Hmm.

[kyburg]

Well, it's bare and not very pretty - but this is as good a view as any - on what is known, and not known on the issue.

The comments are mind-blowing on their own.

Careful lady - they'll be calling you one of those dirty hippie radicals soon....

Comments

[zyrc.livejournal.com]

i'm sorry, but gemmintheruff is one of those LJ users that i can't stand on sight.

;-)

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Could she get more off-topic and in the ether?

[zyrc.livejournal.com]

no she couldn't. i'm waiting for her to bring up her husband and their guns soon.

sadly, she the sort that gives libertarians a bad rap. :(

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

3 points conspicuously missing.

1) Several officiers have come forward having remembered Bush serving. They've been ignored by the media.

2) Bush released his military records. Anyone familiar with the military going through those records can tell you he wasn't AWOL. Kerry has not released his military records.

3) Yes, Kerry had a responsibility to come forward if he witnessed war crimes. He also had an obligation to REPORT them to his commanding officer. Which he didn't do.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

1. Who?
2. What records? They've been famously "lost" - at last report. And the last time I checked, Kerry had to verify the actual points at which he was injured, under fire, etc., to satisfy the folks who said he didn't earn the medals that are on his resume. (And frankly, in both cases, it's not a matter of releasing the records - they're public record and anyone has access to them, if they request them with legitimate cause.)
3. Now that's a gray area - do you report someone who knocks over trash cans, if everyone else is doing it too?

I'll let Jim answer that one. He's the one with military service closest to the Vietnam era (Reagan's Army) -

But it begs the question - were there war crimes or no?

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

1. Him, for one: http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20040210-082910-8424r

Honestly, it's not too surprising that Bush's not well remembered. The most level-headed accounts seem to state that he served, but not remarkably, and wasn't all that personable.

2. The documents mentioned here, containing everything that the military has on Bush. Hell, he even released the dental records.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=140

This is as opposed to Kerry, who has not authorized the release of his military records. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21239-2004Aug21.html (Sorry, subscription only, though free.)

Relevant section here: Some of the mystery surrounding exactly what happened on the Bay Hap River in March 1969 could be resolved by the full release of all relevant records and personal diaries. Much information is available from the Web sites of the Kerry campaign and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and the Navy archives. But both the Kerry and anti-Kerry camps continue to deny or ignore requests for other relevant documents, including Kerry's personal reminiscences (shared only with biographer Brinkley), the boat log of PCF-94 compiled by Medeiros (shared only with Brinkley) and the Chenoweth diary.

Although Kerry campaign officials insist that they have published Kerry's full military records on their Web site (with the exception of medical records shown briefly to reporters earlier this year), they have not permitted independent access to his original Navy records. A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.

An enormous amount of things could be cleared up by Kerry just authorizing the release of his record, and frankly, I wish he would do it, despite the fact I don't think they'll find anything in there. At least it would end the loonier speculation, same way Bush's release did. We're talking about a standard Form 180, the same one that Kerry's group pestered Bush about for months before he signed it.

Much like KZ, I could care less about whether he legitimately earned the medals or not. (Although I admit, the most recent "silver star with 'V'" aspect is just flippin' weird.) Unlike him, my worry is mostly about his response to the accusations, which was to freeze, threaten lawsuits, complain about Republican conspiracy, and construct walls between himself and anyone wanting to investigate him. If Kerry can't handle marshmallows pitched at him on the Daily Show, I'm not sure I want him running the country.

3. I'd like to think you do if everyone is knocking over trash cans and stuffing bodies in them. Or you would if you were possessing sufficent moral fiber to be running for President. Were there war crimes? In Vietnam, certainly. Longstanding shame, longstanding black mark on the US military. In Kerry's Swiftboat group? He-said, she-said. But Kerry wants to run simultaneously as a war hero and an anti-war hero. "I performed bravely in that horrible war where all the soldiers around me were committing war crimes." It just becomes nonsensical.

I'll let my dad comment on that one. He was in Vietnam, engineering corps. He's not voting for Kerry.

[kyburg.livejournal.com]

Does the fact that the harder we look at this, the less there is to see, bother you? Both sides of the question, in fact.

Your first link is dead, BTW.

Prove Bush served without leaving his post. Can't. One way or the other.

Proving and verifying whatever Kerry did or didn't do is proving to be a tar baby - obviously, he did more. That's why there's a controversy lasting this long.

He's not providing personal documents. Well, I might not either. And I don't know what he could authorize that the FOIA request didn't get. Because the records are about you, doesn't mean the government hasn't classified it to hell and breakfast. It's frustrating, but there you go.

And this is the same group that wants to keep records on all my electronic financial transactions. Yeah, baby.

Having had to deal with the government on verifying records less than ten years old (you had better keep good records, because the government doesn't, even though they're the ones issuing them to you), I've got a very jaundiced eye towards this whole matter.

As far as the response goes, it's libel and slander if it isn't true - and the only way we make that determination today is in the courts, so yeah - making a case for a lawsuit is legitimate. Boneheaded, but legitimate. The only thing that's gotten through the bullshit filter over here is that a complaint was filed with the FEC.

freeze, threaten lawsuits, complain about Republican conspiracy, and construct walls between himself and anyone wanting to investigate him.

It's a campaign. You have to ignore a lot of dung being flung. It's all image now - and it's going to go to the biggest dung flinger working. Just replace Republican with Democrat, and I'm sure you'll hear that flung during the RNC coming up.

Your article also makes a good point - the sides are not drawn on Kerry's record, but on how his anti-war stance (and his involvement in the antiwar movement) was perceived.

There's plenty of ammunition in old memories and long-held grudges.

I'd like to get back to present, personally - but nobody wants to let go of this old rag. I'll likely be more interested in the whole mess then -

But what I know today is that I've been lied to over the reason we invaded another country and took over its government. Whether I think it needed to go is immaterial (if that's the reason, there are plenty of other places in the world worthy of the flush); we did it, we're stuck with the end result and we're killing people every day with no end in sight for it.

And nobody asked me if it was okay.

There are other reasons - but that's enough for tonight.

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

Does the fact that the harder we look at this, the less there is to see, bother you? Both sides of the question, in fact.

As I stated before, my interest isn't in what happened, but what an enormous problem something so minor has become for Kerry. It's showing up how he's attempting to run on ancient history, and hasn't got much more to go on. Now even that is crumbling. His medals are a he-said she-said situation, naturally. But they've already backpedaled three or four times on the "Christmas in Cambodia" story alone before admitting to the lie. (Similarly on the "what happened to his medals", though I'm still not clear on what happened to that.) During the Bush AWOL debate, the Bush team hemmed and hawed for a couple of weeks, but never changed the substance of their story and then released all the records they had. Kerry's response to being caught in an ancient lie was to lie more (badly and repeatedly) accuse conspiracy, and then try to hide under hand-waving.

Your first link is dead, BTW.

Weird, it works for me. Make sure the whole thing is linked on your browser, and the last 4-5 digits don't get cut off.

Prove Bush served without leaving his post. Can't. One way or the other.

Prove he didn't. Innocent before proven guilty and all that. Between pay stubs and the credits awarded, all the time is accounted for. The AWOL cries are coming from people demanding accounting for the LACK of proof for "A", not with actual proof of "B". ( http://iraqnow.blogspot.com/2004/07/bushs-awol-flap-officially-stupid.html Biased source, but has a point.)

Proving and verifying whatever Kerry did or didn't do is proving to be a tar baby - obviously, he did more. That's why there's a controversy lasting this long.

Uh, he did more what? Not quite sure what you're saying here.

He's not providing personal documents. Well, I might not either. And I don't know what he could authorize that the FOIA request didn't get. Because the records are about you, doesn't mean the government hasn't classified it to hell and breakfast. It's frustrating, but there you go.

A) But he's also not allowing access to documents that aren't personal. B) Then his campaign probably shouldn't have been so voiciferous about getting Bush to sign the Form 180.

And this is the same group that wants to keep records on all my electronic financial transactions. Yeah, baby.

Making the mistake of the monolith here. Every conservative isn't every conservative cause.

Having had to deal with the government on verifying records less than ten years old (you had better keep good records, because the government doesn't, even though they're the ones issuing them to you), I've got a very jaundiced eye towards this whole matter.

Which would make sense if it was a matter of documents missing, but not in a lack of access to the documents that are there. If the govt. keeps such lousy records on Kerry, then they have nothing to fear on the matter. Frankly, it may just be an enormous rope-a-dope like the Bush AWOL matter turned out to be. Which would mean that Kerry is in much less trouble over the issue than I think and is cleverer than I gave him credit for, but that option, at least, should be plainly evident in a few more months.

[ersatzinsomnia.livejournal.com]

As far as the response goes, it's libel and slander if it isn't true - and the only way we make that determination today is in the courts, so yeah - making a case for a lawsuit is legitimate. Boneheaded, but legitimate.

But that's my main point. It's boneheaded. REALLY boneheaded. (Not even counting the counter-smears that are getting really low.... exposing someone who had an affair in their office years after the fact, pulling out material on a suicide attempt.... who's doing the real mudslinging here?) I don't think that massive allegations are going to be revealed in the official documents, which makes the treatment of the matter such an absurdly (and dangerously) defensive flailing in response to being questioned that I don't like what it says about him. The events in debate may speak to the man's character 30 years ago (irrelevant, if changed) but the events of his response speak to his character today. The Swiftvets even gave him an out to prove that his character had changed, saying they would halt all the ads if he apologized to all Vets (not them specifically) at an upcoming American Legion meeting. Politically, the offer is probably untenable. Which is why he won't take it.

freeze, threaten lawsuits, complain about Republican conspiracy, and construct walls between himself and anyone wanting to investigate him.

It's a campaign. You have to ignore a lot of dung being flung. It's all image now - and it's going to go to the biggest dung flinger working. Just replace Republican with Democrat, and I'm sure you'll hear that flung during the RNC coming up.

Remarkably enough, I didn't. That's the weird thing. Yeah, conservative press is having a field day, and the more whacko pundits are all over the place lapping from Kerry's wounds, but the Bush campaign isn't even really under way. In fact, the most recent "volley" was that Bush condemmns and calls on Kerry to condemm the very organization that's tearing Kerry apart in opinion polls. Canny.
(snip)

But what I know today is that I've been lied to over the reason we invaded another country and took over its government. Whether I think it needed to go is immaterial (if that's the reason, there are plenty of other places in the world worthy of the flush); we did it, we're stuck with the end result and we're killing people every day with no end in sight for it.

And nobody asked me if it was okay.

(Uh, topic drifting.....ah well.) This is what I keep seeing. Almost without exception. Every argument for electing Kerry never has him in the subject. He doesn't even enter into the discussion. I note how you are a "anyone but Bush" commenter, and I have to say I disagree violently with the sentiment. NOT because I support Bush. But because the sentiment excuses people from examining the person they're actually electing. Excuses them from seeing if the one they're electing is worse in different ways than the one they're ousting. I used to think the expression a mere hyperbole, but the further everyone gets into this the more I'm starting to think that a lot of people will vote for Kerry so long as they're assured he doesn't drink a lot of blendered puppies. (Sorry, inside joke.)