More TANG Lies
In an effort not to bump an old thread, I thought I'd start a new one based on the latest set of egregious lies being perpetuated on behalf of Bunnypants-in-chief. Josh Marshall sums it best:
Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and his surrogates just won't stop lying about it.
This morning Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot was interviewed by Juan Williams on NPR. When asked about the president's Air National Guard service he said, the president's and John Kerry's service "compare very favorably... He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn?t selected to go, but nonetheless served his country very well ?"
He volunteered to go to Vietnam?
Marc, no he didn't.
Does he think no one is listening?
(For some reason Williams, made no effort to call him on it.)
Let's set aside the fact that pulling strings to get into the Air National Guard in 1968 is, on its face, quite the opposite of volunteering to go to Vietnam. When the president signed up for the National Guard there was a check box asking whether he wanted to volunteer for overseas service. And he checked off "do not volunteer."
Now, the president's defenders have tried to explain this in various ways, hypothesizing that some unknown other person checked off the box or, more plausibly, that he was instructed to do so since what he was actually signing up for was to fly planes in Texas. Of late, they've brought forward friends or fellow Guardsmen who say -- with no documentary evidence whatsoever -- that Bush at one point or another asked about serving in Vietnam.
(There is also the president's claim that he volunteered for something called Palace Alert, a program that would have taken him to Thailand. But I believe there is no record of this. And as noted in this Washington Post interview from 1999, if he did sign up, it would have been within a week of the program's being shut down -- a fact that points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that if he did sign up, he did so to sign up, not to go.)
But however that may be, it is awfully hard to turn the "do not volunteer" into "do volunteer."
This is just a preview of what we're certain to see from the Bush campaign this year since it follows past practice so closely: Wait till the brouhaha subsides and then hopscotch over the remaining unanswered questions about the president's service by making stuff up that is flatly contradicted by the record.
Who's going to call them on this?
Just when you start debating how much or whether the president's military service record should be an issue in this campaign, you realize that the main reason it's an issue is that the president and his surrogates just won't stop lying about it.
This morning Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot was interviewed by Juan Williams on NPR. When asked about the president's Air National Guard service he said, the president's and John Kerry's service "compare very favorably... He (i.e. the president) signed up for dangerous duty. He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He wasn?t selected to go, but nonetheless served his country very well ?"
He volunteered to go to Vietnam?
Marc, no he didn't.
Does he think no one is listening?
(For some reason Williams, made no effort to call him on it.)
Let's set aside the fact that pulling strings to get into the Air National Guard in 1968 is, on its face, quite the opposite of volunteering to go to Vietnam. When the president signed up for the National Guard there was a check box asking whether he wanted to volunteer for overseas service. And he checked off "do not volunteer."
Now, the president's defenders have tried to explain this in various ways, hypothesizing that some unknown other person checked off the box or, more plausibly, that he was instructed to do so since what he was actually signing up for was to fly planes in Texas. Of late, they've brought forward friends or fellow Guardsmen who say -- with no documentary evidence whatsoever -- that Bush at one point or another asked about serving in Vietnam.
(There is also the president's claim that he volunteered for something called Palace Alert, a program that would have taken him to Thailand. But I believe there is no record of this. And as noted in this Washington Post interview from 1999, if he did sign up, it would have been within a week of the program's being shut down -- a fact that points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that if he did sign up, he did so to sign up, not to go.)
But however that may be, it is awfully hard to turn the "do not volunteer" into "do volunteer."
This is just a preview of what we're certain to see from the Bush campaign this year since it follows past practice so closely: Wait till the brouhaha subsides and then hopscotch over the remaining unanswered questions about the president's service by making stuff up that is flatly contradicted by the record.
Who's going to call them on this?
Comments
All of you who are pissed about Bush lying about his Natl Guard service... how many of you were pissed about Clinton lying about Lewinsky under oath?
Just curious.
Neither seems to have any impact on their job, and if it's the *lying* that's the problem, then it should be an equivalent reaction, yes?
FWIW, I'm pissed about both.
But I also fail to see what it has to do with their ability in the office.
(Now, WMDs, that's another story... but I'm asking about *this issue*.)
Originally posted by Kickaha
I just have a question...
All of you who are pissed about Bush lying about his Natl Guard service... how many of you were pissed about Clinton lying about Lewinsky under oath?
Just curious.
Neither seems to have any impact on their job, and if it's the *lying* that's the problem, then it should be an equivalent reaction, yes?
FWIW, I'm pissed about both.
But I also fail to see what it has to do with their ability in the office.
(Now, WMDs, that's another story... but I'm asking about *this issue*.)
Lying is bad. We can agree on that. The motivation behind the lying, now that's a different story. Clinton was lying to avoid embarrassment. He would not have been impeached or otherwise thrown out of office if he had told the truth.
Bush is trying to avoid getting ousted this election. That in itself is deplorable.
The other issue is that Bush tries to present himself as a "wartime president" and his ability to understand what war means to those who are on the front lines is key to making good decisions about this serious issue. Forget that he has done nothing but divide the country despite his stance during the 2000 campaign that he is a great uniter of parties. Now he's outright lying to make himself more appealing to a certain type of voter.
And this lying (if it in fact is lying) continues to highlight a pattern of dishonesty within this administration. Clinton, despite his sexual indiscretions, was at least trustworthy when it came to others' lives. I'm not sure we can say the same about Bush.
Originally posted by torifile
Lying is bad. We can agree on that. The motivation behind the lying, now that's a different story. Clinton was lying to avoid embarrassment. He would not have been impeached or otherwise thrown out of office if he had told the truth.
Bush is trying to avoid getting ousted this election. That in itself is deplorable.
Fair enough - since Clinton was a lame duck, we'll never be able to argue over whether it was to preclude loss of votes for a re-election... but I suspect that it was not only for personal embarrassment, but for the party as well.
But anywho. Neither here nor there.
In neither case do I see it as being a reflection of their job ability. So why the furor from the left this time over a past incident? I remember thinking the same thing over the "Well he used coke!" 'scandal' four years ago. So? Does he *now*? If not, what the hell does it matter? That I saw as quite similar to Clinton's "I nevah inhaled" idiocy. (Come on, did *anyone* believe that line?) *sigh* Ah well.
but he didn't lie to take us to war... no one DIED because of what Clinton said.
How many millions of taxpayers dollars were spent investigating Clinton? And what did they get him on? Nothing. Starr got him on a gotcha that had nothing to do with what Starr was supposed to be investigating him for.
Now if you want to bring up something related... like Clinton's draft number fine... but after the republican's called him a draftdodger for 8 years... which also is a lie... fine.
But Bush and his people are still lying about his TANG service...
and they won't even touch his community service...
Why did Bush have to serve community service in Texas?
Originally posted by Kickaha
I just have a question...
All of you who are pissed about Bush lying about his Natl Guard service... how many of you were pissed about Clinton lying about Lewinsky under oath?
I was not only pissed about it, I thought the man should have been impeached and removed from office for perjury.
But I also fail to see what it has to do with their ability in the office.
I'd say that Bush's actually matters more in terms of governance, since he likes to drape himself in the flag and pretend like he's the best thing to happen to the military since standardized field rations.
When, in truth, Bush has been no friend to the common fighting man, or the average veteran.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kickaha
In neither case do I see it as being a reflection of their job ability. So why the furor from the left this time over a past incident?
The furor is obviously because they feel it could take votes from him. BUT that's not the reason we should care about it. The reason it's an important issue for us voters to consider is the same reason we want to see the records of which congress-people have children in the military: can they make the decision to send people to die and kill others with the greater good in mind? Can they in good conscience say they understand what war means? I don't believe Bush can do that.
War is a decision that must be made with ALL factors in mind - economic and human.
I don't believe that Bush sees much past the former. That's why I care about it.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He lied about SEX! In at a civil suit grand jury... where things were being leaked routinely (and everyone was under a gag order)... there was a concerted effort from the moment Clinton was in office to try and sink him through the courts... and yes he lied to the American people...
but he didn't lie to take us to war...
Which is not what the issue at hand is.
Compare/contrast: Clinton & Lewinsky, Bush & Natl Guard. That's it.
Jeez. Some people will muddy anything on purpose.
no one DIED because of what Clinton said.
Well, there was that one guy... (damn, anyone else want to step in here? Middle of the Starr investigation, White House dude offs himself...)
How many millions of taxpayers dollars were spent investigating Clinton? And what did they get him on? Nothing. Starr got him on a gotcha that had nothing to do with what Starr was supposed to be investigating him for.
Sticks in my craw that he lied under oath and got off scot free. Regular citizens do it, they serve time. He gets off. Fooie.
Now if you want to bring up something related... like Clinton's draft number fine... but after the republican's called him a draftdodger for 8 years... which also is a lie... fine.
But Bush and his people are still lying about his TANG service...
and they won't even touch his community service...
Why did Bush have to serve community service in Texas?
Dunno, don't care. Does it have anything to do with his *current* performance? If not, I really could not care less.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Well, there was that one guy... (damn, anyone else want to step in here? Middle of the Starr investigation, White House dude offs himself...)
That was Vince Foster, it was well before the Starr Chamber fired up, and was a suicide due to a lifetime of depression. Great way to score cheap political points, building a conspiracy around a man's tragic self-inflicted death.
Kirk
Originally posted by Kickaha
In neither case do I see it as being a reflection of their job ability. So why the furor from the left this time over a past incident? I remember thinking the same thing over the "Well he used coke!" 'scandal' four years ago. So? Does he *now*? If not, what the hell does it matter?
i guess my problem with bush and coke is this: he wants to put people away for long periods of time in jail for something he did...
as for the military...why it is an issue is because he sends kids to wars he starts, calls himself a war president yet when he could serve himself he chose not to...he even mentioned that he didn't want to blow out his eardrum, nor go to canada, so instead went to the guard knowing he would never be called up...then he gets out early but now make a "no loss" situation so current guardsmen not only go to war (something that never happened when he was in the guard) but now they also don't get out on time, let alone early...
i just think he constantly wants people to do things he never did, to follow rules he never did...and that is a bad thing
just my opinion though...
g
And rarely do people do jail time for perjury in a civil suit.
A civil suit brought 10-15 years after the fact.
Whitewater... went nowhere.
Travelgate... went nowhere.
Vince Foster... nice try.
And despite all of it... he still did a fantastic job.
Bush is sooo lucky the republicans have control of congress because it assures that any commission that is formed will get nowhere.
I'm just waiting for the Plame investigation shoe to drop.
Have any Whitehouse staffers taken the 5th? It's an interesting question.
Originally posted by Scott
Are you sure you have the quote right? I'm at work so I'm not going to listen to the WW interview right now. Double check and post a correction if you heard wrong.
Just firing in every direction hoping you hit something?
Originally posted by Kirkland
That was Vince Foster, it was well before the Starr Chamber fired up, and was a suicide due to a lifetime of depression. Great way to score cheap political points, building a conspiracy around a man's tragic self-inflicted death.
Kirk [/B]
Like I said, I vaguely recalled it. Frankly, I recall Wag the Dog more than the actual event, so if you want to look for people whipping up conspiracies, try elsewhere. *shrug*
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He was punished for perjury... he was barred from practicing law.
But he was allowed to retain his position as the chief law enforcement officer in the country? That's bull----. The president should be held to a higher standard when it comes to obeying the law, since it is his job to, in part, lead by example.
You do not lie under oath. I don't care what the question is about. You either tell the truth or take the Fifth. Clinton did neither, and in doing so showed a total disrespect for the laws of this country, and should have been punished accordingly.
No one who would lie under oath has any business in the Oval Office.
Kirk
Originally posted by thegelding
i guess my problem with bush and coke is this: he wants to put people away for long periods of time in jail for something he did...
as for the military...why it is an issue is because he sends kids to wars he starts, calls himself a war president yet when he could serve himself he chose not to...he even mentioned that he didn't want to blow out his eardrum, nor go to canada, so instead went to the guard knowing he would never be called up...then he gets out early but now make a "no loss" situation so current guardsmen not only go to war (something that never happened when he was in the guard) but now they also don't get out on time, let alone early...
i just think he constantly wants people to do things he never did, to follow rules he never did...and that is a bad thing
just my opinion though...
One I agree with, actually.
It's hypocrisy at the personal level, but I still don't think it has much to do with the job *performance*. Ignore the mouthings of politicians, they *all* lie. Watch the actions instead.
I simply wanted to know how many people who were currently having a hissy fit over Bush having apparently lied about Natl Guard duty were also having a similar hissy fit over Clinton lying about having "sexual relations with that woman".
I can't say I'm surprised by the reactions though.
I am opposite of you. Neither means anything. Only thing is that Bush has his spokesmen lying for him. It doesn´t disqualify him as president but should be taken into account on an individual basis when people deside to vote for him or not.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
[...]When your campaign chairman falsely claims you volunteered for deployment to Vietnam, it's going to be an issue. Marc Racicot should have bluntly told the truth, emphasizing either how Bush is a different man or how the issue is irrelevant to today's problems. Again, expect scrutiny if you're going to campaign on something- especially your past.
I believe we have a winner here.
Also, wasn't it Bush who touted about his nation guard duty during the 2000 election? Wasn't it a way of illustrating a key difference between himself and Clinton the draft dodger?
For all his talk about "bringing integrity back to the White House", he sure has made a sick joke out of that whole concept.
How much worse is it that Bush basically goes and makes the same exact mistake (blatantly lying) about much more serious matters (WMD and "imminent threats" in Iraq, ANG service, Enron and the like)? Clinton lied about a blowjob and some real estate in Ar-kansas. Bush is (most recently) lying about his lackluster military record at a "country club" ANG unit (and even comparing it to a decorated war veteran!!). COMMON!
It's a joke. The whole thing... and its been documented and reported on ad naseum. Why are we even debating it (as if potentially nothing has been lied about)?