Coincidence or not?

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 11:05 am

http://www.abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics ... _1738.html

Just curious on what some other thoughts are on this issue. Bush's military records are conviently destroyed. Is anyone buying this?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 12:34 pm

The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

I view this as a "this doesn't lend any weight to anyone's side" story -- if you already hate Bush, then of course this is clearly a conspiracy. If you already love Bush, then it's clearly just some records being inadvertently destroyed. And if you're undecided, then it's clearly two sides posturing against each other and the facts aren't discernable.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 12:49 pm

You're right Lothar. Something for everyone there.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:08 pm

Could we say that since the attempt was made in 96 & 97, that it was Clintons fault. Nah...sounds too much like Bush knew about 9/11. Forget I ever mentioned it

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:26 pm

Bush is a turd, and everyone knows it.

He's stupid too, literally.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:28 pm

kufyit wrote:Bush is a turd, and everyone knows it.

He's stupid too, literally.

Yeah, and everyone knows that Kerry's a two-faced douchebag. What's your point?

P.S. Don't believe me? Visit johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. Talk about a sad political view

.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:29 pm

it's funny.. after moore's film comes out we learn that bush's military records have been destroyed.. pretty convenient if you ask me.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:59 pm

It's OK to lie to your draft board to avoid the draft and instead go to england and march in protest of the war.

It's OK to go to the war in a relatively safe area, but then when you get sent into the ★■◆● you lie to get sent home in under four months with medals you didn't deserve.

But it's not OK to volunteer to fly in the national guard and stay stateside.

OK, I think I understand the breakdown of military service during the 1960's of recent presidents and candidates for president.

And this information should help me pick a better what? Who worked the system better?

SSC BlueFlames · Post by **SSC BlueFlames** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:21 pm

And this information should help me pick a better what? Who worked the system better?

Supposedly, the idea behind dredging up someone's military history is supposed to establish a candidate's character and willingness to serve the country. In more practical terms, though, it's a clever way of avoiding the issues of the present.

Of course, if you hold to the notion that a person can change over the course of thirty to forty years, then a person's military history in Vietnam alone should hold little clout. A more effective strategy for the Kerry/Edwards campaign would be something like bringing up Bush Jr.'s joining the Air National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam, then showing his record of holidays taken in his first hundred days in office. That demonstrates a pattern of behavior that has not changed, even after a few decades. The Bush Jr. reelection campaign tried to do something similar with Kerry returning from Vietnam only to start protesting the war. (There were more convincing flip-flop behavior examples in Kerry's history than that though, as going to war, then returning to protest just makes for a well-informed protestor, but the overall strategy is the same.)

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 1:46 am

I've said this before...I don't care how about a candidate's military record. I care about whether they're able to make good decisions. I think that military records is just politicians' way of finding more mud to sling at each other, because a military record has no bearing on the present or the future. Hell, if you went by military record, Wesley Clark would be the best damn candidate out there. But I don't see his name on the ballot (though I think it should be

)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 8:50 am

Psst Beo...you might want to find out why Clark was relieved of command in Kosovo before you bring up his record

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 9:32 am

Will Robinson wrote:It's OK to go to the war in a relatively safe area, but then when you get sent into the **** you lie to get sent home in under four months with medals you didn't deserve.

So Kerry never helped to save his comrades in Vietnam. That's a rather bold assertion.

Shallow minds are swayed by minor details like "Whose medals did he throw?" or "Why was Bush in a secret society" or "It's my party and I'll vote how it wants me to." Shameful we get stuck on these issues when heathcare costs are soaring, social security is on the rocks, evil people looking to kill us en masse, cancer still lacks a cure, jobs are fleeing overseas, corporate fraud is the way to get rich, oil tycoons are taking us for a ride, the patent and trademark system is beyond control, the blind partisanship is overwhelming, and the country is more polarized and divided than ever before.

Forgive me if I don't give a flying ★■◆● about medals.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:00 pm

I'm not swayed, I dispute that he earned enough to get sent home early. I think he made up stuff to get enough medals to get sent home. Did he earn one legitimately...probably, but his commander says he didn't deserve one of them and that casts doubt on the third one.

Did Bush use his daddy's connections to get the national guard duty...maybe, maybe he just applied and got it like thousands of others did. Either way he didn't do anything less honorable than Kerry and the left would have us believe that Clinton the draft dodger was better than both of them!
So what's the point of the vietnam service record really, like you said there are more pressing issues.

My point wasn't that Bush is good and Kerry is bad. My point is vietnam doesn't tell us anything about them based on what they really did and didn't do.

Did someone hide Bush's records on where and when he served...maybe, we can't read them that's for sure.
Did someone hide Kerry's medical records on the injuries he said he suffered to get the purple hearts...maybe, we can't read them that's for sure.

They both are less than heroic and any other assesment is purely guess work.

MehYam · Post by **MehYam** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 12:34 pm

Lothar wrote:...if you already hate Bush, then of course this is clearly a conspiracy. If you already love Bush, then it's clearly just some records being inadvertently destroyed. And if you're undecided, then it's clearly two sides posturing against each other and the facts aren't discernable.

Lucid!

Now you're learning.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:28 pm

Funny how it's already a thread about kerry.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:47 pm

Birds, there seems to be as much here about Bush as about Kerry -- people are just comparing the two.

IMO, my response was the only one needed ;)

P.S. give me a call... you have my number in your PM's.