zipadeedoodah
[]
posted by catherine / September 09, 2004 / 
ah, there's nothing like a damning indictment of the president to make you feel cheery in the morning:
...In retrospect, it's doubtful that even White House aides understood all the information embedded in the records, specifically the payroll documents. It's also unlikely they realized how damaging the information could be when read in the proper context. Seven months later, the document dump is coming back to haunt the White House, thanks to researcher Paul Lukasiak, who has spent that time closely examining the paperwork, and more important, analyzing U.S. Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, Lukasiak arrived at the overwhelming conclusion that not only did Bush walk away from his final two years of military obligation, coming dangerously close to desertion, but that he attempted to cover up his absenteeism through swindle and fraud.
you don't say.
Comments
haha, if you think the voters care about such trivial character flaws in an election overshadowed by personal attacks, or that the lumbering Republican spin machine won't still find a way to trounce the Democrats (to the satisfaction of the idiot public), then the only damning indictment is of your blessed naivete and faith in our bloated political process!
zing!
if anything good comes of this it'll be resetting the election to its pre-swift-boat state. I doubt that'll actually happen; more likely the public will now just write the whole military service off: "They're both cowards."
Either way, maybe we can start talking about the present and future again, which I think should swing heavily to Kerry, given sufficient time to debunk Bush's "only a cowboy can protect you" bullshit. However, Kerry's been doing an almost unbelievably bad job critiquing the Iraq War so far.
No, Bush served, earned his score and got an honorable discharge. Keep trying.
right.
the big difference here is that nobody, including bush, ever said anything about how great he was during vietnam. in fact, most republicans and vets were extremely disappointed, especially 4 years ago, about the fact that he stayed in the US - unlike Gore. not to mention the fact that Bush has almost apologized for not serving his country properly during that time period and admitted that he didn't really turn his life around until he was 40. however, kerry has been building his military credentials up like he actually was some sort of hero. i'm sure he even believes he is a war hero. if anything kerry should only be apologizing for what he did following the war, and try to make as little an issue out of it as possible. if he did that in the beginning there probably wouldn't even be swift-vets trashing him.
when did bush almost apologize for not serving properly?
"i'm sure he even believes he is a war hero"
Hmm. He's not the only one. But I suppose my opinion isn't good for much. I guess this is an example of relativism, but consider the source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3609312.stm .
If you want to argue against a Kerry presidency, go ahead. If you want to argue that past military service is no indicator of presidential success, I'll join you. However, the evidence produced so far to impugn Kerry's war record is hearsay from a bunch of proven liars. The official record, his medals, and the men on his boat all say he served heroically.
I missed the part where Vietnam got rehabilitated.
It was not a mistake for Kerry to question our country in its most questionable hour. He served as a mouthpiece for many soldiers who went over, were ordered to commit atrocities for a war for purposes they did not understand, and then came home to a country that despised them. (Even Forrest Gump can tell you that much.) Obviously, this was not every soldier's experience, and it's greatly debated whether the military should expose fractured narratives at any point. It was greatly important to the nation that he did what he did, though it certainly offended many military members.
This is not a new conflict, nor is it one that is strictly from the past. The soldier who exposed Abu Ghraib is shunned by his own home town, who feel that he betrayed the other sons and daughters still there. But what would our understanding of the war be without that knowledge? That is a high act of patriotism.
Post A Comment