Bush Texas Air National Guard Memos are Forgeries

[theprestige]

Didn't just "miss drill a few times", IIRC, he actually moved out of state and never showed up for his new unit. Also failed to maintain his flying status.
This was probably due to his alcoholism, which, to his and Laura's credit, he eventually beat.

Nor I, I guess. On the other hand, his father used his position as a congressman to get GW into a unit that was unavailable to lesser folks. At the same time I, whose parents didn't have that advantage, got drafted. Then he let the USAF spend millions training him to fly an airplane he knew wouldn't get sent to VietNam, and ducked out of the obligation to do so.

Apparently, I CAN get worked up about it.

Back to the debate.

Kerry did his duty. So did I. Bush didn't.

Presumably you have more than forged memos and your recollection to support these claims?

Also, are we to have a similarly low opinion of everyone else in that unit, and of everyone who managed to serve in a military unit assigned to national defense missions other than Vietnam?

 

[SezMe]

Perhaps the deletion was accidental. But it could have also been seen as convenient as well.

Psst. Just a little secret between us, ok? Mums the word, now.

At the time, JREF employed Rose Mary Woods.​

Mind your tongue because you never know who's listening.

 

[Meadmaker]

Presumably you have more than forged memos and your recollection to support these claims?

Also, are we to have a similarly low opinion of everyone else in that unit, and of everyone who managed to serve in a military unit assigned to national defense missions other than Vietnam?

While this story was breaking, I remember listening to an interview with a secretary who served that unit at the time, and she talked about how many children of rich people and politicians were in the unit.

 

[Meadmaker]

Part of it, if I recall correctly was that this was going on while John Kerry was being swiftboated and accused of getting his medals under false or exaggerated circumstances. So there was the perception that Bush was in no position to be critical of what Kerry did in Vietnam, given that Bush may have pulled strings to get a relatively safe sort of military service and then didn't even take that seriously.

Yes, that was part of it. That whole swiftboat stuff was pretty disgraceful. However, to be fair, Kerry was pushing the war hero narrative as part of his campaign. (I remember cringing as he walked on to the stage for his acceptance speech at the convention and saluted. I knew I would be seeing that salute soon in Republican advertisements.) When you build yourself up as a war hero, it isn't too surprising to find out that some people are going to try and cut you back down.

Viewed in that light, bringing up Bush's record doesn't make much sense. It's a sort of tu qoque. it's

Kerry: I'm a war hero!
Anti-Kerry: Some war hero! He should never have even gotten those medals, and he hung out with Jane Fonda when he got home.
Pro-Kerry: Oh yeah, well Bush didn't even go to Vietnam, and he wasn't even very good in the guard.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes, that was part of it. That whole swiftboat stuff was pretty disgraceful. However, to be fair, Kerry was pushing the war hero narrative as part of his campaign. (I remember cringing as he walked on to the stage for his acceptance speech at the convention and saluted. I knew I would be seeing that salute soon in Republican advertisements.) When you build yourself up as a war hero, it isn't too surprising to find out that some people are going to try and cut you back down.

Viewed in that light, bringing up Bush's record doesn't make much sense. It's a sort of tu qoque. it's

Kerry: I'm a war hero!
Anti-Kerry: Some war hero! He should never have even gotten those medals, and he hung out with Jane Fonda when he got home.
Pro-Kerry: Oh yeah, well Bush didn't even go to Vietnam, and he wasn't even very good in the guard.

Agreed. I also believe that the Bush campaign had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads. I think it really was a grassroots campaign, and even non-partisan in principle. There was a lot of ill will towards John Kerry for his 1971 Senate testimony, in which he effectively described American soldiers as a Mongol horde. That ill will was probably ratcheted up to 11 when he then decided to portray his service in Vietnam as heroic in order to promote his candidacy for President.

 

[BenBurch]

... No new facts have come to light since then. ...

There is a reason there are no facts. The only copy of his transcript was LOST when being sent via registered mail back in 2000.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Agreed. I also believe that the Bush campaign had nothing to do with the Swift Boat ads. I think it really was a grassroots campaign, and even non-partisan in principle. There was a lot of ill will towards John Kerry for his 1971 Senate testimony, in which he effectively described American soldiers as a Mongol horde. That ill will was probably ratcheted up to 11 when he then decided to portray his service in Vietnam as heroic in order to promote his candidacy for President.

Maybe you should edit the Wikipedia article on it then, the have tons of misinformation such as:

SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, yet several prominent individuals who assisted SBVT also have had close ties to the Republican Party. According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group's reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a longtime supporter of George W. Bush, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons' Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens, Jr. donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000).[86][87][88]

 

[sunmaster14]

Maybe you should edit the Wikipedia article on it then, the have tons of misinformation such as:

I put the words "in principle" there for a reason. In practice, it was mostly funded by Republican leaning donors. In theory, however, the group did not advocate for Republican principles or policies. It simply was formed to express its disgust for Kerry. It probably would have been bipartisan if Kerry had not been running for President as the Democratic nominee.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I put the words "in principle" there for a reason. In practice, it was mostly funded by Republican leaning donors. In theory, however, the group did not advocate for Republican principles or policies. It simply was formed to express its disgust for Kerry. It probably would have been bipartisan if Kerry had not been running for President as the Democratic nominee.

Do you really think it would have been formed at all if Kerry had not been running for President as the Democratic nominee?

Back to Wikipedia:

The claims of the group were discredited[20][21] and most[3] of the Vietnam veterans who served alongside Kerry or under his command disputed the criticisms and supported Kerry's version of events and his presidential aspirations.[125][5][6][126][8][9]

People don't typically lie without a reason.

 

[Giordano]

I put the words "in principle" there for a reason. In practice, it was mostly funded by Republican leaning donors. In theory, however, the group did not advocate for Republican principles or policies. It simply was formed to express its disgust for Kerry. It probably would have been bipartisan if Kerry had not been running for President as the Democratic nominee.

Do you think it even would have come up if Kerry wasn't running for the Democratic nomination? Especially given it was based on a lie?

It is well established that smearing an opponent of your favorite candidate can be even more effective than supporting your candidate directly. And yet you really wish to convince me that that these established, Republican advocates/donors simply wished, out of the blue, to place big money in the anti-Kerry campaign without it having anything to do with their goals of getting a Republican into office? And you truly believe that rather than just using it to argue your political side on an Internet forum? You must be a very trusting person.

 

[Beerina]

Is it too soon to mention that I have grave doubts about the alleged will of Howard Hughes?

And WTF is up with all those extra points Dumbledore just apparently can ladel on at will to make sure Gryffindor wins?

 

[sunmaster14]

Do you really think it would have been formed at all if Kerry had not been running for President as the Democratic nominee?

Back to Wikipedia:



People don't typically lie without a reason.

It is impossible to tell if they were lying, or if Kerry and his friends were lying, or a little of both, or neither. These were people who had different recollections as to what happened. It's possible, even likely, that everybody involved confabulated to a significant degree. Memories which are 30 years old are hardly reliable, and they tend to be shaped by events in the intervening years. Personally, I suspect Kerry embellished some of his actions, but didn't actually lie about them. And I also suspect that his detractors thought he was something of a blowhard and a showoff and ended up becoming obsessed with his likely embellishments. This was all exacerbated by the ill will they felt for Kerry after he came home and, in their view, defamed them and their service. Don't forget also that Kerry's testimony to the Senate in 1971 was mostly hearsay. He had not witnessed most of the horrible events he described with his own eyes.

My point, however, was that the Swift Boat Veterans were acting on their own volition. Nobody was forcing them to do what they did, and nobody was paying them to do it. I also think the narrative that has developed among liberals that what these guys said was all lies is a gross lie itself. It is really not for any of us who wasn't there to judge. Nothing was recorded with infallible equipment. Even the contemporaneous military records are based on personal memories, not audio and video.

Just to give you another example of how such events can be remembered very differently by different people, I refer you to the events for which former Senator Bob Kerrey was awarded a Bronze Star.

 

[Giordano]

It is impossible to tell if they were lying, or if Kerry and his friends were lying, or a little of both, or neither. These were people who had different recollections as to what happened. It's possible, even likely, that everybody involved confabulated to a significant degree. Memories which are 30 years old are hardly reliable, and they tend to be shaped by events in the intervening years. Personally, I suspect Kerry embellished some of his actions, but didn't actually lie about them. And I also suspect that his detractors thought he was something of a blowhard and a showoff and ended up becoming obsessed with his likely embellishments. This was all exacerbated by the ill will they felt for Kerry after he came home and, in their view, defamed them and their service. Don't forget also that Kerry's testimony to the Senate in 1971 was mostly hearsay. He had not witnessed most of the horrible events he described with his own eyes.

My point, however, was that the Swift Boat Veterans were acting on their own volition. Nobody was forcing them to do what they did, and nobody was paying them to do it. I also think the narrative that has developed among liberals that what these guys said was all lies is a gross lie itself. It is really not for any of us who wasn't there to judge. Nothing was recorded with infallible equipment. Even the contemporaneous military records are based on personal memories, not audio and video.

Just to give you another example of how such events can be remembered very differently by different people, I refer you to the events for which former Senator Bob Kerrey was awarded a Bronze Star.

Yes they were. If not as individuals certainly they were well financed by others to help them publicize their lies and so to support their political views. Big funding. Do you think that personal financial income is the only incentive people have that leads them from the straight and narrow? You should hear the lies people tell for sex!

You know, I seem to remember President Bush robbing my bank! Pure speculation, of course, and it was years ago, but I somehow think that it might have been him. Of course my memory isn't what it used to be, and maybe it wasn't him. But the truth is probably in between him not being involved at all and him shooting off the teller's head. Probably. And thus I will speculate on his motives for having robbed the bank. I mean-why would I make that up- no one is paying me, right? OF COURSE HE DIDN"T ROB A BANK, AND I AM NOT REALLY ACCUSING HIM OF HAVING DONE SO.

My point, of course, is that it is easy to make up an accusation that has no basis in reality and is not for financial gain, but for a political one. And that the truth need not lie somewhere in between the accusation being completely false and completely true- the accusation can be completely false and not worth speculation at all.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes they were. If not as individuals certainly they were well financed by others to help them publicize their lies and so to support their political views. Big funding.

This is not the same as being paid to do it. If a producer offers an actor a job in a blockbuster movie but doesn't pay him, the actor might get lots of exposure, but he is not being paid.

Do you think that personal financial income is the only incentive people have that leads them from the straight and narrow? You should hear the lies people tell for sex!

What reward were Swift Boat Vets getting for telling lies in public? Seems to me they got an awful lot of abuse heaped on them. It was kind of ironic in a way, as perfectly captured in a great quip by David Burge when the Bergdahl kerfuffle hit:

"What kind of scum would slander this fine brave patriotic US soldier!"
"His platoon mates."
"And you actually believe those baby killers?"

You know, I seem to remember President Bush robbing my bank! Pure speculation, of course, and it was years ago, but I somehow think that it might have been him. Of course my memory isn't what it used to be, and maybe it wasn't him. But the truth is probably in between him not being involved at all and him shooting off the teller's head. Probably. And thus I will speculate on his motives for having robbed the bank. I mean-why would I make that up- no one is paying me, right? OF COURSE HE DIDN"T ROB A BANK, AND I AM NOT REALLY ACCUSING HIM OF HAVING DONE SO.

Do you see how you helped make my point? You aren't even willing to tell a big lie on an anonymous internet forum without quickly retracting it. You actually care about your reputation (and that's admirable). No doubt many of the Swift Boat Vets did too. It's not easy to put your public reputation on the line in service to a lie.

 

[Giordano]

This is not the same as being paid to do it. If a producer offers an actor a job in a blockbuster movie but doesn't pay him, the actor might get lots of exposure, but he is not being paid.



What reward were Swift Boat Vets getting for telling lies in public? Seems to me they got an awful lot of abuse heaped on them. It was kind of ironic in a way, as perfectly captured in a great quip by David Burge when the Bergdahl kerfuffle hit:







Do you see how you helped make my point? You aren't even willing to tell a big lie on an anonymous internet forum without quickly retracting it. You actually care about your reputation (and that's admirable). No doubt many of the Swift Boat Vets did too. It's not easy to put your public reputation on the line in service to a lie.

Maybe I have more scruples than some? Maybe I care about my reputation. Maybe what I told was a clear lie and I wanted you and others to recognize it was a lie because THAT WAS THE POINT of my post? Maybe the Swift Boat Vets thought that their lie would be more easily believed than mine and that it would be harder to disprove. I gather from your logic that no one in politics tells a lie (unless possibly, I guess, if they are directly paid for it)- that should make it much simpler for me to understand politics in the future.

 

[Giordano]

This is not the same as being paid to do it. If a producer offers an actor a job in a blockbuster movie but doesn't pay him, the actor might get lots of exposure, but he is not being paid. What reward were Swift Boat Vets getting for telling lies in public? Seems to me they got an awful lot of abuse heaped on them. It was kind of ironic in a way, as perfectly captured in a great quip by David Burge when the Bergdahl kerfuffle hit:







Do you see how you helped make my point? You aren't even willing to tell a big lie on an anonymous internet forum without quickly retracting it. You actually care about your reputation (and that's admirable). No doubt many of the Swift Boat Vets did too. It's not easy to put your public reputation on the line in service to a lie.

Again- apparently no one tells a lie except for direct financial gain. Good to know.

And no one tells a lie because they enjoy publicity, visibility, fame, and a way of advancing their political agenda? You have been speculating that the boy in the clock/fake bomb scenario might have been lying- why would he do that- seems to me that he has been subjected to a lot of public abuse. Maybe by your logic, he must be telling the truth.

 

[SezMe]

What reward were Swift Boat Vets getting for telling lies in public?

That's easy. They got a conservative president. That's worth lying for.

 

[Meadmaker]

The way I saw it at the time was that the swiftboaters were not so my lying as spinning wildly. Most of their statements were either vague or trivial. He didn't spend much time in Vietnam. Some people didn't look up to Kerry. (I'm pretty sure that's true of every officer.)

The way I saw it, I don't care if he was the best or worst officer in the Navy, he got shot at a lot more than I ever have. That has to count for something, although it wouldn't make me all that inclined to vote for him.

It was dirty politics. However, I don't know if there were outright lies in their stuff. It was still pretty disgraceful.

 

[sunmaster14]

Maybe I have more scruples than some? Maybe I care about my reputation. Maybe what I told was a clear lie and I wanted you and others to recognize it was a lie because THAT WAS THE POINT of my post? Maybe the Swift Boat Vets thought that their lie would be more easily believed than mine and that it would be harder to disprove. I gather from your logic that no one in politics tells a lie (unless possibly, I guess, if they are directly paid for it)- that should make it much simpler for me to understand politics in the future.

Politicians tell lies in order to advance their careers. There is a clear benefit from their lies. The rewards are direct and tangible. I don't see that in the case of the Swift Boat vets.

 

[sunmaster14]

Again- apparently no one tells a lie except for direct financial gain. Good to know.

And no one tells a lie because they enjoy publicity, visibility, fame, and a way of advancing their political agenda? You have been speculating that the boy in the clock/fake bomb scenario might have been lying- why would he do that- seems to me that he has been subjected to a lot of public abuse. Maybe by your logic, he must be telling the truth.

I have never claimed that the clock kid lied. My speculation is that his version of events is not necessarily complete or accurate. Everybody sees things and remembers things differently. My only claim regarding the "clock" incident is that the kid did nothing worthy of praise and that the teachers, the principal, and indeed the police may have acted perfectly reasonably and do not deserve all of the opprobrium and ridicule they have received.