Bush AWOL is a lose-lose issue...let it drop

[x-g.o.p.er]

Go ahead, flame me if you want, but this whole story about Bush being AWOL, whether it is true or not, is not a story we will win on.

Most people, quite frankly, don't care. And those that do pay attention see that he received an honorable discharge, and think the rest is just Democratic sour grapes.

There is so much more in the arena of ideas to engage John Q. Public about, that this is just wasting time, IMHO.

[Deja Q]

1. A lot of them cared about Clinton, surely?

Though that didn't stop them from welcoming Governor Groper(tm) with open arms either...

The public is stupid and fickle. It is an issue. Bushwhacker* was a selfish irresponsible oaf then, and he's only gotten worse since then.

What more need be said?

[formernaderite]

88. Maybe the public cares, but I don't....

..care whether someone served, ran up to canada etc. Whether we like it or not, Clinton managed to set the bar really low on many issues. The next President who gets done for doing an intern or other staffer, will not be persecuted for this.
In the end, whether Bush missed a few days or not, is really going to prove irrelevant. There really are much bigger issues at stake, and having aired this now and not closer to the GE means the public will have moved on.

[Solomon]

116. Clinton didn't lower the bar, it was the republicans who lowered the

bar by busting on Clinton for something that had previously been out of bounds for other presidents. Surely you don't think Clinton was the only president to fuck around in the white house do you?

[Womblestuffer]

145. This has everything to do with integrity and a pattern of deception

the public has to see the depth of character in any politician and especially the resident of the whitehouse.

[lolly]

2. Well, THAT explains everything . . .

Like, why his poll numbers have been skyrocketing since the press finally, belatedly started publicizing this.

[KCDem]

3. not gonna flame

I pretty much agree with you on this one. People who live and breathe Bush aren't going to care about his past. It wouldn't change more than a few minds.

[lolly]

13. Nothing will reach those people

Nothing ever will.

It's that rather large swath of people who voted for him because he was a "straight shooter" and a "good ol'boy" who's just "one of the guys" and who "supports the military."

Does it make sense? Not much. We all knew this 4 years ago; it's one of the reasons we knew the man couldn't be trusted. But a lot of people didn't; lots of people who, frankly, don't read any article that's not on page one of the paper didn't know this. Many of them apparently think he served honorably in the Air Force, and it was one of the deciding factors in voting for him.

So saying that die-hard Bushies won't care is irrelevant. If we're only going to pursue avenues that will change their minds, then we may as well throw in the towel now.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. I'll take those few minds and raise you most war veterans

Every single cote counts, because a percentage of them are going to be trashed anyway.

"ANYBODY BUT BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[0007]

43. Can I get a senior citizen discount - I bought from you before.

I like your service.

[spanone]

4. You know what though, the media has grabbed it...

It's out of OUR hands.

[Solomon]

5. You'll find that people here have been so amazed at the stuff that

didn't walk, that anything that gets legs, is not gonna be dropped by DUers. You can bet the house on that.

[childslibrarian]

6. It is very close to a backfire

Point is made--people are reminded (that are my age anyway)how hard it was to get into the National Guard and how difficult it would be to drop out for 5-6 months and not have to go to active duty overseas. Everyone I know seems to get it...let it go...

[aquart]

How's this? No.

He's coming apart brick by brick. It is NOT enough for him to simply lose.

He must be discredited and utterly despised. Politicians who eagerly posed for photographs with him need to burn the negatives in fear and shame.

This is a man who wants to destroy every good thing American, beginning with our constitution. Everything associated with him has to stink. And stick like tar.

Not to mention how very much I like to see him sweat.

[Must_B_Free]

122. It's about the credibility

The one I'd like to see exposed next is his "ranch" in texas that is really a pig farm that was constructed for his presidential campaign. Same type of fabrication.

[Mountainman]

7. I care. As a Vietnam vet because all these repubs are chicken hawks

Of course people care. This administration is a war mongering administration and as so, none of them have had to put their life on the line for their country. Also this administration is catering to the rich. A class of people who could buy their kids way out of going to war like I had to.

John Kerry will use war as a last resort because he knows as many of us do just what war is all about.

No it is not a losing issue. Bush is going down because of his lies and he was AWOL while I and many others had to fight for our freedoms.

[Stephanie]

8. The issue is LYING

He LIED about his Guard record
He LIED about WMDs
He LIED about Iraq links to Al Queda
He LIED about what he knew pre 9/11

BUSH IS A LIAR

[librechik]

17. yes isn't that what they used to say about Clinton? It's not about the sex

it's about the LYING!

I won't stop until I feel they have been adequately repaid for this nonsense, and opportunity has been kind to reveal this misbehavior to the press right when they were looking for some small schlocky thing to zing him with. It's the little mistake that grew.

[mouse7]

34. Agreed... it's not AWOL then, it's LYING NOW

What you do 30 years ago basically almost doesn't matter now. What you done since you started your campaign for President to cover up what you did 30 years ago is an issue.

[nostamj]

119. credibility!

this issue is but another on a stinking pile of lies.

undermining *'s CREDIBILITY is the key.

economy, 9/11, Iraq, his credibility is being undercut

that's a good thing.

[Terwilliger]

It's not a question of winning

Frankly, given how much the right-wing supports Bush and Republicans on national security issues, this is important to remind people...especially in this election.

Republicans are basically fucking everything up, and here's John Kerry and Max Cleland and Bob Kerrey and all these Dems who ACTUALLY SERVED their country... I think the AWOL issue is important in that the annoying little bug stays in the public consciousness through November.

[KelleyKramer]

9. People fighting in his war based on lies care

Bush said "I'm a war president"

He brought it on himself.

[Silverhair]

10. Yes, it will backfire.

Kerry's statement during the first Clinton campaign that the level of a person's service in the military should not be an issue in the election. He was defending Clinton's draft dodging. Now he is attacking W for his service problems and his old statement is being drug out. Makes him look like a shallow inconsistent hypocrite, and it makes Democrats look desperate. People don't vote for desperate parties.

[Mountainman]

16. Where and when did Kerry attack Bush on this issue?

What were his exact words?

I recall that he said something like, people want to know.

[NNN0LHI]

22. What does Kerry have to do with it? He didn't bring it up. Did he? n/t

[lolly]

26. Old argument

Whenever any Democrat criticizes Shrub, the immediate, probably orchestrated response, is "This will backfire on you! Americans love their president and if you criticize him it will only hurt you!"

A large number of the Democratic reps and senators who believed that in 2002 are now out of a job.

Besides, it really isn't "the level of a person's service in the military."

Clinton's lack of service wasn't an issue because he never made himself out to be a grand and glorious warrior. He didn't write autobiographies claiming to have done things in the service that he hadn't. He didn't break any laws to get out of the military. He didn't send 530+ Americans to die in a trumped-up, illegitimate war.

[Terwilliger]

39. Repukes look desperate

for all the light you put on Kerry's old remarks, let us not forget that in using that example, they're now attacking Kerry saying that he, as a decorated veteran who fought for his country, was assisting the Vietnamese, and he is a `Massachussetts liberal' who is soft on defense and has voted to cut defense and gutted intelligence....and....and..." It doesn't matter that Kerry has more honor in his right hand than most of the Republican party has in its entire Federal membership, it's a bullshit belief that Democrats are somehow less than capable of being military leaders.

Screw the Pukes! Let em stew on this coked-up frat bot...Chimpy McCokespoon...who rode to the Presidency on a silver freaking spoon! They have no voice. They have no complaint. They are pathetic!!!

Between Kerry and Bush on military records...there is no comparison.






OnEdit: cleaned up rant energy

[Catherine Vincent]

147. Love that toon!

I'm goanna print this one! Thanks!

[mouse7]

41. It would backfire only if Dumbya had come clean about his record

Dumbya is lying NOW to cover up. That is the issue.

[0007]

46. You gotta be kidding?

Give me a link to what Kerry said, 'eh?

[dpibel]

48. "Clinton's draft dodging"

1. Would you be so kind as to explain how Clinton "dodged the draft?" I know that it's an important piece of received information, but does that mean that all the people who got deferments were draft dodgers? If, for instance, Clinton had gotten out of the draft because he had an anal cyst, that would seem like draft dodging to me. But if they were offering student deferments, and anybody who took one was a draft dodger, there were a hell of a lot of draft dodgers.

2. Clinton was not selling himself as a Fierce Warrior Chieftain. The Fierce Warrior Chieftain is. He's the fearless leader. He's been to war and raised twins. He proudly served his country. Do you see any difference there. Didn't think so.

Aren't you one of those people who lectures on the perils of the word "sheeple"? Yet here you are saying that people can't sort these things out -- Clinton, the self-professed war opponent staying out of the war vs. GeeDub, the self-professed war supporter (at the time, although he's late realized it was a baaaad political war) getting the red carpet into the TANG and then failing to fulfill his duties. I don't think people are that stupid, but if you do, well, get right after it.

[Silverhair]

67. You missed my point.

Kerry defended Clinton in 92 by saying that it should not be an issue. I don't have the exact quote and don't feel like chasing it down. Now he is the appearent representative of a Democratic Party that is in full attack mode on this, he has to square his statement then with the statements now that it matters. Does it or doesn't it?

I often use a type of verbal shorthand in my posts. To the general public, Clinton is widely percieved as having dodged the draft, but they didn't care and elected him twice. In all of my posts I have never attacked Bill Clinton, (I have attacked Hillary.) and have defended him several times. I am sorry that my shorthand was not understood and sounded like and attack on the big dog.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

95. And once again, in 12+ years times change and so do opinions....

...Kerry's entitled to change his mind, isn't he? Better late than not at all, don't you think?

[ProfessorGAC]

118. I Think YOU Are Missing The Point

The "Kerry Said" is a non-starter. The clear and obvious retort to this issue is very, very simple.

All we need to say is "It was you folks who made military service an issue. We said, like Kerry, that it wasn't important. You said, it was. So, since you're the one who placed importance on it, we've decided you're right!"

The whole "Kerry supported Clinton not serving" issue is defused that way.

The Professor

[RapidCreek]

130. A guy avoiding the draft because he didn't agree with the war

should not be an issue. A guy who calls himself a "war president", struts around in a navy flight suit, sends national guardsmen to die in Iraq, guardsmen he fully expects to live up to the oath of enlistment which he chose not to live up to, is an issue.

I am not a Democrat...I am a veteran...and I take this issue quite seriously. I followed the rules when I was in the military, the same rules the soldiers fighting in Iraq are following right now. Bush did not...and that is a salient point. This failure was not bourne of hardship or the fortitude of principle but upon arrogance and an historical lack of accountability. He feels he is above the rules, and unbound by the integrity he expects of those under his command. Frankly I don't give a shit if "it backfires" .This arrogant lying poser needs to be exposed for what he is....and any brick that can be ripped from the wall which conceals his true nature does, albeit incrementally, just that.

Four months ago I had a conversation with two young men who had just returned from service in Iraq. Both were avid Bush supporters. Both were unaware that he had gone AWOL, both didn't believe that he had. I asked them what they would think of their hero if it turned out he hadn't lived up to the same responsibilities he expected them to live up to. They replied that if such a thing were true, they'd be highly pissed. Well I am guessing that both are highly pissed today. I am guessing that both are scratching their heads thinking back to the day when a long haired, hippy veteran had a little chat with them in the bar and pointed out that their hero was a hypocrite. I'm guessing that, today both are now considering the value of being ignorant of the facts. It is this consideration, in my fellows, that I seek to inspire....and time spent doing so is hardly wasted.

I'm sorry if it hurts your feelings but I for one am getting real sick and tired of your suggestion that Bush being AWOL and lying about it is unimportant. The integrity of our leaders is important. To suggest otherwise is a cynical condemnation of all Americans...one which I feel is innacurate and highly offensive.

It's people like you who make me hope the draft is reinstated. I'm guessing if it were....and you have a few grandchildren of draftable age, you'd be singing a different song.

RC
USN VET

[Toby109]

70. I believe Kerry's comments were directed

at Bob Kerrey and the in-fighting within the Democratic Party at that time over that issue.

[July]

100. Yes, I thought Kerry wasn't making accusations,

although the right is trying to lay the issue at his feet (someone here linked yesterday to the RNC site where there was a "when did you stop beating your wife" type of poll blaming Kerry).

Who really started this? Peter Jennings? Besides McAuliffe, what Democrats are bringing this up?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

89. "Desperate"?? I know who's looking "desperate" these days...

...and it sure isn't Kerry.

And how long ago was Clinton's first campaign...1992, wasn't it? Times change, and so do people's opinions.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

11. I disagree and this article helps explain why.

Many swing voters went to Bush over his "likable, nice guy, integrity" act. Every vote counts and it is NOT the Democrats now pushing this but the media.

<snip>

Perhaps most important, the flap over Bush's National Guard service raises questions about the president's credibility at a time when his most valuable asset - a reputation for integrity and candor - is under siege. Questions about whether he took the nation to war under false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and about a spraling budget deficit top the list.

"One of Bush's strengths is he seems to be a straight shooter, and his ratings on integrity and honesty are still pretty good," says John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University. "If you can chip away at that, that's obviously good for the Democrats. If he's been lying or Clintonizing, that would be the ultimate coup de grace. He might even lose some Republican votes that way."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0212/p01s01-uspo.html

[x-g.o.p.er]

103. I cede that point

About character. But couldn't we get more mileage and still bring up his character issues over something more recent, like say the WMD issue?

[Karenina]

111. *Dauphin's "character" shows through

in his pattern of behaviour. This IS the issue that forces people to come to terms with the accusations about Harken, Funeralgate, Texas Rangers, Arbusto in the past (lies, obfuscation, theft, rule-bending) and the sorry state that America is today (WMDs or lack thereof, economic devastation, health care crisis, VETERANS GETTING SCREWED if they get out alive, plans in progress to send TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE into harm's way.

The LYING is a CONSISTENT BEHAVIOUR PATTERN. How this issue is handled brings closer scrutiny to others.

OBFUSCATION? Check.

THEFT? Check.

RULE BENDING? Check


This is a guy who is on record stating his FIRST CONCERN on 9-11 was getting his own pansy ass OUT of harm's way. Pattern of behaviour?

He plays dress up and prances on an aircraft carrier with a sock in his crotch. He calls himself the "war president." He tries to make people think he can fly a plane. Guess what? HE'S LYING.

THIS ISSUE PROVES HE'S LYING. Pattern of behaviour?

Drop it? Not a chance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=34375






is getting a LOT OF PEOPLE KILLED.

[lolly]

146. Sure. Why not?

Of course the WMD is an issue.

Why do we have to pick ONE issue?

[sampsonblk]

12. I agree...

that it's not a story we will win on. But every little bit helps. It looks like folks are starting to look at Bush as a human being, and not as a saint. The saint strategy, IMHO, is the only way he can win. Otherwise, he has to run on his record, and thats pretty dismal.

[NNN0LHI]

15. no n/t

[alcuno]

18. I disagree. When a president STARTS a war and calls himself

a war president, which he did on Meet the Press, I think that it matters. The person who is deliberately sending men and women into war needs to have an understanding of the issues and lives that are at stake.

It's one thing if a nation is attacked or if there is a direct threat to the nation. any president would be expected to respond. However, there is an inconsistency between a president who has adopted a doctrine of preemptive war to solve problems and a man who avoided truly serving the nation.

[Mountainman]

24. And a man who dresses up in uniform and flies to a carrier

Bush is a complete fraud and people are starting to get the picture.

[Karenina]

96. When the press sees this pic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=34375

They'll STAY ON IT. It's GOOD for ratings.
*dimwit is GOING DOWN!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Lars39]

19. au contraire ! It gives people a chance to start openly grousing

even louder about the chimp in charge. People were starting to look at him critically, but quietly. This is the beginning of the public opinion dam breaking loose! Now we just have to steer them to a few more unsavory topics, all the while keeping the awol ball up in the air.

[BlueCollar]

20. I'm not prepared to let this go

as a veteran I take it damned personally that the right can dismiss this when they were so damned sanctimonious about whitewater and every other story that never "had legs"

they're getting the same treatment from me that they dishd out...

[scheming daemons]

91. But they FAILED at those...

Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 despite every effort by the GOP to give legs to these stories.

Clinton's approval rating immediately following impeachment was nearly 70%!

The REPUKES FAILED when the used these tactics against us.... At least among the general electorate.

You want to repeat their failed strategies?

Interesting plan, not sure how it will work to achieve the goal of getting Bush out of office.

If ALL we give the public is piss and vinegar and "gotcha" politics, eventually they're going to reject us.


I thought we were BETTER than the right?

[July]

99. They failed because people saw through them

They saw the excessive hatred and the exaggerated claims, the waste of money and time that should have been spent on the nation's interest. In the case of Bush, our team is talking about ugly facts that the people have a right to know about, not content-empty charges of drug-running, rape, murder, the lesbian adultress, etc. The right failed by overreaching, lying, and wasting our money. I'm not sure the facts about Bush and a big chunk of his administration will be seen the same way.

[catzies]

150. It's not a "failed strategy" when it's the TRUTH.

Welcome to DU.

[EstimatedProphet]

21. I disagree

But I think it's time we need to go after it in a different way. The media is just saying "did you go or not?" I think we need the media to make the point that "the war president" was dodging the draft, period. That's not in dispute, even if his records show he was there in AL. He was in the NG to NOT be drafted. It isn't a slam against the NG. It's a slam against his character.

[mitchum]

23. Wrong! It is just one of the many arrows in our quiver

We should use it

[bpilgrim]

25. it's all part of the drip, drip, drip and what the media will latch onto

shoot, imo we are LUCKY to have 1 scandle going considering how long and hard we have been trying to get all the others out there ;->

this doesn't mean we stop trying to get the other ones out there but it also doesn't mean we shouldn't milk this for all it's worth.

peace

[ignatius]

148. Amen to that bpilgrim, we have all been waiting a long time for

the media to look behind the curtain and I am just happy that they finally are starting to.

If this is the story that finally gets the public to take a good hard look at this loser, I say, bring it on!!!

[Stephanie]

27. Here's why it matters - he's a lying phony hypocrite. See pix below V

[a_random_joel]

28. I disagree.

No flames intended, but:

It's true that die-hard Bushbots will not be impacted, but it is useful in pointing out yet another of their own integrity issues.

Here on the left, this is preaching to the choir. But the choir is singing quite joyfully at this time, in case you haven't noticed.

Swing voters and moderates is where this WILL play. And these are the voters we need to be in play. This goes straight to the heart of Bush's supposed strengths (ugh!): 1. his security credentials and 2. his credibility.

It also trumps the argument that war opponents are "unpatriotic." And it clearly distinguishes Bush from the projected nominee, Kerry.

Neutralizes the flight suit stunt as well.

This is a winner. And it has long, sexy legs at this point.

[bambo53]

50. I say stay with it

But we need more of this stuff to bash him with. Don't let them get back on their feet.

[mac2]

133. Our leader was a AWOL drunk

People should know that Bush failed to complete what we paid for...$1M for training a drunk. He was 26 yrs. old when he was discharged. He was an admitted drunk and druggie until his 40s. He wasn't fit to complete his duties.

His position in Alabama was not flying or paid for...therefore no pay receipts. Hear Randi Rhodes show (White Rose achieves Feb. 10th). Because he failed to show up for duty, he was automatically sent to the Army and Vietnam. He did not do that either.

Now,he's Commander-in-Chief who sat and read while people jumped to their death on 9/11 in NY. He's incompetent and people should know it.

[Robin Hood]

29. It's not about being AWOL. It's about lying and character.

He lied about WMD and numerous other subjects and now he lacks credibility. So naturally we are all wondering, what else is Bush lying about?

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Robin Hood]

66. I'll contribute to DU when it gets rid of it's limiting new rules.

n/t

[drdigi420]

82. i second that

[lovedems]

31. The chimp can't be a war monger and have his military background

ignored at the same time. Just like he can't have a booming jobless recovery!

I didn't care about Clinton's military past because we were in a time of peace. I care about the chimps because he is a war monger. He wants to send 150,00+ troops to Iraq and 10,000+ to Afghanistan. He is sending the troops to do something he and virtually every member in his cabinet were not willing to do. Why? To make Halliburton some money. They knew they didn't have WMD's but war is "good business". Screw that, he deserves to have his chicken shit ways exposed to the public.

[Jim Sagle]

32. Horseshit.

[0007]

33. That is not true! The folks that voted for junior is West Texas

are being effected by National Guard duties and his WMD lies. Plus the fact that while junior was AWOL the question is now being raised about junior's community service served for a cocaine arrest in 1972. Where did junior do his community service? At the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's Third Ward, or was it Project
P.U.L.L.? And why was he doing community service?

Why drop it? Everyone should know what kind of man is running the country, 'eh?

[stanwyck]

35. Bush is responsible for this story

He portrays himself as the ultimate warrior. He swaggers. He says "Bring It On!" (gee, as the mother of an active duty Marine, I really appreciate that, macho boy) He exclaimed after landing on the carrier in his borrowed flightsuit, "Yes, I flew the plane!". He said: "I'm a war president." (I guess I should have told you that back in 2000...thank you, Jon Stewart!)So, Bush has no one but himself to blame for this one.

[grasswire]

36. Let's let........

.....America's veterans and GIs decide whether Bush has the moral authority to send troops to battle and run as the WAR president. They deserve to be fully informed.

Okay?

[grasswire]

38. it's not about the SEX

It's about the LYING.

[TacticalPeek]

37. What's wrong with walking and chewing Shrub's ass at the same time?

This is a bad administration doing bad things to our country and the world.

Having the increasingly unbridled power they do, they should be swarmed with every attack conceivable.

I wish all the dems would stay in the nomination fight, go easy on Kerry, and just attack aWol daily. Attack, attack, attack! SWARM 'EM!

[Norbert]

40. I disagree

The GOP lied demonized about George McGoverns service record while he was campaigning for president.

I am still hearing to this day that Bill Clinton was a draft dodger.

I am still hearing that Al Gore was not really in the service because he was a reporter in Vietnam.

You say let it drop, I say paybacks are hell.

[x-g.o.p.er]

104. Paybacks are hell, but...

If we continue this slash and burn, tit for tat type of revenge politics, we will lose whatever credibility we may gain over these next months. And where would that leave us?

[Cat Atomic]

109. There's a fundamental difference, x-g.o.p.er.

The Republican attacks were based on twisted arguments and fabrication.

Bush's AWOL status and use of privilege to avoid Vietnam is a simple matter of fact.

Frankly, I'd question the Democratic Party's credibility if they simply ignored this issue.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. I'm willing to let it drop.

As long as the press keeps it on the front page without any effort from me. And as long as the skipped-physical story keeps growing in the public consciousness.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

44. I disagree-it matters during wartime.

Bush is sending troops to Iraq. It doesn't look good when an AWOL President is sending young men and women into combat-for a war started on a lie.

[TomNickell]

45. As background, a winner....

As an issue brought up by the Dem nominee--no way. Leave it lay.

As background dug up by the Press and radical left? Priceless. Or at least worthwhile.

Many people out there see * (vaguely) as the self-made fighter jock business tycoon with really big testicles that he portrays on TV. This just punctures that balloon. Plus, it keeps the WH on the defensive.

And if there is some -real- story--like records actually destroyed or drug use or disciplinary action--that could collapse the whole edifice.

[stanwyck]

49. In total agreement

you nailed it. Bush has been sold like a product. Now, people are finding out the disastrous side effects of the product.

[bpilgrim]

54. 'radical' left saves your lilly a$$e$ again

u r welcome ;->

peace

[TacticalPeek]

69. ROFLMAO!

:toast:

[TacticalPeek]

60. There IS a real story lurking, or spawning here.

With so many things to cover up, they get careless with the kittie litter.

And cover they must, because many Americans are beginning to see that the pretty lipstick is actually on a stinking pig.

The current puzzle in my mind is how Shrub's records are now being passed around government; did he sign a waiver? Why does the Pentagon have his records 'for review', according to Scotty. Will someone go too far in the damage control? Have they already?

:evilgrin:

[TruthIsAll]

62. You mean a conspiracy, Tom? Come on..

There are no such things..

[justsam]

47. millions care! all the

people that were drafted and went to Vietnam, all the families that had people go to Nam and never return..
All the people that are in Iraq and their families that are back here knowing that they were sent there by a person that lied and had
strings pulled so he wouldn't have to go to war.. then he didn't serve his time anyway... anyone that doesn't care is a die hard REPUK.

[jab105]

51. I agree with you...wish they would focus on all the CURRENT!!

problems with his administration...this is a distraction which wont really hurt him...but the focus being off of the present issues will hurt us in the long run!!

[slor]

52. LET IT GO...

if you wish. I'm running with it and singing the facts to all that will listen. And believe me, I have convinced 6 people so far that voted for this coward to not do so next time based on this issue and all the surrounding facts!

[BillZBubb]

53. AWOL is a WIN, WIN issue...keep up the pressure

It is not meant to sway solid Bushbots. It is not meant to lead to impeachment or indictment.

It is aimed at the people at the center. AWOL helps slowly chip away at Chimp's phoney aura of integrity. Like water dripping on a rock. That will open them up to the prospect that the guy is not the paragon of virtue he is spun to be.

Plus, it keeps the Freeps on the defensive. Always keep your opponent on the defensive!

[JasonDeter]

55. It all depends how the Veterans respond and the soldier families.

They need to make their opinion known NOW!

[x-g.o.p.er]

105. I am still on active duty...

And I already gave you my opinion on it. I think it's going to look like sour grapes if we keep harping on this. Most people look at the fact that he received an honorable discharge and to them, it's the end of the story.

[RandomKoolzip]

126. It's funny how many "newer" posters come on DU and know how

"most people" think. And somehow how "most people" think always is the opposite of how WE think. Sorry, bub, but get used to it: WE are "most people." The tide's been turning, and now it's gaining speed. WE are speaking for the majority now.


Do you really think that if Clinton did the exact same thing, that Rush would let it drop? Or Starr? Or Gingrich? No. Sorry, but this "tit for tat" shit was STARTED by these fucking grotesque conservative blowhards, and we've been bullied into submission for TOO DAMN LONG and WE are not going just "let it lie." Just stand back and try to imagine if Clinton were president right now....and there were no sex scandals....if Clinton's records were dug up and they showed that he was AWOL, at the same time he had two different wars going on, thousands of American kids were dying in the sand, we were in a trillion dollar deficit, Bill and Hill wanted us to RETURN TO THE MOON, and wanted to lift immigration standards......I'm sure the words "impeachment" would be on most republican's lips. Bush is showing himself to be a dangerous, greedy, incompetent fuck. WE have nothing to do with this picture- Bush is doing it to himself.


I suggest that we now let the media run with this story until we see just how much damage Bush can endure. Look at the polls. "Most people" are NOT happy with this jackass president.

[x-g.o.p.er]

129. The amount of posts a person has...

doesn't indicate knowledge, or lack of. I don't claim to be a mind-reader, the AWOL issue is just my opinion based on casual conversations with other people, both Republican and Democratic.

And if the mean-spirited tone of some of these posts constitutes the "we" of the majority, "we" won't be in the majority long, IMHO. Revenge politics will not work for the long haul.

I'm not disagreeing with the issue as it relates to character per se, I'm just disagreeing with the delivery and the tone. If it comes across as bitching and moaning, it won't go far. Clinton's impeachment came across as sour grapes/bitching/moaning by Republicans, and it cost them in the '98 mid-term elections.

[RandomKoolzip]

131. Listen:

If I had a nickel for every time in the last six months that some relative newbie comes onto this board and tells "us" to stop talking about a certain issue because it "makes us look bad," I'd be able to buy a new car. It seemes to happen EVERY time there's some new controversial talking point in the media that could possibly damaging to the repubs, and usuallly WE had been talking about it for a long time amongst ourselves. It happened when Clark/Moore made the "deserter" comments, it happened when the Plame affair suddenly made front page news, it happened when O'Neill's book came out, it happened when the "BUSH KNEW" headlines were being splashed across major frontpages back in spring 2002, it happened when "The Reagans" got banned, it happened when the Gay Marriage issue became big, et fucking cetera. And EVERY TIME these headlines were bursting out all over, there were guys on DU suddenly popping up out of nowhere, always saying, "guys, let's not talk about this...it'll make us look bad!" Without fail. You could set your watch by it. So sorry if I accused you of infiltration, but statements like this always set my antennae a-twitter.

And what you consider "mean-spirited," I would call "self-defensive." We, en masse, are under attack. You are witnessing a return of the repressed. And nobody has cornered the market on bitching and moaning like on Faux News, Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Unlike the right, we have no media outlets to get these issues out into the mainstream. The corporate media is a closed door to us. There IS no "liberal" media. All we have is places like DU or Buzzflash, and word of mouth, and zines and some best-selling books like Franken's and Moore's, and yet......this is definitely a turning tide you're seeing, because these ARE important issues for a lot of people, and the corporate media wants them kept under wraps. So it's UP to us to get these issues out there. No one else is gonna do it. It's not tit for tat, it's SURVIVAL.

[stanwyck]

155. Well, my son is an active duty Marine

and you better believe I think this is critical news story. If our warmongering "bring it on" swaggering cowboy couldn't even make his TANG drills, then he has absolutely no right being our commander in chief. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Clinton never appropriated the warrior persona and invaded a country. Bush can't talk it if he didn't walk it. He loses the right.

[cosmicdot]

56. will they get around to discussing universal healthcare or jobs?

[bpilgrim]

59. no one is for universal healthcare or against 'globalization' unfair trade

who's a contender.

probablly all going according to plan :shrug:

peace

[salin]

57. Two thoughts:

1) They are letting it spin - as a diversion from the Kay - no weapons (and he has now said that any investigation should not JUST include the CIA, but also political use of said intel) story. The AWOL story, as you suggest, in the long run will not be paid too close attention and will not effect votes... while the other story is very central to the workings of this administration and could lose them a whole lot of votes.

However...

2) The story, while not powerful enough to do serious damage, plays to a bigger theme (tied to the above story) that is very damaging... the Credibility Gap. Or is it now the credibility gulch/ravine/canyon? In this manner - it needs to be around long enough that the basics penetrate the collective public psyche... one more BIG drip in the... He really isn't quite the same as the image that he tries to portray... side of the credibility question.

It is NOT the enchillada - and will not .. alone.. have an impact upon the election. However - it IS part of a bigger theme that is out there in the public.. but in which the lines between the dots have not been so directly drawn to yet penetrate the public psyche... in short if viewed in a bigger picture sort of way.. this story can play a role in a much bigger story that will resonate and can have a huge impact upon the election. And to that effect... so what is developing on the Kay/Tenet/no wmds front? How many stories mentioned the OSP this week? And how disconnected to reality are those net job creation projections... and how disconnected to reality are those deficit reduction projections (halved in 5 years)????

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. Excellent analysis which plays right into the issue

IS IT CREDIBILITY OR INCOMPETENCE.

You've been correct about this all along....and it is beginning to materialize as both.

[salin]

86. The two are linked and there is a third item looming behind it.

Intentional imcompetence - too bored and lazy to learn the details of policies, to ask questions of proposals, or to worry about details.

Credibility - because of an intentional intellectual disengagement, he is so unfamiliar with the details (and realities) of the policies of his administration - that he will say anything put in front of him if it sounds "good" superficially. That it doesn't jibe with reality or real numbers doesn't even cross his mind, as he isn't familiar enough with those realities before he says things to have the mental screen to think "this doesn't add up... I ought to instead spin it this way." This frees him to say anything - as it is all just words with no real meaning.

But the third - is the intent behind the actions - be they his intents or be he manipulated by those who find him a malleable front man. Regardless the real effect of so many of his policies have excrutiatingly harsh realities that benefit the very few, and are deletorious for many.

All three together - simplified and amplified - documented in digestable bits... will take W down, and possibly the neocon/far right contingent behind him.

[dmr]

157. Salin, invaluable analysis

thank you.
:hi:

[Sagan]

58. I disagree

It's only one issue. I seriously doubt it will last much longer before media short attention span syndrome kicks in.

Thus, I think it's profitable for the Dems to ride this for all it's worth then switch to something else. And if it can be brought up later, especially in Kerry's soundbite campaign speeches, then so much the better.

[JailForBush]

61. Oh, puhLEEZ! Drop it and replace it with WHAT?

Replace the AWOL campaign with another pitch that we'll be told to drop ("because this is a LOSER!)?

For crying out loud, there's room for many issues in this campaign, each of which can reach out and touch a percentage of the voters.

Here are some issues those of us who care about reform should be focusing on:

Bush AWOL
Bush AWOL II (September 11)
Bush the Drunk Driver
Buth the Liar
Bush the Master of Military Photo Ops
Bush the Corporate Whore
Bush the Murderer
Bush the Right-Wing Religious Kook
Bush the Man Who Married a Socialite Slut Who Killed her Boyfriend
Bush the Father of Two Boozers
Bush the Brother of a Governor with a Drug-Addicted Daughter
Bush the Sidekick to Dick Cheney
Bush the Skull and Bones Member
Bush the Master of "Bring'em On" Warfare
Bush the Intellectual Runt
Bush the Economic Train Wreck
Bush the Treaty Breaker
Bush the President Who Alienates Allies
Bush the Jerk Who Blows the Whistle on CIA Operatives

Get my drift?

[number6]

156. and those are his good points

:evilgrin:

[Q]

63. You won't have to worry about 'letting it drop'...

...because the American Media is going to do it for you.

[Jacobin]

64. It's goes deeper than that ....way way way deeper

It's a symptom of the sickness of "privilege" that permeates our society..that a rich kid's daddy can get him an honorable discharge while he flaunts his obligation, can get into graduate school because of privilege and not merit, can then pretend to be a war hero, take this country into an idiotic war, then prance around on the deck of an aircraft carrier like some war hero to try to maintain his families power over MY country.

It is disgusting. It is based on lies. It must stop. It's what caused the French Revolution. and if these fuckers think they can continue to loot, pillage and plunder this country, smirking and smiling and prancing around the whole time, they have another fucking think coming.

Hope I made myself clear

[billbuckhead]

77. This is one BFEE corruption that Joe Sixpack can understand and resent

This is one Bush family corruption the average man can wrap their minds around. Harken and Enron are way over their heads. The lumpenproletariat just say that "They're all crooks". This story reeks of the basest hypocrisy that everyone can understand.

[supercrash]

68. The way I see it...

Is that this is the story that is 'now' ...this is the story they are reporting on...'now' ...this is the story with legs....'for now'

Go with it...don't fight it

[Zero Gravitas]

71. They're covering something up

I think this goes beyond Bush blowing off his TANG "service" because he could get away with. If there was nothing to it or if they thought people wouldn't care, they would release all of the records and be done with it. But they won't do that. I suspect that the allegation that he got busted for cocaine is true. It would explain him being grounded (they still have explanation for that) it would explain the absence from duty and it would explain the completely out of character volunteer service. So I hope this story keeps going until they find what ever it is they are covering up.

[kaitykaity]

72. No flames, but definitely disagree.

As the Thugs are fond of saying, 9/11 changed everything. In 2000 we weren't in a state of permanent, perpetual war, and so Bush's military service record wasn't an issue. (Just as Bob Dole's military credentials didn't help him against Clinton in 1996.)

Since Bush has made himself a 'war president' and has sent 531 of our kids off to die in Iraq, what Bush did when it was his time to either go to war or hide in Texas is definitely relevant to the discussion. How Bush got into TANG, and what he did once he was in, is a testament to his character in a time of war.

How much more important could that be?

[Snappy]

73. GW Bush Cocaine arrest/Refusal to take physical

Let's focus on that, eh.

[Dees]

74. Not going to let it drop. Means too much to

me and many more vets. I'm not laying down for the RNC or Monkeynuts or Delay or Cheney or any other chickenshit chickenhawk coward the Rethugs want us to lay off of. Rethugs are perfectly happy to let others go out and do the dying for them. Every friggin thing the Repukes say is a damn lie, scam, hustle, sham, shuck or an effort to get the dumbass masses to serve them. Bullshit!

John Q. Vet cares.

John

[NJCher]

75. you are absolutely, unequivocally wrong, wrong, wrong and here's why

The reason you are wrong is that this strikes at the heart of why many people support bush. They identify with him. They think they are like him.

This story reinforces that bush lacks character. He is a spoiled child of privilege. He is irresponsible. He doesn't understand the military.

How many people can identify with that? Certainly not the those hardworking, God-fearing proud Americans.

Should you doubt this, go read Plaid Atter's column from today. Then read up on belief systems and the role they play in voting.

There is no one magical story that is going to do the trick. There never is. This is one in a series of many stories about bush that works in our favor.


Cher

[x-g.o.p.er]

101. I never looked at it....

from the character point of view. My big concern was if we started going after Bush for what happened 30 yrs ago, they would go after our guys for what happened 30 yrs ago. And they are. But you are right that it does drive to the point of his character.

However, if paperwork does show up that exonerates him, then what?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vickers]

78. This is a Medusa's head sitchation we got here...

...they cut that AWOL snake off and a couple more are gonna spring up in it's place.

God bless you, Edith Hamilton!

[cryofan]

79. It is about WINNING! Talking about issues is too complicated

Issues takes propaganda...that takes a certain setting and environment.

[sendero]

80. My opinion...

... is that this story would have no bounce (and indeed didn't) when Bush*'s approval ratings are high.

Now that they are dropping, the press feels emboldened. As much as folks around here are convinced the media has softballed Bush* for 3 years because they are controlled by the right, I think it is because they want viewers. And you get viewers by telling them what they want to hear, not trying to shove an unhappy message at them.

Now that Bush's popularity is weak, they can reverse the spin - they can cross the 'tipping point'. That point is the point at which they will get more viewers dissing Bush* than they do praising him. If the current trend continues, Bush* is TOAST, because there will be a media feeding frenzy on this issue, Harken, WMD, hell the list is a muckraker's treasure trove.

I realize this may not happen. But it would be a mistake to rule it out. And a mistake to think this issue doesn't matter - it goes to the heart of the "honor and integrity" issue that Bush* was (almost) elected on.

[Rebellious Republican]

81. You want to know we do not want to let it drop x g.o.per ........

because it shows that he is a pathological liar, check this very chilling thread out!http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1111805

[Rebellious Republican]

83. And here is another to boot.........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1111223

[peterh]

84. I don’t see a backfire in this….this is real…it’s a win…

One reading of today’s WH briefing portrays a friggin’ twit in the crosshairs….the media, imho, has been pulled into this kicking and ta daaaa, low and behold, there’s a friggin’ story here that the twit is having a real problem in explaining…..now, I do feel there are other issues that deserve more media scrutiny….but we ride what we can from the whores….

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040210-3.html

[Catherine Vincent]

85. Yeah right.

Whatever....

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. I live in north Alabama near Huntsville, and you might be surprised...

...at the number of conservatives, GOP and Dem alike, that have been talking about this issue. I'm not a conservative, but I am former military, and I bring up this subject every chance I get. Three years ago I would have been blasted where I stood, but now everyone I talk to is blasting Bush.

The South is VERY supportive of the military, my friend, and having a deserter like Junior as Commander-in-Chief is pissing them, and me, off. Why do you think so many people turned out in Virginia and Tennessee to vote for Kerry?

[scheming daemons]

90. I agree

..it didn't work when the pugs used Vietnam or "I didn't inhale" against Clinton.

Why we think it will work in the other direction is beyond me.


This issue will be dead in a week, and if it isn't, it will begin to work against us. Everything is out there now. Those of us that dislike Bush, this just makes us hate him more - but it doesn't increase our numbers.


But we are firing up the GOP base - a base that was disenchanted just a few weeks ago because of the immigration ploy and the budget spending spree. We're wiping those issues off the front page - issues that were starting to hurt Bush among his base - and putting this silly crap out there that looks like cheap sour grapes to most of America, even though it's red meat to the 10% of the population that already agrees with us.


It's bad politics. the Big Dog wouldn't focus on this.....


x-goper - you are on target... some of these people have been over here in DU-land so long that they can't see the forest for the trees sometimes.


DUers cares about AWOL. People who already despise Bush care about AWOL. 80% of America doesn't.

Much the same way as 80% of America didn't give a damn about Clinton's service record (or lack thereof).

Veteran status just doesn't meant that much to MOST voters....

(I know, many people will say "It matters to ME!" - but that's my point. DU doesn't represent most voters - though it would be a great country if it did.)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

94. Respectfully speaking, your position is dead wrong...

...I've talked to quite a few people lately that are neither DUers, nor Democrats, and they're pissed about being misled by Junior. They've been very unsettled about the economy and the war, but this has proven to be the straw that broke the right-wing camel's back.

Go away in a week? In their dreams.

[Skittles]

92. NO, NO, HELL F***ING NO

THAT THIEVING BASTARD *MADE* IT AN ISSUE WHEN STRUTTED AROUND THE DECK OF AN AIRCRAFT CARRIER *IN UNIFORM* PRETENDING TO BE A G.D. WAR HERO. THAT WARMONGING F***WIT IS GETTING WHAT HE DESERVES - FINALLY.

[Redleg]

93. I disagree- listen to the talk around the office watercooler.

They're talking about the lack of WMDs and Bush's military service (or lack thereof).

[JCMach1]

97. It deconstructs the Bush mythos

Character

:puke:

[Nihil]

98. Just an observation ...

The original poster of this thread hasn't replied yet.

One of the few supporters of the original thread has even fewer
posts than I do.

Lots of activists have contributed time directly to refuting the
premise of the original poster (and subsequently that of the low-post
supporter who conveniently kicked the thread when it lost momentum).

Qui bono?

Nihil

[x-g.o.p.er]

102. Just a retort

The originator had a lot of shit to do last night, and my kids needed the computer for homework.

Since when was there a minimum post requirement to either agree or disagree with the originator of the thread?

And because we are newer to DU, I would like to think that we can bring a different perspective to the issue. Not right or wrong, just different.

[Bridget Burke]

108. It's not a different perspective.

It's a very familiar perspective, warning everybody at DU that "we" should just shut up about a certain issue, because it will make "us" look bad. Only the issue changes:

* The stolen election

* The background of 9/11

* Iraq--where are those WMD's?

We should just move on, take the high road, and maybe the Republicans will be nice to us.

The AWOL issue is actually old news to many of us. It's enjoyable seeing it examined in depth by the media. It does have direct bearing on the character of our godly, warrior president.

Our candidate should take the high road, speaking of foreign policy, the economy, domestic affairs, the environment, etc. We in the peanut gallery will use all the weapons that we can.

[x-g.o.p.er]

110. I am absolutely not saying

"shut-up" about the issue. I just think many people want to hear something more relevant from today before they change their mind and their vote. I think the lack of WMD's in Iraq is a lot more relevant and serious than something that happened 30 years ago. If any of your above issues have the most potential for damage, the WMD one does, IMHO. That is potentially criminal, if it can be proven that intel was doctored up as a pretext for war.

I do agree that the TANG issue does reflect upon Bush's character, in light of the last three years. That is something I had not considered until I started reading these replies.

[Nihil]

114. Glad to see you back!

Also glad to hear that you don't want the issue dropped per se.
Maybe it was just the way I read your original note (coupled with the
lack of response - hey, I get busy at times too) but I interpreted it
as a form of "Hmmm, this is a bit too near the mark, let's find some
other, safer point to discuss".

Of course there is no "minimum post requirement to either agree or
disagree with the originator of the thread" - if there was, I probably
wouldn't appear at all on these fora - but the majority of topics and
replies that *don't* benefit Democrats tend to originate with posters
with short histories ... My apologies.

> I think the lack of WMD's in Iraq is a lot more relevant and
> serious than something that happened 30 years ago.

When it involves the President of the USA, "lost" official documents,
felony offences (cocaine), service offences (AWOL+), lying photo-ops
and cover-ups DO make this not only relevant but vital IMO.

There again, I wasn't offended by Clinton getting a blow job or Janet
Jackson showing one stapled tit for two seconds so maybe it's my moral
compass that's out of line with the "civilised world" ...

Pax :hi:

Nihil

[x-g.o.p.er]

124. I see your point...to a point

I'm just saying 30 years is too far back to have to go to connect the dots to the failure that is this administration. Three years is plenty, lol. If we use recent issues, like the campaign finance reform bill that eviscerates the 1st amendment, the prescription drug bill that busts the budget and does no discernible good for anyone that I can tell, and the debacle that is the WMD intel that has needlessly costed lives and resources we don't have, we will make a lot more progress, and I think things that have happened more recently resonate more with the average voter than those that happened a long time ago.

And my apologies to you if I came across as pissy in my initial response. I felt you were trying to tag me as a FR lurker or something similar. I really am not a FReeper lurker, and I am doing my damndest to get my "post count" up to further my "street cred", lol.

And quite frankly, I didn't give two whits about JJ's tit shot. I thought Clinton was morally repugnant, and it reflected badly on the presidency as a whole, but he didn't deserve impeachment over it.

Pals?

:pals:

[Nihil]

138. OK, agree to disagree

I see no reason why it must be either/or.

If a talking point is factual, use it! Then be prepared to move on
to the next issue ... there are certainly enough to choose from.
Hammer each issue so that even the less well-read members of the
public have recognised that there is a genuine problem, not just a
quick handwave that can be dismissed as "partisan politics", then
leave it open. After picking up the next issue on the list, you can
always come back to the "shelved" one briefly to jog people's memory.

Why let him off for anything?

> Pals?

You don't have to agree with someone to stay pals! :-)

[Bridget Burke]

115. We can use several issues....

I agree that the (lack of) WMD & other items might be more important. Lack of jobs, the growing deficit--we've got quite a buffet of of issues spread out before us.

We're glad that the media are using this issue to, at last, show some criticism of Bush. Perhaps they will turn their newly critical gaze to the other questions.

[fishnfla]

117. I got your back ,x gop

this guys OK Bridget, he has bared his soul in this forum(an awesome conversion story, I might add), he's legit,IMO

x-goper, dont sweat it, that low post count thing happens 'round here, we've all been thru it. rightly or wrongly, its a rite of DU passage.

good thread, good discussion

[x-g.o.p.er]

125. Thanks

I'm starting to figure out that "rite of passage" thing, lol.

[fishnfla]

123. You'll have to forgive DUers

This issue is actually OLD NEWS to us. In fact that is how I found this place, researching the AWOL story, over a year ago. The story is out from under the table now, legs of its own. We're gonna say 'bout damned time! (stick around for awhile and you'll see that the gunners here are always correctly ahead of the curve;) )

One of my favorite points is how during the 2000 election there were 40,000 'Gore invented the internet' media references, and 47 references to shrub's military record.(rough 3's) Now the issue is getting more ink, ironic. If the press had been doing their job back then, it could have swung a close election.

[Spirochete]

142. The AWOL thing

is just a start, IMO. It points out serious character defects in the "war president" which in turn may get people to take a deeper look at things like Harken energy, the non-WMD's, and everything else about the inept evil chimp, even the non-job he did as governor of Texas.

[RapidCreek]

143. Getting paid for serving in the Guard while your actually

at a rich kids rehab clinic in North Carolina is potentially criminal as well.

Whaaa? huuu? Hehehehe.....

RC

[Selwynn]

121. X-g.o.p.er -- read the White House Press briefing from yesterday

Then tell me what you think.

[Cat Atomic]

106. Disagree. This is extremely damaging for Bush.

It demonstrates dishonesty and hypocrisy on a personal level.

On a broader level, it's a perfect example of what wealth and privilege can mean in our society.

[molly]

107. I care - he is selling himself as a "war president"

he LIED - he had the nerve to fake a landing on an air craft carrier pretending he was "one of the boys". I also have a very vivid memory about an impeachment process for a great president.

[fishnfla]

112. People need to know the truth

when I first started spreading this story a year ago, people were like, yeah right. This morning one of the fellas I talked to then called to say: how did you know?

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[9215]

113. I totally disagree.

This should be hammered relentlessly.

[Kazak]

120. Hmmm...

It sure does seem to have the administration scrambling.

[mondo joe]

127. I disagree - the issue isn't service. It's lying.

It's not that he served or didn't - it's that he lied about it.

And the revelations this week that his records were "cleaned up" before the presidental run are CERTAINLY relevant today.

[Ganja Ninja]

128. It's a character issue.

Bush flew out to the Aircraft Carrier and pranced around pretending to be something he's not. His National Guard record shows his true heroism. He's a sham. Every chance we get to show him for his true self is a chance we need to take.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

136. These Have All Been Refuted As Fabrications

Years ago. Catch up, shall we?
The Professor

[RandomKoolzip]

139. So which country has this "dominant leftist media" of which

you speak, keemo sabee? It certainly ain't the US, buddy. GE owns NBC, and GE is a tool of the defense industry. Fox News is owned by a flaminmg conservative. I've never seen or heard any mention of "LIHOP" or a "living wage" on CNN or CNBC. ABC and CBS and every other media outlet has given Bush* a free pass so far for three years, even though he's done his best to screw the average American. "Dominant leftist media?!!" Oh, right, Clinton was never smeared in the media, he was totally offlimits, right? That darn "leftist media" at work.


BTW, Clinton isn't president anymore.


Now go away. Your mommy's calling you.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProfessorGAC]

137. Your Screenname Is An Obvious Obfuscation

I'll give you time to look that up, Coulter pal.
The Professor

[LeahMira]

140. You never know...

...this whole story about Bush being AWOL, whether it is true or not, is not a story we will win on.

I certainly don't think this alone will win an election, but I don't see why you feel it should be dropped entirely.


Most people, quite frankly, don't care. And those that do pay attention see that he received an honorable discharge, and think the rest is just Democratic sour grapes.

I don't know that they don't care. You really never know what will catch the attention of the American people.

I do think that the people will resent sending their spouses, sons, and brothers off to war and at the same time seeing the pResident strutting around the deck of an aircraft carrier when he made every effort to avoid the military at the time when it would have been appropriate for him to serve. I'd guess that the military families would prefer that their men and women get a little recognition for their real sacrifices than have the pResident take recognition for sacrifice he never made and in fact shirked with all his might.


There is so much more in the arena of ideas to engage John Q. Public about, that this is just wasting time, IMHO.

Well, John Q. chooses for himself the ideas that engage him. Hundreds of thousands of people in the streets of all the world's major cities protesting the invasion of Iraq didn't seem to move a whole lot of John Qs in this country enough to join us in protest. If the Bush military record, or lack thereof, is what finally engages John Q. sufficiently so that he starts taking a serious look at everything else that has been brought to us by the Bush administration, then I say go for it. Let's not pull defeat from the jaws of victory.

[West Coast Democrat]

141. People are paying attention, so yes, it does hurt Bush

We really have nothing to lose by asking Bush where he was.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

144. You're totally wrong, it IS already working

It's not a big deal and it's not going to win the election by itself (obviously) but pukes will think twice the next time he puts on a costume and prances around on an aircraft carrier.

[Judi Lynn]

149. Here's the article written by a reporter from the Boston Globe, 5-23-2000

A lot of us heard all about this a long time ago:

(snip) 1-year gap in Bush's Guard duty

No record of airman at drills from 1972-73

By Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff, 5/23/2000


AUSTIN, Texas - After George W. Bush became governor in 1995, the Houston Air National Guard unit he had served with during the Vietnam War years honored him for his work, noting that he flew an F-102 fighter-interceptor until his discharge in October 1973.

And Bush himself, in his 1999 autobiography, ''A Charge to Keep,'' recounts the thrills of his pilot training, which he completed in June 1970. ''I continued flying with my unit for the next several years,'' the governor wrote.

But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen.
(snip/..)

http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm

[Q]

151. This sounds familiar...

...saying that 'we can't win on this issue'. I've heard the same thing about every one of the dozens of Bush* scandals. These are the issues the conservatives in the Dem party have encouraged everyone to 'move on' about.

- Bush* gets stronger every time we move. I'm so sick of this argument that attacking Bush* on important issues will make us 'look bad' or partisan. The other side looks bad and partisan all the time...and it hasn't stopped them from gaining full control of all aspects of our government.

- For once...Democrats shouldn't back down from an issue...especially one that speaks to the very relevant issue of character and honesty.

[DemBones DemBones]

152. Uh-huh. Just like Whitewater was a lose-lose story.

Or Watergate. Nobody cared about either one in the beginning, but people kept looking into them and turning up more. Ultimately, one much-hated president resigned to avoid being impeached, and one better-liked president was impeached but not convicted., and served out the rest of his second term.

This president is hated much more than Nixon. There's not time to impeach him before his term ends, and too many Republicans in Congress, anyway, but the more that the people who presently tolerate him learn about what he's done -- before and during his residency -- the less likely they are to vote for him in November. It's a public service to inform the people. If he gets a second term, things will get much worse in this country.

I wouldn't support lying about him, but I support full disclosure of the truth. People need to know that he's a liar.

[number6]

153. no flame xgoper

its gotta play, it does matter, people do care
"is not a story we will win on" true
that won't win the election, but this combined with
other weaknesses of Bu$h will help ...
in the end the Demo candidate will need to win
with his own message, but everything that weakens
the smirk helps ...

[jsw_81]

154. Nice try, "x" goper