60 Minutes has no credibility - DPChallenge Forums

09/15/2004 11:20:36 AM · #26

Is Bush's present-day lying about his Guard duty not an issue of importance to you?

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/15/2004 11:44:24 AM · #27

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Is Bush's present-day lying about his Guard duty not an issue of importance to you?

Oh, I know he's lying. I'm absolutely 100% convinced, after reading through various articles, commentaries, including the analysis of the guy whose website you provided, and after watching Mr. Bush comment on his own National Guard record on Meet the Press, that Mr. Bush did not fulfill his duty to the National Guard nor to our country as a young man, and that "Daddy" pulled strings for him to get out of Vietnam.

Look, anyone looking at this from a distance would conclude that Mr. Bush is the product of the super rich and well connected upper-crust... Mr. Bush has had everything handed to him, including admittance to Yale, admittance to the National Guard, admittance to Harvard Business School, money and backing for his many failed business ventures, and admittance to the Presidency (5-4). Lemme tell you, this is not the way most of us live... this is not the way most of us have gotten what we have gotten, I know I'll be paying student loans for a heck of a long time; but, it just doesn't seem likely that right-wingers are gonna see things this way.

Like I said, I know who's getting my vote, Mr. Kerry, just like many on this board will give their vote to Mr. Bush, and there's extremely little that anybody can show us to change our minds.

But don't get me wrong, let's continue the political discussion -- it's good. I just think we should be talking about conditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the cost of health care, increasing poverty rates, the cost in credibility that Mr. Bush' administration has incurred on our nation. In sum, we should be talking about Mr. Bush' record, and the failure it represents.

09/15/2004 12:40:44 PM · #28

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Is Bush's present-day lying about his Guard duty not an issue of importance to you?

It's as much of an issue as Kerry lying about, or exagerating, his military service. They kind of null each other out.

And PS, I'm 100% convinced that Kerry is exagerating his military service if that means anything.

And PSS I'm also fairly certain Bush and/or his family ties pulled strings to avoid vietnam.

GoldBerry

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/15/2004 12:59:32 PM · #29

I'd like to go on the record as saying 99.9% of news sources have ZERO credibility - in reality.

Most stations and newspapers are owned by ONE company, or in Canada: one man.

Don't be a sheep in the herd of propaganda.

I may be equally mislead, but I only trust "Macleans" in Canada.

09/15/2004 01:04:20 PM · #30

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Is Bush's present-day lying about his Guard duty not an issue of importance to you?

It's as much of an issue as Kerry lying about, or exagerating, his military service. They kind of null each other out.

And PS, I'm 100% convinced that Kerry is exagerating his military service if that means anything.

And PSS I'm also fairly certain Bush and/or his family ties pulled strings to avoid vietnam.

That you think Kerry is "exagerating" his service is amazing to me. All he did was put his service record on his website.

He never went around saying he did more than his record. His record speaks for itself.

Then a bunch of scumbags come out with a campaign of lies - and they have been proven again and again to be liars and financed by the politically motivated. Yet somehow you believe the proven liars.

Meanwhile, Bush makes claims about his service which are demonstrably NOT true. He overclaims what is true.

Yet you find these situations equivalent. Blows my mind. :(

09/15/2004 01:15:42 PM · #31

Originally posted by bdobe:

[quote=gingerbaker] Is Bush's present-day lying about his Guard duty not an issue of importance to you?

Oh, I know he's lying.

Sorry, bdobe, that was meant for louddog, but your

reply was great!

I try to see if I can hold the torch for "The Left", you know, and many times I find that facts and figures do not appeal to everybody. Sometimes the folks who spoke bitterly about Clinton's "character" issue really meant it, and character was truly important to them. My hope is to bring that point home to another reader of this thread.

You know, I have rec'd some touching e-mails from folks who lurk here, who wrote me about keeping up the good fight for the message of the left here, so, every few days or so, I come back for more .

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 13:16:53.

09/15/2004 01:45:55 PM · #32

................ON CHARACTER....................
from JMM Talking Points
From today's Nick Kristof column ...

One fall day in 1973, when Mr. Bush was a new student at Harvard Business School, he was wearing a Guard jacket when he ran into one of his professors. The professor, Yoshi Tsurumi, says he asked Mr. Bush how he wangled a spot in the Guard.
"He said his daddy had good friends who got him in despite the long waiting list," recalls Professor Tsurumi, who is now at Baruch College, part of the City University of New York. Professor Tsurumi says he next asked Mr. Bush how he could have already finished his National Guard commitment. "He said he'd gotten an early honorable discharge," Professor Tsurumi recalls. "I said, 'How did you manage that?'"

"He said, oh, his daddy had a good friend," Mr. Tsurumi said. "Then we started talking about the Vietnam War. He was all for fighting it."

Jim Moore's description of Bush's 1994 Texas gubernatorial debate ...

During the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race between Ann Richards and George W. Bush, I was a panelist on the only televised debate between the two candidates. The question I chose to ask Bush first was about the National Guard. I had lost friends in Vietnam, and many of them had tried to get into the Guard. We were all told that there was a waiting list of up to five years. The Guard was the best method for getting out of combat in Vietnam. You needed connections. George W. Bush had them.
"Mr. Bush," I said. "How did you get into the Guard so easily? One hundred thousand guys our age were on the waiting list, and you say you walked in and signed up to become a pilot. Did your congressman father exercise any influence on your behalf?"

"Not that I know of, Jim," the future president told me. "I certainly didn't ask for any. And I'm sure my father didn't either. They just had an opening for a pilot and I was there at the right time."

-- Josh Marshall

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/15/2004 02:00:46 PM · #33

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Hmmm. Seems that Kerry conveniently "forgot" to post the after action report of the skirmish in which he killed that VietCong soldier. It has now been obtained and can be read Here.
An excerpt:

"PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge ( that would be Kerry ) jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. OINC of PCF 94 ( again, that's Kerry ) chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled â�� capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."

So according to Kerry's own after-action report, he pursued a wounded VC and shot him while he fled - just like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said he did.

09/15/2004 02:35:13 PM · #34

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Is Bush's present-day lying about his Guard duty not an issue of importance to you?

It's as much of an issue as Kerry lying about, or exagerating, his military service. They kind of null each other out.

And PS, I'm 100% convinced that Kerry is exagerating his military service if that means anything.

And PSS I'm also fairly certain Bush and/or his family ties pulled strings to avoid vietnam.

That you think Kerry is "exagerating" his service is amazing to me. All he did was put his service record on his website.

He never went around saying he did more than his record. His record speaks for itself.

Then a bunch of scumbags come out with a campaign of lies - and they have been proven again and again to be liars and financed by the politically motivated. Yet somehow you believe the proven liars.

Meanwhile, Bush makes claims about his service which are demonstrably NOT true. He overclaims what is true.

Yet you find these situations equivalent. Blows my mind. :(

What things that has Bush claimed are not true?

And for the record.. I don't beleive most of what the swift boat guys say.
Kerry admitted to commiting war crimes and witnessing them without reporting them. That does not make someone a great soldier, as Kerry would lead you to beleive in his advertising and at the DNC. Thus I beleive he either exagerated about the war crimes, or is exagerating about how great of a soldier he was.

Now what is worse, commiting war crimes (or possibly lyng about said war crimes to push a politcal agenda) or pulling strings to avoid being sent into war? It blows my mind that you would think these are equvalent.

Also, you may want to look into Bush's guard history a little further. He was in the Guard for 5 years. Only in the last year (one year of the five) did he request to get out of it to work on some political stuff. It is also my understanding at that time there was a surplus of fighter pilots so anyone that asked being given leave is highly likely.

But... all this is stupid anyway, because who cares what they did 30+ years ago.

09/15/2004 02:38:36 PM · #35

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
That you think Kerry is "exagerating" his service is amazing to me. All he did was put his service record on his website.

He never went around saying he did more than his record. His record speaks for itself.

Then a bunch of scumbags come out with a campaign of lies - and they have been proven again and again to be liars and financed by the politically motivated. Yet somehow you believe the proven liars.

Hmmm. Seems that Kerry conveniently "forgot" to post the after action report of the skirmish in which he killed that VietCong soldier. It has now been obtained and can be read Here.
An excerpt:

"PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge ( that would be Kerry ) jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. OINC of PCF 94 ( again, that's Kerry ) chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled â�� capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."

So according to Kerry's own after-action report, he pursued a wounded VC and shot him while he fled - just like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said he did.

Shooting people in the back as they flee is deserving of a silver star, isn't it?

09/15/2004 02:50:13 PM · #36

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
That you think Kerry is "exagerating" his service is amazing to me. All he did was put his service record on his website.

He never went around saying he did more than his record. His record speaks for itself.

Then a bunch of scumbags come out with a campaign of lies - and they have been proven again and again to be liars and financed by the politically motivated. Yet somehow you believe the proven liars.

Hmmm. Seems that Kerry conveniently "forgot" to post the after action report of the skirmish in which he killed that VietCong soldier. It has now been obtained and can be read Here.
An excerpt:

"PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge ( that would be Kerry ) jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. OINC of PCF 94 ( again, that's Kerry ) chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled â�� capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."

So according to Kerry's own after-action report, he pursued a wounded VC and shot him while he fled - just like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said he did.

Shooting people in the back as they flee is deserving of a silver star, isn't it?

Damn straight it is. Back, head, knees, neck, whatever it takes, are you kidding me? You want him to wait until rocket boy turns around, brushes himself off and yells " Time in!" ?

Or are you saying you think firefights should be conducted more "sensitively"? :D

09/15/2004 03:03:32 PM · #37

Originally posted by louddog:

Now what is worse, commiting war crimes....

louddog. Please. War crimes?

Think about about this phrase, what it means, and what political activist got you and countless others to use it.

John Kerry, with a Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts, two tours of duty, and an honorable discharge, beloved by the men who served with him.

35 years later, nothing,nothing! then, 3 months before the election with Bush, who is known for defaming all of his opponents, suddenly John Kerry is a ....WAR CRIMINAL???

Because he slaughtered people during action in war? That's what war is.

**If John Kerry is a war criminal, then so are the 70,000 other vets who went to Viet Nam, if I understand your argument correctly.**

Maybe I got your point wrong, but your argument seems like it disrespects the troops.

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 15:04:44.

09/15/2004 03:33:21 PM · #38

Originally posted by louddog:

[
What things that has Bush claimed are not true?

Well he has said recently:

*No strings were pulled to get him in the guard

* That he completed all his obligations

*That he didn't take his physical because he didn't need to

* that the planes he was flying were decommissioned

* that he was in certain places at certain times fulfilling his obligations

* that he was ready to serve his country at any time in Viet Nam, if they asked him

All of these things are lies.

Worse, he continues to present his case as being that of constant virtue and honor. But when you look at the record, you see the amazingly squalid things he did to avoid getting anywhere near actual battle.

He played a calculated game to put himself in squadrons, classifications, planes, job descriptions that would minimize or eliminate his being called up, and always at the earliest opportunity, whether he put down truthful information about himself on the forms or not. On these things he was as prompt as could be.

But when it came time to follow a direct order to take a physical - well George disappeared from the face of the earth.

And this happened twice! Once, which resulted in his grounding, presumably because of drug testing.

The second time was even worse! The second failure to follow a direct order to take a physical was a calculated move, because he was being processed for desertion! However, because of red tape, he could not be processed until he had his physical, hence, no George. ( And all the lies to this day about no need, planes decommissioned, etc)

Oh yes, it turns out that more strings were pulled to get George OUT of the Guard than IN to the Guard, otherwise he would still be in the brig, or would have been in Nam. But his obligation was far from over - he was now in active status - ready to be called up because he was in reality THROWN OUT of the Guard.

But george was too smart for em - because the Guard, you see, works on a honor system. All George had to do was give them false addresses for a few years, and they could never find him in time, before Daddy pulled another rabbit out of a hat, and had the whole darn mess disappear with an honorable discharge.

Pretty amazing, because all the documentary evidence shows that George did not come even remotely close to meeting his obligations just for meeting drills. Not even close.

We won't talk any more about the failure to appears, failure to follow direct orders, giving false documents to the military, false addresses.

We won't talk about the fact somewhere, there was a kid who got sent to Nam instead of george, who may have bought it, because his Dad wasn't a Congressman. We won't talk about the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer's dollars squandered.

What galls me was a comment from George I heard today, where he said, (paraphrase) " No, the Guard never went to Nam. Things might have gone better over there if WE went, though".

Unbelievable.

And this is the guy who struts on an aircraft pilot like a pilot. ( And John Kerry is a war criminal) :(

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 15:36:19.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/15/2004 03:49:46 PM · #39

Gingerbaker,

It's a well known fact that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and many others in the Politicians' Squadron of the Chickenhawks brigade have loved every war from Vietnam to Iraq, as long as others have to fight it. You know, it's always easy to talk of supporting a war and be a super-patriot as long as one doesn't have to dodge bullets, sneak around the corners of buildings to avoid snipers, and as long as one doesn't have to watch one's every step to avoid mines.

Message edited by author 2004-09-15 15:50:32.

09/15/2004 04:12:41 PM · #40

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by louddog:

Now what is worse, commiting war crimes....

louddog. Please. War crimes?

Think about about this phrase, what it means, and what political activist got you and countless others to use it.

John Kerry, with a Silver Star, Bronze Star, 3 Purple Hearts, two tours of duty, and an honorable discharge, beloved by the men who served with him.

35 years later, nothing,nothing! then, 3 months before the election with Bush, who is known for defaming all of his opponents, suddenly John Kerry is a ....WAR CRIMINAL???

Because he slaughtered people during action in war? That's what war is.

**If John Kerry is a war criminal, then so are the 70,000 other vets who went to Viet Nam, if I understand your argument correctly.**

Maybe I got your point wrong, but your argument seems like it disrespects the troops.

Kerry himself admited to commiting and witnessing war crimes. If the shoe fits...

09/15/2004 04:15:06 PM · #41

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by louddog:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by gingerbaker:
That you think Kerry is "exagerating" his service is amazing to me. All he did was put his service record on his website.

He never went around saying he did more than his record. His record speaks for itself.

Then a bunch of scumbags come out with a campaign of lies - and they have been proven again and again to be liars and financed by the politically motivated. Yet somehow you believe the proven liars.

Hmmm. Seems that Kerry conveniently "forgot" to post the after action report of the skirmish in which he killed that VietCong soldier. It has now been obtained and can be read Here.
An excerpt:

"PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit. Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge ( that would be Kerry ) jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties ashore. OINC of PCF 94 ( again, that's Kerry ) chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled â�� capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."

So according to Kerry's own after-action report, he pursued a wounded VC and shot him while he fled - just like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said he did.

Shooting people in the back as they flee is deserving of a silver star, isn't it?

Damn straight it is. Back, head, knees, neck, whatever it takes, are you kidding me? You want him to wait until rocket boy turns around, brushes himself off and yells " Time in!" ?

Or are you saying you think firefights should be conducted more "sensitively"? :D

I didn't say there was anything wrong with shooting an enemy in the back as they fled. It just doesn't seem worthy of a silver star.

09/15/2004 04:42:24 PM · #42

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by louddog:
[
What things that has Bush claimed are not true?

Well he has said recently:

*No strings were pulled to get him in the guard

* That he completed all his obligations

*That he didn't take his physical because he didn't need to

* that the planes he was flying were decommissioned

* that he was in certain places at certain times fulfilling his obligations

* that he was ready to serve his country at any time in Viet Nam, if they asked him

Prove it (without quoting a memo that several experts and the author's family say is probably not real).

09/15/2004 04:49:36 PM · #43

I know you may say it's from a right wing source, but read it, and then tell me what is not factual in it.

//www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

Russell2566

09/15/2004 05:13:25 PM · #44

Originally posted by louddog:

I know you may say it's from a right wing source, but read it, and then tell me what is not factual in it.

//www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

The article certainly pointed out a lot of things that I didn't know...

On a flip side: Could you image the shit storm if Fox News released FORGED documents about Kerry's service, could you then imagin the shit storm if you found out that the Bush Capaign group had access to the group of files that the forged documents were suppose to come from; on TOP of the fact that months before the documents were released the Bush Campaign was throwing around allegations almost EXACT to what were in the forged documents.

Now lets flip the names so it's reality instead of a "hypothetical" Why the F aren't more people more pissed off and asking questions... Good Ol Gore and John F-ing Kerry would be asking Bush to step down based on nothing more than the allegations themselfs...

09/15/2004 05:55:23 PM · #45

Originally posted by louddog:

I know you may say it's from a right wing source, but read it, and then tell me what is not factual in it.

//www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

No one disputes his first 4 years. But he had many years to go after that, and that is when he walked away from all his responsibilities..

The article also says the whole brouhaha on this AWOL/desertion deal is in response to the Swift Boat thing - that's not true - people have been trying to get to the bottom of this AWOL thing for years - it is not some snippy political knee jerk reponse with no legs or lack of documentation.

Unlike the swft Boat, where each new revelatio and document shows the accusers to be more demonstrable as liars, the OPPOSITE is true in the Bush AWOL scandal. Each new revelation exposes more lies, more new damning documents, more scandal, not less.

The article also is unbalanced in it's reference source - it only provides one LT. COM who flew with Bush for his opinion. Not a great source, and not indicative of the testimony of many much more qualified commentators, such as:

Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.

Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

09/15/2004 07:03:10 PM · #46

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by louddog:
I know you may say it's from a right wing source, but read it, and then tell me what is not factual in it.

//www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx

No one disputes his first 4 years. But he had many years to go after that, and that is when he walked away from all his responsibilities..

The article also says the whole brouhaha on this AWOL/desertion deal is in response to the Swift Boat thing - that's not true - people have been trying to get to the bottom of this AWOL thing for years - it is not some snippy political knee jerk reponse with no legs or lack of documentation.

Unlike the swft Boat, where each new revelatio and document shows the accusers to be more demonstrable as liars, the OPPOSITE is true in the Bush AWOL scandal. Each new revelation exposes more lies, more new damning documents, more scandal, not less.

The article also is unbalanced in it's reference source - it only provides one LT. COM who flew with Bush for his opinion. Not a great source, and not indicative of the testimony of many much more qualified commentators, such as:

Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.

Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."

So three guys say Bush is fishy. I bet the right can find at least three guys with equally impressive titles that can say he did nothing wrong. Just as CBS can find "experts" that say the memo is real and the right can find experts that say it isn't real. Posting other people's opinions doesn't support an argument and does not make for fact. You know that.
I'm not saying Bush is innocent, several post back I said I was pretty sure he did have strings pulled for him. My only point is that Kerry is at least equally guilty at doing some stupid things 30+ years ago.

Either way, who cares, this crap is all 30+ years old. Everyone has done dumb things in their past.

pitsaman

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/15/2004 09:04:04 PM · #47

CBS rocks,FOX sucks !

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/15/2004 09:32:47 PM · #48

First:

It looks like heads will roll over at CBS.

Second:

Those that still defend Mr. Bush's National Guard record do so out of blind loyalty to the "W" brand, the Republican party, and out of willful ignorance on Mr. Bush's record -- from his failure to fulfill his National Guard commitment to Mr. Bush's War of Choice in Iraq.

Finally:

The reason why heads will roll...

The latest from CBS is here and here. For those that don't know,
Marion Carr Knox was the secretary to President Bush's National Guard commander, the man that ACTUALLY recorded the statements in the now infamous memos (though the "physical authenticity" of the memos that CBS presented are in question).

mrorange002