Reply
Sun 8 Feb, 2004 09:47 am
Now that it appears that the fight for the presidency will be between Bush and Kerry. Do you think that the Kerry's war record Vs Bush's alleged AWOL will be an issue. If so what impact do you think will it have, if any on the election?
Clinton beat Bush the elder who had a pretty stellar military record. I remember Bill getting a lot of guff for going out of the country during war time.
I don't think it's going to be a deal breaking issue.
Its one of those things that , if used in a judgemental fashion, can backfire. The sculpting of Clinton as a draft dodger was a product of the GOP spin machine. So, Kerry should learn that, when up against someone glib and capable at verbal sparring you should.... wait, .... never mind.
USA > Domestic Politics
from the February 12, 2004 edition
Flap over Bush military service: why it's back
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – It's entirely possible that the full story of President Bush's service in the National Guard more than 30 years ago - again the subject of intense scrutiny - will never be told. Mr. Bush insists he fulfilled his duties. But two superior officers who could corroborate his statements are no longer alive. A commanding officer says he's not sure, but cannot recall Bush showing up for duty. Records newly released by the White House show that Bush was paid for some of the days in question, but do not prove he reported for duty in Alabama.
What is certain is that most presidents running for reelection don't have to address old biographical information that had already been ploughed through during the first campaign. And certainly, analysts say, Bush's reelection will hinge more on his record of the past four years and his vision for the future than on how he spent his time in 1972 and '73.
But 2004 is vastly different from 2000. Four years ago, the nation was at peace and Bush's opponent had not seen combat in Vietnam, either. Now, national security is a central issue and Bush is likely to face a decorated Vietnam War hero in the general election.
Perhaps most important, the flap over Bush's National Guard service raises questions about the president's credibility at a time when his most valuable asset - a reputation for integrity and candor - is under siege. Questions about whether he took the nation to war under false claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and about a spraling budget deficit top the list.
"One of Bush's strengths is he seems to be a straight shooter, and his ratings on integrity and honesty are still pretty good," says John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University. "If you can chip away at that, that's obviously good for the Democrats. If he's been lying or Clintonizing, that would be the ultimate coup de grace. He might even lose some Republican votes that way."
So for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, the decision by national party chair Terry McAuliffe to bring back the question of Bush's National Guard service is a two-fer. Not only does it raise questions about Bush's candor. It also invites stark comparisons between Senator Kerry's "chestful of medals" heroism in Vietnam and Bush's comfortable war-era assignment stateside, allegedly secured through family connections.
Some Kerry opponents are fighting back by reigniting discussion of Kerry's antiwar activities after his return from Vietnam. A picture of Kerry and actress Jane Fonda attending the same antiwar rally in Valley Forge, Pa., is circulating on the Internet, inflaming the passions of some veterans and giving some Republicans (though not the White House) a talking point that changes the subject away from Bush.
For Bush, if no new information surfaces about his National Guard service, the story will probably die down. And as he campaigns for reelection, he will tout his stewardship of national security post-9/11, which analysts say is likely more relevant to his pitch for four more years than his own lack of combat experience.
"He's doing his commander in chief thing, whatever the issue was with Guard service," says Professor Mueller. "It's something [the Democrats] are going to hit, and it's probably going to have some impact, but it certainly won't decide the election."
But for Kerry, the question is whether his own valorous military service eliminates Bush's election advantage as an incumbent with three years' experience as commander in chief. At the very least, Kerry's record cancels out some of Bush's advantage, analysts say. Much will also depend on events between now and election day - for example, how the public reacts to continuing US war deaths and injuries in Iraq, how the scheduled transfer of control to Iraqis proceeds, whether there is another terrorist attack on US soil.
It's still early in the election year, and most voters don't know a lot about Kerry. But polls show that early impressions are mostly positive. A Newsweek poll late in January shows 62 percent of registered voters believe Kerry has "strong qualities of leadership." Fifty-two percent of voters say they would trust him to make right decisions during an international crisis. "Early impressions are very, very important in politics," says Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute. "People won't be attentive for a long time, but they get glimpses of a candidate. And if you see someone like Rassman [a man whose life Kerry saved during the war] over and over on the news, that helps define Kerry for you."
In the end, the relative import of questions about Bush's military service during the election boils down to how voters in the center of the political spectrum perceive the issue. And there are several ways to perceive the question, says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University. "For some, it will be a patriotism issue, for others a credibility issue, and for others, it happened too long ago to matter," he says.
What au said. HAH!
Well, I believe Kerry has said military service is not his issue. Wise move, as was Reagan's declining to make an issue of the Iran hostage rescue.
But Kerry has now touched on the Bush record issue, another flip flop by Kerry.
Brand X
Bush's questionable actions during Viet Nam may have no impact upon the election however, let me recount a something that happened several days ago. A friend of mine came into the mens club breathing fire the other day. This is an individual who was in the battle of the bulge from start to finish. He said I just heard the Bush was AWOL during the Viet War. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last man alive. That cowardly little weasel.
I should add that if the positions were reversed the masters of sleaze and dirty tricks would play it to the hilt.
Well, all politicians are hard to keep up with.
Elections have been lost in the past from overplaying many political cards with two distinct sides and neither one is important to the majority of voters. Bush will be the factor here and his advisors are already stumbling as badly as he has. They're seeing aces when they have dueces.
Bush I expect will live to regret his appearance on the Lincoln. Imagine that picture with the caption under it reading
OUR HERO.
au1929 wrote:Brand X
Bush's questionable actions during Viet Nam may have no impact upon the election however, let me recount a something that happened several days ago. A friend of mine came into the mens club breathing fire the other day. This is an individual who was in the battle of the bulge from start to finish. He said I just heard the Bush was AWOL during the Viet War. I wouldn't vote for him if he were the last man alive. That cowardly little weasel.
I should add that if the positions were reversed the masters of sleaze and dirty tricks would play it to the hilt.
I can understand your friends sentiments, but here and now I'm concerned with how our enemies will be dealt with so I'm not going to base my decision on whether Kerry was a hero 30 years ago and whatever Bush was doing. Your friends reaction is based on emotion, disregarding a possible inaction by Kerry to respond to an enemy as he seems to be so inclined.
Brand X
What makes you think that Kerry would not respond to an enemy? What he would not do I am confident is lie to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces, I think both Bushes have handled themselves quite admirably. The times we are living in demand a president who will not be weak against our enemies. Bush II has shown no weakness. Some decry Bush's sending our young-men off to die. I say that he is sending our soldiers off to do their jobs. To protect America and the American way of life. "Speak softly, but carry a big stick". Bush has done just that.
What Bush did or didn't do 30 years ago does not matter a bit to me. He has shown himself to be a man of distinction and a man that has been forced to make many tough decision's. I would not want to be in his position, deciding another man's fate is no easy task. Bush has shown that he is a man of character and faith. He has shown himself to be a true leader of our armed forces.
au1929 wrote:Brand X
What makes you think that Kerry would not respond to an enemy? What he would not do I am confident is lie to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation.
Regarding military, he said a lot of things about Iraq and even voted for it, he said we had waited long enough to take action, now that we have he says he doesn't agree. I he voted against most of our important weapons, thinks the UN should be in charge of our troops, he thinks terrorist are a police matter etc. I don't think I want him as commander of America's military.
That legislation did not direct Bush to invade Iraq. It only authorized the use of force if needed. There was no need except in the mind of Bush and his band of merry men.
That aside the question was and still is how will Kerry's war record and Bush's alleged AWOL play in the race for the presidency.
McCentix: I am a very slow typer, so this may come in late...but here goes:
I served in VN with the 101st from 4/69-6/70; early on in a combat position; later as a REMF. I met many fine people: kids my own age, officers from West Point and senior NCO's who knew how war worked: black guys, black guys, hispanics, hispanics and the few white guys. By the time that I left we all knew that this was not going well.
Where were my peers? The guys that ran track with me or played on the football team at my high school or college. They did a Clinton or a Bush.
They found some family doctor who would sign off on some injury. Or they found a "reserve" unit that was unlikely to ever be deployed.
It wasn't just the rich kids; it was all about connections (my roommate in college was the son of a union leader in the steel mill).
(The Quarterback on our football team, BTW, ended up as a helicoptor pilot in VN).
Forgive me for rambling (but I am expressing original thought rather than quoting some article). My points are these:
1) This will be the last time that someone from the VN generation is running; that will be remembered;
2) Opposition to the war when I got home was a total shock to me in 1970. I have no problem with Kerry's appearing with Fonda. I doubt many VN vets do;
3) Iraq is a quagmire.
The correct answer is that Kerry's war record is admirable. His post-war record is not.
The facts are that Bush volunteered for the military, served in a dangerous job as a fighter pilot, fulfilled all his military obligations, and volunteered for Vietnam but lacked the flight time to go before the program to deploy F-102s there ended.
Everything to the contrary is a Big Lie told by the Democratic slime machine because the truth is not to their advantage.
Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda
Edit (Moderator): Please do not employ links or images in signature lines
Tantor wrote:The correct answer is that Kerry's war record is admirable. His post-war record is not.
In your opinion. In the opinion of others it is better than that of Bush.
Quote:The facts are that Bush volunteered for the military, served in a dangerous job as a fighter pilot, fulfilled all his military obligations, and volunteered for Vietnam but lacked the flight time to go before the program to deploy F-102s there ended.
F-102s were never deployed to Vietnam. The aircraft was a dedicated interceptor designed for service with ADC, and was being phased out by the time Bush flew it. . Most of the interceptor duties in the US during this time were performed by F-106 and F-101B squadrons. Therfore there is no way Bush's unit could have been deployed. In addition, I find the thought of Bush "volunteering" to go to Vietnam ridiculous. You claim to have flown backseat in F-4s, so I would expect you to be more familiar with the difference between the air defence role and the tactical roles in air power.
Quote:Everything to the contrary is a Big Lie told by the Democratic slime machine because the truth is not to their advantage.
Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda
www conpro blogspot com
Comments like this make invalidate any opinion you may have.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace