|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where Was W Waldo? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Where was George? (click)
Thursday, September 9, 2004 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD In times of war, especially controversial war, it is legitimate to examine the military bona fides of the commander in chief and anyone who would be commander in chief. Sen. John Kerry has learned that the hard way as his service in Vietnam has been questioned in response to his "reporting for duty" approach at the Democratic convention. And with more than 1,000 U.S. dead in Iraq, the controversy over President Bush's service -- or lack thereof -- in the Texas Air National Guard will not go away. The Boston Globe reported yesterday that an analysis of military records shows that Bush "fell well short of meeting his military obligation" in the late '60s and early '70s and he did not face the prescribed punishments for doing so. The allegations, first raised by The Globe in 2000, have returned with new fervor. And the exposure of a Bush campaign connection to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attack on Kerry naturally spurs new interest in Bush's National Guard record and renews questions of strings being pulled to help a privileged son avoid Vietnam through a coveted slot in the Guard. If it's fair game to question whether Kerry earned the medals he was awarded for his tour of duty in the Vietnam War, it's fair game, too, to question whether Bush earned what amounted to his deferment from that war.But that is not all of the story yet: CBS obtained four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Mr. Bush's squadron commander at the texas ANG base. From Bush's Guard Duty Under Microscope (click for full article)The first memo is a direct order to take "an annual physical examination" - a requirement for all pilots. Another memo refers to a phone call from the lieutenant in which he and his commander "discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." And that due to other commitments "he may not have time." On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered. A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment. Killian's memo, titled 'CYA' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job." (bold italic underline my emphasis) That last from a commander that was so impressed with young George when he joined that he arranged a special photo-op of him swearing in young George. here's more (same source):It's not just the newly discovered memos causing trouble. There are new questions as to why, when he moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School, Mr. Bush did not sign up with a reserve unit there, as he promised in a letter when he left the Texas National Guard And why, with his erratic attendance record, he was subject to neither discipline nor active duty call-up as provided for in his contract with the Guard. Larry Korb, an assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan has reviewed the Mr. Bush's record and believes he did not fulfill his contract. "Essentially, Bush gamed the system to avoid serving his country the way that most of his contemporaries had to," Korb said. There are no documents certifying shrubs completion of the service training requirements that would be necessary for him to get an honorable discharge. Something is missing ... and it appears to be some service that was due this country. Enjoy This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 21:02 AM This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 21:05 AM Edited by RAZD, : Changed email notification, updated sig compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Ahhhhhh, ya beat me to it damn ye.
But I got some additional details. Of course let me make sure and say that I have no way of corroborating that this is true, just that if true is pretty awful. I think this warrants a bit of investigation, namely because the White House is not only not fessing up, but obviously trying to spin the emerging documents.
All following quotes from this newspage at Yahoo. to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. Killian actually used the word "sugar coat" in his letter.
quote:And if that isn't bad enough... quote:Which essentially says that under pressure he was willing to change dates to create the appearance Bush was active, when he might not have been (and according to this person's impression there was no evidence for). While I was reading this news I was wondering how on earth the White House was going to try and play this: say the documents were forgeries, say Killian was a bogus military man like Kerry who your just can't trust? Eh, no...
quote: You know what's wonderful about WRITTEN human language? It allows us to tell others our thoughts in a way that can last past our physical deaths. It's not like that report of Killian's was a poem or something. It was pretty straightforward. Unless "pressure", "sugarcoat", "push", "backdate", "having trouble running interference and doing my job", "Bush wasn't here", and "I will not rate" are code phrases for something else I do not see what OTHER interpretation this letter can have. Really, can we force the White House to try and give us an alternate interpretation. That would have to be hilarious. This message has been edited by holmes, 09-09-2004 04:58 AM holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes, I heard that in the interview, but the site I found didn't quote the document, so I had to go with what it said.
Now from CNN News (netscape online, click for full article):
Memos Show Bush Suspended From Flying (bold and yellow for emphasis) ``On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered,'' says an Aug. 1, 1972 memo by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who is now dead. The White House said in February that it had released all records of Bush's service, but one of Killian's memos stated it was ``for record'' and another directing Bush to take the physical exam stated that it was ``for 1st Lt. George W. Bush.''
``I can't explain why that wouldn't be in his record, but they were found in Jerry Killian's personal records,'' White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CBS's ``60 Minutes II,'' which first obtained the memos. A memo dated May 19, 1972, five days after Bush was supposed to have completed his physical, summarizes a telephone discussion with Bush about how he ``can get out of coming to drill from now through November.'' It says Bush was ``told he could do ET for three months or transfer.'' ET referred to equivalent training, a procedure for meeting training requirements without attending regularly scheduled drills. The same memo says ``we talked abut him getting his flight physical situation fixed'' and quotes Bush as saying he would ``do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status.'' It also says, I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment.'' Records released this year when Bush's military service re-emerged as a campaign issue contain no evidence that he showed up for duty at all for five months in mid-1972 and document only a few occasions later that year. Asked about Killian's statement in a memo about the military's investment in Bush, Bartlett told CBS: ``For anybody to try to interpret or presume they know what somebody who is now dead was thinking in any of these memos, I think is very difficult to do.'' Gee, could the documents be missing from shrubs records because his file had been purged when he ran for Governor of Texas? What is clear to me is that his superior officer went from a high opinion of shrub, giving him high marks, to a low opinion of shrub, suspending him from duty and refusing to cover for him, in just a couple of years -- now that shows leadership ability, eh? Then there is the question of just what did lil-Georgie do for that campaign that was so important? Half days, missed days, people covering to do his job? Wonder how many kids in Nam would have liked that opportunity? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I'm becoming less impressed with the reality of the memos. I thought that these came from the latest batch of papers to be released though the FOIA request.
I had not realized they were only papers "secretly" given to Rather by "unknown sources". And what's worse it apears the only authentications by experts turn out to be nonauthentications, and indeed questions raised (though that doesn't mean they aren't authentic), except by some "unkown expert". What the hell? And now that questions are being raised he OUGHT to come forward with his sources so that it can be verified. Otherwise it will look like garbage no matter what. Of course this is not without its irony. I am willing to doubt the veracity of these memos, as I am sure most proBushies are. Yet who among them are dealing with and admitting the proven falsehoods of the allegations made against Kerry by the swiftboat jerks? Indeed, one can't even find consistency in the White House. When this was happening to Kerry, Laura Bush ended up defending the right for people to speak and even if things weren't totally accurate. maybe completely false, it was important to keep them in mind as questions which might be legitimate. Same went for the press sec, and almost all the Republicans in congress. Now that its her husband and their man, this is a travesty and apparently an important issue (important to disbelieve) because it is meant to influence a presidential election in a time of war???? Of course what I really want to see is this... one of the mantras of the proBush crowd was if the Swift Boat guys were lying, why doesn't Kerry sue? Ahem, if these memos are lies and all the people saying Bush wasn't there are lying, why doesn't Bush sue? Will there be any consistency? holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If I were machiavelian I would think that the neocons released them so that the whole issue would be discredited.
What impresses me is that there was no categorical denial from the white house of the details in the documents. If they were hoaxes, then that would have been the proper course. conclusions: (1) they are factual even if the sources are questionable OR (2) the truth is worse, and proving them wrong would be to show the truth. enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7267 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Not to mention that the commander of the author has stated that the author expressed such sentiments to him several times.
Ralph Nader: A tireless advocate for, and dedicated champion of, Ralph Nader. This message has been edited by Rei, 09-15-2004 01:08 PM "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6677 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
If I were machiavelian I would think that the neocons released them so that the whole issue would be discredited. This reveals much about your mindset. To put it as mildly as I can, it bespeaks a high susceptiblility to confirmation bias of assertions that tend to reflect poorly on political candidates you don't like. This is hardly consistent with critical thinking and skepticism.
What impresses me is that there was no categorical denial from the white house of the details in the documents. Why should there be ? The burden of evidence is on CBS to demonstrate that the documents themselves are valid, and the assertions therein are valid. Are we to accept argumentum ad verecundiam of the form "Dan Rather says so, therefore it must be true" ? By your line of argument, the fact that Kerry was slow to deny the claims of the Swifties suggests there is some truth to those claims. Not that I agree with that. I am merely demonstrating that your reasoning is as poor as those who make such claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7267 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Two words:
Push Polls. {Bare link - Forum rule violation - I'll add a quotation of the beginning part of the article - Adminnemooseus}
quote: {The article goes on from there to discuss polling methodology, including the following - Adminnemooseus}
quote: {My apologies - there may well also be some minnemooseus in this action. But doing such seemed better than issuing a forum guideline violation message - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-16-2004 02:20 PM From Rei: Actually, the point of note is this:
quote: This message has been edited by Rei, 09-17-2004 01:15 PM "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
This reveals much about your mindset. He said "if". That is consistent with both critical thinking AND skepticism. If the thought this could be what happened did not occur to you, or you believe that there is no way that it could have happened (despite no evidence one way or the other), then you are lacking in one or the other. In addition, this does show that RAZD is capable of writing popular novels, or conspiracy theory tracts for the gullible.
The burden of evidence is on CBS to demonstrate that the documents themselves are valid, and the assertions therein are valid... I am merely demonstrating that your reasoning is as poor as those who make such claims. I agree with you 100% on this. However one must point out that the WHITE HOUSE ADMINISTRATION IS MAKING SUCH CLAIMS. The attacks on Kerry were allowed to continue without serious question and Bush, Laura Bush, Rice, Cheney, Lynn Cheney and even Republicans outside the government like Dole kept intimating that the attacks should not be doubted and even if some things fall by the wayside it "raises issues". Indeed Laura Bush, Dole, and Lynn Cheney all used the "well if it's wrong Kerry should be defending himself (in court if need be)". Leaving the idea that since he is not, most of it must be right. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1659 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
looks like you got it covered in my absence
maybe novels is the way to go. at least then I could get some money for it. to add on to the machiavelian comment, I wouldn't put it past the neocons to be that devious, but I don't think they are that creative. It is typical of a lack of imagination in the group. Bush sees things in black and white, and all the neocons think this is good. problem is the world is in color (has been since the invention of color in the 50's) so when he only has two choices of action, most likely both are wrong. heh This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-16-2004 06:24 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
paisano Member (Idle past 6677 days) Posts: 459 From: USA Joined: |
If the thought this could be what happened did not occur to you, or you believe that there is no way that it could have happened (despite no evidence one way or the other), then you are lacking in one or the other. It is within the range of possibility that some pro-Bush group did the forgeries. However it's not the most likely option, for a number of reasons: 1) There is no evidence of it AFAIK, present some if you know otherwise. 2) The more straightforward tactic of attacking Kerry's record seems effective enough, so why a Byzantine scheme such as this ? 3) The party most discredited if, as seems likely by the preponderance of the evidence, the documents are forgeries is CBS News, regardless of who did the forgeries. CBS News failed to detect that the documents were forged, evidence of sloppy journalism, and jumped on the documents like a hungry shark, (admittedly weaker) evidence of an eagerness to discredit Bush.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
It is within the range of possibility that some pro-Bush group did the forgeries. However it's not the most likely option, for a number of reasons: I think you took my statement too strongly. Skepticism would certainly allow you to believe that it is unlikely they were planted forgeries. I doubt that they were planted forgeries. My point was that if you thought that there is NO WAY it could have happened (when wholly lacking evidence) then your skepticism would be less than skeptical. I agreed with everything you wrote. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Inactive Administrator |
At the "Is the media hurting the war?" topic, things are sometimes getting diverted into discussion the George W. Bush military record. That topic is currently at message 141.
This topic is a far better place for such discussion. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073] Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon. There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot. Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1721 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Inactive Reserve time counts. For instance: When I first joined the Army in 96 I signed a 3 year contract to serve in the Infantry. In the Army, you sign on to serve 8 years, nomatter what your active duty contract says. When you finish your active duty obligation you are discharged and placed into the Inactive Reserve component. In my case, I could be called back to Active Duty at anytime in the next 5 years. I went back to Active Duty 3 years later. My time in service was then 6 years, even though 3 had been spent off active duty. So for pay purposes I was paid for having 6 years time in service instead of 3. The down side to that is I have to serve 23 years to retire, or 20 years Active Federal Service. The problem with this as a rebuttal is that we were talking about the payroll report, which means we were talking in terms of pay purposes; so even including Inactive Reserve service, Bush only met 5 years and 4 months of his 6 year committment. Yes, Inactive Reserve service counts. Even including that, Bush failed to meet his commitment by 8 months. You still haven't supported your claim that Bush met his service committment. The fact that desertion papers were never filed against the son of a war hero and Senator, and future President of the United States, is irrelevant. They should have been filed, but they were not because of the political influence of the Bush family.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Tal writes:
quote: Hmmmmm, much of this doesn't sound right to me. I was in the IRR but only a few months ago. When you sign up for four years, you are actually obligated, by contractual agreement, to serve eight. However, after your initial four years as an active duty member or as a reservist, you can get out. In the IRR you live life like a civilian in every way. However, until your contract ends, they can activate you dependent upon the need. In fact, I was activated by the Navy, however, unbeknownst to my command, they had signed a conditional release to allow me to join active duty USCG and, therefore, didn't belong to the USN any longer. But you get no money or no benefits while in the IRR, nor does that remaining four year time accrue towards retirement should you decide to come back. I know because I was out of the military for three years and decided to come back. I lost two ranks and none of that time in the IRR applies on my DD-214. (Mind you, I'm 30 now and retirement is 15 years away. Doh!)
The problem with this as a rebuttal is that we were talking about the payroll report, which means we were talking in terms of pay purposes; so even including Inactive Reserve service, Bush only met 5 years and 4 months of his 6 year committment. As stated above, IRR time does not count as military time. Its only there as a contractual agreement, in the event, type deal...
Yes, Inactive Reserve service counts. Even including that, Bush failed to meet his commitment by 8 months. You still haven't supported your claim that Bush met his service committment. I really haven't been following the argument, so I can't really speak on the matter too much. But I know this. Just being alive and in the IRR ensures that you meet the required time. If you joined February 28, 2000-- you have to serve as a regular reservist or active duty member until February 28, 2004. However, you are still under contractual agreement until February 28, 2008. The thing is, you don't have to do anything except respond to an email so they have your contact info updated. I don't see how Bush could not have met his contractual agreement simply because he was alive. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add for further clarification "It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024