there.

Instead he split early to help someone's political campaign.

Actually, Abramoff raised m... (Below threshold)
jim:

Actually, Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney campaign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010402111_pf.html

So campaign limits don't make 'A' impossible. Just means it has to masked through a lot of different private companies, fake charities, etc. Just the sort of stuff that Abramoff, Delay, et al are in trouble for.

Oh, and by the way, there w... (Below threshold)
jim:

Oh, and by the way, there was a waiting list for the Air National Guard.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/04/bush.02/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

Bush received the lowest acceptable grade as a pilot, a 25.

The Post article also notes,
'Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer." '

Jim,Way to dodge the... (Below threshold)

Jim,
Way to dodge the points.
You're old strawman about Bush being a coward in a cockpit is just that. When Bush joined the ANG, his plane and his unit were in the rotation for Vietnam. While stateside, they flew active missions, playing sheepdog with the bears.

You might want to check the Vietnam infantry/marine mortality percentage to that of the F102.
3.4 million (approx) Americans went to fight in Vietnam. 58,000 didn't come back alive. That's 1.7%.
The F102s Class A accident rate (meaning crew death or plane is scrapped, usually both) was 13.69 in 100k hours in non-combat flights. That means .99% chance every hour that bird is in the air. Over a 300 hour flight career, that is about 4%. That's just learning to fly the thing, and doing routine patrols.
To be fair, that 4% should be compared to the deaths AND serious injuries from Vietnam, but I don't have that figure handy. The fatality rate of the F102 in non-combat flights is less than 4% (I've seen as low as 1.8 and as high as 2.7) since many of those Class A's had successful bailouts OR a non-fatal crashdown (landing/takeoff related).
Still, the ANG was hardly a do nothing, no purpose posting, and the F102 was far some safe compared to fighting in Vietnam.
And Bush was prominent enough, and scored well enough on his apptitudes, to get nearly any posting he wanted. He could have sat out the war in Japan, Europe or any number of safe posts, like being a press officer like a certain Senator's son.
But he chose to be a jet pilot, instead. And in a jet and unit that was slated to go to Vietnam when he signed up.

Bush being turned down f... (Below threshold)

Bush being turned down for too few flight hours, seems like just another way of saying that he didn't fulfill his obligation. -jim

Actually:
During the Vietnam era, guardsmen were required to accumulate 50 points to meet their yearly obligations. After training, Lt. Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets performing his squadron mission. According to his military records released this year, he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 points the second year, 137 points the third year and 112 points in his fourth year of duty. In other words, Lt. Bush showed up a lot, earning more than four times the required duty points in his first four years.

-Brig. Gen. Charles D. Youree, Jr., USAF (Ret.)

And Bush never had fewer than 56 points in a year.

By the time Bush had the flight hours to go to Vietnam, the F102 was being phased out. Nixon had already commited to bringing the troops home (actually started in June of 69, called the concept Vietnamization, where the South Vietnamese would ramp up and pull more duty)

Uh-huh.Ex... (Below threshold)
jim:

Uh-huh.

Except that, in the information I just quoted for you, they weren't.

Did you actually go and read http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm

I repeat: while in the Air Guard, Bush checked a box saying he ***didn't*** want to volunteer to go to Viet Nam.

So, way to dodge the facts and continue believing what you want to believe.

While stateside, they flew active missions, playing sheepdog with the bears.

Oh yes, and Bush had a 100% success ratio of keeping the Soviets from invading South Texas. That is, until he left to help his daddy's pal's political campaign.

SCSIwuzzy says: During ... (Below threshold)
jim:

SCSIwuzzy says: During the Vietnam era, guardsmen were required to accumulate 50 points to meet their yearly obligations.

But that's not the point of the original poster. The original poster is excusing Bush, by saying that of course Bush would have gone overseas in Viet Nam, if he had enough flight hours.

And I'm saying that if he wanted to go to Viet Nam and serve, then he would have made sure he flew enough flight hours to do it. Or he would have found some other way to get over there.

Let alone the box he checked, saying he didn't want to go.

So let's stop pretending Bush is a war hero. Let's be adults and call it how it is. He was a spoiled rich kid who used his daddy's connections to get out of the draft and into a cushy job close to home. Where he could have fun flying planes, and split early to go into politics.

Because that's what happened in the real world. There's the world of results, and the world of excuses. And the first one is the only one that's real.

You're saying that Bush is ... (Below threshold)
Railroad Stone:

You're saying that Bush is withholding nothing, to make it look like something, so that people who complain about the withholding look stupid.

Well, that would be a waste of a time, taxpayer's money, and a great way to condition your loyal subjects into not asking any more questions!

Firstly, if you're actually supporting this, why is this a good idea to you? What is the benefit?

Secondly, what reason do you have to believe that these photos would not be 'all that damning'? What evidence leads you to this conclusion? (Besides blind faith.)

That's it, you guys have co... (Below threshold)
Son Of The Godfather:

That's it, you guys have convinced me... I will definitely NOT vote for George Bush in '08...

And Kerry's self-bloated, self-edited Vietnam record is shameful and a disgrace.

God Bless the SwiftVets for exposing this coward.

How many here think that if... (Below threshold)
Robert:

How many here think that if you're not doing anything wrong, you should come clean (and in some cases allow the government to spy on you?

Here are some well knowns that (sometimes) don't think so:
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Rush Limbaugh
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush

Hypocrites!!!

Jim,Did YOU read the... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Jim,
Did YOU read the article you so loving cite?
since Bush "was applying for a specific position with the 147th Fighter Group, it would have been inappropriate for him to have volunteered for an overseas assignment and he probably was so advised by the military personnel clerk assisting him in completing the form."
"

That was when Bush was applying for a spot in the ANG, before he had even sat in a cockpit.
The program in which Bush would later be turned down for for lack of flight hours, Palace Alert, required that one be an active and qualified pilot with 500 flight hours in their aircraft. Bush only had 300, and by that point, the F102 was being phased out of Vietnam and ws soon to be phased out in the ANG, in favor of the F101b.

Now, here's my beef. When you go after Bush and piss on his ANG service, you're also pissing on everyone else who suited up and got into those death traps they called the Delta Dagger.
I've never claimed Bush was a war hero. But I will claim, that like the other men in his unit, he was far from a draft dodging coward, as you try to paint him. That title belongs to his predecessor.

Bush, and many other ANG pilot were offered an early discharge, because the USAF pilots coming home had priority for the training and slots available in the F101bs. It takes more than a few months (all Bush had left in his 6 year term, which was 4 years longer than a draft enrollment, BTW) to be certified on a jet fighter, and the ANG wasn't going to waste the resources on anyone who wasn't sticking around for a career.

Bush failed to fulfill his ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

Bush failed to fulfill his obligation to the Guard, and all of the excuses about how dangerous it was flying around Texas won't change that. And please stop the bullshit about how questioning Bush's service is "pissing on" all of the other ANG veterans. Assuming they got in on merit and fulfilled their obligations, there's no parallel to Bush.

This article from the Globe pretty clearly lays it out:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

**Now, here's my beef. When... (Below threshold)
KC:

**Now, here's my beef. When you go after Bush and piss on his ANG service, you're also pissing on everyone else who suited up and got into those death traps they called the Delta Dagger.
I've never claimed Bush was a war hero. But I will claim, that like the other men in his unit, he was far from a draft dodging coward, as you try to paint him. That title belongs to his predecessor.**

Yet, conversely, cowardly, and hypocritically you allow a decorated Vietnam veteran like Kerry be denigrated by a group of people who
1) Have a clear political agenda
2) Directly contradict things they said previously
3) Disappear as soon as the election is over

So if I understand this correctly, you are hereby denouncing the smear campaign on Kerry? Let's hear it.


Bush's missing years (which, contrary to your empty talk) have never been completely accounted for.

We can also talk about Bush's DWIs (PLURAL), Cheney's DWIs (PLURAL), and Kerry's lack thereof.
While Bush never admitted to doing drugs, it is widely known in Texas and Connecticut social circles that he regularly partook of cocaine.

Yet Kerry managed to dupe the entire Navy into giving him bogus Purple Hearts. What a criminal.

Sorry, I feel the ... (Below threshold)
KC:

Sorry,

I feel the need to correct myself on the PLURAL statement re: Bush's DWI THAT HE LIED ABOUT MANY TIMES.
There was only one DWI on record. The other one I referred to was a Drunk and Disorderly. There's also the videotape of an obviously drunk Bush after a wedding, which wouldn't be such a big deal, had it not been filmed SEVERAL YEARS after he supposedly went sober.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html

You bushbots just keep telling us you believe what comes out of the slimeballs who support Bush's mouths. I think it would be refreshing to hear you admit to some of Bush's well documented lies

http://bushwatch.com/dwi2.htm

Ask McCain what it's like to run aginst him.

http://hnn.us/articles/8008.html

Fact is, whether Bush says these things or not, by allowing those who represent him to denigrate and smear those who oppose him for things that he, himself is guilty of, he is a hypocrite. Period.
I'd like to hear one of you cowards come out and admit that Kerry was a duly decorated war veteran.

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

http://www.disinfopedia.org/index.php?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Kerry

since Bush "was applying... (Below threshold)
jim:

since Bush "was applying for a specific position with the 147th Fighter Group, it would have been inappropriate for him to have volunteered for an overseas assignment and he probably was so advised by the military personnel clerk assisting him in completing the form."

That's a quote provided by Bush's office, to excuse Bush. Note that it is not a direct quote from anyone involved, not even Bush. It's someone reading the mind of an invisible clerk, to advance a theory.

What's fact is, at the time Bush thought the Viet Nam war was a great and necessary thing. And at the time he could have easily gone to Viet Nam himself to fight, and he did not.

Now, a lot of people didn't go, for various reasons. And that's everyone's individual decision.

It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Just like Cheney and his seven draft deferrments. It's the extreme of hypocrisy to find a way out of fighting for yourself, but still think the same war is just fine for **other people** to go and die in.

No one has been able to con... (Below threshold)
Robert:

No one has been able to confirm that Bush fulfilled his duty in the ANG.

Yeah, go back and read that again w/ your own eyes. It says "no one".

Personally, I'd be telling everyone I served with a guy who went on to lead the most powerful nation in the history of mankind.
Yet, they can't find one person to confirm he fulfilled his duty.

Hmmmm.

KC? Where did I say or do ... (Below threshold)

KC? Where did I say or do that? BDS, alive and well.
Hope you kidz enjoy the State of the Union tonight. I hear the new Justices will be front row, but no word on the stipes on Roberts' sleeves.

Who cares about the State o... (Below threshold)
Evil Progressive:

Who cares about the State of the Union address?

Emperor George will repeat "freedom" one hundred times; "we are winning in Iraq" one hundred and fifty times; "war on terror" two hundred and fifty times... More "war on terror". Perhaps, the megalomaniac cretin will utter the name "Bin Laden", the guy who he first wanted to get "dead or alive", then about whom he said " I don't know where he is. I do not spend time worrying about him".

Then, miraculously, a Bin Laden tape surfaces before the State of the Union address, and Georgie Boy declares that "Bin Laden is dangerous".

For all of you out there who are supporting this dangerous puppet of the malevolent Cheney creature, you are either deaf, dumb, and blind, or you are fascists who want to impose your will on the rest of the population.

This country looks like Germany in 1933.


In reality, though, I do... (Below threshold)
bobbie sox:

In reality, though, I don't think...

You should have stopped there.

***KC? Where did I say or d... (Below threshold)
KC:

***KC? Where did I say or do that? BDS, alive and well.***

Where did you say or do what?
NOT renounce the (debunked) smear campaign on Kerry?

You didn't. That's exactly my point. You think that you can conveniently pick and choose when to defend someone's "military" service. Your silence on the matter referenced speaks volumes for yourself and your party of hypocrites.

Please no more questions for questions.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy