Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans

TXANG Debate Re-Igniting? 295

Posted by jamie from the kindling dept.
Last night, the Pentagon revealed that new records of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard have been found, due to a FOIA request. This morning sees a New York Times column (free reg. req.), and a detailed "reexamination of the records" by the Boston Globe. Tonight, 60 Minutes II airs an interview with the man who got Bush into the Guard (though my TiVo says otherwise for some reason).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TXANG Debate Re-Igniting? More

TXANG Debate Re-Igniting?

Comments Filter:
  • I thought that interview was scheduled for this Sunday night.

  • Does this matter? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JohnnyX ( 11429 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @01:42PM (#10191765) Homepage Journal
    Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

    What does matter to me is that they both support sending my family members in the Army to Iraq to fight a war we shouldn't be fighting.

    The death toll for American soldiers just passed 1,000 [badnarik.org] and neither Bush nor Kerry will get us out of there. That's a lot more important to me than how Bush got into the Air National Guard.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    ...disgusted...

    • Re:Does this matter? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Skyshadow ( 508 ) * on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @01:46PM (#10191824) Homepage
      This sort of thing always makes me roll my eyes, and I'm a Kerry supporter.

      It seems pretty clear, though, that the back-and-forth of irrelevant campaign issues is just going to continue, and unfortunately I've got to assume that's because it's actually effective with a certain segment of voters. Given that, it suppose it *is* actually important for my side to wave this sort of irrelevant dirt around. Obviously, a "they started it" debate here would be futile, but once the mud starts flying it more or less forces both campaigns to engage in it.

      There's only one solution: hunger for the day when the American public reaches a level of sophistication where they can (a) identify a fairly reliable and impartial source of information and (b) actually check the BS they hear against those. I mean, the vast majority of Americans are sitting on top of the greatest source of information in the history of history, but they're relying on politicians and sites like NewsMax to tell 'em how it is...

    • The people who care about Kerry's past would care about Bush's past. Kerry's past got slammed, so all these people go to Bush. So they slam Bush's past, so these people may go back to Kerry. Its not about your vote here.
      • People's party affilliations really don't change easily. Something petty like this is just that; petty. I doubt anyone will admit their vote was swayed by this issue after the election.

        I strongly agree with your notion that it's not about our votes. Indeed, it is about effectively refuting the mud that started slinging, so that this petty issue does not sway someone who might somehow be undecided.

        Most of the undecided are the uniformed. They are uninformed usually by choice, due to apathy.

        The majorit

      • Re:It matters to one class of person (Score:4, Insightful)

        by elwinc ( 663074 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @05:14PM (#10194642)
        I don't care what Bush or Kerry did 30+ years ago. However, if either of them have recently lied in a signifcant about their past, then that tells me something about their current character, and I care about that.

        The swift boat stuff was all concerned actions 30+ years ago. Did Kerry tell recent lies about those actions? I don't think so -- all the fact checking I've seen supports Kerry and says the swift boat gang are liars.

        Did Bush lie recently about his National Guard service? It appears he did. It appears Bush never completed his NG duty, and continues to claim he did. It also appears Bush is deceiving us somehow about what he did in Alabama. It also appears Bush engaged in a coverup, using his powers as governor of Texas to "cleanse" his record.

        Now these aren't big lies Bush has told, but they're lies. And the coverup is a bigger deal. Both the coverup and the lies speak about Bush's character. Since Bush has made his character such an issue in the campaign, the lies and coverup matter.

    • Umm- Kerry actually seems to have a plan...He's saying he wants NO American military in Iraq by 2008. I personally think that's WAY too slow, but I also understand that you can't just draft a half a million unemployed to join the 100,000 professionals in an effort to get them out safely either. At least, not and hope to have them trained in any less than a four year period.
      • Which basically tells the bad guys exactly what they want to know: when they can hit Iraq hard without fear of American soldiers shooting back at them.

        Only a fool publicly advertises military withdrawl plans when you're still engaging an enemy.
        • Actually- every war up until Vietnam had an exit strategy of some sort. Vietnam and this one don't- which is why they both became such messes.

          It takes a real fool to go into war without an exit strategy.

          One thing you still don't realize about our current enemy though- they are death worshipers. They WANT the United States to stay engaged in Iraq for as long as possible. The longer the United States stays engaged in Iraq, the larger the chance of collateral damage. The more collateral damage, the more
        • First off, these "bad guys" are mostly Iraq's poor who see themselves as defending their hometowns and way of life (whether that's a realistic worldview or not).

          Secondly, if the US is going to leave, *and they can believe it*, they have no reason to hit the US. All it could do is derail the exit of US forces.

    • I think it matters, and here's why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jamie ( 78724 ) <jamie@slashdot.org> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @01:59PM (#10191989) Journal
      I would think that a man who'd seen combat, in all its ugliness, served honorably, and then returned to civilian life and spoke truth to power about the horrors of war would be less likely to mislead the country into unnecessary war.

      Doesn't that seem logical? Isn't that corroborating evidence for the whole tragic arc of the last two years?

      Kerry supported giving the President the authority to initiate the war in Iraq. That's not the same as launching the war. When Bush and his campaign say that Kerry "voted to go to war," they are lying.

      And yes, Kerry may have to deal with the aftermath of Iraq in the same sticky, deliberate way that Bush will. There's no easy way out; that's why they call it a quagmire. But re-electing Bush gives him four more years to invade more countries unnecessarily. When I read the transcript of John Kerry speaking to the Senate in 1971 [npr.org], I can't help but feel that this man is more to be trusted with our troops than a man who spent the early '70s "boasting about how much alcohol he had consumed the night before." [salon.com]

      • Kerry supported giving the President the authority to initiate the war in Iraq. That's not the same as launching the war. When Bush and his campaign say that Kerry "voted to go to war," they are lying.

        Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.

        The war was a mistake. Still is. Why should I vote for a candidate who can't see that? Why should I vote for a candidate who can't even give a cogent answer to his own question from that 1971 Senate
        • Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.

          No, he supported giving the authority to go to war, and said that in hindsight he still would.
          • I know that, and you know that but thats just too complicated for most of the population. It would have been much smarter politically to just say that he would have voted against the war if he knew the intelegence was bad and that the bush administration neglected to talk about the significan minority views in the intelegence community. Personally I wish he had voted against it in the first place, deep down he probobly wanted to but feared the political consequences. Just goes to show one shouldn't base

        • Re:I think it matters, and here's why (Score:5, Informative)

          by Merk ( 25521 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:50PM (#10192746) Homepage
          Not only did Kerry support going to war, he's since said publicly that he'd do it again, even in hindsight.

          Brainwashed by the republicans, are you? He never said he supported the war. He said he voted to give the president the authority to go to war, and he would do it again. I know, it's really hard to pay attention to little details like that when there are all kinds of shiny things around, but it's important, so try. If you read the text of the law that Kerry voted for, it's very explicit. It doesn't say "We vote to attack Iraq", it puts conditions under which the President is given the authority to attack Iraq.

          Some of the more illuminating bits of this law include:

          ...
          Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
          ...
          (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

          (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
          (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
          ...
          (a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).
          • Ah, the critical difference between voting to let the President go to war and voting for the war itself. How could I have missed such an important distinction?

            Maybe it's this quote from the Post that has me confused:

            "Responding to President Bush's challenge to clarify his position, Sen. John F. Kerry said Monday that he still would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq even if he had known then that U.S. and allied forces would not find weapons of mass destruction."

            I guess I thought authorizing a wa

            • You did make the mistake that authorizing the war and using that authorization were the same thing. They're not. To claim they were the same would be the same thing as claiming that handing someone a loaded gun is the same thing as shooting someone in the head.

              While you may disagree with Kerry's position (and I happen to disagree with it too), there's a vast gulf of difference between saying "Ok, you can wage war, but only as a last resort under this limited set of conditions" and saying "Open fire".


          • I guess if Kerry skirts all responsibility for the Iraq war if he voted to give the President the authority to go to war. If someone authorizes another's actions, I believe the authorizer is demonstrating approval and should share responsibility.
      • I would think that a man who'd seen combat, in all its ugliness, served honorably, and then returned to civilian life and spoke truth to power about the horrors of war would be less likely to mislead the country into unnecessary war.

        This is exactly the profile of JFK.

        Decorated Commander of a river patrol boat.
        Wounded in action and gets the Purple Heart.
        Saves a wounded crewmate from drowning
        Accomplished Senator from Massachussets

        A man like that would never lead us into another useless war. He's seen too m

    • Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

      No. I agree with you. And so does Bill Maher!

      No one has their shit together at 22. Now, outside of the basic fairness of placing George Bush in with all the other young men of his era who found a way to avoid Vietnam, I don't really care if our president showed up for all his National Guard jumping jacks in 1973. I don't care that there's evidence that John Kerry once very nearly met Jane Fonda.
      We'
    • I must say, the US election process is the most reported, this is looking more & more foolish here in the EU.

      I am queried almost daily now on embarrassing topics such as this. Really I am at loss to explain that just because politicians are lying thieving bastards, and the political process is corrupt doesn't mean that there are a lot of reasonable Americans and a lot a very beautiful places to visit. Shame we have disposed of the reputation of moral, good people that we used to enjoy.

      And before the r

    • Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

      Probably not. I'm sure there are others.

      I, however, do think what someone did 30 years ago does sometimes matter.

      I don't see anyone saying "Who cares what Manson did 30 years ago?". Heck, by your logic, anyone serving a life sentence should be set free after 30 years because it shouldn't matter any more.

      Who cares if Kerry admitted publically to commiting war crimes 30 years ago? I do. It means he e

      • Re:Does this matter? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        GWB's father was not CIA Director until his appointment by Pres. Ford in 1976. Google some history before making up your own.

        • GWB's father was not CIA Director until his appointment by Pres. Ford in 1976. Google some history before making up your own.

          My mistake. Bush Sr. was US Ambassador to the United Nations at the time in question... then CIA director. My timing was wrong, but the net effect is the same - the government isn't going to put his kid in a war zone. Reference here [congress.gov]. Before the Ambassador gig, Sr. was in congress. I take it you did google? And chose to ignore the parts you didn't like?

      • Who cares if Kerry admitted publically to commiting war crimes 30 years ago? I do. It means he either lied for political purposes, or actually commited war crimes.

        Kerry didn't admit to commiting war crimes... The stories he relating to the Senete Committee where related to him. Guilty of hear-say? Yes. Guilty of war crimes? No...

        • Read Kerry's testimony. He said that he, himself, was guilty of committing the same atrocities that he reported.

          But even if he didn't commit them, as an officer, he was still guilty of war crimes by witnessing the acts and failing to either a) act upon them or b) report them up the chain of command.

          Of course, the fact that all the atrocities he reported never existed outside of his fertile imagination is something that no Kerry supporter actually likes to admit, for obvious reasons.
          • What was it that Kerry did as soon as he got back, for which conservatives always try to eat him alive for?

            Oh yeah, that's right: Speak in front of the Senate and try and get the US to change its military policies in vietnam!

            He came back furious with what he saw, what US troops were ordered to do, and tried to change the policies. That's noble - and yet, you people never let him live it down.

      • Re:Does this matter? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @04:56PM (#10194416) Homepage
        1) Are you aware that several people discovered their names on the list without their permission, and have stated that they completely disagree with what the group has said?

        2) Are you aware that several of the people who knowingly signed the list later retracted, saying they didn't read it well first?

        3) Are you aware that the very medals that the leader of this group has were due to being awarded them for heroism under fire in the same situation Kerry was in? And that several leaders in the group are on record previously praising Kerry for his heroism - sometimes even recently?

        4) Are you aware that essentially every navy document from the time, including even the damage reports from the boats (which had bullet holes) has backed up Kerry's side?

        5) Are you aware that of the people who actually *Served With* Kerry on his boat, all but one have voiced support for him (and that one is dead), and that of the surviving members, all but one are campaigning with him (and that one supports him nonetheless)?

        6) Are you aware that the doctor who claims to have treated Kerry's wounds wasn't the one listed on the documentation as having treated Kerry, and that the doctor who did treat him affirmed Kerry's report of the wound?

        Need I go on? There were only a handful of boats even present on the day, so your "254" number is just ludicrous. They "served with him" in the fact that they were in vietnam on swift boats at the same time that he was in vietnam on a swift boat. But even most damning is the fact that the head of this group was also in charge of several other smear campaigns in the past, including one against McCain (undoubtedly one of the reasons why McCain has come down so firmly against these ads).

        About all that I can say that's good about them, is at least it's not the same people who did the "McCain fathered a black child!" race-baiting smear.
        • Reply by the numbers:

          1) Hadn't heard that one yet.
          2) Nope, I haven't heard that one either.
          3) Hadn't heard that either.
          4) I've heard the exact opposite of that.
          5) That doesn't jive with what I've heard either.
          6) Nope. I've heard the doctor on record as having treated him doesn't back Kerry's story.

          Could you site some sources, please?

          • Re:Does this matter? (Score:3, Informative)

            by Rei ( 128717 )
            1. http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&tts = 1&display=rednews/2004/09/01/build/state/25-swift- boat.inc

            2. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08 /06/veteran_retracts_criticism_of_kerry?mode=PF

            3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13267-20 04Aug18?language=printer
            http://www.factcheck.org /UploadedFiles/Thurlow Citation.pdf
            http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFil es/Thurlow Award Recc.pdf
            http://www.iht.com/articles/534905.html

            4. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/new
    • I think the death toll is just another campaign ploy by the democrats. I'd be careful mentioning it, because you really are using their caskets as a device.

      Why don't we count the number of Iraqi patriots who have died fighting insurgents and terrorists? They died defending their own country, trying to secure it to a point where they might actually get a free election. The insurgents and the terrorists are doing everything in their power to prevent this.

      Shall we count the innocent victims of terrorism and
      • Before you start getting this concept of the police and security forces in Iraq being anything other than thugs, let me give you a couple things from Najaf alone:

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/display P ri ntable.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/16/wirq216.xml&site =5 (police firing at journalists, trying to drive them out of the city)
        http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000810 .php (police kidnap journalists at gunpoint for a press conference)

        (I can get you as many as you want)

        We are not fighting "t
    • Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't matter what Bush or Kerry did or did not do 30 years ago?

      Hey, did you know senator Kerry was in vietnam?

      seriously, it would matter less if Kerry wasn't running almost entirely on his vietnam service and skipping his 20 years in the senate entirely. The entire democratic convention was spent talking about what happened 30 years ago, painting Kerry as the nice little war hero. Or trying.

      Problem is, real heros don't proclaim they're heros at every turn.

      Kerry d

    • I agree with you that the war from 30 years ago does not matter. And I keep saying it constantly, but it doesn't seem to help. :)

      I also hasten to point out, as I'm sure you already know, that Michael Badnarik is the ONLY anti-war candidate, given that Kerry recently stated he STILL would have voted for the war, even knowing what he knows today about the absence or presence of WMD's. I can't believe all the Bush-haters, who primarily hate Bush because of the war issue, would vote for Kerry, who is also f

      • >> given that Kerry recently stated he STILL
        >> would have voted for the war,

        Actually, what Kerry said is that he still would have voted to give the president the authority to go to war. That's rather different. Especially when you put it in context with what that authority means. As Kerry has pointed out, the president can go to war without Congress's vote. As Kerry has pointed out, Clinton went to Bosnia without Congressional authority. As Kerry has explained, the purpose of the author

  • Isn't it interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @01:46PM (#10191820) Homepage Journal
    That 258 Swifties remember serving with John Kerry in Vietnam- but NOBODY in Alabama can remember George W. Bush serving there the year he was supposed to be showing up for training while working on the Senate campaign of a family friend? Never mind that the grand majority of those Swifties seem to be lying about serving with John Kerry (what is the crew complement of one of those little boats anyway? Certainly NOT over 200!) but at least they remember him being there- which is more than can be said for W during his fornication & cocaine & alcohol days....
    • You're missing some important points here.
      1. Kerry's testimony regarding atrocities in Vietnam was widely reported and even televised. Many Vietnam Veterans were quite angry about this - which is perhaps why they remember him.
      2. Swift boats are pretty small, and only have a crew of about 6 men (i.e. less than Kerry has in his "band of brothers." However, they operated in squads with several boats each. The Swift Boat vets have never claimed to be on the same boat, but they have claimed to be in the same squ
      • you are completely mischaracterizing kerry's testimony, as well as the nations, and veterans mood at the time.

        nobody was "for" Vietnam in 1971. there was a huge backlash against this unpopular and worthless war. stating otherwise now is dishonest.

        Kerry represented a large group of vietnam vets, and presented their stories to congress. He spoke Truth to Power. He was a decorated war hero that came back and spoke against the war he took part in. He spoke Truth.

        As for the Swift Liars -let me say that
      • Kerry's testimony regarding atrocities in Vietnam was widely reported and even televised. Many Vietnam Veterans were quite angry about this - which is perhaps why they remember him.

        True- ok, that counts for the other 240 some vets.

        Swift boats are pretty small, and only have a crew of about 6 men (i.e. less than Kerry has in his "band of brothers." However, they operated in squads with several boats each. The Swift Boat vets have never claimed to be on the same boat, but they have claimed to be in the s

  • Blatantly political.... (Score:3)

    by heldlikesound ( 132717 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:02PM (#10192032) Homepage
    Yeah, I understand that this was posted in the politics section, but when this section was announced I assumed we'd see stories about voting records on Spam legislation, Patriot Act news, and maybe a story or two about the candidates preferred computing platform, but this is just purely political BS. There's nothing tech about it, and reminds me of watching the stupid news on tv. Shame, shame.

  • Form 180 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:09PM (#10192112) Journal
    Why won't Kerry sign a Form 180 to make all his military records public?

    What is he trying to hide? After all, he is the one who has been running on his military record.

    On the topics of politics.slashdot.org, why isn't it more balanced and why aren't real political matters being covered?

    • Why haven't you submitted a political article?

  • So wait?!?! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wbav ( 223901 )
    The punishment is 24 months of active duty? Send him to Iraq. Let him clean up the mess. Some time in the line of fire may make him think twice before taking over countries.
  • And that is why it is so important to know what a slacker or what a liar a presidential candidate is. Given what we now know about our current (acting?) president's devotion to his military service, how can he possibly be permitted to be our commander-in-chief?

    Oh, and the other guy is also unsuitable to hold public office, for hosts of other reasons.

    Remember: it is only those who are least suited to hold elected office that are stupid/corrupt enough to even accept a nomination.

    I would dearly love for ei
    • he certainly kept his religion out of his politics better than any US president since


      Well, Nixon certainly didn't let his Quaker beliefs get in his way...
    • I would dearly love for either party to propose a candidate that is actually going to improve the quality of life for every US citizen -- without meddling in the lives of citizens of other countries.

      I really, really, really do NOT want a President who is going to "improve the quality of life" for every US Citizen.

      Actually, I can't think of much of any one thing that could be done that would accomplish that.

      Lowering taxes? No, the Big Government types wouldn't like that.

      Raising taxes? No, the Small G

  • Enough of this Canned BS... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PipianJ ( 574459 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:13PM (#10192173)
    I've heard both sides say both opinions, that he did meet his requirements honorably and that he did not. But without seeing the records and requirements first-hand, how the hell are we supposed to believe either side's "analysis"?

    As far as I'm concerned, both sides smell of rot on this issue, until I can decide for myself instead of having the decision made for me by the media.

  • The problem... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fished ( 574624 ) <amphigory@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:19PM (#10192265)
    The problem, as I see it, is that the media continually goes into "feeding frenzy" mode over these Alabama allegations, while failing to seriously engage with Kerry's war records. Where's the Associated Press's suit to force the release of Kerry's Vietnam records? And, frankly, where is the furor over Kerry's apparently fictitious "Christmas in Cambodia?"

    The bottom line is that, at worst, Bush dodge the draft - and we already knew that - and then blew off his national guard service - if you didn't already know this, you should've. On the other hand, it appears from his own statements [nationalreview.com] that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 - a claim he made from the senate floor in 1986 and has made many times before and sense.

    Why do we have a media frenzy over the one and a media blackout over the other? Answer: 85% of employees in the news media are Democrats.

    Now, I'm not much of a Republican. I will probably vote for Kerry. But I am disturbed at the way in which the mainstream media has failed to cover questions regarding Kerry's war record compared to this silliness about Bush's National Guard record. When they've covered the Kerry question at all, it has been coverage questioning the relationship between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat ads. They have ignored everything but the question of Bush '04 involvemnt. I would really appreaciate some responsible coverage of the Christmas in Cambodia issue, but I've been unable to find it.

    • Re:The problem... (Score:2, Informative)

      by jamie ( 78724 )

      ...where is the furor over Kerry's apparently fictitious "Christmas in Cambodia?"

      ... it appears from his own statements that Kerry falsely accused the United States government of having him invade a foreign country in 1968 ...

      Holiday in Cambodia [msn.com], by Fred Kaplan:

      It is a twisted state of affairs that George W. Bush's most avid surrogates are trying to make this election turn on the question of whether Lt. John Kerry was or was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968...

      It is certain that by this time,

  • It's worth reading some of the opposing views (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crmartin ( 98227 ) on Wednesday September 08, 2004 @02:34PM (#10192511)
    On Kerry's medals. [idexer.com]

    Bush AWOL: Case Closed [nationalreview.com]

    It might be interesting to look at Ben barnes [blogspot.com], who claims he helped Bush get into the TANG in 1968, as Lt GOV of Texas. The only problem being that Barnes was not sworn in as LT GOV until 1969 -- in May '68, when Bush was sworn into the Guard, Barnes was actually UN Representative to Geneva [klru.org].

    The LA Times and CNN investigated these exact allegations in 1999, and concluded there was nothing to them. [cnn.com]

    He's also a major Kerry [dfw.com] contributor [cbsnews.com] and lost his position at Lt Gov in a stock fraud scandal. [utexas.edu].

    • Yes, he misspoke, saying he was Lt. Governor when he did not attain that post until later. Do you seriously think that means his entire recollection is made-up?

      And yes, the media exonerated Bush in 1999. Since then, disclosure after disclosure has turned up new evidence. Do you think you will be wiser to ignore new facts of the past five years?

      In any case, his interview tonight should be very interesting to watch.

      • Do you seriously think that a guy in Geneva has that much pull? Or that one of the three R congressmen in Texas -- at that point completely dominated by the D's for like 100 years -- had all that much pull?

        Or that the LA Times story that investigated and discounted barnes in 1999?

        Loo, all I said was "read the opposing material too". But, yes, I do think that if a guy

        - claims he did something as Lt Gov six months before he was actually in the office,

        - is a major Kerry backer,

        - is a crook whose politic

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close