Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

You mean like the press’s relentless pursuit of the Whitewater affair at the prodding of Republican officials and agents? Funny how that works. Press doesn’t seem to care who is in power, if there is a headline to be pursued that will increase viewership and thus advertising revenues, they are on it like fleas on a dog. Aint it wonderful to have a free press whose only guiding principle is viewership and what interests those viewers?

Appreciate your stating what you think this election should be about. Fortunately for democracy, we all have an opinion about that and they aren’t all the same. Funny how that works in a democracy, even a psuedo democracy such as ours.

So, let me see if I follow this:

According to the records released he did not even serve the necessary amount of time to be in the National Guards thereby failing to fulfill that contract. Then, by even his own admission, he is a “war president” despite never serving. So do you want a person who never fulfilled his military contract to be a “war president” and to lead this country into such an abstract conflict?

And much ado about nothing did not seem to stop the Republican party from pulling millions of dollars, which could have been used elsewhere, to send Bill Clinton through the ringer for something that in no way affected his political policies.

These charges go towards our perception of Bush’s character. Bush ran four years ago as a person who would not lie to the American people, and would “restore dignity” to the White House. If Bush would simply come clean, or give a straight answer, then we would move on with our lives. However, he continues to stonewall, and so we must pursue. Also, these records the administration has released still seem to show that there is a gap of approximately 6 months in his service, between May and October of 1972. Bush is not being forthcoming, and that is what hurts him more than anything else.

All of it is just a distraction from the real news. the Kerry Scandal, The Bush National Guard thing, Janet’s breast. 6 companies own most of the mainstream media in the world, who own’s these?

And although the National Guard thing is being used to as a distractor, over lets just pick the Budget, or immigration, or many things, THe problem is, that there seems to be ALOT of holes in the shebang—For whateer reasons, the media gave Bush a pass in 2000 over these things, while relentlessly dogging Gore, and misquoting him. Now, it is an attractive diversion to the less attractive things goin on. WOuld you rather Bush have lied about his Military Service? Or WMD, or 911?

Wow, talk about distorting reality…

The baseless, slanderous attack Kerry, McAuliffe and the biased media have mounted on President Bush’s service in the National Guard is completely irrelevant to the campaign for the presidency.

Irrelevant? Hardly. If those accusations turn out to be true, should it not be considered to be at least as relevant as Clinton’s naughtiness?

Caught with a popular President and still unable to accept that the Democratic party is now an out of power minority party

Popular president? He’s got his lowest ratings yet, according to some polls - Kerry wins in a Kerry vs. Bush matchup. As for the Dems being the minority, recall that Gore won by half a million votes in 2000.

Regardless of all the media attention, this story about President Bush’s service in the National Guard is not only irrelevant; it is unimportant and an indication of how dirty a campaign the Democrats intend to run in their effort to defeat President Bush. What a shame!

Matt Drudge’s attack on Kerry (for possible relations with an Associated Press intern while he wasn’t married), however, was a stunning display of bipartisan, unbiased reporting, right?

Conclusion: Remove head from sphincter, then blog.

Baseless, scurrilous, slanderous - kind of misquoting Al Gore so as to make him sound like an arrogant braggart? If the GOP couldn’t use slander, they wouldn’t know how to run a presidential campaign.

In regard to ceejayoz’s comment, Kerry has been married since 1995.

The news articles I’ve read don’t seem to be able to agree on the intern’s age, let alone the date of the rumored liason.

The reluctance of the mainstream press (e.g. not Drudge and Newsmax) to report on the story, when they jumped all over the Clinton scandal, makes me pretty skeptical of the validity of the rumor.

The trouble is, Bush can only account for a few times he was ever seen at the Alabama National Guard. Other than that, there’s very little proof that he stuck around for any extended period of time.

Now, if this were not the case, why this stop-gap release of documents? Why not clear the air all at once? There can be few reasons for this, and only one readily comes to mind: They are stalling for time, waiting for the press to become disinterested in the story.

His supporters can also shout out the hosannas, saying, Oh, but he did serve all that time!, while some of the pressure bleeds off. but the fact is, he’s admitted himself, more or less, that he didn’t turn up for training diligently. You don’t end up having to make up days of service, like he’s described himself doing, unless you’ve missed them.

And in the end, we have to wonder why, with a failed physical, and poor discipline in his obligation to the national guard, why he got to get his honorable discharge. The only rational explanation is that Bush used his political connections to smooth things over in the then very political National Guard system.

What makes this issue so important for Bush’s credibility is not merely the Chickenhawk’s lack of true military service, but also the man’s lack of follow-through. Joseph Kennedy sent JFK and his other boys into war. It was the eldest Kennedy boy’s death in the war that made John F. Kennedy the heir apparent to the family’s political aspirations.

Even Bush Sr. served in active duty, even getting shot down. McCain, as part of a military family, served with distinction. He not only survived a North Vietnamese POW camp, he also survived the devastating fire on the USS Forrestal, an Aircraft Carrier. In fact the damn thing started with a malfunction with his plane, so he was lucky to get out alive.

If you look at Bush’s history before his governorship, you find a man who could not run his own business, and was bailed out everytime things went south. He was only able to become governor because of a crooked land deal that used taxpayer money to take people’s land from them. The latest hubbub about Bush has just confirmed a picture of a man who doesn’t finish what he starts.

This is one liberal that agrees with you! On behalf of my party I apologize. McCauliffe is in damge control mode. This AWOL BS is about one thing only, trying to hold back the media firestorm from the Kerry sex scandal. I can’t imagine McCauliffe being such a jackass for any other reason. Unless you have undisputable proof you do not call the President of The United States a deserter. I don’t care who it is. Kerry is toast and this desperate action proves it. Hold off the press for a news cycle or two, try to get WI, and, scream like hell for everyone to get out of the race like they’ve been doing since NH! Why? Because Kerry is a ticking time bomb, that tape has been sitting in a TV studio since December.

Again, I apologize for my party. I am a bleeding heart liberal, almost a socialist or pinko commie rat who thinks the government owes me a free ride and some free weed, hell and some new guitar strings too, but, this is just outrageous!

we may disagree philosophically but this is no way to conduct an election, it’s a disservice to the voter! Completely out of line, irresponsible, inexcusible, McCauliffe should step down!

To address many of the comments above:

Its interesting that both Dems and Repubs are willing to take the other side of the argument when it serves their purposes. Many of those claiming that Bill Clinton’s character was not an issue are now claiming that Bush’s character IS an issue. And many of those making an issue of Clinton’s character are saying that character is no longer an issue.

The issue is this, however: Terry McAuliffe has lied intentionally for political purposes when he says that Bush was AWOL. To say such a thing, one must have a factual basis behind it, and there is no charge of AWOL attached to Bush. Before jumping to conclusions, note that I have not said anything about whether or not Bush served—-only that there are no charges against him now or in the past.

I see this accusation as similar in some ways to the Juanita Brodderick accusation of Clinton. Both happened long enough ago to have many of the facts missing or muddled. Both accusations are made without proof (the absence of records does not prove AWOL charges, nor did the lack of proof that Clinton did NOT rape Brodderick mean that he did in fact rape her).

The bottom line is that we may never know the “truth” in either circumstance. That in itself does not prove anything. It simply is what is.

> Many of those claiming that Bill Clinton’s
> character was not an issue are now claiming
> that Bush’s character IS an issue.

First of all, this is not true: Bill Clinton’s character *was* an issue for most Clinton supporters, at least in my experience. His affair with and subsequent national lie about Monica Lewinsky was a tragic failing, and it’s a huge blemish on his record. Those of us who think Bubba was a great president have to dampen our admiration every time we think of him.

For many Clinton supporters, his infidelity is almost his *only* significant character flaws (another may be his indecisiveness). Outside of that, I think he was a great president whose character flaws pale in comparison to those of our current leader.

See, Clinton’s infidelity is not nearly the same degree of character failing as what Bush is charged with even on this one military service issue. It’s not even in the same league. Ultimately, it’s a matter of degree, to me. It’s one thing for Clinton to lie about an affair when he had already admitted to being less than perfect at marital fidelity… and it’s a whole other ball of wax for Bush to lie about his military service when he *constantly* touts the veracity of his record and ludicrously exaggerates his role as a military leader. He even brags about the strength of his character! Given his rhetoric, **anyone** should be permitted to bring up Bush’s character as an issue, since he’s the one who made it an issue in the first place.

Secondly, how does Bush’s accusers’ supposed hypocrisy make his character failings less egregious? What does the prosecutor have to do with the crime? So what if some of Bush’s accusers are hypocrites? Perhaps in the time since Clinton left office, many Democrats have learned a valuable lesson in the importance of character. Maybe we now regret not nailing Bush to the wall for all of his blatant 2000 campaign lies.

Or maybe it’s simply payback time for the Republicans, time to get their just desserts for wasting millions of our dollars and undermining our very national fabric just to politically defame the opposition president over an absolutely trivial act of sex.

Either way, I hold nothing against these kinds of ‘hypocritical’ Democrats who are finally doing the hard work to humiliate and expose this fraud we have in the White House. Maybe it takes a brazen hypocrite to dethrone the King of Hypocrites.

-Cf

Christopher:

You do a fine job of putting words in my mouth. For instance, I never suggested that they hypocrisy of the accusers negated any of the accusations themselves. Read more closely and you will see that I simply abhor the hypocrisy itself. Nor did I either defend or accuse Clinton or Bush—-I simply stated the lack of evidence used in both instances.

You show your partisanship clearly in your comments. I would disagreed strongly on your opinion that Bush’s alleged character failing is worse than Clinton’s admitted character failing. We could argue this all day long, and never get any closer to agreement, of course.

Let me clarify my position for you. Clinton’s was NOT a private issue, but rather a breach of character committed during his official duties. I refer of course to the admitted fact that he allowed Lewinsky into his office while he donducted official security business (talking with Alabama representative Sonny Callahan about the Balkan situation). This makes it a breach committed during his duties as President. Secondly, had a Marine guard at any US embassy committed the same actions that Clinton admitted to, that Marine guard would have been summarily dismissed as a security risk.

Now on to Bush: IFFF it is proven that he did not, in fact, complete his duties, I would certainly consider that a character flaw. But it has not been proven, though you seem to accept the lack of evidence to prove he WAS there as proof that he was NOT there. Secondly, to equate an indiscretion committed at age 26 as a lieutenant to an indiscretion committed while President of the United States is ludicrous at best.

Christopher, please note that i am NOT excusing indiscretions, but I am strongly stating that there needs to be proof of those indiscretions. the burden of proof is on the accuser in our country, and for good reason. Or have you chosen to ignore that staple of our country in your rush to partisan judgement?

Dan,

> The baseless, slanderous attack Kerry,
> McAuliffe and the biased media have
> mounted on President Bush’s service…

What has Kerry said that your would interpret as an attack on Bush’s service? As far as I’ve heard he’s said he has no opinion on the issue. He’s even said that he respects Bush’s decision to join the National Guard.

Or are you saying that anything less than a total and immediate denunciation of the charges is a de facto attack? That if you’re not with Bush you’re against Bush? Maybe that’s why you think the press is showing bias by even looking into this at all.

-Cf

Hi Joe,

> You show your partisanship clearly in your comments.

Yes indeed, in fact my partisanship is so plainly obvious that I don’t see why it needed to be pointed out. You write as if I was trying to hide something. I referred to Democrats as “we”. I’m a Democrat. Next question.

I wasn’t, by the way, accusing you of hypocrisy or trying to put words in your mouth. I was just pointing out that there are many reasons, some fair and some merely political, behind many people’s desire to uncover the truth behind this scandal.

> you seem to accept the lack of evidence to prove
> he WAS there as proof that he was NOT there.

I never said that I was convinced that Bush was guilty - you may be putting words in my mouth there. I said he MAY be guilty, and that this issue is worth looking into because the truth may reflect extremely poorly on the president.

But yes, I do strongly *suspect* that he didn’t show up for his duty, given (a) his long track record of easy lies (from his arrest record all the way to the WMD threat) and (b) given the way his frequent failings have been glossed over by his powerful connections, both before the military when he was in school and after the military when he was in business. The idea that he might have shirked his duty and gotten away with it inbetween doesn’t seem farfetched at all.

If the current investigations lead to proof that Bush didn’t serve his duty, then the scandal would NOT be that he was AWOL (because that is not a very likely allegation anyway - more likely he got a lot of favors and was unfairly excused/overlooked by his superiors). Nor would the scandal be that he was a little remiss in his duties at age 26. No, the scandal would be that he has been lying - and continues to lie - about his service. The bigger scandal would be that Bush, in fact, is the compulsive liar that he and his party had painted Al Gore to be.

Regarding Clinton/Lewinsky, I am on the fence. I think you are saying that Clinton’s ‘crime’ was the affair itself more than it was his lying about it. Kudos to you for showing such honesty - most people are afraid to seem prudish about this, and they latch on to the lie as the crime, not the BJs. That’s why I compared Clinton’s lie to Bush’s alleged lie. But you seem to be comparing the ‘crimes’ behind the lies (avoiding one’s military duty versus an extramarital affair in the White House), and that is a fair playing field for a little game of “Whose Sin is More Forgiveable”. Even in that case, though, I would favor Clinton because, unlike you, I don’t see extramarital affairs as an extraordinary lapse of character.

Yes, Clinton showed monumental misjudgement in having his affair in the White House while President. But I contest your Marine guard analogy: it’s not analogous, insofar as Marines are a lot different from Presidents in terms of their rights, duties, and responsibilities. Marines are supposed to act like robots and obey their orders. Presidents give orders. I’m not saying Clinton is to be excused, but I am saying that it’s hardly unfair that a President has rights and priviliges that a Marine guard does not.

Also, please note that when you use the word “admitted” about Clinton, you are actually referring to Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, as far as I know, was never asked about and never really admitted a whole lot of details. I think Starr must have blew his load reading the Lewinsky testimony and wasn’t up to hearing it all over again from Clinton.

-Cf

BREAKING NEWS!! Kerry cleared on all adultery charges! Woman denies ever having affair and her parents say they’re voting for Kerry!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040216/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_polier&cid=694&ncid=2043

So what do you do when both parties in a rumor deny the rumor? Normally you let it go because the rumors have been proven false. I doubt seriously conservatives will let this go because they NEED it SOOOOOO bad!! But you can be assured that this “story” will remain only in the tabloids now..right next to the “Bat-Boy found in cave” stories where it belongs!!! Only a desperate and very gullible person would still claim Kerry had an affair! And if you do, where did you come up with that conclusion?!! Got a semen stain to prove it?!! Matt Drudge knows all?!! What grounds do you have to make that accusation other that political bias and the NEED to bring this guy down a notch!!

Also, for what it’s worth, Kerry is also urging other Democrats not to pursue the AWOL thing. It may be lip service, obviously - he may still want the party to pursue it more quietly - but in any event he’s certainly not leading the charge.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/18050.htm

-Cf

David, It isn’t like Whitewater at all. There was some evidence to support the Whitewater allegations. In the Guard kerfuffle there is nothing to support the allegations against President Bush. The entire thing is based on Turnispeed saying in had no memory of Bush ever reporting for duty in Alabama. Now even that can’t stand.

As to what I think the issues should in the presidential campaign, I meant to convey a sense that unsubstantiated assertions about something 30 years old pale in comparison to important problems that cry out for a serious discussion.

Dan, I can’t debate the Whitewater pre-investigation evidence, the information is not fresh in my mind. I don’t recall evidence of wrongdoing being proferred as the impetus for the investigation, but, as I said, it is not fresh in my mind.

I agree with you entirely that scrutiny of candidate’s history should indeed pale in comparison to current day problems of importance. But, the media is the media and they have a different set of priorities than you or I.

Thanks for the reply.

http://www.wusatv9.com/printfullstory.aspx?storyid=26808
A memo written by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr, at the request of the White House, said a review of Bush’s records showed that he had “satisfactory years” for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74 “which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner.”

Lloyd was personnel director for the Texas Air National Guard from 1969 to 1995 and also had reviewed Bush’s military records at the request of his campaign four years ago.

Lloyd has said that Bush’s early discharge was not uncommon for pilots or other crewmen who were to leave soon and had been trained on now-obsolete jets, as was Bush’s case.

Sorry, that was suppose to read as follows:

Adam, Bush’s early discharge is not at all nefarious. An Associated Press article reports about a memo written by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr, at the request of the White House. Lloyd’s memo said a review of Bush’s records showed that he had “satisfactory years” for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74 “which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner.”

Lloyd was personnel director for the Texas Air National Guard from 1969 to 1995 and also had reviewed Bush’s military records at the request of his campaign four years ago.

Lloyd has said that Bush’s early discharge was not uncommon for pilots or other crewmen who were to leave soon and had been trained on now-obsolete jets, as was Bush’s case.

> ” [Bush’s records prove] that he completed
> his military obligation in a satisfactory
> manner.”

No, they only prove that a superior officer somewhere signed off on it.

> Lloyd has said that Bush’s early discharge was
> not uncommon for pilots or other crewmen who
> were to leave soon and had been trained on
> now-obsolete jets, as was Bush’s case.

I wonder how true this is (i.e., how common was it?). What interests me about this comment

Again, nobody is saying that Bush just up and left without his superiors’ permission. The real issue is that, even according to this article, he served a grand total of six days during 1972, very few thereafter, and left the guard many months early. How did he get permission for all of that, and does it count as “loyal dedicated service” if one didn’t show up, even with permission to not show up?

If my father was a powerful man and he kindly asked my high school principal to just sign my diploma and to be a good guy and overlook my many absences, and my principal agreed, then technically I may have done nothing wrong and technically I will have a high school diploma. Can I ethically say that I truly attended my high school, that I did my time in high school? No. This appears to be analogous to what Bush may have done. It’s important for us to know (a) just how much in his life he has been permitted to shirk his duty and get away with it and (b) how he lies to this day about having done that duty the same as others have.

In short, I and others are interested in looking into this issue because it reflects on Bush’s character, not because we’re looking for evidence that he ran away from his base and escaped his duty like a common fugitive.

-Cf

Forgot to finish a sentence:

> Lloyd has said that Bush’s early discharge was
> not uncommon for pilots or other crewmen who
> were to leave soon and had been trained on
> now-obsolete jets, as was Bush’s case.

I wonder how true this is (i.e., how common was it?). What interests me about this comment is that it may lead the press to look into that question: how often did this kind of thing occur. During Vietnam, was it really “common” for National Guardsmen to leave early, or was it reserved for sons of Congressmen and other white-shoe types? Why didn’t they train him on another airplane? Why couldn’t they use him for other stuff?

-Cf

Drudge is nothing but a lier. He has been sued many times for reporting lies and making stuff up. Also Sun and Fox are owned by the same guy.
Go to www.witnessreport.com

Look for Rumor Gate

It’s interesting David, in your equation for ‘baseless, slanderous attacks’, you can change the principal offenders to Ann Coulter or Matt Drudge, change the pointed target to Max Cleland or Kerry, and catch a hell of lot less flack, as a result.

McCauliffe is as reckless with his AWOL remarks, as Ed Gillespie was slamming MoveOn.org for calling Bush a fascist.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but McCauliffe nor the bias media have offered up documented evidence of Bush’s alledged non-service?

This story continues soley because of the ‘whiff’ of a cover-up, fueled by the White House’s obsessive reputation of wanting to control the message or story.

thatcoloredfella, I think you are addressing your comment to the wrong person. I don’t see where I drew any equation or pointed to characters by name in any of my comments here.

Thatcoloredfella, the main irregularity still exists. They’ve just surrounded it with information to prove to their supporters that they’re being forthcoming. Now you can say that this is just a part of the Bush obsessiveness with controling the message, but that does not answer one crucial question: why?

Why must they keep his service record, or lack of same, under wraps? It’s natural to infer that Bush was missing from his duties, because he 1)Asked for time off to help run the campaign of the Elder Bush’s friend Roy Blount and did not get it, 2)admitted long ago to being assigned extra duty to make up for time lost, and 3)has not accounted for the time that’s truly controversial.

Other facts indicate That Bush’s defense of the charge is weak. One, you didn’t necessarily have to show up to get paid. Two, there’s nothing about going to a dentist on the base that indicates that he was continually present on the base. He could have popped in just to get a free exam. And three, the disciplinary powers of the commanding officers of the National Guard had in those days a great range of disciplinary actions they could take, especially since Bush didn’t walk out in the middle of one of those training sessions.

Because of that, he was subject to local UCMJ regulations instead of the more stringent national standards. In turn that meant that he could simply have been honorably discharged instead of getting shipped to Vietnam like some of his more unlucky fellow soldiers.

Bush was AWOL, if he was missing as described. And Ed Gillespie, like many Republicans in the post 9/11 world, is simply jumping on any kind of dissent, apparent or real, as unpatriotic.

There are many people who see Bush as a fascist, some extremists even put him on par with Hitler. I kind of doubt he’s that bad, but he feeds into the image with the hardline stances, autocratic management, and a great affinity for secrecy and non-transparency. Bush is walking, talking, and looking like the duck at this point, and many people are just going ahead and calling him a duck, get it?

As for biased media, you’re being manipulated. Yes, some parts of the media have a liberal bias. Other have a commercial bias. God knows we know that there is one with quite a conservative bias. But Biases are not as important as facts. Given enough facts, enough real facts, we can strip off the biases, and make up our own minds.

The Ditto-head culture allows a great deal of myth and misinformation to spread fast and be promptly believed very quickly. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have the filters to weed out bad readings of statistics, selective quotations, and other important pieces of context. It’s too gullible, too credulous. The more unscrupulous and partisan the source is, the worse it gets.

Forget about bias, keep it in the back of your mind as a question. Focus on facts, on corroborations and elaborations, on contingencies and contexts. Focus on the things that are true whatever one thinks, and build what you think from that.

Otherwise, your people will be unaccountable to you. Accountability requires autonomy on the part of those looking after the deeds of the one being judged.