August 19, 2004

First Republican Congressman to break ranks and call Iraq war "a mistake".

He's not running for reelection, which may be the only way you can hope to find out what an elected official really thinks. Still, this is significant, because Bereuter is not only a Republican, but a Republican from a strongly Bush state. Is this the beginning of the turning of the tide against Bush from within his own party?

posted by mecurious 20 years ago
  • Heh. And double-heh!
  • Yeah, I heard about this on Fox news, except they titled it "Paris' Pooch Found!"
  • Vice Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and he's able to criticize pre-war intelligence. Well, that'd be brave and honourable if he didn't do it just before retiring. This has a funny smell about it. Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Illinois, a member of the intelligence committee, described Bereuter as "very bitter" for having been passed over in recent years to head both the intelligence and international relations committees. He suggested Bereuter's comments were a parting shot to House GOP leaders and President Bush. Alternate reality question: If a Democrat who had been passed over for leadership positions suddenly decided to call out the Kerry campaign of "falsely building up Kerry's war service record" and "inventing half-truths about Cambodia", would you think, "Uh oh, maybe the Kerry dam is about to break wide open..."? He said the administration was wrong to disband the Iraqi army -- because so many of its members joined forces with the insurgents -- and was wrong to rely on the Defense Department instead of the State Department to spearhead reconstruction and the interim government. I agree. The Iraqi army could have been an invaluable resource to reconstruct Iraq quickly, and with more internal support. That was a large mistake which has cost the US in lives and money.
  • Oh come on f8x, the only people still defending Iraq are the righties in America and all the people they've cajoled into fighting with them. Coincidentally, the only people questioning Kerry's record are those same people. When one of them breaks ranks, it is a big deal. Besides, even if Kerry did lie about his service, it still hasn't resulted in the death toll that Iraq has.
  • I predict "sour grapes" will be among the milder smears to come Bereuter's way. If you aren't 100% with the GOP, you're 100% against them!
  • And I've never seen one shred of hard evidence Kerry lied about his military record, just like I've never seen any evidence Bush even had a military record.
  • Coincidentally, the only people questioning Kerry's record are those same people. That's a problem when you've got as many holes as Kerry seems to have right now. The Cambodia story is astounding, but even more astounding is the unwillingness of anyone but the righties to touch it. Besides, even if Kerry did lie about his service, it still hasn't resulted in the death toll that Iraq has. Wow. I guess it's cool then. Never mind.
  • The Cambodia story is astounding I'd have to disagree.
  • I'd have to disagree. I'm not entirely surprised.
  • It's just the turning of the tide. Right now the GOP are starting (slowly, like the creaking of rusted gears) to realise that Bush is un-electable. More interesting things to come around the convention, I'll wager.
  • I'd just like to say that the liberal optimism of MoFi is just as refreshing as it is disturbing. If Pres. Bush is "unelectable," is Sen. Kerry any more so? (And what does it mean to be electable anyway?)
  • Bush was unelectable in 2000 too, that didn't stop anyone from voting for him unfortunately... Anyway, on the Kerry thing, well I'm a lot less inclined to believe he lied.
  • On a lighter note, see p.2: Dick Pees-- man, what a name.
  • Belief is great, surly, but what does it have to do with whether he lied or not? And how is this link a basis for believing Kerry didn't lie? This is one vet's word against another, and Thurlow says the record that counters his claims might have been partially constructed by Kerry. So, okay let's play this game. I'm a lot less inclined to believe he didn't lie.
  • Someone please start making lemonade so that the ravenous hyenas in the Republican party will have something to quench their thirst once they finish attacking Congressman Bereuter in their bloodlust. Congratulations to Congressman Bereuter on proving me wrong: I'd previously stated that there were no senior Republicans with any integrity. It now appears that there is one with at least a little.
  • You got a password for that link, F8x? Bugmenot seems to be down.
  • So, on one hand we have a president who has lied and exaggerated recently, and on the other we have a candidate who, according to the president's people, may have lied something that happened years ago. Do we need to get a magician to explain how misdirection works? Here's a tip- watch what they do, not what they say. I admire Rep. Bereuter's courage. Even though he's retiring, he must really be feeling the heat right now.
  • From the WaPo: "Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics {read: Thurlow], who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events" But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."
  • "If Pres. Bush is "unelectable," is Sen. Kerry any more so?" If Kerry were running against anyone but Bush, he would be unelectable. He is running against Bush, therefore he will be elected. QED. It doesn't make any difference, since it appears that Kerry is "Bush-Lite" - but there you go. Actually, it probably *does* make some difference, since Bush is not only slightly mad, but extremely stupid, and his entire administration appear to be utterly corrupt and/or incompetent. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work this out. Anyone other than Bush is likely to be a godsend for the country, and the world. And this is pretty much the feeling amongst most sentient, non-crazy, non-stupid Americans right now. "(And what does it mean to be electable anyway?)" It means that people are going to vote for you. Hope that helps.
  • Just noticed that my link is the same as surlyboi's. D'oh! I would be more inclined to believe that this was "one vet's word against another" if the official records didn't back Kerry up. As it stands, Thurlow's wild-eyed speculation that Kerry somehow finagled an incorrect report is kind of preposterous.
  • My own research indicates that Kerry has fought in five World Wars and has been killed four times; while Bush fought in seven World Wars and was killed twice. On this basis, I am not sure who to vote for, as it is unclear who sacrificed the most so that I could wear long hair and listen to "black peoples' music". Please help me.
  • The only way to get George Bush and John Kerry to tell the truth is to rape their children in front of them.
  • ...and we still don't know where either candidate stands of "boxers vs briefs", do we?
  • Bereuter is from Nebraska. I think we should keep an eye on another Nebraskan, this one a senator: Chuck Hagel. He was on Bush's short list for VPs, but is close to another "straight shooter" - John McCain. I just discovered that Hagel is beginning to make noise about his own run for the presidency in 2008. Hagel (like McCain) has taken positions counter to Bush in the past. I don't think we should discount the possiblity that Bereuter (with nothing to lose) is breaking ground as being the first Republican to call the war a mistake. It makes the job a bit easier for the 2nd guy to do it. I can't believe that no one has contacted Hagel for his reaction to Bereuter's words, but I have heard nothing yet. It all depends on his reasons for running. He'll need Republican support if he is serious. But if he is just angling to be on McCain's VP list, or has the higher goal of helping lead the Republican party back toward a moderate center, he just might say something.
  • BBF: "You got a password for that link, F8x? Bugmenot seems to be down." slashdot/slashdot works. Re the article, I'm surprised f8x is so confident in disbelief. It doesn't come down in favor of either side. On the question of what did or didn't happen in Vietnam 30+ years ago. Yawn, yawn, yawn. Neither Kerry nor Bush can give a verifiable and consistent account of what happened during their respective service periods. It seems to me that both spent their time preparing for politics. So, how about that economy, eh? Do you feel better off than you did four years ago?
  • Yes roryk, we've turned the corner and we're getting th job done. well, those of us that still have jobs anyway...
  • From boingboing: Bugmenot appears to have been taken offline by its creators. The site served as a clearinghouse for shared passwords to registration-required websites. Subscription-based website owners despised it, hassle-hating 'net users loved it. No word on what happened (bugmenot peeps: talk to me, honey), but I'd bet dollars to downloads that lawyers were involved. (via MeFi thread)
  • Here is a report on reaction to Bereuter's comments from the Lincoln (Nebraska) Journal Star newspaper. Hagel is quoted: "Many of Congressman Bereuter's comments reflected the questions, concerns and warnings I had presented before the Iraq invasion," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said. But, he said, "we are where we are. We are not going to unwind the decision that was made to go to war in Iraq. Must there be accountability for that decision? Yes."
  • mecurious your link up there no worky. (first link that is) Re: the neocon-created flap about Kerry's service is unbelieveable for many reasons. They did the same to McCain in 2000. Both men actually served and didn't have their rich daddies hide them in the national guard even when they did bother to show up for service. WHERE WAS BUSH? goddamn.
  • Thanks for the password, roryk. From f&xmulder's link:
    What military documentation exists and has been made public generally supports the view put forth by Kerry and most of his crewmates that he acted courageously and came by his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts honestly. This view of Kerry as war hero is supported by all but one of the surviving veterans who served with him on the two boats he commanded. None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections.
    On one side: actual evidence. On the other: "recollections" by people who want to see Kerry defeated. Case closed. And that's a link from someone who opposes Kerry; if that's the best the opposition can come up with, I guess all we have to fear on the part of voters is massive indifference and mental laziness that doesn't bother to worry about whether allegations are backed up by facts. Uh-oh...
  • Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason. Bush sent others to murder people in another country, again for no reason. Who is more electable?
  • Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason You know, other than being in a warzone thousands of miles from home and having orders to be followed under penatly of courtmartial. No reason whatsoever.
  • Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work." But the 'hatman's right on in that it doesn't matter. Once you accuse someone of child molesting, that's all voters think about. These neocons are something else baby.
  • Once you accuse someone of child molesting, that's all voters think about. Bush rapes children. I have proof.
  • Shit, wrong link. But - yeah - take my word for it.
  • *snkk!* - you said Bush! *giggle* *tee hee*
  • More Anti-Kerry people are caught lying. I'm detecting a pattern here...
  • Neoconservatives Gone Wild!
  • Ooh, is that the tape where they actually tell the truth and don't make misleading comments? I heard a lot about that one. (Personally, I think it's an urban legend)
  • More Kerry lies I mean, more Kerry "versions of the truth" Maybe he was just mistaken Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire." Why is his recollection less valid than Kerry's recollections of the same event, especially when Thurlow is essentially saying the citation was incorrect? Shouldn't the record be examined? Shouldn't the citation be investigated? One can't automatically discount his story, just because his account directly contravenes a written report precisely because he also questions the veracity of the written report. "This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam." But they did serve with Kerry...
  • f8x, I just wanted to tell you good luck, we're all counting on you.
  • More.
  • "This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam." f8x: "But they did serve with Kerry..." wtf? in the la times article you pointed us to: "None of the critics quoted in the ad actually served on the boats with Kerry. Some of them also have given contradictory accounts and offered conflicting recollections."
  • You know, other than being in a warzone thousands of miles from home and having orders to be followed under penatly of courtmartial. No reason whatsoever. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, it's not like the Vietnamese came to Massachusetts...
  • That is easily the dumbest thing I've heard all day.
  • michael has posted 0 links and 2 comments on MonkeyFilter since August 12, 2004. Hi michael, welcome to Monkeyfilter. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are trying to articulate a pacifist, live-and-let-live philosophy, however inartfully, with your comments. If that's true, please pipe up and flesh them out a bit, as we Monkeys appreciate a fresh perspective. If you are just here to stir the pot with some strange Kerry-is-bad-because-he's-killed-people-while-doing-his duty-in-Vietnam strategy, you're going to have to come up with something better than that. We like lively debate, but we don't take kindly to trolls.
  • My point is, that Kerry's war record is a negative, regardless of exactly what he did while he was in Vietnam. He volunteered (he was not drafted, nor was he already a member of the military when the conflict started) to fight in a pointless, aggressive war. (If you think it was a good idea for the United States to get involved in Vietnam, then you may have a different opinion, of course...)
  • thanks for clearing that up, michael.
  • He volunteered (he was not drafted, nor was he already a member of the military when the conflict started) to fight in a pointless, aggressive war. Volunteered because, as stated by him, because he felt like it was the right thing to do and wanted to give back to his country. Or, maybe he volunteered because he thought he might be drafted (people have been known to do that). Also, he might have believed that going to Vietnam was the right thing to do. It may be a negative for you, with 40 years of 20/20 hindsight to determine if volunteering for service to go to Vietnam was bad, but for an awful lot of Americans, there's nothing inherintly bad about enlisting at all.
  • inherently, even
  • And since we're making this a campaign about finding out which candidate is LEAST culpable in matters both personal, social, and political, I'd like to see all of Kerry's military records which he has yet to release fully. I'm so sick of this year, I just wish it were over.
  • You could always stop posting about it...
  • Where's the fun in that ;-)
  • Does anyone else find it interesting (or telling) how a post on a Republican Congressman calling Bush's current war in Iraq a mistake can become a debate over what Kerry did or did or did not do in a jungle 30 years ago? Misdirection indeed...
  • Misdirection implies orchestrated effort to divert attention. Your evidence of this is...?
  • initial funding came mainly from a Houston home builder, Bob R. Perry, who has also given millions to the Republican party Perry gave $100,000 of the $158,750 received by the Swift Boat group through the end of June, according to its disclosure report . Perry and his wife Doylene also gave more than $3 million to Texas Republicans during the 2002 elections, according to a database maintained by the Institute on Money in State Politics . The Perrys also were among the largest Republican donors in neighboring Louisiana, where they gave $200,000, and New Mexico, where they gave $183,000, according to the database. ... Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three people there. Elliott now feels differently, and says he has come to believe Kerry didn't deserve his second award for valor, either, based only on what the other anti-Kerry veterans have told him. He told the Globe Aug. 6: Elliott: I have chosen to believe the other men. I absolutely do not know first hand. ------------- this whole thing stinks. And it's a red herring to boot - BUSH WAS AWOL! Kerry faced live ammunition attacks and risked much worse! Kerry is much more suited to lead based on that criteria alone. >end_of_line |
  • Thanks quidnunc! Don't eat the fish. Speaking of red herring, if one Navy citation says Kerry and the other Swift boats were under fire, and you all can accept it as legitimate, then you should also be able to accept Bush's Honourable Discharge as being perfectly legit along with all his other National Guard records, for which there is no proof, conclusive or otherwise, that he went AWOL. Surely if one is to dismiss the Swift Boat Vets as Republican shills, then shouldn't we also dismiss anything put out by the DNC or Moveon.org, because they are both funded by Democratic donors? Or what about MoveOn.org, funded by George Soros (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars)? Attacking funding sources should be the last thing the Dems worry about. The Vets have signed affadavits, if I'm not mistaken, so if they ARE lying, they will be sunk when it's found out. Until then, I think an open mind isn't too much to ask for.
  • Your evidence of this is...? About halfway through this post, I'm thinking. Oh, you probably mean in the political world sense.
  • for which there is no proof, conclusive or otherwise, that he went AWOL Nor is there proof that he *didn't*. Unlike, say, the irrefutable proof that Kerry was in actual combat situations under fire.
  • I think Kerry should completely open up his records too. If, of course, they don't suddenly and conveniently get destroyed like a certain shrub's
  • I'm still looking for the orchestrated diversion shawnj. I asked a hypothetical question that had direct bearing on Bereuter's statements. Well, hell, why not just throw out any link that is mildly threatening to Bush. The Bush twins may attend a gay wedding. Call out the Swift Boat Vets! Crap. Eight people just died in a Najaf bombing. That's gonna hurt Bush's stake in the War in Iraq. Where's John O'Neill? Geez, I thought the AWOL thing had been thoroughly debunked, including Kevin "Drumming the AWOL Drum" Drum's 'research', but apparently I was wrong. Call Karl Rove, we need another veteran to divert attention onto Kerry's bare-as-bleached-whale-bones Bronze Star citation. Wait, that's been done. How about this Cambodia thing? Please, you're making me laugh here...
  • Also, he might have believed that going to Vietnam was the right thing to do. shawnj, I'm not sure I understand your point. Bush thought it was "right" to invade Iraq. Does that mean I should vote for him? ...for an awful lot of Americans, there's nothing inherintly bad about enlisting at all. Again, a lot of Americans supported the Iraq war, does that mean I should vote for Bush?
  • . . if one Navy citation says Kerry and the other Swift boats were under fire, and you all can accept it as legitimate, then you should also be able to accept Bush's Honourable Discharge as being perfectly legit along with all his other National Guard records, for which there is no proof, conclusive or otherwise, that he went AWOL. How do you figure? Two separate issues, what logic holds that accepting one = accepting the other?
  • The issue at stake for both cases is the legitimacy of official records. They are very much related.
  • You link to a "debunk" right-wing blog that cites other right-wing blogs as source for the "debunking"?? Please, you're making me laugh here... no kiddin! C'mon I'm not saying truth has to come from Wash Post or whatever but a blog is about as credible as . . umm . . a . . blog. Cite an actual professional news source with some kind of reputation. Citing a source that uses "Aggressive fighting for the right is the noblest sport the world affords." as a tagline for proof that Bush wasn't AWOL is not credible.
  • No and no. And neither would I claim that you should vote for Kerry because he enlisted. Your original claim was "Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason." I merely pointed out that a)he did not go over there 'for no reason', b)in a warzone its kill or be killed, c)military service is considered an honorable action for a vast majority of people.
  • Please, you're making me laugh here... Laugh or cry. Whatever keeps the illusions from dissappearing.
  • The issue at stake for both cases is the legitimacy of official records. They are very much related. Except that in Bush's case there are no records that prove he served. There are pay stubs and other auto-generated ephemera but nothing showing he was where he was supposed to be for months. Out of all the paperwork that comes from daily life couldn't there be something to put the issue to rest?
  • You've really got to hand it to the righties - they've got balls big as melons. Balls big enough to run their candidate (who used his daddy's influence to get into the National Guard when they weren't even taking new recruits, then couldn't even be bothered to finish said service) as some kind of fucking hero, while at the same time attacking Kerry (a real war hero, and a principled one at that) as some kind of coward. All you have to do is link to some dittohead site and repeat the same taliking points over and over! I salute your balls! All of them! Especially Ann Coulter's balls!
  • Never once have I put forth Bush as a hero. Nor have I called Kerry a coward. And thank you for the balls compliment. I mean it. No one's ever told me that before ;-)
  • what about the debunking?
  • Oh, hmmmm... This is a response to one of the other of shawnj's "real world politics" links.
  • I'm looking for links that demonstrate Pejman's linkage has been debunked. The only thing I've found so far is the Calhoun link is still unsubstantiated.
  • And I still haven't heard any rebuttals of the Cambodia story.
  • Your original claim was "Kerry personally murdered people in another country, for no reason." I merely pointed out that a)he did not go over there 'for no reason', b)in a warzone its kill or be killed, c)military service is considered an honorable action for a vast majority of people. A. The US invaded Vietnam for no good reason (in my opinion) hence the people doing the killing were doing it for no good reason (in my opinion.) B. Kerry chose to go to Vietnam, and chose to kill once he was there. He could have stayed home, or, after he left home, could have refused to fight. C. I only speak for myself, obviously.
  • f8xmulder, You certainly seem to be posting alot of negative information about Kerry in your non-orchestrated non-attempt to not divert the focus of this post. All starting of course, with your wonderfully baited hypothetical question.
  • I'm looking for links that demonstrate Pejman's linkage has been debunked I thought it was proof that the "Bush AWOL" story had been debunked.
  • People post...I respond. Since you seem to think that's an orchestrated attempt to divert attention from the Congressman (I'm a vast right wing conspiracy all by myself!), I'll muzzle myself from now on about posting negative links to Kerry. After all, MonkeyFilter is just brimming o'er with negative Kerry links.
  • pete_best, from what I can tell, it is. While there are some facts that are still disputed (such as whether he earned the points or got them pro gratis in order to pass the achievement test), there isn't any evidence that Bush actually was AWOL. The best you can do is state that Bush did not attempt to make his tenure in the National Guard a stellar one. Clearly, he was a deficient Guardsman, but the charge of AWOL simply is unsubstantiated.
  • (I'm a vast right wing conspiracy all by myself!) I knew it!!!
  • I can't comment on how reputable a source this is... but here's The Straight Dope's take on the Bush AWOL story.
  • f8xmulder, Dude, I never said you shouldn't divert or misdirect, just that you did. You're projecting the value judgements man. Like I said, I find it interesting. I generally find the underlying psychology of argument and rhetoric utterly fascinating. Its like watching contortionists, but with words, and without the tights.
  • War on Iraq? This explains everything.
  • Christophine: Best. LiveJournal Post. Ever. (except perhaps for that guy who did the Latin translation of "Baby Got Back" a while ago)
  • michael - take it from someone who was actually an adult during the Viet Nam war. The country was divided, yes, but many young men decided that the war should be fought on the information (propaganda?) that our administrations presented - both Democrat and Republican. And, many young men changed their minds. You must remember that the democrat, Lyndon Johnson, lied about the the Vietnamese attack on the Bay of Tonkin in order to rev up the popularity of the war. The news is so old that I haven't been able to google up any serious current sources, but I'm sure you can find sites (or library documents) that report on the undenied reality that LBJ lied to make the war palatable to US citizens. Go do a little research. The truth didn't come out until much later, so patriots responded to the "crisis" and enlisted. And, thought about what was really happening once they had been in the arena for a while. Strikes me as honorable rather than suspect.
  • Tonkin links: Cronkite: Gulf of Tonkin's Phantom Attack http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1016-08.htm Also, the Lincoln Journal Star link I messed up in an earlier post on Hagel's reaction Bereuter's words on Iraq: http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/08/19/top_story/10053858.txt
  • Well, now that dinner is out of the way, I tried another search. Here's a report from Ben Bradlee (a respected journalist, in case you don't know) on the Tonkin Gulf lies: not just an accusation, and here's one from fair.org. Is there maybe a pattern here which matches GWB's smoke and mirrors regarding the WMD in Iraq? Except that Johnson was able to maintain the charade for longer? And, if the troops in Iraq come back and some of them regret what they had been fighting for after the facts became known, and run for public office, telling their stories, will you offer them the same treatment you're doing for Kerry? Kerry did enlist, because he thought it was a patriotic cause. I can't see how that makes him anything other than victim of the government of the time. And, those who went to Iraq thinking they had a patriotic duty to do so may not fit into your notions, but they did it because they believed it was right. If they change their minds later, I think that will take courage, just as I think it took courage for Kerry to do so. So, michael, if you don't like Bush, and you think Kerry was guilty for fighting a was he may have believed was a good cause at one moment in his youth, what do you recommend?
  • And, thanks, mercurious.
  • No prob. That Cronkite piece with tapes made by the Johnson White House is really something. And whatever happened to trusted new voices like Cronkite's? By the way (since this thread has been all over the board) here's what happened to bugmenot.com.
  • Good call, path. Thank you for reminding those of us who are American, that there once was a time when most of us believed in our government. Believed that when war was declared, it was for good reason and it was a duty and an honor to serve. Those of us who do not remember those times should try to remember that Kerry and he-who-shall-not-be-named both believed in their government. As path stated, it was not until much later that the awful truth started to come out. I think that to ask Kerry now of those times would be more telling of the man.
  • Voldemorte?
  • I'm so sick of this year, I just wish it were over. My fast-forward button is so broken. Back to sleepy for meepie.
  • beauty post path. Yeah the Cronkite piece is excellent - Cronkite's a different breed from the bubblehead freakshows journalism schools send in front of the cameras these days. There was a Doonesbury cartoon about journalists getting on a plane to follow a campaign somewhere when one asks "Where's Uncle Walter?" Then, from the front of the plane a voice bellows, "All Rise!"
  • path, good post. I don't mean to disrespect anybody who thought they were genuinely serving their country and providing for the defense of the United States, either in Vietnam or Iraq. Your point seems to be that Kerry was tricked into fighting in Vietnam. Apparently he didn't learn much from this experience, because 30+ years later, he supported the invasion of Iraq. Either Kerry is a hawk himself, or he is easily mislead by them -- and either way, I'm not optimistic about the prospect of Kerry making foreign policy for the United States.
  • Re the Cambodia thing; the only legs that seems to have is that Kerry has told the story as he was in Cambodia around Christmas. That'd be in late December right? Whereas, he was in Cambodia in January. That seems to be the extent of it - corrections welcomed.
  • f8x, this is from rocket88's link to straight dope: Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard. Have you found any of that to be in dispute? Obviously the "strings were pulled" is going to be undocumented but let's start with this part.
  • Woops, correction already - from the Boston Globe: The ease of Bush's entry into the Air Guard was widely reported last year. At a time when such billets were coveted and his father was a Houston congressman, Bush vaulted to the top of a waiting list of 500. Bush and his father have denied that he received any preferential treatment. But last year, Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of Bush's father asked him to do so. so it is documented that strings were pulled.
  • So a friend of a friend of Bush's father asked the Speaker of the Texas House to call Guard officials in order to secure a place for Bush in the Guard. If that's true, then the implication is (though that's still not actual documented evidence of string pulling) that strings were pulled. As I've stated before, I've no doubt Bush has not acquitted himself well on the military service front.
  • What to say, shawnj? It was seared, seared into his memory that he was 50 miles in. Then it was 5 miles. Then it was not at all. Then it was later on in December that he was in Cambodia. I'm not even sure what searing memory we're on, to be honest. Cripes, I can't post any negative links about Kerry...suffice to say, I'm currently reading about a problem with Kerry's first Purple Heart, as well as the NY Times coverage of the Swift Vets story, and Balta's 'explanation' is pretty far-fetched, though some of it could make sense. I've been thinking about this since last night, though, and it strikes me that we've all been spending a lot of energy defending two guys who are, in pretty much every way possible, grandstanding egotists with lotsa money and a lot of unaccounted recollections of the past. For my part, Bush is just a poor public figure whose ridden on coattails all his life and has done poorly at everything he's ever tried. Meanwhile, Kerry appears to have spent his formative years developing a kind of mythic hero persona which he could use in a calculated manner years down the road, and has since done so in a way that indicates that he has never met a belief, stand, or position on an issue that he didn't like. Both have lousy performance records as politicians-Kerry has missed at least 76% of Intelligence Committee Hearings, and we're supposed to take him seriously when he lambasts the President for misleading the nation with faulty intelligence? Bush has proved he's got the grasp of a four year old when it comes to fiscal responsibility ("more candy, mommy!"), and his ability as a public speaker is an embarrassment, even if it's not his fault. Why am I pissed? Because I feel like I'm in a position where I HAVE to defend Bush because he more closely aligned with my views, something that I've cornered myself into (but also cornered by this site and others) because the nature of posts on this site tend to be pretty unevenly against Bush. So I end up defending a man who I agree with less than 20% of the time. AARRRRGGGHHH!!! Surely, even-minded Democrats must feel the same about their candidate, yes? Please tell me I'm not alone...!
  • F8x: I'm glad you got that off your chest...honestly. I was beginning to think you were defending Bush because you saw no fault in him, and that worried me, because I know you're smarter than that. I think we've all been in the same position. No candidate will represent your views 100% of the time. I've often been in situations where I had to vote (in Canada) for a Prime Minister whom I despised (Chretien), because the alternatives were even worse. This site does get confrontational at times, and it's easy to get your back up and defend your stance to the point of absurdity. Sometimes it's better to say "Yes, you're right...he's not a great President, but I'm voting for him anyway". I think we can all respect that.
  • We feel the same f8x, but here's the thing, if I agree with someone only 20% of the time, you can bet your ass I'm not gonna vote for him. That said, most of this site agrees with the shrub <5% of the time, if that. We feel he's done much more harm than good and as in all his past endeavours he's needed someone to bail his ass out of the hole he'd dug for himself, he's gonna need that again. We as a nation can't afford to be the latest on his long list of failures. There's too much at stake. Do I think there may be some falsehoods or exaggeration in Kerry's story? Sure I do, but by the same token, I weigh in the fact that this same treatment was trotted out by the Bushies against McCain in 2000 and Cleland in 2002 and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt simply because the pattern of slime is way too similar.
  • I'm definately in the "Kerry Sucks Less" camp, although I'd definately align myself more closely with V.P. candidate Edwards, just as I preferred Gore to Clinton. Here's my take: Kerry knew how paper-thin Bush's military record is, and how his "people" smeared both McCain and Cleland on their military records, so he feels he can over-emphasize and even exaggerate his own military record and still beat Bush on that part of the "character issue". Cynical? Yup. What disturbs me now is how much I agree with some of Bush's recent moves (though not for the same reasons): I didn't like the 9/11 Commission's proposal for an "Intelligence Csar", so I'm glad Bush is trying to water down the position. (I wrote something funny about that here) And I think it's way overdue for the U.S. to pull most of its troops out of Europe. (I just hope the re-deployment doesn't make it easier to do another discretionary invasion) So, I'm unhappy with Kerry's opposition to it. Of course, they say even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I say a clock running backwards is right four times!
  • rocket88: yeah, you're right, absolutely right. I just never know when to back off. So I'll start by backing off now. I like neither candidate much at this point, but I like Kerry less than Bush, so I will most likely end up voting for him in November. surlyboi: So for MoFi, 20% is quite a bit. I agree with Kerry <5% of the time, so I can easily see why Bush is viewed the same way by other monkeys. One man's trash is another man's treasure, or something like that.
  • but I like Kerry less than Bush, so I will most likely end up voting for him in November. That should be voting for Bush, not Kerry.
  • More Boaty Goodness NYT, don't think it's been posted here yet
  • Ugh, what a freaking train wreck. And I'm talking about the political campaign, not this thread.
  • Yeah, I'll have to second that, and f8x's comment about wanting to be done with the year. I can't wait for this crap to be over, and I'm USian. So hearty apologies to you non-Murrcans. I can't imagine how tired you are of it.
  • Awwww, come on, guys! I just finished popping the popcorn, and you know that any minute now they're going to get to the realllly sexy bits! You know, it was tax evasion that put Capone down...
  • An editor from the Chicago Tribune who was also a swift boat commander at the time gives his view of the issue.
  • One of the swiftboat vets was A member of one of Bush/Cheney's steering committees as recently as this past Thursday.
  • George Bush's Medals somebody had to do it.