so Bush isn't a liar?

Wait a minute. Apart from the "What the heck does this have to do with Kerry" issue, are you trying to claim that Bush *isn't* the son of a wealthy prominant family whose friends got him into the Air National Guard and whose officers didn't force him to meet ANG requirements?Even the documents are only part of this tangential sub-story (that Killian felt pressured to give Bush a good review). Both Killian's commanding officer and his secretary have both stated that he felt the way about Bush represented in the documents - whether or not the documents themselves prove to be authentic.In fact, what does this even have to do with Bush being a liar or not? Bush tends to use vague generalities and offtopic statements when discussing his service, such as mentioning the fact he was honorably discharged when asked if he met certain specific requirements. You know, the same sort of thing he did when asked about cocaine use in his youth.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Oh really? Please explain how Dan Rather "[made] an untrue statement with intent to deceive." (Merriam-Webster), seing how NBC was lied to about the source of the memo. I mean, I can document Bush fitting that statement to a T on several occasions, but please document the one that you're claiming.Oh, and again, I'll reiterate: the case was already well made without these memos, and both Killian's secretary and his commander have stated that he held these sentiments of Bush. We can get into that if you would like.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

IMO, given the fact that as Senators, Kerry and Edwards had access to the same intelligence assessments as Bush, the "Bush lied" option lacks very much credibility.

---

Not really. Congress gets whatever intelligence breifings the White House provides to them. The White House has access to the full intelligence agencies, and can disclose or hide whatever it wants (within limits, of course). Not liking what it was getting from the CIA, the White House created the Office of Special Plans (OSP), headed by Feith (involved in the recent Israeli spy issue - rember him?), whose job it was to "reanalyze" the inteligence they were getting. His organization relied heavily on questionable defectors like the INC fraudsters.Members of congress got none of what was going on. All they got was what the White House gave them.

quote:

---

"...If the U.N. fails to take action to enforce its own resolutions... the United States should still act, with as many allies as possible, to disarm Iraq..."

---

And what did the UN do?You got it - they got inspectors into the country, who were having great success (the IAEA was getting close to certifying Iraq as in compliance on nuclear issues; UNMOVIC was further behind, but was destroying al-Samouds (on a technicality, at that), up to the day we invaded - and was working on a plan with the Iraqi government to try and verify their weapons destruction.In short, the UN acted. End of story, case closed.

quote:

---

Now, the full text at the link does contain other conditions, and it is a legitimate debate as to whether they had been satisfied at the time the decision to attack was made.

---

Lets have this legitimate debate, now shall we? You know very well that under the resolution, before Bush could launch a war, he had to prove that:
*All possible diplomatic means have been exhausted and that
*Attacking Iraq is "consistent" with taking actions against "nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks.Seing as the inspectors were in Iraq to the very day that we went in, and have insisted that dipomatic means were *not* exhausted (and they were the ultimate arbiters on whether Iraq was in violation of resolution 1441), and Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11...

quote:

---

quote:

---

I mean I really can't think of anything dumber than voting for Bush.

---

​

That's an argument from personal incredulity. I can think of many things dumber, including confusing political opinions with intellectual capacity.

---

You are justified there. One of my favorite Dave Barry quotes:"I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar. What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good grammar. For example, I could say: 'Bad grammar is the leading cause of slow, painful death in North America,' or 'Without good grammar, the United States would have lost World War II.'"

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Not to mention, Dan Rather's actions didn't kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and over a thousand Americans, rally the world against us, cut public sentiment towards Americans literally in half in many countries around the world (meaning further into the single digits in many arab nations), cause a huge increase in international terrorism, cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, pull hundreds of thousands of soldiers away from their familes (and trap many over there with stop losses), etc.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Back to the original topic, "so Bush isn't a liar?", which concerned whether he lied about fulfilling his service obligations in the Texas Air National Guard:Some anomolies:(Note: None of these rely on the Killiam documents, but on documents that have been released either by Bush or by lawsuits seeking disclosure)Bush flew for the last time on April 16, 1972. Upon entering the Guard, Bush agreed to fly for 60 months. After his training was complete, he owed 53 months of flying. But he flew for only 22 of those 53 months.Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training. But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama. But Bush failed to get the authorization.In requesting a permanent transfer to a non-flying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling. But no such document exists.He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit. But Bush did not.He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander. But Bush did not.He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general. But Bush did not.He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves. But Bush did not.On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address." But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code. But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation. But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston. But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter." But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer. But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure. But no such FEB was convened.Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted. But Bush's commanders made no such request.On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972. But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents. But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies" (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day. But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday, Friday and Saturday. But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA. But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time. But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding. But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston. But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months. But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant." But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973. But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature. But no such documents exist.During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member. But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days. But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information. But Bush's commanders ignored the request.Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points. But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment. But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Oh, and speaking of whether or not Bush is a liar: The latest in a long string of evidence that the Bush administration knew very well that al-Qaeda wasn't operating in Iraq, despite Bush's attempts to insinuate as much:http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htmCountries Where al Qaeda Has OperatedAlbania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Yemen

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

... and they wouldn't have eroded abortion rights, and gay rights wouldn't have gotten worse (they probably wouldn't have gotten better, either), and they wouldn't have done these huge environmental rollbacks, and they wouldn't have referred to Germany and France as "Old Europe", and wouldn't have unilaterally backed out of the ABM treaty, and wouldn't have launched a huge military buildup...Well, you get the picture.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

In a couple places, there was the big push for same sex marriages, and at least in Mass., it is currently (for who knows how long...) legal. On the other hand, Bush has been pushing for a constitutional amendment (and this call has led to several states doing the same) banning same sex marriage. Gore certainly wouldn't have done that.You don't agree that there wouldn't have been a huge buildup? Of course he would have had to react to 9/11, but Afghanistan was, if anything, notably weaker than Yugoslavia, plus we had a native resistance force. We didn't have a big military buildup for Yugoslavia, did we? Besides, Bush was trying to increase the military budget before 9/11.Most importantly, however, war related expenses aren't included in DoD outlays; they require supplimental appropriations. Bush has been drastically increasing the annual, non-war-related operating budget. This budget doesn't include a dime for Afghanistan or Iraq - that's all supplimental.This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2004 12:10 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Gay rights - concerning the DOMA:The democrats voted 2 to 1 against the DOMA. The Republicans voted 20:1 for it.Gay rights - sodomy laws:Bush had absolutely nothing to do with that, and couldn't have.Gay rights - general:Even the Log Cabin republicans are refusing to endorse the Bush administration.Afghanistan vs. Yugoslavia:Afghanistan also had a smaller and more outdated military than Yugoslavia, and as I mentioned, had a local resistance force. And, I agree, I didn't like Clinton's war policy in Yugoslavia too - I've seen pictures and videos of the effects. However, we're discussing arms buildups, and there was no arms buildup for Yugoslavia. There wouldn't have been for Afghanistan, either.Conerning supplimental appropriations:It is very important to note that Bush's buildup is completely outside the Afghanistan and Iraq supplimental appropriations (which are big on their own). The US military budget *outside* of appropriations has been increased by over 30% after inflation in his not-even-yet 4 years, and his future budgets are even more extreme. If he gets another 4 years, and he keeps to his plans, we'll have a peacetime military that is 50% larger than it already was (and it already made up a huge chunk of the world's military spending). Note that this buildup doesn't include SDI, either - that's supplimental as well.

quote:

---

And more importantly, we are talking the 2000 election, where we could not have known what lay in store.

---

True, true.... although, in our hearts, we feared what might come. Like you, though, I never seriously thought that Bush was capable of all that he did... I knew the sort of dirty tricks the people around him were famous for pulling (Rove bugging his own office, the horrible smear tactics against McCain in South Carolina, etc)... but I never thought he'd go as far as he did.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

By the way, do you have stats on independents?

---

Lets see.... in the senate, there were no independents (this was pre-Jeffords) (every person in the senate to oppose it, plus the one abstention was a democrat). In the House, the only independent was Bernie Sanders (Vermont), and he voted against the DOMA. So, yes, 100% of independents opposed it

quote:

---

The local resistance was not enough to handle all the needs. Indeed, seeing the "help" we recieved from them, it would have been better never to have used them.

---

Actually, I completely, 100% agree with this. Their human rights records were even worse than the Taliban in many cases. However, the fact is that we did use them, which lowered the war cost. Even though they often got us to attack their own enemies, they did largely replace ground forces for us.

quote:

---

You may have info (you always seem pretty good with this) on the number of times we got suckered into attacking their enemies instead of real ones.

---

Oh god... I could give you about a dozen of the major incidents or so, but I couldn't even approach a comprehensive list. Lets just say that they did it "an awful lot" Mark Herold covered an lot of them. He's always a great read - he references everything, and is meticulous with detail.

quote:

---

I do not see how you could have planned an offensive in Afghanistan that would not have required an arms buildup, especially if you wanted to keep adequate forces/material in reserve, and address other threats.

---

If the arms are from a supplimental appropriations bill, they don't count. For example, the body armor in Iraq (that they're criticizing Kerry for - despite the fact that almost all Republicans voted against the 87 billion before voting for it) came from the appropriations bill.

quote:

---

You have said what all this stuff isn't. By any chance do you have a breakdown on what it IS? I'm curious.

---

Could you clarify that statement? I'm a bit confused This message has been edited by Rei, 09-24-2004 01:44 PM

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

War appropriations typically cover a wide range of things. Here's the one for Iraq proposed on March 25, 2003:Error 404It covers everything from extra pay to fuel costs to all munitions costs to all repair costs. There's even some equipment research and acquisition in it it, designed to fund the replacement of equipment that gets destroyed (and to funnel a bit more money into the DoD), plus a pretty hefty chunk (1.7 billion) for classified programs.Reading over the appropriations bill, it makes it obvious how naively overoptimistic the Republicans were about this whole thing. Also, some completely unrelated things are in the bill. Some things that stand out:"The request is built on the key assumption that U.S. military action in Iraq will be swift and decisive""$34 million for the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. These funds would be used for needed security and counterdrug assistance in Colombia" (remember, this is the *Iraq* supplemental!)"$0.2 billion for Peacekeeping Operations. These funds would assist coalition partners and front line states supporting operations in Iraq, including funding for follow on stabilization activities. " (out of 63 billion dollars)As I mentioned, these costs are in addition to the big military buildup from the increase to the DoD's annual operating budget, and other non-war supplimentals like SDI.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Doh, I feel stupid, and stand corrected. I haven't looked this up in several years, and checking again, I find that I clearly must not have been looking at the vote for the DOMA at the time; I might have been looking at HRC ratings for the 104th congress (the congress in which the DOMA was voted on) as a whole instead. All but a couple of their issues that year were related to the DOMA (in the house, there were 3 separate votes on it). That'll teach me to doublecheck old information before I post The numbers for the other house DOMA votes:Motion to send the bill back to the GAO to study the benefits of marriage and domestic partnerships:
Dems 133 yes/53 no, reps 30 yes/196 no, Ind 1 yes/0 noAmendment to allow states to overrule the DOMA:
Dems 99 yes/88 no, Reps. 3 yes/223 no, Ind. 1 yes/0 no

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Heh, that's one of the fundamental problems with anarchy. Political systems based on a pure ideology often seem to fail - and almost always due to human selfishness.Anarchy? People start stealing; to try and keep their stuff, people start forming miliias, and the militias need leadership... you're back to governments.Pure socialism (equal pay for all work)? People lose their incentive to work harder than their fellow man - and the "working for the common good" motive just doesn't ring strong enough for most people.Pure capitalism (economic libertarianism)? People throughout history have shown that they're a bunch of stringy, selfish misers when it comes to charitable giving, and without a social safety net, every last time, we've ended up with the poor starving in the streets or working in appalling conditions for almost nothing.You have to be realistic, and strike a balance. I like politicans to be pragmatists. I just simply want them to share the same pragmatic approach that I do

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I ran for city council once (in fact, that's why I became less active on EVC, if I recall). I lost I didn't raise enough money, so I wasn't able to advertize. Everyone who won their seats in that election were the ones who had the most money in their race - no real surprise there

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."