BS: Bush AWOL revisited

Subject: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:11 PM

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, "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. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a "statement of understanding" pledging to achieve "satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. "I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.

Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not "met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: "And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired 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."

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush "took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. "There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush "gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. "If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said.

More in Today's Boston Globe!

And the AP reports this, quashing the white House's Party Line that he was excused from duty because the Plane he flew was obsolete:

The records show his last flight was in April 1972, which is consistent with pay records indicating Bush had a large lapse of duty between April and October of that year. Bush has said he went to Alabama in 1972 to work on an unsuccessful Republican Senate campaign. Bush skipped a required medical exam that cost him his pilot's status in August of that year.

Bush's 2000 campaign suggested the future president skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete. Records show Bush's Texas unit flew the F-102A until 1974 and used the jets as part of an air defense drill during 1972.

A six-month historical record of his 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, also turned over to the AP on Tuesday, shows some of the training Bush missed with his colleagues during that time.

Significantly, it showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United States beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a time when Bush did not report for duty, according to his pay records.

Bush's lone service in October was outside Texas, presumably with an Alabama unit he had permission to train with in September, October and November 1972.

As part of the mission, the 147th kept two F-102a jets - the same Bush flew before he was grounded - on ready alert to be launched within five minutes' warning.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:24 PM

Looks to me like he gambled that he would not be called up to active duty and won the bet. Should he have located another unit in the Cambridge area and followed through with his commitment? Absolutely! Does the fact that he didn't mean that he is not qualified to be re-elected? Of course not.

He was honorably discharged from the Airforce Reserve. Has the paper to prove it too.

This is just another dirty tricks effort on the part of the Democrats to discredit Bush. Of course on the Mudcat no real effort is needed.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:29 PM

No, DougR, it's like the man said. He cheated on his taxes and didn't get caught. That doesn't mean he's innocent!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: PoppaGator
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:29 PM

Anyone whose daddy wasn't so comfortably connected with the upper echelons of the CIA and Pentagon WOULD have been called to active duty after such repeated absenses-without-leave.

After just one such violation of the rules, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:32 PM

Nerd, what are you hoping to accomplish by acting as the Mudcat Kerry propagandist? Starting three simultaneous anti-Bush threads in a row?

Give it a rest, will you? It's getting REALLY tiresome for you to keep rehashing old news like this.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:40 PM

Hey, did I mention Kerry? YOU are the one who seems obsessed with Kerry, GUEST, given all the rabid anti-Kerry threads you started a few weeks ago. Did you think we had forgotten, you naughty hypocrite?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

There was a very interesting discussion on Terry Gross' Fresh Air today: "Journalist Wayne Slater talks about George Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Slater's book on the subject, Bush's Brain, has been adapted into a documentary film." Visit this link and enter September 8, 2004 for the correct interview to listen to the program.

Guest, you give it a rest. It's propaganda when it's a lie, and that is what Bush and Rove are pushing, not Kerry. The depressing part of all of this is that Bush's dirty tricks go unexamined by such a high percentage of the electorate.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

I think you have another guest in mind, Nerd. You might be chagrined to know I'm not that guest, but a regular Mudcatter, who is getting mighty fed up with the same old candidate propaganda every time I open a thread, and see certain names as the originators of the threads.

In case you are wondering Nerd, your name comes up often enough in that context.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:46 PM

Not real often, GUEST. I don't start too many threads of any kind. And you really can't blame me for mistaking you for another guest. If you want to speak your mind as a member, do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 02:48 PM

By the way, to blanket several different threads with the exact same post could certainly be considered "tiresome." So whether you are the usual GUEST or not, you ARE a hypocrite in this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 03:30 PM

"another dirty tricks effort on the part of the Democrats to discredit Bush." DougR

This perception may be the main problem that the Right Wing has: a failure to see that exposing the truth is not a "dirty trick".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:02 PM

The father of dirty tricks is Karl Rove and his tutelage from Lee Atwater. His religion is to win at all costs. He doesn't care who it hurts, or who he damages on the way to his victory. He is an amoral individual who is probably paid handsomely for his service. He wants to realign America like William McKinley tried to do for the dominance of business in the Republican Party. He is trying to destroy Democrats in any way he can. He has a direct mail business as a consultant. Karl Rove will be worth millions if he defeats Kerry.

Now he claims distance from the "Swift Boat for Truth" liars. He probably is involved because he has been in every other ancillary group that surrounds the dirty tricks groups of the Republicans.

"He is a brilliant political operative" says Wayne Slater, author of the book "Bush's Brain. What he doesn't mention however is the cheapening of the political process in the hands of this operative. Lee Atwater on his deathbed
apparently decided that what he did was wrong and not good for the country.
Will Karl Rove make the same assessment?

In the meantime, this amoral behavior spills onto his protege, the guy he got to be governor of Texas who fraudulently cooked the books on inflating the so-called "Texas Miracle" and raised test scores in the schools there. It follows that this kind of individual would not only not condemn those false Swift Boat ads but wiggle his way out of duty in the Guard. The pattern of evidence is there in Bush's behavior. The new wrinkle, as Nerd has correctly pointed out can be seen on "Sixty Minutes" where the man that got Bush out of duty in Vietnam testifies and the articles in today's New York Times by men in the same unit with Bush attest to the fact that he wasn't there.

New evidence deserves new considerations.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Kim C
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:42 PM

So people who try to discredit Bush are truthful, and people who try to discredit Kerry are not? How do we know for sure?

In just about every political election, each side will try to discredit the other, by any means necessary. It's nothing new.

Buyer beware.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:50 PM

Also GUEST,

just out of curiosity,

(1) Do you consider ANY discussion of Bush's wrongdoing to be Kerry propaganda? If not, then your post is irrelevant.   Remember, I never mentioned Kerry, nor did either of the articles I quoted. So you're just blathering.

if you DO consider any criticism of Bush to be Kerry propaganda, and you truly are "getting mighty fed up with the same old candidate propaganda every time [you] open a thread,"

then

(2) Why would you open a thread whose title announces that it criticizes Bush?

Seems to me you KNEW what was going to be in the thread. So don't try to make yourself sound like an innocent bystander hit by a propaganda bomb!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: kendall
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 04:51 PM

In the end it will make no difference. 90% of us have made up our minds and nothing will change them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:08 PM

Barnes tonight on "Sixty Minutes" about W's Awol.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM

Exactly my point, kendall. Which begs the question, why aren't we having more meaningful discussions about the politics? This forum is as polarized as the electorate. Nerd isn't going to gain and Kerry converts, and DougR isn't going to gain any Bush converts.

Seems the forum Republicans and Democrats are at an impasse here, a stalemate, standoff, call it what you will. So what is the point of simply rehashing the same material over and over. I never thought it possible the election threads would be worse rehashes than that movie Spaw loves to hate, but...it does make one wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:30 PM

I find that Nerd's initial post details some supporting facts of which I was not aware. These help to buttress my own arguments in discussions with people regarding Bush's military record. That is one of the values of such posts.

Thank you, Nerd.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 05:43 PM

GUEST: Your 05:09 post: you are absolutely right! No one is going to change anyone else's mind here on the Mudcat. Kendall is right too. I think just about everyone here has made his/her decision, and little can be accomplished by rehashing everything already said.

So have at, you Bush bashers, from now on you will be singing to the choir, as far as I'm concerned. (Unless I change my mind :>))

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Joe Offer
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 06:00 PM

Actually, I think this argument is wrong on both sides. Both Bush and Kerry fulfilled their military duty when they were young men in their twenties, and both got honorable discharges and were not subjected to any disciplinary action. Kerry was in combat and got medals, and Bush was not in combat and not on full-time active duty. both, however, played by the rules and did what it took to get finished with their obligation.

But that's about as far as it goes. We have to remember that military service is a game to young men in their twenties. You do certain things, you get a discharge. You do certain extra things, you get a medal. The military keeps records of discharges and some medals and some disciplinary actions, but any documentation beyond that is very sketchy. I did my time in the civilized environment of Berlin, in 1970-73. Years later, I needed to get pay information so I could get retirement credit for my military service - the records were no longer complete, so much of the information had to be extrapolated. If you were to question my military service, I wouldn't be able to prove or disprove much. Most of the records are gone, and I flat-out can't remember much of it. But there is proof called a DD-214, that shows I did my time and got an honorable discharge. My time of trial is over - the result of that trial is the DD-214.

I think the same is true for Bush and Kerry. Most people know that at the time Bush served, the National Guard and Reserve were a joke, weekend recreation for boys who wanted to legally evade the draft. Still, it was completely legal. Bush played the game and got his discharge, so I don't think he can be faulted for that. He passed the test and got his papers. Lots of people missed Guard and Reserve meetings and got honorable discharges - why should Bush be thought of differently? After all, he has never claimed to have been heroic in military service, or in anything. Nonetheless, he did his duty.

Everybody also knows that combat duty in Vietnam was NOT a joke, and Kerry should get credit for having gone through it. He played the game, did what was required to get his medals and discharge, and got out. He passed the test and got his papers - but the papers do show he should get extra credit for medals and combat duty. This was over thirty years ago - it's far too late to question the validity of the test.

For both Bush and Kerry, the only true record of their service is that DD-214. They had to fulfill certain requirements to get credit on that document, and they did what it took. It's really unfair to put those documents to the test now, all these years later. The evidence beyond those discharge documents is incomplete and misleading. Any attempt to reconstruct the military service of Bush and Kerry is bound to have skewed results. It's just not fair to try it. I think we should accept their discharge records, and stop trying to smear these men for something that happened so long ago, when they were so young.

I think both sides should be ashamed their smear attempts in this matter.

-Joe Offer, Democrat-

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: pdq
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 09:50 PM

This Column is by Byron White:

Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn't show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president's years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush's service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry's record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it's reasonable to look at a candidate's entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it's important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans' attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush's service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty." Earlier, Kerry said, "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That's fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 10:04 PM

I don't CARE about war records or military service. At issue is the man's ability to run a country. Bush can't, IMO. He has been less than candid with the electorate. He has been manouvered by lotsa BIG money, and he has sold his own countrymen/women out in the process. It's that friggin' simple.

I was gonna say that he couldn't organize a one-car funeral, but I see on another thread that he's arranged for a helluva lot more than one. Remember that when you vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Bert
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 10:38 PM

Aw Doug, You know we'd love to change your mind and we'll keep trying. What would make you change?   

The price of gas maybe, which has doubled since Bush has been in power. I know it is going down a little now that the election is getting nearer, but wait to see what it will be in 2005 if Bush gets back in.

A vote for Bush IS a vote for higher gas prices. He's already proved that one.

And what about the price of beef. I've seen ground beef selling around here for over $4 a pound. And hot dogs at $3.99 a pound.

So how high do prices have to go before you change your mind Doug?.

Bert.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 10:47 PM

Guess what, folks?

Everyday that Vietnam and who-did-what stays in the middle of the campaign is another day that Karl Rove sleeps well.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,GROK
Date: 08 Sep 04 - 11:28 PM

Remember when the USA 'wouldn't trade arms for hostages'--even though it did? How come now it's willing to trade lives for oil and not care that the whole world sees that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: kendall
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:09 AM

Some of us DO care!

Anyone see 60 Minutes last night? 'bout time someone worked up enough balls to out that lying phony coward.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 07:59 AM

More than 1000 members of the US military dead. In this war. A war against an evil person who was absolutely no threat to anyone in this country. A projected defecit of $442 billion. A net jobs loss of over 1,000,000. Significant infringements upon personal rights.

Personally, the present concerns me a lot more than what two twenty-somethings did over thirty years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:09 PM

GROK: "trading lives for oil." Horse Pucky! Provide proof that the U. S. has stolen oil from Iraq or bury that subject. Pure BS.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: DougR
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:21 PM

As to the subject of the thread: Bush served six years in the Texas National Guard. That's a matter of record. Two of those six years wwere spent on active duty. He transferred to the inactive reserve after his two year stint. He was honorably discharged. Thousands of Americans did the same thing. Cheany is derided for seeking deferments. Thousands of others did too, to pursue education or because they had families. It was all legal and proper, but now ...it becomes a terrible thing to have done.

All of this is old regurgitated crap that Bush has faced in every political campaign he has been involved in. It has been hashed over and hashed over. There ain't nothin' there guys (and gals)!

Did I watch the 60 Minutes show? Not on your life! It's old history.

Oh, and tell me something my friends ...why is everyone so upset about the Swift Boat ads questioning Kerry's veracity, and nobody seems a bit concerned about the shite ads Move On America has been running that deride Bush? Why are the Swift Boat folks called shite for practicing their First Amendment rights, while Kerry backers are tolerated, even cheered, for running some of the most scurlous ads in TV history?

I'll answer my own question. The Move On ads are okay because they represent the POV of (guessing)98% of the folks that post on the Mudcat.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Kim C
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 02:36 PM

Joe Offer, I think that is just about the most intelligent post anyone has made on the matter, and I (mostly conservative) agree wholeheartedly. Very well-said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:14 PM

Bush is a weak man--his particular character flaw, played out over and over in his public life, is that, when push comes to shove, he cannot fullfill the promises that he has made, and he is not able to complete the work he has begun--

The fact that he walked away from his military obligations comes up over and over again, because shows a pattern that he repeats, over and over again--

He shows great promise, but after he embarks on a something, he founders, flounders, and then slowly walks away from it. From his oil businesses to the search for Osama Bin Laden, to the "Liberation of Iraq"--all grand plans, all botched--he conceals his failure by viciously attacking anyone who calls attention to it, or who might call attention to it--

The people that he has let down most of all are the people who believed in his leadership--He promised to bring the country together behind the conservative cause, and, instead, has personally alienated so many people with his stubborn, impulsive, actions and his abusive and demeaning manner that all the real issues have been forgotten--

My great fear is that the animosity and rancor he has so unecesssarily created between us will
continue after the election,no matter who wins--

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:16 PM

When DougR says

"the shite ads Move On America has been running that deride Bush,"

I presume he means the ad CONTEST that they ran some time ago, which did get some pretty hard-hitting entries. But those ads, contrary to what the screaming heads on Fox may have told us, never ran on TV. They could only be accessed on the Move On website, and only in random batches of ten ads (including repeats) from the hundreds of entries, so you could watch a thousand spots or more (including repeats) without ever seeing the two that Fox found so offensive. I know because I wanted to see them and my wife and I spent hours and hours downloading batches of ten ads, only to find those were not among them.

The only one of those hundreds of ads that made it onto TV showed children working in a factory to dramatize the point that SOMEONE will have to pay back the mortgage Bush has taken out on our future through the massive deficit and mounting debt...in other words, it focused on the future and the domestic agenda, just as people here are suggesting. It made a legitimate point (whether you agree is another question), was a beautifully crafted ad, and said nothing about Bush's character or his past.

The only ad that MoveOn is currently running suggests that Rumsfeld should be fired for encouraging the abuses at Abu Ghraib. I think they have plans to run a few spots featuring real republicans explaining why they are voting for Kerry. Nothing offensive there.

There is a separate organization called MoveOn PAC, which has a couple of ads running. One shows still images of bush with a voice impersonator telling the truth about Iraq (no WMD, No nuclear capability, etc) and then saying "if he'd told the truth, would we have gone to war?"

The other ad they're running shows CEOs talking about why they like Bush and ordinary people about why they like Kerry. Both are a little ham-handed, but there is nothing scurrilous, or even "scurlous" about any of these ads. None of them perform character assassination. All of them focus on important issues.

So what the heck is DougR talking about? Only he knows for sure.

I'm guessing it's the ads from yet another source, Texans for Truth, which call into question Bush's military service. But they are different from the Swift Boat ads in one important respect: the people in them aren't lying.

In the swift boat ads, several people say "I served with John Kerry." What they mean is they were in Viet Nam at the same time as Kerry, but didn't know him or know much about him back then.

Several of the people who now say he didn't deserve his medals have campaigned with him in the past, saying he DID deserve them. But no new evidence has come out concerning his injuries that could have changed their minds. What has changed is that people are now paying good money for criticism of Kerry.

One guy says he was the doctor who treated Kerry's famous first wound. But he isn't: you can check the records.

Every living member of Kerry's crew--every eyewitness to the wounds--supports Kerry and says he did deserve the medals. None of the guys in the swift boat ads can demonstrate that they were there when Kerry was wounded or treated. Yet they claim to know if he deserved the medals.

In short, they've been paid to lie.

In the Texans ad, people whe really WERE in Bush's unit say "I was in your unit and never saw you."

That's a pretty big difference, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 04:27 PM

By the way, even more NEW information came out on CBS last night. Most important were four memos from Bush's Texas commanding Officer. One makes it clear that Bush was suspended for failure to meet USAF/Texas Air National Guard standards AND failure to take his physical, which is different from the White House's previous claim. It means that even beyond the physical, his performance had been subpar and he was NOT meeting his obligations. In another, the CO complains that he is being pressured from above to whitewash Bush's bad record.

So again, an honorable discharge doesn't prove much. We have direct evidence in the CO's own writing that Bush was not serving adequately, but that this was hidden because of his dad's (then a former congressman and current UN ambassador) influence.

So his father got him an honorable discharge. That doesn't mean he served adequately.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Amos
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:01 PM

ANy moment now, DOug will pop up and assert that nothing new was revealed in the new material.

DougR the incredibly import distinction is in the intention of the ads. The intention of the SBFT ads was to defame falsely. The intention of the MoveOn ads was to get the truth out about a situation that has been coveredup by the media. An important difference.

Once given the facts, no-one needs to defame Bush; his record shows him up for the violent destructive incompetent that he is.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:14 PM

Nope, it'll be "that's just your opinion Nerd"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:30 PM

"GROK: "trading lives for oil." Horse Pucky! Provide proof that the U. S. has stolen oil from Iraq or bury that subject. Pure BS."

DougR

Dearest Doug:

The Iraq invasion is strategic and tactical positioning to enable the USA to control oil in the mid-East. That is my OPINION.

It is not pure BS; it is pure speculation.

GROK

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 05:37 PM

DougR - I have to say this publicly.   In another thread that I started, "Why George Bush? Why John Kerry?" you made some very eloquent statements about why you support George Bush. I truly could understand where you were coming from because it appeared you were speaking from the heart. I completely respect your stand based on that.

However, in this thread and in others, you are coming across as nothing more than an ornery old bastard. Just for fun I did a check and I notice in over 6000 posts, I could not find a single post that you made for any non-BS subjects. It really comes across that you are just looking for arguements, knowing that on boards like this you will be outnumbered by liberals.   

When you make statements like "Did I watch the 60 Minutes show? Not on your life! It's old history" and when you mentioned previously that you would never watch Michael Moore's film, you seriously hurt your credibility. It is one thing to have an informed opinion, but it appears that you are doing nothing more than spouting views you hear on shows like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. You aren't questioning anything your candidate says.    At least 99% of the liberals who post on these threads DO question moves that Kerry or others make.   You are just taking the opposite opinion.

Why DougR? You are obviously a well-educated man and you could be contributing to really good discussions. Instead you appear to be simply stirring the coals trying to create a spark. Why would anyone get enjoyment from that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 09 Sep 04 - 10:46 PM

By the way, I should also point out that Move On didn't MAKE any of the contest ads. They just announced a contest and people submitted the ads. MoveOn had no control over the content. The winner was chosen by vote, and I think it says a lot about MoveOn's members that such a tasteful,well-crafted, smart, issue-oriented ad won the vote. The ones that called Bush names or threw pies in his face (and there were ads like that, some of them quite funny but inappropriate for a serious organization) didn't even come close.

According to political news expert Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the Annenberg School at U Penn, the "Child's Pay" as is the ad that has gotten the most FREE air time in history...because it is so good, and because the Super Bowl Network (I forget which it is) claimed they did not run political ads during the game but then ran a pro-Bush spot, creating some controversy over whether they had censored the ad because of its politcal position. Because of that the ad was in the news for a few days and many people saw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 06:12 AM

Nerd,

"We have direct evidence in the CO's own writing that Bush was not serving adequately,"

The report this morning on the papers are that

1. the son of the deceased Col. says that his father would not have written anything like at least one of the papers being quoted. But then, I guess his son would not knbow how he spoke/wrote)

2. The "reports" that are being quoted are done on computer printout- But the military at that time was using typwriters.

So, when the final analysis of this is that it is all a bunch of made-up lies to smear Bush, I am sure you will make the same made about the Swift boat ads, and criticise the Kerry campaign for it.

Thanking you in advance for a fair and even-handed treatment,

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:26 PM

Bruce,

First, to be fair, the son has only questioned the memo about pressure to whitewash. He believes the one where Bush was censured for failure to meet Air Force standards.

His reasons for disbelieving the memo abotu whitewashing is not because of personal knowledge of his father, but because:

"It just wouldn't happen. The only thing that can happen when you keep secret files like that are bad things. ... No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that."

Yeah, and no president in his right mind would tape record his conversations the way Nixon did. Nevertheless, he did it.

This sounds like a son unwilling to believe his dad did something stupid. I can sympathize, but I don't consider it an expert opinion.

Remember, too, that the memos were unearthed by CBS, not by a shadowy group made up of former Republican lobbyists and Nixon employees.

The AP reports:

CBS stood by its reporting. "As is standard practice at CBS News, the documents in the 60 Minutes report were thoroughly examined and their authenticity vouched for by independent experts," CBS News said in a statement. "As importantly, 60 Minutes also interviewed close associates of Colonel Jerry Killian. They confirm that the documents reflect his opinions and actions at the time."

The White House distributed the four memos from 1972 and 1973 after obtaining them from CBS News. The White House did not question their accuracy.

The deal about computer printouts versus typewriters? I haven't heard it before Beardedbruce. But I don't think that's something CBS would have missed. And I think the White House would have said something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 01:43 PM

I would be shocked if someone was going to forge a document and make such a stupid mistake. Obviously a PC of that type was not arround in 1972. A forger would know that and find a typewriter like the ones they were using. Typewriters are like fingerprints, I'm sure the FBI could trace the print exactly.   I would also be shocked if CBS couldn't figure that out.

Beardedbruce, as a Kerry supporter I would be outraged if this were a forgery AND it was traced back to the Kerry campaign. Dirty tricks are wrong, but so is jumping to conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:00 PM

Hey, it turns out the "independent document analyst" who concluded that the memos are forged is one Sandra Ramsey Lines.

She is indeed a respected forensic analyst.

She is also a reliable donor to "The Wish List" a Republican 527 soft-money organization. So it occurs to me that she might be eager to claim these documents are forged, and perhaps also corruptible. I'd like to know who CBS uses to verify documents.

You can find this stuff out at the publicintegrity.org website--actually search on people's names. She's not a huge donor, about $500 in the past year or so. But most Americans give zilch to political causes, suggesting she is a very committed Republican.

BTW, you can tell it's the same woman because they give her profession on one of the forms.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:09 PM

Re: computer printouts versus typewriter.

I have stuff that I turned out on my Royal portable typewriter before I got my first computer in 1983. I now have, sitting on my desk, an Epson Perfection 1650 scanner that came with all the attendant software, including a copy program and an optical character reader. If I want copies of my typewritten material (which I keep in a real 3D folder in a real 3D filing cabinet) I can take the typewritten original and put it in the scanner. Then I pull up "Epson Smart Panel" on the computer screen and click on "Copy." The scanner scans the typewritten document and a few seconds later, my Canon S630 inkjet printer extrudes a fresh copy of the typewritten document. Then I put the typewritten document back in its folder and close the drawer.

I could also "Scan to File." This allows me to save a copy of the typewritten document in a computer file and print out as many copies as I want at any time. Or I could click on "Scan to OCR" (Optical Character Reader), save it in a computer file, and do the same thing.

The fact (assuming that it is a fact) that CBS had computer printouts rather than the original typewritten copies (with the Air National Guard would probably want to keep for their permanent records) makes more sense than it would for them to have the actual originals.

In fact, for their permanent records, all branches of the military have quite probably scanned a lot of their records and put them into computer files. Saves a helluva lot of space compared to having to have warehouses full of filing cabinets.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:10 PM

That's a good point too, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:24 PM

I think the issue with the "forgery" is the superscript-style lettering that appears in the dates. For "111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron the "th" appears in a smaller font and it is raised. I know you can raise the line 1/2 step on typewriters, but I'm not sure if typewriters had choices of fonts back then. I remember having a manual typewriter where you could insert different print heads, but I cannot see someone doing that to type 111th in such a manner.

Interesting. I'm sure the truth will come out.   Again, it seems highly unlikely that someone would do such a lousy job of forging a document.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:43 PM

The "Scan to File" or "Scan to OCR" allows one to put a document into a word processor file (MS Word, WordPerfect, etc.). And most word processors default to putting "st", "nd", "th", etc., following a number into a smaller superscript font. If you don't want them to do that, you have to change the default.

If that's how the copies were made, that would explain it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 02:48 PM

sorry, I just go by what thepress is telling me...


Seems to be as much doubt as about the Swift boat info...


And NOW you are taking the word of the White House as gospel?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Nerd
Date: 10 Sep 04 - 03:01 PM

beardedbruce,

you can only conclude that "there is as much doubt as about the Swift Boat info" if you want to believe that. The swift boat info was produced by an independent group of character assassins, none of whom were in a position to know what they were talking about. The memos were produced by CBS News.

In both cases, of you follow money trail, it leads to Republican lobbyists and soft money groups: in the first case from the Swift Boat vets themselves, in the second case from the "independent analyst" who is attempting to discredit the memo.

And I don't take the White House's word as gospel. I think their stonewalling is interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 05:45 AM

Nerd:

Have you looked into where Dan Rather and his editors have donated money to either party? Have you checked whether his experts have donated money to a campaign? If not, your claim that the expert who says the memos are fake is lying, just because you do not want to believe it is a hypocritical statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush AWOL revisited
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Sep 04 - 08:33 AM

Ahhhhhh, but wait.... It will take exactly 2 months to determine if the documents are real or not...

When is the election?

Hmmmmm, the boys seem to be doing that run out the closk thing again...

Bobert