The WhiteBlaze in Wartime

[eyahiker]

Mr Abbey has the right to be judgemental and intolerant.

Oh I see, do your liberal friends believe this too? Since when is this becoming acceptable in our society,

this is the same thing you say about Christians, being intolerant and judgemental
how interesting..............

[bunbun]

You don't consider US News and World Report a reputible news source yet expect me to trust in National Review?

How anyone can belleive that Bush did not shirk his duty in the NG is beyond me.

Now let's answer the questions.
First - I said nothing of the sort. I wouldn't tell you what to trust. Long ago and far away, my grandfather taught me to believe half of what I see, a third of what I hear and a quarter of what I read. It's been good advice. And it keeps me in trouble with those who fail to heed it.

What it means is that if you trust ANY single source or any set of related sources or any single viewpoint to be "accurate" or "true" - then who's the fool? And the answer's obvious - at least to me. National Review, US News, Washington Post, Wahington Times, CBS, Fox, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, --- they ALL have "a piece of the truth". And NONE of them have enough of the truth to be worth listening to exclusively unless one wants to stay ignorant all their life. So "I" don't entirely trust ANY of them - but I read enough of them to figure out who's outright lying - who's got some real information - who's just playing "politics" - and sometimes even who's got their head on straight. Sometime it's the Post, sometimes it's the Times, sometimes it's the bloggers. But it's rarely all of them at once.

So - I'll give you a for instance - from your own source. The subtitle of that article is:
"A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served."

Let's start with the fact that that's a dead giveaway that the article is a political attack. Not factual, not investigative, not "questioning" anything - just an outright gratuitous attack. So - why is that so?

Because - as I told you yesterday, this subject has been beaten to death at least three times before (four if you include the last "investigation" last Spring). At no point has there been ANYTHING of substance found. Unless there's some new information, then it has no purpose except to distract attention - in this case, to distract attention from Kerry's record/Vietnam service/post-Vietnam performance and to smear Bush as much as possible. That's it. No other point to the whole exercise.

But, but, but - you say, "but they DID find new evidence - that's what the article is about."

Nope - they did NOT "find" new evidence. If you look closely, if you actually look at and understand the words that are used, what they did is called "revisionism". They took the same old information and rearranged it to suit themselves - they changed the rules - they "re-interpreted" the data - however you want to put it. What it comes down to is the assumption that whatever "experts" they dragged in to do the hatchet job supposedly know more about the rules and how they were used to determine service credit and how the Guard units operated at that time than the people whose job it was to make that determination back in the 70's. What they're saying is "We know better than those people, those professionals, how they should have done their job". What a crock!!!

Those "experts" weren't there in the 70's, they have no idea how the rules were interpreted or applied then, but NOW they want to "re-interpret" them in a way that suits their own underhanded political purposes. Bullfeathers. By that logic, we could go back to your grade school or high school and "re-interpret" your grades to make sure you didn't graduate - or to make sure you graduated summa cum laude. Or maybe go back to your CDT hike and re-examine it - and re-interpret it - to determine that you didn't really hike ALL of the CDT so you shouldn't be credited with that as a thruhike.

So - in the first place, the basic assumption is wrong.

In the second place, it's insulting to the entire Guard command structure in that it says they didn't know how to do their job - and that the "experts" brought in by the press today DO know how to do the job. And, if the latter were true, then the entire Guard command structure should be reprimanded or court-martialed for dereliction of duty and conduct unbecoming.

Even IF --- that were to happen, it would STILL not reflect on Bush. If Bush failed to discharge his duties and the Guard commanders failed to take appropriate action, then it would be THEIR responsibility - not his. Keep in mind that Bush was a lieutenant - he certainly kept track of his points, but his "point count" was NOT what showed up in the unit records - that was the point count that was kept by his commanders.

Finally - in the absence of real evidence, belief that Bush "did" shirk his duty assumes that "you" know what the rules are (or rather, were at that time) - and are competent to judge what he did. And that's a judgmental attitude that has no foundation in either fact or logic, my friend. For either of us.

The answers to your questions then are -
1. Sometimes the National Review IS more reliable than US News - or the NY Times. And sometimes it's not. But unless you're reading both of them (or similarly diverse viewpoints) then you're not operating with a full deck.

2. For what specific reason DO you believe Bush shirked his duty? Because I've seen no valid evidence to support that contention. The only evidence that indicates that he did is what the press has manipulated (twisted) to fit their own prejudices. As in the article you quoted. And that ain't valid evidence - it's reconstituted dehydrated crap.

[bunbun]

Jimmy, you misread my message -- probably because I was not as clear as I should have been.

I don't believe the White House or Bush made up the fake papers, if that is what they were. As I understand it they were sent to the White House by CBS news.

S'OK - neither was I clear enough. First because the "dumber" comment was NOT meant to imply that "you" were so - only that the idea that I took from you post was. And I evidently misunderstood what you were saying. If it's appropriate, you can take this as an apology.

I should take my own advice and read both what I write and what others write more carefully before answering.

The White House then released them to others "without comment." My suspicion is that the "without comment" was deliberate. That they knew immediately they were fake but deliberately did not say so, knowing others would quickly do that job for them.

I think it more likely that they had no idea whether the memos were real or fake when they got them. And therefore had no valid comment to make. But they still had to release them because they knew beyond doubt that CBS would. But - quien sabe?

In any case, whether the White House knew the documents were fake or not, releasing the "fake" documents without comment in fact will cause many to assume that all the documents relating to Bush's Vietnam era service are equally flawed.

Maybe - or maybe it'll just ensure that any "new memos that are unearthed" will receive proper scrutiny "before" the mud flinging begins rather than after.

[eyahiker]

I think I smell a rat, and it's in the BIG K camp.

[bunbun]

I think I smell a rat, and it's in the BIG K camp.

The latest I've heard is that CBS got the memos from the DNC, but that they originally came from someone else. For my part, this is NOT to beat up on the Kerry people (even if they do deserve it). Apparently they just passed the information on to CBS. Which is precisely what the Bush camp probably would have done if the situation were reversed. But the DNC weren't the ones who failed to vet the information before airing it on national TV. It wasn't even their job - that was a job for CBS and Dan Rather. And, as Bernard Goldberg said, he has "never in my life seen a more one-sided piece in the history of television."

Keep in mind that this hasn't been positively verified - yet.

[eyahiker]

Yup.

But I still smell a rat

[Sly]

... at filibustering simplicity.

Even if the US News article is false in it's "formula" that Bush didn't put enough hours in based on USAF/NG regs, one thing is certain he missed a physical, was defrocked and "lost his wings". By missing that physical he shirked his duties.

[weary]

The latest I've heard is that CBS got the memos from the DNC, but that they originally came from someone else. For my part, this is NOT to beat up on the Kerry people (even if they do deserve it). Apparently they just passed the information on to CBS. Which is precisely what the Bush camp probably would have done if the situation were reversed. But the DNC weren't the ones who failed to vet the information before airing it on national TV. It wasn't even their job - that was a job for CBS and Dan Rather. ..." .

Where did the documents come from? CBS isn't saying. But a major source of the CBS story was Bill Burkett, who Newsweek calls, "a disgruntled former guard officer" from Baird, Texas, who says he was present at Guard headquarters in Austin in 1997, when a top aid to then Gov. Bush ordered the records sanitized to protect their boss."

The White House calls Burkett "a discredited source," because he became gravely ill on a Guard mission to Panama, but was denied treatment. Fellow officers, according to Newsweek, say Burkett "wasn't a crank, but a stickler for proper procedure -- a classic whistle blower type."

Frankly, I wish we could get to talking realistically about the two men. As a Newsweek letter writer pointed out in the issue that arrived in my mail box a few hours ago, "by the time he was 40, John Kerry had served in Vietnam and been decorated for heroism, become a leading spokesman against the war, graduated from law school and been a state proscecutor, been elected lieutenant governor of Massachusetts -- and was gearing up for a successful run for the U.S. Senate."

In contrast George Bush "was still trying to sober up and stop spitting tobacco on women's purses, yet he is supposed to have more character than Kerry. The mind boggles."

Weary

[bunbun]

... at filibustering simplicity.

Even if the US News article is false in it's "formula" that Bush didn't put enough hours in based on USAF/NG regs, one thing is certain he missed a physical, was defrocked and "lost his wings". By missing that physical he shirked his duties.

LOL - nope, won't buy that, Sly. You're doing what the media has consistently done - take it out of context. Context is that it was the winding down of the Vietnam War. There was a glut of pilots - I mean thousands of pilots - for whom there was no room at the inn. So let's take it one step at a time -
1. Bush's unit was about to change aircraft - as a Guard outfit they were gonna get some of the newer aircraft that had been in Vietnam. That means he'd have had to requalify in an entirely new aircraft. More training time - but only IF he could get it. And there was no reason for him to get it since there were a LOT of already qualified pilots for those new aircraft.

2. Even if he could have gotten the training - he wouldn't get a lot of "air time" - cause the budget for both flying and maintenance was being cut. Not to mention the competition for flight time among the pilots.

3. Since he was not at his "home" unit - the chance of flight time was even further reduced.

4. All that reduces to ---- there was no reason for him to take that physical because he was so short his feet didn't reach the floor. Or was that - he was so short he could walk upright under the belly of a rattlesnake? Whatever -

5. In fact, his commanders would have been relieved both by his NOT taking the physical - and by his "early out" because they were having budget problems at the time and he was one more "mouth they didn't have to feed." In other words, if he wasn't doin' drills and wasn't flying, they didn't have to pay him -- and it eased their budget crunch.

6. Not to mention that they had gaggles of already qualified flight officers for those nice "new" aircraft that were being brought in (yeah - I know - some of them were dogs after a couple years of combat duty). And those were officers that they didn't have to pay to have retrained.

Ya gotta understand the culture - and the problems - and the economics - and the situation. It's not nearly as "siimple" as the press (and the Democrats) would have you believe. And one of the things they'll NEVER tell you - is that it was the Democrats who were creating the budget crunch that Bush got caught in. So if you take it from a purely logical perspective - the people you want to blame for Bush's "shirking" - are the Democrats.

But I don't think the Dems would agree with that. But then - I don't care either.

Hey - good to hear from you --- and thanks for asking.

[smokymtnsteve]

Oh I see, do your liberal friends believe this too? Since when is this becoming acceptable in our society,

this is the same thing you say about Christians, being intolerant and judgemental
how interesting..............

it is your jesus and theology that teaches to judge not...I am not an xian so I am not bound by it's teachings

[c.coyle]

For what specific reason DO you believe Bush shirked his duty? Because I've seen no valid evidence to support that contention. The only evidence that indicates that he did is what the press has manipulated (twisted) to fit their own prejudices. As in the article you quoted. And that ain't valid evidence - it's reconstituted dehydrated crap.

Here

... and Here

... and also here, from a longtime friend who is about as far right as anyone I know

[MOWGLI]

I have to wonder about anyone who simply swallows - hook, line & sinker - the explaination that Dubya must have met his service requirements - simply 'cause he was honorably discharged.

If your Daddy was a Texas Oilman, a Congressman, the US Ambassador to China, the Head of the CIA, the Veep, and then the President, and then a principal in the Carlyle Group....

I was guess it was just a stroke of luck (or genius) that he didn't go to Nam.

[smokymtnsteve]

I don't understand it eithier,,folks supporting a desserter and critizing a medal-winner patriot...seems kinda backwards to me.

[bunbun]

I have to wonder about anyone who simply swallows - hook, line & sinker - the explaination that Dubya must have met his service requirements - simply 'cause he was honorably discharged.

If your Daddy was a Texas Oilman, a Congressman, the US Ambassador to China, the Head of the CIA, the Veep, and then the President, and then a principal in the Carlyle Group....

I was guess it was just a stroke of luck (or genius) that he didn't go to Nam.

I have to wonder about why you're unwilling to believe that he didn't meet the requirements when the Guard thought he had and honorably discharged him?

So - I'll trade you stories --- this came for a friend - and it seems to be the sentiment among those who are out there protecting our collective asses. Make sure you get to the bottom line. ANd pay particular attention to th part that asks about Kerry's Ready Reserve service.
************************************************** *******

Subject: FWD: Hanoi John's Military Service

Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:49:16 -0400

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate Contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt.John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -Inactive.

On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our
Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.

The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the Unite! d States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team -Director
AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs"

[bunbun]

simply 'cause he was honorably discharged.

Now - I've got one more comment for you --- that particular line is insulting to every serviceman who's been honorably disharged - ever.

Nobody has questioned Kerry's honorable discharge - nobody has questioned that he was in Vietnam. For you or anyone else to question the validity of Bush's honorable discharge is to call ALL honorable discharges into question. And that's not acceptable - that's equivalent to what Kerry did in 1971 in his Senate testimony.

He WAS honorable discharged - if you have a beef, take it up with his commanding officers cause THEY were the ones responsible for that - not him. As for Bush's Daddy - who knows - who cares. I've known a lot of guys whose Daddy was just as big a wheel - and they didn't get special treatment. Your assumption that he did is just that - an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

Oh yeah - Barnes - don't forget his daughter - she just destroyed his credibility and his career by publicly calling him a liar. So let's don't trot him out here as evidence.

I know you - and up till now I've liked you - but if you do that again, me and thee WILL have a problem.

[Sly]

Jim, you just called "Hanoi" John Kerry's honorable discharge into question, yet got all over another poster questioning Bush's.


Talk about calling the kettle black.


And what's with the Hanoi?

[c.coyle]

Now - I've got one more comment for you --- that particular line is insulting to every serviceman who's been honorably disharged - ever.

Nobody has questioned Kerry's honorable discharge - nobody has questioned that he was in Vietnam. For you or anyone else to question the validity of Bush's honorable discharge is to call ALL honorable discharges into question. And that's not acceptable - that's equivalent to what Kerry did in 1971 in his Senate testimony.

He WAS honorable discharged - if you have a beef, take it up with his commanding officers cause THEY were the ones responsible for that - not him. As for Bush's Daddy - who knows - who cares. I've known a lot of guys whose Daddy was just as big a wheel - and they didn't get special treatment. Your assumption that he did is just that - an assumption with no evidence to back it up.

Lighten up. W was honorably discharged, even though he shirked his duty. Either somebody screwed up, there was a general breakdown in the process, or some strings were pulled. The fact that one shirker got an honorable discharge by no means calls all HD's into question. Mistakes get made. Favors get called in. The process ain't perfect.

Neither candidate is the same person he was 30+ years ago. Kerry wasn't the only decorated vet to serve honorably and come back to oppose the war. Bush wasn't the only party boy with some clout who hid in the Guards. Those were the times. I'm more concerned with the here and the now, aren't you?

[Sly]

Texans for Truth have offered a $50,000 reward to anyone that can prove Bush "served" his time.

Should be simple, aye!

http://www.texansfortruth.org/

[Lone Wolf]

Bush/Cheney 04. The only choice.

[c.coyle]

Bush/Cheney 04. The only choice.

Works for me. Being a shirker 30+ years ago is irrelevant.