Attacking Bush's Military Record...

[BurtWorm]

[trotsky]

1. Added bonus:

It might just get people thinking, "If the media didn't tell us about this in 2000, what ELSE didn't they tell us?"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Other

Too many Democrats and liberals on this board are too preoccupied with attacking the military records of our candidates.

[BurtWorm]

3. The media seem more interested in the question than the average voter.

Probably because so many in the media have such sterling military records themselves. ;)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. hold on! This has nothing to do with anyone but Bush

No matter who the nominee is, Bush will be villified by a lot of the victims of his Iraq adventure for this if it comes to be proven he was AWOL. It only matters (obviously) in that it makes Clark and Kerry potentially better beneficiaries of the fallout.

[CWebster]

22. Like John Kerry attacking the record of Bob Kerrey?

11 years ago, during the 1992 New Hampshire primaries, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a fellow Democrat, had contrasted his distinguished war record with that of the *draft-dodging* Bill Clinton. On February 27th, 1992, John Kerry then attacked his fellow veteran on the Senate floor. Kerry lamented that the subject of Vietnam service had been “inserted into the campaign.” John Kerry told his fellow senators, “What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary...We do not need to divide America over who served and how...”

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. LOL reread your own post. Context is everything

[RobertSeattle]

4. Not sure I would call it "ingenious"

It's an obvious thing to do.

After the RW's continuous attacks on Clinton's ROTC/Draft record 1991-2001 (numerous slanders along the way) how the RW can with a straight face say this criticism is out of line is beyond me.

http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=%20NEWS%3B%20Chickenhawks

[BurtWorm]

9. I wish they turn a bit more focus on the suspension than the AWOL

bit. There's probably a lot more that voters need to know about that suspension "for failure to perform a required medical exam" than they need to know about the AWOL.

[k_blagburn]

18. Failure to show is AWOL

:bounce:

[BurtWorm]

19. That's not what they mean when they're talking AWOL,

that he failed to show for the medical exam. They're referring to that as yet undetermined amount of time Bush did not show for his duty in Alabama, and possibly Texas.

The suspension from flying is another issue entirely.

[k_blagburn]

20. DUH!!!

I know exactly to what they are refering. A agp in his record from may 72 to 1 oct 73, the date of his discharge. And by UCMJ definition he was AWOL and a deserter.

[BurtWorm]

23. I still think there's less there than in the suspension.

I think most people just don't give a shit if Bush was a lazy sod in the 1970s. They just don't care! Hammering him on this over and over will very quickly reach a point of diminishing returns--especially since it can't go any further. It will become a pointless "yes you were, no I wasn't, yes you were, no I wasn't" gas fest.

But the SUSPENSION, has all sorts of juicy meat inside it. First of all, Bush admits he was, in fact, suspended. So the question is, why did he miss that exam? Why did his friend Jim "bin-Laden BCCI" Bath miss it? Lots of worms just waiting to be let out of that can!

[mopinko]

5. is ingenius

a word?

[BurtWorm]

13. Let's take a vote!

[Faygo Kid]

7. It won't work, and will detract from the solid issues we have

Saw Ann Lewis on (yecch) O'Reilly last night hammering this home, ineffectively. Here we have the economy, lies on Iraq, a budget that is DOA, etc. etc. and we want to make Bush's National Guard record in 1971 a central campaign theme? If Kerry gets the nod, the contrast will be obvious. This is a sideshow. Stick with the issues that people are concerned about in their lives! Bush's supposed strength, national security, is far more eroded by his loss of credibility today on Iraq than by his lack of service 30 years ago.

[YNGW]

8. It's a non-issue.

Bush has been Commander-in-Chief for 4 years. He received a "Honorable Discharge." What that means is that he satisfied the requirements of his military service. We need to cut the BS and concentrate on why people vote; Their security and their wallets. These other side-issues are pipedreams for the politically blind and stupid.

[PsN2Wind]

17. I'm not normally told

by someone that doesn't know me that I'm "politically blind and stupid" this early in the day.
I consider it politically blind and stupid to say , "he received an Honorable Discharge and that means he satisfied the requirements of his military service". I consider it much more likely that he received an Honorable Discharge in much the same fashion he attained the presidency, by the efforts of his Daddy and his daddy's friends.
It is possible to disagree with people without being condescending but your tone makes it awfully hard.

[YNGW]

33. I don't see anywhere....

...that your name is mentioned. I've never talked to you before as far as I can recall. What you care to believe or not believe is up to you, which is the the same I would say to anyone or expect them to say to me.

[Sagan]

10. Not using this would be insane

As if there will only be one issue? This issue will trudge along for awhile and then fade away.. Then we bring up ANOTHER issue. A campaign is about hammering on a multitude of issues. Sure, if you can find one that really resonates, you stick with it.

Hell, if AWOL Chimpy catches fire, we wouldn't need to bring anything else up. Otherwise, it's a great issue to bring up and hammer on for a while.

[JohnLocke]

11. Terrible idea.

It will backfire even on Clark or Kerry. They should stress their military record, not attack Bush's.

[janx]

29. It'll backfire on Kerry. This is just a segue into his military record.

Just wait. The "Hanoi Jane" reference will come first. The medal throwing, the book...all of the rest of it will follow.

But the Repubs are probably saving this in case Kerry does get the nomination. Then...full speed ahead.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. Look at the history...

John McCain was a veteran/POW/war hero and also a far more qualified political candidate, yet the 'Pukes coronated Junior in a process that is very similar to what's taking place right now in this party.

Al Gore was a Vietnam veteran as well. And with the assistance of his brother, his brother's mistress, and his daddy's friends on the Supreme Court, Junior "won" that contest as well.

Now the media whores have transformed him into G.I. George, fighter pilot.

I don't care if you could run General George Fucking Patton against this lying deserter shitball, the media would still spin it to make Junior the better military candidate. So if the strategy behind the "Kerronation" is Kerry's military service, then it's a huge waste of time.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Other. Is ingenious, and could backfire. It has to be done the right way.

is all.

[flamingpie2500]

15. Someone has to speak out

to our men and women currently in the military--in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Who better to do that than an honorable military man--not a photo op wanna be fly-boy. I say milk it for what it is worth.

[scheming daemons]

16. Yeah... it worked so well for...

......GHW Bush in '92 and Bob Dole in '96.


The vietnam draft-dodging issue just doesn't play, folks.


The last "war hero" to win the presidency was 16 years ago. And his war hero status had nothing to do with it. Before that, the last "war hero" won in 1960.

This issue is a non-starter.

I'm all for attacking Bush on this matter, but it isn't going to matter one whit in the general election.

[CWebster]

21. Who cares!

Why are we even unthinkingly buying into this heroism crap? There is nothing heroic about going to war and slaughtering others, destroying homes and communities, devastating heritage, dropping bombs and poisoning the environment, learning to hate and "dehumanize" the other. Maiming and killing children and mothers and devastating families, communities and all the ugliness and tragedy and stupidity of men...

These aging losers strutting around on decks are responsible for feeding this lie to our young who trust their leaders and country to tell them the truth. They buy this lie that war is brave and heroic and a high duty to country and honor and they go, green and naive, to kill and be killed, to hate, while these pompous and long-winded botuxed politicians strut the decks with their withering manhood.

[flamingpie2500]

24. You make a good point

Who started this war? We can't blame the people who fight it, only the people who start it.

[ProfessorPlum]

25. What good is having an opponent who is a despicable human being

if you can't TALK about it?

Jeesus, the Dems are so weak.

Republicans (incorrectly) called Clinton a draft-dodger for 9 years.

Don't we have the balls to at least state the truth about our opponent?

[Crunchy Frog]

31. You're absolutely right

in my opinion. People don't vote for Dems because they don't respect them, and they don't respect them because they don't stand up and fight back, and fight dirty when they need to, unlike the repukes.

In this case we don't even have to fight dirty, all we have to do is tell the truth. It's been handed to us on a silver platter and we would be fools not to use it. Don't think that the repukes won't use absolutely anything they can get their hands on, and even make things up if there isn't enough there.

No more mister nice guy for the Dems. That strategy is killing us.

[plurality]

26. Is pointless

I could care less which candidate would make a better GI Joe doll.

[0rganism]

28. Cook slowly over a low heat for best effect

The beauty of this is, the candidates themselves don't even have to bring it up. It's already an issue, albeit a minor one: an issue of the underlying character of the "man" who won't hesitate to deploy troops on weak intelligence. This is a definite strike against the shrub, it will fester and swell with oozing pus over time, and the Democratic candidates don't even have to push it at all.

An occasional boost from Michael Moore will suffice to percolate this one onto the press radar.

[Crunchy Frog]

30. The Repukes certainly

were never shy about attacking Clinton for his lack of military service. Just imagine if a Democratic candidate had the same record that shrub has, what the repukes would be doing with it. The time has come for the Dems to take off the gloves and fight just as nasty as the repukes do. They have to stop being timid and worrying that they might offend someone. That is the only way they will ever gain any respect, and begin winning elections again.

[kaitykaity]

32. Other: futile.

None of his crimes have stuck to the Son of a Bush yet, I don't see this being any different. (My hopelessness is due to the idea that pink tutu Kerry is likely to be the nominee.)

[BootinUp]

34. It establishes a contrast between the war hero democrat and shrub

And it will help Americans to let go of the pretender and trust the Democrats on National Security.