Ex-governor of Texas says he is "ashamed" he helped the rich (dubya) avoid Vietnam

What? Bush avoided serving in Vietnam and Kerry tried to avoid serving in Vietnam but couldn't?

Can anyone confirm that Bush is on record saying that family influence did not get him preferential treatment?

Prove it, which I know you can't since you've already been proved wrong.

Which part? What do you want proven?

Kerry voulenteered to go to Vietnam and requested swift boat duty.
Bush requested that he not be sent abroad.

Military records prove this beyond any doubt.

Jesus, Scott, what the fuck?

Have your fun with pretending there is controversy about Kerry's medals, but claiming that asking to serve in Vietnam is a clever way to avoid service?

There is a point at which scurrilous political dirt turns into just nuts.

And not even interesting or entertaining nuts, just depressing alone in a room arguing with the sink nuts.

Delusion is the only way he can avoid admitting he was wrong. The sad thing is Scott and Trumpt actually believe themselves. They're not lying. Not knowingly, anyway. They actually believe they are right.

They believe they are right to make statments like "Kerry tried to avoid going to Vietnam but couldn't" when there is factual, documented evidence that says otherwise. They actually believe that Bush performed his duty when there is absoloutely no factual evidence (where clearly there should be) that backs up this claim.

Their beliefs and claims are all based on faith.

On the faith that they cannot possibly be wrong.

On the faith that Kerry is a liar and Bush is honest.

Despite the evidence.

Despite the documented records.

Despite the arguments on the one hand that have been proven wrong, and the arguments on the other that have been fully corroborated.

Despite the fact that we have lifelong conservatives supporting Kerry, yet not a single Democrat has come out in support of Bush.

Despite all of this, the delusion continues.

I would definitely not avoid classification of such selective ignorance as a mental illness. These guys are not stupid. They just cannot, under any circumstances ever, no matter what the evidence, admit that they are wrong.

I feel sorry for the wives. I bet "I'm sorry, honey" has never been heard from a male in either of those households.

++

Facts speak for themself even if the republicans are trying their best to spin history. one a hero the other not..... still amazed that 45% of people going for Bush with all his atrocities,lies,spin and poor poor record this past 4 years. I would rather randomly pick any person in the country to do a better job then Cheney/Bush. Cheney/Bush are the Chickenhawks. Chickenhawks find it easy to send someone else's kids to die for their lost cause but where were they when other chickenhawks needed them? thats right dodging the Wars. Cheney/Bush= Chickenhawks facts dont lie.

He requested swift boat duty because at the time swift boats had easy duty and were not very involved in the war. He wanted to avoid the fighting.

It amazes me how the country can focus on this nonsense instead of the real issues. Hopefully we can sort out what each of theses clowns did 30 years ago prety soon so we can move on with the present and the future.

Kerry is the one that made his Vietnam experience a major focus of his campaign.

This is just what Bush wants,talk about something 30 years ago so he doesnt have to address the failures of the past 4 years but when we focus on 30 years ago we find Bush was shown favoritism,he dodged the war, and was missing from the guard........our president

Kerry is the one that brings it up over and over. He even knew that some veterans were still pissed off at him for his senate testimony. Yet he thought he could use Vietnam as his ace in the hole. It aint working.

Well he has to tackle the issue of security, so his Vietnam experience is essential. Plus, I assume he'll expand on his campaign after the RNC. If he doesn't, then he's an idiot.

So you mean when you said:
you were lying?

Making something a focus of your campaign invites scrutiny and discussion.

It does not provide carte blanche license for making shit up.

Or else, Scott, perhaps you would agree that because Bush has made the WOT a centerpiece of his campaign, that fully justifies MoveOn.org running a series of ads saying: "George Bush planned and funded the 9/11 attacks. I know. I was there".

I mean, after all, Bush brought it up, so anything goes, right?

I was not pointing fingers at either candidate Scott. I just find it silly that the nation is spending its time debating what Kerry and Bush did during the VN war. I suspect that we will never really know the truth about this. If you are a Republican, you believe one group of vets. If you are a Democrat, you believe the other.

No.

The basic narrative of what these men did during Vietnam defines them. Kerry volunteered for service overseas, risking his life for what he thought was the right thing to do. According to the official Navy records, he served honorably. Kerry later led the anti-war movement at home after his experiences in Vietnam changed his opinion and the opinion of other veterans as well. By contrast, Bush used his upper-class connections to obtain a spot in the National Guard, while hundreds of thousands of poorer soldiers went to Vietnam-- tens of thousands of which died... He *is* the "fortunate son."



That's what it's all about for me.

If the past is ANY indication, I think avoiding the draft is actually a qualification for being president.


FYI: For the rest of the evening I recommend Bushmills and a decent lager chaser in between SIPS.

Shawn, this is all a he said they said situation. As many vets will tell u Kerry is a dolt as will call him a hero. Yes, what Bush and Kerry really did may define them, but the truth is what? Bush did nothing during the war, that is clear, but I think important issues are getting lost while we decide if Kerry was a good soldier or not. We were not there, niether of us will ever know what really happened.

dmz let me tell you why I prefer Presidents who have been in the military. They are Commander in Chief. That's a pretty big responsibility. Like, the biggest one in the world. Duh? People who have been in the army and seen the horrors of war are usually less likely to want to start a war. They know the cost. Firsthand. But if they must, they will be more competent. Look at Bush. His advisors recommended way more troops in Iraq and guess what, he ignored them.

dmz would you like to go over to Iraq and die? Would you like to go to Vietnam and watch fellow soldiers rape and kill women and children?

Vietnam was bad. ok? there is no room for debate on it.

What bothers me is George said to the military and Cia where is the evidence for going into Iraq? what did they show him nothing? then he still kept going after it when the evidence was very week at best. Its clear to me there was no good evidence for War but George kept pushing and pushing WMDs and spin. Chickenhawks find it easy to go to war with someone else getting shot at. George and Cheney are Chickenhawks. America doesnt need a chickenhawk at the helm ever.

While I agree the political debate could be more productively directed towards the actual challenges facing the US, I completely reject the notion that this is a "he said/she said" discussion.

The official record is clear. The self contradictions of the people attacking Kerry is clear, as is their motivation. The numerous factual inaccuracies of these same people are there for all to see, and on the record.

It is vital that we not abandon the notion of objective truth. There is such a thing, just as there are concepts such as "the preponderance of evidence", "credible sources", and "documentary record".

If the swift boat liars can be reasonably credited with an "alternate theory" that requires us to suspend judgment, then virtually any historical event can be likewise debased.

All it requires is a group of participants that agree to roughly the same story.

And that's all, because that's all the swift boat liars have offered up. Not a shred of evidence more, and no plausible rebuttal of the actual evidence at hand.

So that if a group of disgruntled white supremacists, all whom had been residents of NYC on 9/11/01, were to come forward 30 years from now and simply assert that they had witnessed the black population of that city making preparations for the attack, clearly demonstrating foreknowledge of same, we would obliged to honor their version of events by holding out the possibility that the African American population of Manhattan had been in league with al Qaeda.

Not because there was the slightest shred of evidence, but because they said so. And reasonable people would be forced to say "Well, I guess we'll never know for sure. Some say no, some say yes, and that's just how we'll have to leave it."

Is that really what you want? Because by treating the swift boat lies like this, you are helping to engender the imaginative space that makes that possible.

pretty sure it's Kerry who keeps going back 30 years and failing to address the failures of the past 4 years. maybe if he tried that he'd be a bit more successful. right now his game plan sucks.



there is no correlation there.

Sorry but I really do believe you've got that backwards there.

o really?

democrats keep saying that the past 4 years have been full of failures, bush is incompetant, and has all but doomed us......

yet Kerry takes any chance he gets to talk up his service, criticize bush for his avoiding service, and ignores going after the 4 years of failure.

this election should be easy. Kerry is messing up almost as bad as Gore

Quite simply " You wish ".

It was the republicans and their lackys that dredged this stuff up in a attempt to distract from the real issues.

Bush is going down.


OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

Huh? It was the republicans that force kerry to bring up his millitary service over and over again? How did they manage that?

By getting their minions (Swift Boat Vetrans) to lie about Kerry's record and divert the campaign away from Bush's failures.

But Kerry was going on and on about his military record long before these "Swifties" came out of the woodwork. Must be some kind of time machine?

check your timeline sir.

Kerry spoke to his record at the convention. Since then it's been about defending himself against lies.

What does "going on and on about" mean, anyway?

Never mind, I'm not interested in your thought process.

his record is what he tried to sell himself on. he's still doing it. it's been a poor strategy.

and none of your arguments are really proving that he isn't living 30 years in the past for this campaign.