Where Rather Was Right
by VICTOR NAVASKY

When it comes to presidential politics there seem to be a half-dozen narratives favored by big (and small-minded) media: Who's ahead?, "Gotcha!", the (cynical) assumption that all policy pronouncements are explainable as political maneuvering, the idea that a campaign is being run by either skilled pros or incompetent losers, and here's what [name your candidate] ought to do, etc.
Last week the dominant narrative was Here's what Kerry ought to do. The week before it was Who's ahead? And this week it was "Gotcha!" The only problem was, they "got" the wrong guy--and missed the main issue.
Yes, Dan Rather and his 60 Minutes II colleagues ought to feel embarrassed, but so should his 60 Minutes I colleagues who seemed more eager to exonerate 60 Minutes from having anything to do with those tainted documents than to support their colleague, who has anchored CBS News with passion and professionalism for twenty-three years.
In retrospect, as many bloggers and Monday- and Tuesday- and Wednesday-morning quarterbacks will tell you, instead of going with documents of dubious provenance they should have gone with Marian Carr Knox, who, as Lieut. Col. Jerry Killian's secretary, would have typed them but says she didn't, yet adds that the information in them accurately reflects the views of her boss.
If, as seems to be the case, the underlying point of the 60 Minutes II episode was accurate, then it's a sad comment on the rest of the press that they have relentlessly and repeatedly focused on what Dan got wrong and relatively ignored what Dan got right (namely, that pressure was put on Killian to "sugar coat" Bush's National Guard record, that Bush got into the Guard via favoritism, that he got paid for meetings he didn't attend, that he missed the physical he signed up for, and all the rest).
What Rather got right relates to yet another presidential narrative--the one having to do with the President's character. If indeed Bush skipped out on his National Guard obligations at the time, that does not speak well for his character then. And if he arranged to have this dereliction expunged from his file after he became President, that does not speak well for his character now. (It may also be a violation of the law.)
Of course, if the media do their job between now and Election Day, there is one other narrative they ought to bring into focus--on the front page, the editorial page, the nightly news, in questions for the candidates during debates and everywhere else--and that is the issue that should have been front and center from the outset: the narrative about Iraq. Is the US war on Iraq an extension of what we did in Afghanistan, a real "war on terrorism" that's making the world a safer place? Or, especially in the absence of weapons of mass destruction, is it a disastrous diversion that has made our country less secure, resulted in the deaths of more than a thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis, and earned the United States unnecessary enemies around the world?
That, rather than Rather, is the issue.

A FLIP AND A FLOP AND NOW JUST A FLOP
by Michael Moore
published by MichaelMoore.com

Dear Mr. Bush,
I am so confused. Where exactly do you stand on the issue of Iraq? You, your Dad, Rummy, Condi, Colin, and Wolfie -- you have all changed your minds so many times, I am out of breath just trying to keep up with you! Which of these 10 positions that you, your family and your cabinet have taken over the years represents your CURRENT thinking: 1983-88: WE LOVE SADDAM. On December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld was sent by your dad and Mr. Reagan to go and have a friendly meeting with Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq. Rummy looked so happy in the picture. Just twelve days after this visit, Saddam gassed thousands of Iranian troops. Your dad and Rummy seemed pretty happy with the results because The Donald R. went back to have another chummy hang-out with Saddams right-hand man, Tariq Aziz, just four months later. All of this resulted in the U.S. providing credits and loans to Iraq that enabled Saddam to buy billions of dollars worth of weapons and chemical agents. The Washington Post reported that your dad and Reagan let it be known to their Arab allies that the Reagan/Bush administration wanted Iraq to win its war with Iran and anyone who helped Saddam accomplish this was a friend of ours. 1990: WE HATE SADDAM. In 1990, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, your dad and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney, decided they didn't like Saddam anymore so they attacked Iraq and returned Kuwait to its rightful dictators. 1991: WE WANT SADDAM TO LIVE. After the war, your dad and Cheney and Colin Powell told the Shiites to rise up against Saddam and we would support them. So they rose up. But then we changed our minds. When the Shiites rose up against Saddam, the Bush inner circle changed its mind and decided NOT to help the Shiites. Thus, they were massacred by Saddam. 1998: WE WANT SADDAM TO DIE. In 1998, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others, as part of the Project for the New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Clinton insisting he invade and topple Saddam Hussein. 2000: WE DON'T BELIEVE IN WAR AND NATION BUILDING. Just three years later, during your debate with Al Gore in the 2000 election, when asked by the moderator Jim Lehrer where you stood when it came to using force for regime change, you turned out to be a downright pacifist: I--I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president [Al Gore] and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I--I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place. And so I take my--I take my--my responsibility seriously. --October 3, 2000 2001 (early): WE DON'T BELIEVE SADDAM IS A THREAT. When you took office in 2001, you sent your Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and your National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, in front of the cameras to assure the American people they need not worry about Saddam Hussein. Here is what they said: Powell: We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they have directed that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was 10 years ago when we began it. And frankly, they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. --February 24, 2001 Rice: But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. --July 29, 2001 2001 (late): WE BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US! Just a few months later, in the hours and days after the 9/11 tragedy, you had no interest in going after Osama bin Laden. You wanted only to bomb Iraq and kill Saddam and you then told all of America we were under imminent threat because weapons of mass destruction were coming our way. You led the American people to believe that Saddam had something to do with Osama and 9/11. Without the UN's sanction, you broke international law and invaded Iraq. 2003: WE DONT BELIEVE SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US. After no WMDs were found, you changed your mind about why you said we needed to invade, coming up with a brand new after-the-fact reason -- we started this war so we could have regime change, liberate Iraq and give the Iraqis democracy! 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! Yes, everyone saw you say it -- in costume, no less! 2004: OOPS. MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED! Now you call the Iraq invasion a "catastrophic success." That's what you called it this month. Over a thousand U.S. soldiers have died, Iraq is in a state of total chaos where no one is safe, and you have no clue how to get us out of there. Mr. Bush, please tell us -- when will you change your mind again? I know you hate the words "flip" and "flop," so I won't use them both on you. In fact, I'll use just one: Flop. That is what you are. A huge, colossal flop. The war is a flop, your advisors and the "intelligence" they gave you is a flop, and now we are all a flop to the rest of the world. Flop. Flop. Flop. And you have the audacity to criticize John Kerry with what you call the "many positions" he has taken on Iraq. By my count, he has taken only one: He believed you. That was his position. You told him and the rest of congress that Saddam had WMDs. So he -- and the vast majority of Americans, even those who didn't vote for you -- believed you. You see, Americans, like John Kerry, want to live in a country where they can believe their president. That was the one, single position John Kerry took. He didn't support the war, he supported YOU. And YOU let him and this great country down. And that is why tens of millions can't wait to get to the polls on Election Day -- to remove a major, catastrophic flop from our dear, beloved White House -- to stop all the flipping you and your men have done, flipping us and the rest of the world off. We can't take another minute of it.

Yours, Michael Moore

email from Delegate Deb...

Why Americans Back the War
by James Carroll, Boston Globe

THE WAR IN IRAQ goes from worse to catastrophic. Hundreds of Iraqis were killed last week, as were two dozen US soldiers. Planned elections in January point less to democracy than civil war. Kidnapping has become a weapon of terror on the ground, matching the terror of US air attacks. An American "take-back" offensive threatens to escalate the violence immeasurably. The secretary general of the United Nations pronounced the American war illegal.
In the United States, an uneasy electorate keeps its distance from all of this. Polls show that most Americans maintain faith in the Bush administration's handling of the war, while others greet reports of the disasters more with resignation than passionate opposition. To the mounting horror of the world, the United States of America is relentlessly bringing about the systematic destruction of a small, unthreatening nation for no good reason. Why has this not gripped the conscience of this country?
The answer goes beyond Bush to the 60-year history of an accidental readiness to destroy the earth, a legacy with which we Americans have yet to reckon. The punitive terror bombing that marked the end of World War II hardly registered with us. Then we passively accepted our government's mad embrace of thermonuclear weapons. While we demonized our Soviet enemy, we hardly noticed that almost every major escalation of the arms race was initiated by our side -- a race that would still be running if Mikhail Gorbachev had not dropped out of it.
In 1968, we elected Richard Nixon to end the war in Vietnam, then blithely acquiesced when he kept it going for years more. When Ronald Reagan made a joke of wiping out Moscow, we gathered a million strong to demand a nuclear "freeze," but then accepted the promise of "reduction," and took no offense when the promise was broken.
We did not think it odd that America's immediate response to the nonviolent fall of the Berlin Wall was an invasion of Panama. We celebrated the first Gulf War uncritically, even though that display of unchecked American power made Iran and North Korea redouble efforts to build a nuclear weapon, while prompting Osama bin Laden's jihad. The Clinton administration affirmed the permanence of American nukes as a "hedge" against unnamed fears, and we accepted it. We shrugged when the US Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, with predictable results in India and Pakistan. We bought the expansion of NATO, the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the embrace of National Missile Defense -- all measures that inevitably pushed other nations toward defensive escalation.
The war policy of George W. Bush -- "preventive war," unilateralism, contempt for Geneva -- breaks with tradition, but there is nothing new about the American population's refusal to face what is being done in our name. This is a sad, old story. It leaves us ill-equipped to deal with a pointless, illegal war. The Bush war in Iraq, in fact, is only the latest in a chain of irresponsible acts of a warrior government, going back to the firebombing of Tokyo. In comparison to that, the fire from our helicopter gunships above the cities of Iraq this week is benign. Is that why we take no offense?
Something deeply shameful has us in its grip. We carefully nurture a spirit of detachment toward the wars we pay for. But that means we cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others -- even when we cause it. We don't look at any of this directly because the consequent guilt would violate our sense of ourselves as nice people. Meaning no harm, how could we inflict such harm?
In this political season, the momentous issue of American-sponsored death is an inch below the surface, not quite hidden -- making the election a matter of transcendent importance. George W. Bush is proud of the disgraceful history that has paralyzed the national conscience on the question of war. He does not recognize it for what it is -- an American Tragedy. The American tragedy. John Kerry, by contrast, is attuned to the ethical complexity of this war narrative. We see that reflected in the complexity not only of his responses, but of his character -- and no wonder it puts people off. Kerry's problem, so far unresolved, is how to tell us what we cannot bear to know about ourselves. How to tell us the truth of our great moral squandering. The truth of what we are doing today in Iraq.

Rather Smather....Doesn't Matter...
Blondie

TODAY'S QUOTE FROM NYTimes OP-ED

"By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden -- who really did attack America -- and Kim Jong Il -- who really is building nukes. And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him --it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative. Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic. So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message. And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear."

"Who's Unpatriotic Now?" in the New York Times Paul Krugman

A BuzzFlash Editorial (See Previous Post)

Bush AWOL
'Have You No Decency, Have You No Shame? 'Of Course Not, We're the Sopranos from Maine'

A Buzzflash Editorial: "And as far as the alleged 'forged documents,' wouldn't, as a recent pro-democracy web article by Mike Burke speculated, it be the perfect Rovian touch to have planted forged documents that actually contained the truth? After all, you could discredit CBS and the nettlesome Bush National Guard facts in one fell swoop. It has, as Burke notes, the mark of Rove written all over it. If you have the media focus on memos that are essentially true according to a compilation of the facts surrounding Bush's record of service (and the secretary of the man who allegedly wrote them, even though she thinks the memos themselves may not be real as actual documents, they DO reflect the reality and basic facts of Bush blowing off his Guard service, she confirms), but get the press to focus on whether the memos are authentic or not, then you discredit the facts by discrediting the memos. How sweet a technique is that?"
Former Nixon Dirty Tricks Operative May Be the Source of Planted Documents21-Sep-04Bush AWOL
New York Post political gossip columnist Frederic U. Dicker says "The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather's dubious Texas Air National Guard 'memos.' The irony would be delicious, since Rather became famous confronting President Nixon, in whose service a very young Stone became associated with political 'dirty tricks.' Reached at his Florida home, Stone had no comment."
Bush Documents were Planted - 'Who Done It' Remains the Biggest Story20-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Although we respect Dan Rather for admitting the Bush guard documents couldn't be authenticated, he did America a major disservice by failing to uphold the CONTENT of the story, which even the woman who typed the originals corroborated. Meanwhile, the original source of the documents, which were given first to Bill Burkett, who then gave them to CBS, remains unknown. Was the whole thing was a scam engineered by Bush campaign operatives to cast doubt on the wealth of other evidence that Bush went AWOL.
$1,000 REWARD for any White House Official Who Will Publicly State the Content of the Bush AWOL Documents is False Still Unclaimed20-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Bob Fertik blogs, "8 days have passed since CBS presented the Killian memos to the American people. The memos have set off a firestorm in the media and on the Internet. Yet despite all the attacks, George Bush and the White House have NEVER called them fraudulent. Of course, George Bush himself won't answer questions, so I can't quote him. But his spokespeople have been asked repeatedly about the documents - and have systematically avoided called them frauds. Why? I have a very simple explanation: because George Bush and Dan Bartlett and Scott McClellan know every sentence in the memos is TRUE. You don't believe me? Watch me put them to the test. I, Bob Fertik, will contribute $1,000 of my personal money to the Republican National Committee if George Bush, Dan Bartlett, or Scott McClellan will say the following in public: 'George Bush believes the Killian memos are all UNTRUE, and the events described in the memos are all FALSE.' That's all. I'm waiting... "
CBS Stands by the Truth: Bush Slithered out of Service to His Country20-Sep-04Bush AWOL
CBS has refused to allow the Bush smear machine to obliterate the truth by focusing all eyes on the now infamous "suspect documents." These documents are nothing more than red herrings - red herrings planted by (we are betting) Karl Rove. His scheme: induce the idiots in the media to focus on typefont rather than truth. And so they have - ignoring even the statement by the woman who actually typed the originals that the content and story that went with them was most certainly true. Today (Sept. 20) CBS ran the story by Barnes again with a note stating that they would investigate the documents - but NO STATEMENT (contrary to their media rivals' spin) that they recant the content of the story.
Ben Barnes Has a History of Contributing to Republicans - So Why is He Being Called a 'Partisan Democrat'?20-Sep-04Bush AWOL
The Repug smear machine is trying to discredit Ben Barnes by calling him a "long-time partisan Democrat." But "Ben Barnes has close ties to the Republicans -- including Scott McClellan's family. Barnes has contributed $51,500 to TX GOP candidates since 2000. [TXEthics Commission, http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/] Scott McClellan's mother, Carole Keeton Strayhorn is a friend of Barnes -- Barnes contributed $35,000 to Carole Keeton Strayhorn's campaign in 2003. [Texas Ethics Commission, http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/] [New York Times, 9/15/03]The former TX Lt. Gov. contributed $500 to Jeb Bush during his failed 1994 campaign for Florida's governorship. [Dallas Morning News, 10/25/94] Barnes was on a fundraising events committee to benefit Sen Kay Bailey Hutchinson. [Austin American-Statesman, 1/13/04] In 1995, Barnes contributed $250 to the Tom Delay Congressional Committee. [www.tray.com]."
CBS Was Duped on Documents: Break the REAL STORY Here, Dan: Expose the Person who Fed you the Documents!!20-Sep-04Bush AWOL
The biggest story here may be the identify of who was behind feeding CBS and Dan Rather dubious documents. What was obviously intended as a diversion from the CONTENT of the Bush AWOL story - which has been confirmed by many different unimpeachable sources, including the lady who typed the original (untampered with) documents - may become much bigger: the forgery of federal documents by persons unknown to aid the Bush campaign. We say INVESTIGATE! And Dan, don't be a chump - EXPOSE YOUR SOURCE. You aren't protecting a real whistleblower - you are protecting a Bush operative and treasonous fraud. During the debates, Kerry should ask Bush point blank for the truth - get the creep on RECORD with a lie!
$1,000 REWARD if the White House Calls the Killian Memos UNTRUE18-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Bob Fertik blogs, "The memos have set off a firestorm in the media and on the Internet. Yet despite all the attacks, George Bush and the White House have NEVER called them fraudulent. Of course, George Bush himself won't answer questions, so I can't quote him. But his spokespeople have been asked repeatedly about the documents - and have systematically avoided called them frauds. Why? I have a very simple explanation: because George Bush and Dan Bartlett and Scott McClellan know every sentence in the memos is TRUE. You don't believe me? Watch me put them to the test. I, Bob Fertik, will contribute $1,000 of my personal money to the Republican National Committee if George Bush, Dan Bartlett, or Scott McClellan will say the following in public: 'George Bush believes the Killian memos are all UNTRUE, and the events described in the memos are all FALSE.' That's all. I'm waiting... "
Texas National Guard Typist Says CONTENT of Documents Was Authentic, Even if Copies Were Not16-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Howard Kurtz writes: "In her interview with Rather yesterday, Knox repeated her contention that the documents used by '60 Minutes' were bogus. Knox, 86, worked for Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian while he supervised Bush's unit in the early 1970s. 'I know that I didn't type them,' Knox said of the Killian memos. 'However, the information in there is correct,' she said, adding that Killian and the other officers would 'snicker about what [Bush] was getting away with.' "
8 Reasons Why the Killian Memos are TRUE15-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Bob Fertik blogs, "Here are 8 reasons why the Killian memos are true. 1. Wednesday. 2. Thursday 3. Friday 4. Saturday 5. Sunday 6. Monday 7. Tuesday 8. Wednesday Today (9-15-04) is the 8th day the Killian memos have been public. Yet the White House STILL has not called the memos frauds... If the White House announces the documents are fraudulent - and they turn out to be TRUE - then the Buseviks could lose the ELECTION. And if that happens, not only do they have to leave the White House, not only do they (and their powerful cronies) fall off the federal budget gravy train, but also many of them stand an excellent chance of going to JAIL for any one of several dozen scandals. So stay tuned. Every day that goes by WITHOUT the White House declaring the memos fraudulent is one more reason to believe the memos are TRUE."
After Declaring Nation on Perpetual 'Alert' and at 'Perpetual War,' Bush AWOL from the White House14-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Jennifer Loven AP: "If you're looking for President Bush, don't bother searching the White House. Bush has not spent a full day in Washington since Aug. 2 -- roaming the country rather than staying in the Oval Office as he seeks a second term. On Wednesday, he'll break a 44-day, outside-the-Beltway streak to host a concert and reception at the White House in honor of Hispanic Heritage Month. But not for long: He's back on the road the next day. On Aug. 2, Bush stayed in town for a Rose Garden appearance in which he announced his support for a national intelligence chief and establishment of a national counterterrorism center. In between, Bush visited 21 states in 44 days, including three stays at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and some time at his family's home on the Maine coast. "
Democrats.com Exclusive! Bush Impersonated a Veteran in 2000!14-Sep-04Bush AWOL
On the day George Bush spoke to the National Guard Association, Bob Fertik writes: "On September 6, 2000, Bush spoke at the annual conference of the American Legion in Milwaukee, WI. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, here is how Bush introduced himself: 'George Bush, Post 77, reporting for duty,' Bush said as he took the stage at the Midwest Express Center, wearing the American Legion hat of the post he belongs to in Houston. Unfortunately Mr. Bush was not entitled to wear that hat; in doing so, he was impersonating a veteran. Until now, no one has questioned the photo of Bush wearing a veteran's hat... I challenge any reader to prove that George Bush is entitled to call himself a Veteran. Bush's military records are available below."
Bush Aides Possibly Altered National Guard Records To Conceal Grounding and Missed Duty13-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Democrats.com was one of the first news outlets on the internet to expose Bush's AWOL National Guard record. Even before the un-Supreme Court installed "Our Misleader" in Dec. 2000, Democrats.com was on top of the story. "Aides to Texas Governor George W. Bush visited the Air National Guard archives at Camp Mabry in 1997 and possibly altered Bush's military service records to conceal Bush's grounding from flight in 1972 and subsequent missed duty, according to a former senior official of the Texas National Guard." And we are still on top of the story. To access our archive of more than 180 stories on Bush's AWOL military mis-service, visit www.democrats.com/awol
Bush Told Harvard Prof Poppy Got Him Guard Slot13-Sep-04Bush AWOL
While the media has focused on the Killian memos, they have completely ignored the other half of the 60 Minutes story - Ben Barnes saying he used his political clout to get Bush into the Guard at the request of the Bush family, which Bush vehemently denies. NY Daily News reports that after Bush left the Guard early to go to Harvard Business School, Bush told his Harvard professor that Poppy's friend got him in! "Yoshi Tsurumi said yesterday that Bush told him his father's connections got him into the Texas Air National Guard. 'But what really disturbed me is that he said he was for the Vietnam War'... 'He was very casual about it,' the professor said. 'I said, 'Lucky you, how did you manage it?' He said, 'My dad had a good friend who put me at the head of the waiting list.''" Bush is a hypocrite - and a liar. Why isn't Prof. Tsurumi on all the cable news shows?
US News & World Report Drops Mega Bomb on Bush12-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Who needs CBS's memos when US News & World Report has turned up a drawerful of smoking guns? America Blog reports: "Bush's violation of the rules was even worse that we thought. This is a BIG honking story. At this point, I'll give the GOP the CBS memos if they want 'em - who cares if they're real now. USNews, known to be a conservative-leaning magazine, has just come up with independent evidence showing Bush shirked EVEN MORE of his National Guard duty than we thought, that the White House lied about it, and that there is no explanation for how Bush could reasonably get an honorable discharge." Now let's see if NBC, FOX, AP and the rest of the Bush-nosing media bothers to air any part of this story!
US News Is the First Major Publication to Challenge Bush's Honorable Discharge12-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Whenever Bush is challenged about going AWOL in 1972, he claims his Honorable Discharge absolves him of all sins. But for the first time, the conservative weekly US News is challenging the validity of Bush's HD. "Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush 'had not fulfilled his obligation' and 'should have been called to active duty.'... The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a retired colonel and author of an official history of the Army Reserve. 'Clearly, if you were the average poor boy who got drafted and sent into the active force,' he says, 'they weren't going to let you out before you had completed your obligation.'" Coming from US News, this is huge!!!
AWOL Fraud - at ABC, CNN, and FOX!10-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Bob Fertik blogs, "While the media is breathlessly trying to prove CBS broadcast fraudulent AWOL memos, three other networks committed fraud this week - yet no one but Salon's Eric Boehlert noticed. All 3 networks gave time to retired Lt. Col. John 'Bill' Calhoun, who claims he saw Bush performing drills in Alabama in the SUMMER of 1972. There's only one problem with Calhoun's story - Bush's OWN records show Bush didn't get credit for any time until October. We don't need typewriter experts to prove that October is not in the SUMMER - making Calhoun's statements an obvious fraud.! Of course it's been 32 years and people's memories fade, so on 2-24-04, Democrats.com submitted a FOIA request for Lt. Calhoun's records, to see if his drill dates overlapped with Bush's (http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=199). However, in February the White House ordered the Pentagon to reject ALL FOIA requests - so the truth remains a mystery."
Are the Killian Memos a Forgery? Help Us Learn the Truth10-Sep-04Bush AWOL
The media is buzzing with the possibility that the Killian memos broadcast on 60 Minutes are forgeries. The truth hangs on whether any commonly-used typewriters in the 60's-70's had proportional spacing and superscripts. If you HAVE a typewriter like that (perhaps an IBM Executive Electric like http://www.etypewriters.com/1954-b-2.JPG), please type out a replica of Killian's first memo and see if your typewriter matches his. If it does, tell us about it in Bob Fertik's blog.
How Many Lies Did Dan Bartlett Tell 60 Minutes?09-Sep-04Bush AWOL
For four years, Dan Bartlett has repeatedly lied about Bush's service. How many new lies did he tell 60 Minutes? Bob Fertik examines Bartlett's interview word by word.
The Memos: Bush Demanded Special Treatment, Refused Drug Test, Failed to Fullfill Commitments09-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Washington Post: "[Records obtained by] '60 Minutes' shed new light on one of the most controversial episodes in Bush's military service [sic] includ[ing] a memo from Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, ordering Bush 'to be suspended from flight status for failure to perform' [and] failure to take his annual physical 'as ordered.' 'Phone call from Bush,' Killian recorded in a 'memo to file' dated May 19, 1972. 'Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November.' [D]ocuments already released by the White House and the Pentagon show that Bush was suspended from flight status on that day for 'failure to accomplish annual medical examination' but do not mention his alleged failure to comply with National Guard and Air Force standards.... Killian complained that he was under pressure from his superior, Col. Walter B. 'Buck' Staudt, to 'sugar coat' Bush's officer evaluations." Are the memos real? Or forgeries planted by Karl Rove?
McAulife Blasts Bush's AWOL Lies08-Sep-04Bush AWOL
"The Democratic Party Wednesday declared examination and criticism of Bush's military record fair game with the release of reports alleging Bush failed to fulfill the requirements of his duty with the Air National Guard. 'This is a very big issue. This is a very big issue for the American public,' Democratic National Convention Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Wednesday. 'The president has been caught in direct contradiction -- lies -- and all I can tell you is that the president's credibility is issue No. 1.'... Speaking in a conference call Wednesday, McAuliffe told reporters to 'stay tuned' to find out how Democrats would work on the angle of the issue. He also said it was Republicans' fault this issue was taking such center stage. 'George Bush's allies have made an issue of John Kerry's service. And we are going to make issue of the president's credibility ... All of this is on the table. And it's going to be on the table between now and November 2nd,' he said." You GO, Terry!
Boston Globe Investigative Report Reveals that Bush Treated His Guard Service as a Joke08-Sep-04Bush AWOL
A team of Globe reporters worked together to investigate Bush's Guard service. What they found ain't pretty. "Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show." Worse, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlet lied about it to the media, claiming Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. "Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have "misspoke." " Retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, who studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations is furious: ''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen."
Bush Broke 2 Contracts with the Guard - Who Covered Up for Him?08-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Boston Globe's Walter Robinson reports: "Twice during his Guard service - first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School - Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty. He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show.... Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been 'satisfactory' - just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months. [Retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter says] 'He broke his contract with the US government - without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen.'" WHY???
Texans for Truth Demolishes Bush With AWOL Ad08-Sep-04Bush AWOL
"Texans for Truth, established by the 20,000-member Texas online activist group, DriveDemocracy.org, has produced a 0:30 second television advertisement, 'AWOL.' The ad features Robert Mintz, one of many who served in Alabama's 187th Air National Guard -- when Bush claims to have been there -- who have no memory of Bush on the base. In other words, Bush failed to fulfill his military duty while others were dying in Vietnam." As Nick Kristof writes, "Mr. Mintz is a compelling witness. Describing himself as 'a very strong military man,' he served in the military from 1959 to 1984. A commercial pilot, he is now a Democrat but was a Republican for most of his life, and he is not a Bush-hater." Start packing for Crawford, George...
Two Credible Witnesses Say Bush Was AWOL in Alabama08-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Nick Kristof writes, "[Bob] Mintz recalled why he remembered Mr. Bush as a no-show: 'Young bachelors were kind of sparse. For that reason, I was looking for someone to haul around with.' ... Another particularly credible witness is Leonard Walls, a retired AF colonel who was then a full-time pilot instructor at the base. 'I was there pretty much every day,' he said, adding: 'I never saw him, and I was there continually from July 1972 to July 1974... If he had been there more than once, I would have seen him'... 'The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard,' writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the 32-page analysis here). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released."
Bush Went AWOL When His TANG Unit Was Activated for Homeland Security07-Sep-04Bush AWOL
AP reports, "Bush's 2000 campaign suggested [W] skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete. Records show Bush's Texas unit flew the F-102A until 1974 and used the jets as part of an air defense drill during 1972. A six-month historical record of his 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, also turned over to the AP on Tuesday, shows some of the training Bush missed with his colleagues during that time. Significantly, it showed the unit joined a '24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack' in the southern United States beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a time when Bush did not report for duty, according to his pay records... As part of the mission, the 147th kept two F-102A jets - the same Bush flew before he was grounded - on ready alert to be launched within five minutes' warning." There goes Bush's alibi. Now we know the truth - when Bush was needed to protect the Homeland, Bush went AWOL - just like on 9-11.
More Bush National Guard Records 'Found': Bush Still AWOL07-Sep-04Bush AWOL
AP writes: "The records show his last flight was in April 1972, which is consistent with pay records indicating Bush had a large lapse of duty between April and October of that year. Bush has said he went to Alabama in 1972 to work on an unsuccessful Republican Senate campaign. Bush skipped a required medical exam that cost him his pilot's status in August of that year... The newly released records do not include any from five categories of documents Bush's commanders had been required to keep in response to the gaps in Bush's training in 1972 and 1973. For example, National Guard commanders were required to perform an investigation whenever any pilot skipped a medical exam and forward the results up the Air Force chain of command. No such documents have surfaced." Still AWOL (after all these years...)
Read 'George Dub-ya Bush, the Phony Fighter Pilot'07-Sep-04Bush AWOL
"In 'George Dub-ya Bush, the Phony Fighter Pilot,' Hugh E. Scott, Vietnam veteran, ex-Air Force pilot and registered Republican, tells how he found an official Bush biography on the Internet that claimed the president flew National Guard jets almost six years... Scott is the only investigative journalist since 1988 to interview Chester Mierzejewski, 83 - honorable and highly decorated Avenger tail gunner who saw Big George bail out and blew the whistle on him before the presidential election... Scott uses USAF documents, newspaper archives, Bush family autobiographies and authorized bios to show that George W. received a commission during the Vietnam War without any officer training, grounded himself by failing to take his annual flight physical, went AWOL in Alabama to work for the GOP, boozed until age 40 instead of preparing for national leadership, lied about his missing Guard service to get elected and tried to ruin the reputation of primary opponent, Senator John McCain."
AP Finds 5 Major Gaps in Bush's Scrubbed Guard Records05-Sep-04Bush AWOL
Bush says he released ALL records, but AP wants these files. "1) A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing. The government has released copies of those DD Form 44 documents for Bush for 1971 and earlier but not for 1972 or 1973. 2) Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status. [Note: Democrats.com broke THIS story on 10-4-00]. 3) A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him. His Texas commanders were ordered to have Bush sign such a document; but none has been released. 4) Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions. Bush missed at least five months. 5) A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas. The statement was required as part of a Vietnam-era crackdown on no-show guardsmen."
Ben Barnes Says Sid Adger Requested a National Guard Slot for W 'On Behalf of the Bush Family'03-Sep-04Bush AWOL
The Bush family insists they did NOT pull strings to get W into the Guard. "Friends said Barnes will expand on the remarks in his interview with '60 Minutes' while taking care not to contradict sworn testimony from 1999, in which he said that no member of the Bush family had directly asked him for help... Barnes is now telling friends that he understood that Adger was making his request on behalf of the Bush family, even though Barnes has no memory of Adger explicitly saying he was. Barnes based his understanding on the knowledge that Adger was extremely close to the Bush family and Barnes's feeling that Adger would not have acted without their consent. At the time, Barnes was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives and in close touch with the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose. Adger and Rose are dead."
'Phony Veteran' Bush Has Legion-Air Disease02-Sep-04Bush AWOL
It isn't a crime for Bush to falsely claim to be a veteran to get into the American Legion, but it sure is a slap in the face to the 25 million Americans who - unlike Bush - served the Active Duty needed to qualify. According to this careful examination, Bush was not qualified to join American Legion Post 77 in Houston, Texas in 1995. That makes him a "Phony Veteran." There ought to be a term for pretending to be a Legion member - how about "Legion-Air Disease"?
Why W Went AWOL: Poppy Wanted Him Out of Texas02-Sep-04Bush AWOL
"Before there was Karl Rove, Lee Atwater or even James Baker, the Bush family's political guru was a gregarious newspaper owner and campaign consultant from Midland, Texas, named Jimmy Allison. In the spring of 1972, George H.W. Bush phoned his friend and asked a favor: Could Allison find a place on the Senate campaign he was managing in Alabama for his troublesome eldest son, the 25-year-old George W. Bush? 'The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing,' Allison's widow, Linda, told me. 'And Jimmy said, 'Sure.' He was so loyal.' Linda Allison's story, never before published, contradicts [Bushit's alibi]. According to what Allison says her late husband told her, the younger Bush had become a political liability for his father, who was then the United States ambassador to the United Nations, and the family wanted him out of Texas."
The Ben Barnes Blackout31-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Eric Boehlert writes,"Faced with fresh news in the ongoing debate about the presidential candidates' military service during the Vietnam War, the media blinked this weekend, doing its collective best to ignore an embarrassing new revelation by the prominent Texas politician [Ben Barnes] who says he landed Bush a coveted pilot spot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War, and is now 'ashamed' of his actions. The explosive comments from a central player in the National Guard drama - captured on video and available online - have received just cursory coverage in the mainstream media since it was brought to light on Friday. The shoulder-shrugging response stands in stark contrast to the media orgy that has greeted the hollow, secondhand allegations made about John Kerry's Vietnam service by the Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has yet to make a single factual allegation stick about the circumstances surrounding Kerry's five war medals."
Still Unreported: The Pay-Off In Bush Air Guard Fix28-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Greg Palast: "Bush was elected governor of Texas by a whisker [and former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes who now regrets helping Bush get into the National Guard was] a big time corporate lobbyist [who] appears to have made lucrative use of his knowledge of our President's slithering out of the draft as a lever to protect a multi-billion dollar contract for a client.... Barnes, says the Justice Department document, made a call to the newly elected governor's office and saved GTech's state contract. The letter said, 'Governor Bush ... made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid [the GTech lottery contract] because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the '94 campaign.' In that close race, Bush denied the fix was in to keep him out of 'Nam [and] 'Barnes agreed never to confirm the story [of the draft dodging] and the governor talked to the chair of the lottery two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid.'"
Bombshell! Ben Barnes Admits He Got Bush into the National Guard28-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Salon reports, "Another bombshell in the battle over Vietnam service that has been raging in the 2004 race exploded on the Web Friday. In a video originally posted on the Web by a pro-Kerry organization in Austin, Texas, Ben Barnes, a former lieutenant governor of Texas, apologized for his role in getting a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard while young men who were not from prominent or wealthy families 'died in Vietnam.'... 'I got a young man named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard when I was lieutenant governor, and I'm not necessarily proud of that. But I did it.'... Bush insisted [in 1999] that neither he nor his father sought Barnes' assistance. 'I can tell you what happened,' said Bush. 'Nothing happened. My Guard unit was looking for pilots and I flew for the Guard. I'm proud of my service and any allegation that my dad asked for special favors is simply not true ... I didn't ask anybody to help get me to the Guard either.'" Got lie detector?
Impostor! Bush Wore a Ribbon He Never Earned!27-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Here is a photograph published on the Presidential Library site of George H.W. Bush. We can clearly see that in this photograph taken sometime before his promotion to 1st Lt. in 1970, George W. Bush is wearing an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (AFOUA) and a Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (SAEMR) just below his pilot wings. According to a just-completed investigation by Walt Starr, Bush's unit (the 111th Fighter Intercept Squadron / 147th Fighter Intercept Group) did not receive its first AFOUA until 1975. For weeks, the media has put John Kerry's 5 medals under a microscope. Now we learn that George Bush was so ashamed of his undistinguished service record that he had himself photographed with a ribbon he NEVER earned. That makes Bush an IMPOSTOR. Help us DEMAND the media give as much coverage of Bush's fraudulent ribbon as it has given to John Kerry's genuine combat medals.
Was Lt. Bush Sent to Alabama for Drug Rehab?25-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Citizens For Honest Fighter Pilots reports, "When the Bush-AWOL/deserter scandal first erupted months ago, I overheard [well, the person was talking loudly, so how could I help but hear?] an aide to a radical conservative congressperson run down exactly what happened to create this situation: Bush was 'acting inappropriately' on the base in Texas, then was picked up on a DUI for alcohol and marijuana. In order to 'create a break in the record,' he was shipped off to Alabama for rehab. That is why he never showed up for his Guard duty - he was in rehab. That also refutes the spin that he had gone there to work on a congressional campaign [note: the campaign workers have said he only appeared at headquarters a few times, and they called him the 'souffle' because of the 'hot air' he spewed when he did show up]."
'Deserters for Truth' Say Bush 'Dishonored his Fellow Deserters'25-Aug-04Bush AWOL
"Announcer: If you have any questions about George Bush's National Guard service record, just ask the men who didn't serve with him. John Maguire: I did not serve with George Bush. Ted Brody: I did not serve with George Bush. Michael Jansen: I did not serve with George Bush. Maguire: I know George Bush is lying about his service, because I was skiing with him in Aspen the whole time. Brody: His accounts of where he was and where he wasn't are as different as being at a frat party and being in the military. Literally. Jansen: George Bush cannot be trusted to be there for America, especially if there is anywhere near an airforce base. Brody: We got so drunk. Maguire: We got so drunk. Jansen: We got so drunk. Maguire: George Bush is a deserter. But he does like to party." Watch this hilarious satire!
Bush Keeps Stalling Release of His Military Records24-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard of USA TODAY write: "Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots? What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama? Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years?... Dan Bartlett told USA Today,. 'The resident has authorized the release of his records and we are complying with all requests. Some are taking longer than others, but all will be addressed.' " Sure - somewhere around 2040!
Is Our Commander-in-Chief a Deserter? You Decide!24-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Korean War vet Philip Vargas writes, "It is clear from the evidence that Bush dishonored his solemn oath to serve and protect our country in accordance with the US Constitution. He also disgraced the US military uniform. Bush must therefore answer to the American people for his conduct, but most importantly he must answer to all those who have served our country honorably and most specially those who are now sacrificing and putting their lives at risk in his illegal and unnecessary war. And, if I may, he has disgraced our country. We are the most hated country in the world and Americans are the most hated people in the world and Bush is the most hated leader in the world, even more than Saddam Hussein. To the best of my knowledge, no other politician or political leader in the history of our country has ever had such a disgraceful foreign policy and military record."
Explosive New Book Calls Bush a 'Deserter,' Exposes He Loathes the Military23-Aug-04Bush AWOL
The Nation: "At issue is whether Bush was, technically at least, a deserter in his fourth year of National Guard service [when] no one on the base remembers seeing him.... [Bush] was ordered to report for a flight medical exam in July 1972 [which he] 'failed to accomplish' [Bush] returned to Texas with zero active duty days.... [Bush used] nepotistic influence, jumping a long line, despite a 25 percent score on his pilot aptitude test [and] a series of driving convictions [and] was commissioned an officer despite ... no pilot experience [or] time in the ROTC [then] went missing for a year, [and] terminate[d] his service early.... His use of the National Guard to escape Vietnam should have inhibited him and his party from successively attacking the patriotism and martial virtues of triple amputee Senator Max Cleland and John Kerry--having earlier pointed fingers at Bill Clinton. But going AWOL ... deserting for a year even from this surrogate service, makes [Bush] doubly vulnerable."
Lukasiak Study Proves Bush Was Legally AWOL13-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Bill L. Burkett LTC (ret) writes, "I have reviewed the assumptions that Lukasiak had to use through the first 63 months of Bush's career - before Bush just quit and was transferred to an obvious records hold - and believe that his conclusions are correct... Was 1LT George W. Bush AWOL? The use of terms such as Deserter or AWOL have often been used as the focus of debate rather than the actions and inactions of 1LT Bush, to the discredit of the actual events and their impact. Documentation has refuted all claims that 1LT Bush continued to meet either the published regulations requirements for satisfactory drill participation, or the orders of his commander LTC Jerry Killian who later within the Officer Evaluation process notes that 1LT Bush was not available or seen during that rating period - a period of twelve months. Failure to appear as ordered is certainly considered as Absent without Leave."
Why is the Media Letting AWOL Bush Attack Kerry's Military Service?13-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Ian Williams writes, Bush joined the National Guard "with the aid of nepotistic influence, jumping a long line, despite a 25% score on his pilot aptitude test--and despite a series of driving convictions that should have required a special waiver. He was commissioned an officer despite having no pilot experience, no time in the ROTC, and without attending Officer Training School. And then he went missing for a year, and as a reward was allowed to terminate his service early so he could go to Harvard Business School. His use of the National Guard to escape Vietnam should have inhibited him and his party from successively attacking the patriotism and martial virtues of triple amputee Senator Max Cleland and John Kerry--having earlier pointed fingers at Bill Clinton. But going AWOL... makes him doubly vulnerable. Which may of course account for the seeming fungibility of his paperwork, even though, in truth, these people have no shame." Buy "Deserter" by Williams at democrats.com/books
Deserter: The Story Of George W. Bush After He Quit The Texas Air National Guard11-Aug-04Bush AWOL
After EXHAUSTIVE research, Paul Lukasiak writes, "An examination of the Bush military files... lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a deserter by the United States Air Force. After Bush quit TXANG, he still had nine months of his six-year military commitment left to serve. As a result, Bush became a member of the Air Force Reserves and was transferred to the authority of the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colorado... ARPC had to order Bush to get a physical examination, for which Bush did not show up. ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL and a 'non-locatee' (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his local draft board. Once the Houston draft board got wind of the situation, strings were pulled; and documents were generated which directly contradict Air Force policy, and which were inconsistent with the rest of the records released by the White House."
When Will Journalists Ask Bush for the Killian Disciplinary Report?10-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Linda Starr blogs Bush "was actually grounded in a two page disciplinary report signed by LTC Jerry Killian, his commanding officer. I dare ANY reporter to ask Bush what this document contains. Ask why he hasn't signed an official release for release of his entire files (because this document is what they are hiding, and it's really bad). Don't take my word for it, ask the WH and/or Bush to produce it. If they insist it doesn't exist, ask if they are aware there are copies of this very report floating around on the Internet. Then ask if they still insist this document doesn't exist. "
Why Are the Witnesses to Bush's AWOL Dead?08-Aug-04Bush AWOL
Bush Body Count writes, "There are no witnesses left to verify whether or not Bush fulfilled his Guard duty, and no witnesses left to verify that he did indeed receive special treatment. In spite of a substantial reward that has been posted, no one has come forward to claim that he fulfilled his commitment. Lt. Col. William Harris was one of two commanding officers who could not perform George W. Bush's annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973. They stated in their filing that 'Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.' Fortunately for George W. Bush, Lt. Col. Harris is not here to verify his 1973 statement. He's dead. Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian was another of George W. Bush's commanding officers. He cannot testify in a court of law as to George W. Bush's dereliction of his sworn duty. Lt. Col. Killian is dead... The names are included because they were relatively young men, whose deaths were convenient to Bush."
Missing Records Prove Bush was AWOL in 197224-Jul-04Bush AWOL
Bush dodged Vietnam by using powerful family friends to get into the Texas Air National Guard "Champagne Unit." Bush was required to train with his unit one weekend each month. But for at least five months in 1972 (May-Sept), Bush did NOT report for duty. The Pentagon just found the pay records that prove Bush received NO pay for those 5 months. Bush was AWOL - and a DESERTER. Why did he decide to stop flying - was it alcohol or drugs? Was there a Flight Inquiry Board? Once again, we demand Bush's MEDICAL and DISCIPLINARY records!
The Media Keeps Buying Bush's AWOL Lies18-Jul-04Bush AWOL
Ian Williams writes, that Bush's "commanding officers back in Texas wrote that they did not see him for a year. He was ordered to take his annual medical and Alabama, and 'failed to accomplish' it thereby grounding himself as a pilot. Technically, all that was desertion -- and guardsmen in that era were ordered to Vietnam for failing to do their Guard Service. Most distressing is to see how effective the White House has been in spinning the press, while covering their own asses. On February 13 this year, 83-year-old Helen Thomas of Hearst tried for the best part of the White House briefing to get a straight answer to the question: Was George W. Bush ever sentenced to community service in 1973? Scott McClellan implacably stonewalled and refused to answer. Indeed, he refused even to ask the president. Did this evasion make the headlines? Not at all!" Read Williams' new book on Bush's AWOL, "Deserter."

from Blondie's Brain...

This whole "memogate" diversion that targets CBS with slanted journalism is really just that...a diversion from the substance of this issue. Let's face it, can there be any more biased and partisan reporting than Fox News. The truth is that Dubya was treated with kid gloves because Papa was in a position of power and influence. It does not change the fact that our "esteemed" Prez ducked the draft, used his family's influence and was given partial treatment over the other guards in his unit. There are so many inconsistencies, contradictions and cover-ups about Bush's military records and what is unbelievable is these knowledge of the lies has been around for some time. The AP has sued the White House under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the records verifying Dubya's military jaunt. Everytime, the White House assured the press that all the records had been turned over. Yet, because of CBS's rush to judgment and its failure to verify the memos authenticity, Bush's whole entire guard coverup is completely overlooked. Doesn't the average American realize they are being manipulated by the sleazy power plays of Karl Rove? THINK! DON'T CONTINUE TO BE MISLED.

Redford Decries Bush's Environmental Policies in Vegas Visit
CHRISTINA ALMEIDA, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The Bush administration is "intentionally blind" to the needs of the environment and has rolled back years of advances in improving air and water quality, actor and activist Robert Redford said Wednesday.
"Sadly, the erosion that's occurred is disastrous, frightening and dangerous," Redford said.
Speaking at an event sponsored by the Environmental Accountability Fund, Redford said he is insulted when President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney tout their status as Westerners.
"I take particular offense as a Westerner when I see all the swagger and all the strutting. .... And I think, `What do they know about the West?"' said Redford, who has homes in California and Utah. "It's synthetic. It's fake."
America needs more bipartisanship efforts, Redford said recalling the 1970s when he worked to help pass the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
"Remember the old days when we all fought tooth and nail, but we worked together to come to some sort of solution that could be bipartisan?" Redford said.
Bush campaign spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt dismissed Redford's claims, and said Bush has proposed a number of policies beneficial to the environment.
"Robert Redford should stick to film making rather than making inaccurate claims," Schmitt said. "Our air and water are cleaner and clearer under this administration."
The Environmental Accountability Fund is a political action committee tied to the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. It plans to air advertisements, send out mailings and put up billboards to highlight Bush's environmental policies and their effects on state and local communities.

Bush Plans Add to U.S. Red Ink -- CBO Study
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -

President Bush (news - web sites)'s budget plans, including making tax cuts permanent, would contribute to a rise of more than $1 trillion in the federal deficit over the next decade, according to a congressional report requested by Democrats and criticized by Republicans.

In a report released on Thursday, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) forecast the deficit would grow $3.6 trillion over the next decade, based on assumptions provided by Democrats that included Bush policy proposals.
That is $1.3 trillion more than the office forecast earlier this month, in a report that did not use the Democratic assumptions.
Republicans immediately attacked the report and accused Democrats of playing election-year politics. The record budget deficit is a significant issue in the presidential election campaign.
The Democrats asked the budget office to rework its recent budget outlook with a new analysis that included a permanent extension of Bush's tax cuts, as proposed by the president.
The Democratic assumptions also included reduced estimates for the wars in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites) compared to the previous CBO report, and reform of the alternative minimum tax, which experts say will cost billions of dollars. The Bush administration is studying ways to reform the tax.
Bush has said his economic policies would cut the annual deficit in half over five years. But the latest CBO analysis says the deficit in 2009 would only be reduced to $339 billion from an expected record $422 billion in the 2004 fiscal year and would not be halved in 10 years.
"There is no credible way to dispute the fundamental conclusion that this administration's policies call for large deficits with no plan or prospect of bringing the budget back to balance," said the lawmaker who asked for the report, South Carolina Rep. John Spratt (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
Republicans were furious and said Democrats were making the request purely for political gain.
"This is a political ploy by the Democrats. We have a plan to bring the deficit down and they have a lot of rhetoric," said House Budget Committee spokesman Sean Spicer.
"Just a few days ago CBO presented its midsession review. We have a report. We know where we stand," he said.
Spratt has not requested a report using plans put forward by Democrat presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).
Kerry has said he would keep middle-class tax cuts and reduce the corporate income tax rate, but increase taxes on wealthy Americans.
Bush has charged that Kerry's spending plans would cost more than $1 trillion and require across-the-board tax increases.
The CBO's earlier report assumed that the Iraq war would cost around $1.2 trillion over the decade which Bush's budget did not include. But Spratt said this was unrealistic, and in this latest report asked CBO to assume $315 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Asked if he was playing politics, Spratt said "most of what we do is political, but this is relevant."

The Bush Record in Florida Sums up the Last Four Years -
By Todd Haskins, September 21, 2004
Even crafty spin-doctoring cannot make residents of Florida forget the Bush Administration's record over the last four years. From the deteriorated job market to the President's flip-flops on offshore oil drilling, Floridians have been used and abused. So when they turn out in record numbers to vote this November, we can all expect that the same voters who decided the 2000 election will not forget the trail of broken promises.
Many pollsters conclude that Florida voters are the carbon copy of mainstream America as far as where people stand on the political opinion. Most residents have either a very favorable or very unfavorable opinion of President Bush. Florida, as the United States in general, has its fair share of independents, many of which also have their own strong opinions about the current leader of the free world. There is also a tiny minority that hovers between parties, like many of which throughout the country, that usually decide the election. This block of voters typically casts their ballots for two-term presidents, which have previously included Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Florida personifies the country. If we were to eliminate every state in the United States except Florida, political opinion would be no more and no less divided than it is today.
Just as Florida voters are symbolic of the national political landscape, so is President Bush's record in Florida over the last four years. Nationally speaking, George W. Bush is on pace to have the worst job record of any US president in 75 years. Five million more Americans are in poverty today than they were under Bill Clinton. More than two million Americans have seen their federal unemployment benefits expire during Bush's first term. And in 2003 alone, 1.3 million people slipped into poverty.
Florida, just like the rest of the country, has a leader by the last name of Bush. And just like George W. Bush, Governor Jeb Bush has presided over a depleted economy. But it isn't the Governor's fault. Like in other states, Florida has received dozens of unfunded federal mandates to pay for homeland security. Certainly every citizen envisions that they will be protected, but not at the expense of the state budget. In order to pay for these states costs, Jeb has had to make cuts left and right. That has meant less money for education, a tax-hike on tourists and less children with health care. Jeb Bush was even forced to cut funding to the official Florida State Archives.
President Bush's tax cuts, more than one-third of which went to the richest 1% of Americans, coupled with his unfunded mandates in states like Florida, caused unemployment to soar. In Florida, more than 87,000 workers have lost their jobs in the last three years, more than 61,000 of which came from the manufacturing sector. This has been a typical reality for many American workers, not just Floridians. While millions of manufacturing jobs have gone shipped overseas to the lowest bidder, Bush's chief economic advisor Greg Mankiw had the nerve to say that outsourcing is "a plus for the economy." Analytically speaking, outsourcing may be "a plus" for companies that have contributed to the Bush reelection campaign. But when it comes to the families in states like Florida that have been struggling to pay health care costs and pay off debt, a statement like that may be looked at as insensitive. In fact, Florida will face the rising national debt burden of more than $23,000 per family over the next six years.
On April 21st of this year, President Bush joked in our nation's capital, "We're prosperous now, which is good - particularly if you're a guy seeking the vote." Prosperous? Maybe he should knock on the homes of the almost 3 million Florida residents that are without health insurance; the more than 737,000 children that have been underfunded by the President's own No Child Left Behind Act; and the 51% of Floridians that will receive less than $100 from Bush's tax cuts for the rich.
The President's record in Florida cannot be more disastrous. But it became clearer after a flip-flop on one of the most serious environmental matters in the state. In early 2001, President Bush opened 9.8 million acres in the eastern Gulf of Mexico for the oil industry. The ruling allowed drilling within 30 miles of the Florida coastline. Democratic Senator Bob Graham and a coalition of concerned residents tried to intervene. But it was too late. The measure was put into place. According to the environmental impact study done by the Minerals Management Service, an oil spill would hit Florida beaches, thereby hurting wildlife, travel and the multi-billion dollar tourism industry. However, the Bush Administration didn't seem to mind, considering the fact that they had a conflict of interest. It turns out that Lynn Cheney, wife of current Vice President of Dick Cheney, sat on the board of a company that was bought by Anadarko, which along with Shell is currently drilling in that area.
According to a Washington Post report on February 27th, 2002, "Shortly after Vice President Cheney launched a task force on energy policy last year, he met with two top executives from the oil and gas industry. The men from Shell Oil Co. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp. pressed the new administration to stick to a long-standing plan to open a huge tract in the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas exploration."
Typical to form, this conflict of interest was obviously denied by the Bush Administration. And in the mother of all flip-flops, President Bush said in a recent trip to Florida that he is committed to a clean environment. Bush insisted "there is no ambiguity in my position in drilling off the coast of Florida." The President went on to say that he has a "pro-environment stance" on environmental issues concerning the state of Florida; proving that with this commander-in-chief, the words "walk" and "talk" are two different things. There is what President Bush likes to say. And then there is what President Bush does. It is what the President has done over the last four years, both economically and environmentally, that has him in trouble in the state of Florida.

Sources:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0827census-main27.html
http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2003/0303/0303new2.cfm
http://www.sptimes.com/News/103101/State/Budget_cuts_called_a_.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-12-19-kids-healthcare_x.htm
http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/statebystate/FL.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/13/opinion/main600351.shtml
http://www.lcv.org/Features/Features.cfm?ID=2745&c=46
Washington Post - February 27, 2002: Oil Executives Lobbied on Drilling; Two Went to Cheney Task Force to Push for Gulf of Mexico Sale, page A01

IRAQI PRIME MINISTER PARROTS DISHONEST BUSH TALKING POINTS
Today, speaking before a joint session of Congress, Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi parroted the Bush administration's talking points: "We are succeeding in Iraq."[1] The facts on the ground, however, suggest otherwise.Over the last year the number of insurgents in Iraq has quadrupled.[2] Attacks on U.S. troops are up 100% since last winter.[3] Major Iraqi cities such as Fullujah have become havens for insurgents and are completely inaccessible to U.S. troops.[4] Security situations have stalledreconstruction - Iraq still has less electricity than they did before the war.[5] Even some Bush administration officials have acknowledged that elections planned for January may have to be delayed.

[6]Sources:
1. "Allawi Says Elections Will Happen as Scheduled," Washington Post,
9/23/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=57907.
2. "Mission Still Not Accomplished," Time Magazine, 9/20/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=57908.
3. "Iraq: A Quantitative Assessment," Brookings Institution,
7/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=57909.
4. "Green Zone is 'no longer totally secure'," Financial Times,
9/15/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=57910.
5. "Iraq Power Grid Shows U.S. Flaws," Los Angeles Times,
9/12/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=57911.
6. "Bush puts Iraqi leader forward," International Herald Tribune, 9/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=57912.

EYES WIDE SHUT
by David Corn
published by DavidCorn.com

I want this election to be done, for I am sick of griping about George W. Bush and his lying--or, if you prefer, his excessively simplistic ways. Speaking at the UN yesterday, he proclaimed that the Iraqi people "are on the path to democracy and freedom." Perhaps. We hope so. But it is far from assured that the national elections scheduled for January--which would be a true milepost on the "path to democracy"--are going to happen. Can't Bush stop being a cheerleader-in-chief? Why not say, "We've removed the tyrant of Iraq and now are doing what we can to bring democracy to Iraq"? Is that sort of nuanced, based-in-reality rhetoric beyond Bush's grasp? His plan in Iraq, as outlined in his UN speech, apparently is "to prevail." He cannot face facts--so he mugs the truth. The CIA produced an alarming National Intelligence Estimate outlining three scenarios in Iraq over the next 18 months: "tenuous stability," a stretch of "further fragmentation and extremism," or a period "trending to civil war." How did Bush respond? In remarks to reporters, he dismissed this document, saying the CIA was "just guessing as to what the conditions might be like." Does he consider intelligence analysis merely guesswork? If so, why did he insist before the invasion and afterward that he had based his decision on "good, solid intelligence" about Iraq and WMDs. Perhaps the CIA was just guessing. Then there are those attacks on John Kerry. After Kerry whacked Bush hard on Iraq on Monday, Bush retorted: "Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power and not in prison. He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy." The next day, Bush claimed that Kerry has "said that the world was better off with Saddam in power." This is nonsense. Kerry has not stated he favors stable dictatorship over hopeful democracy. (And, by the way, there is no democracy in Iraq which to favor or not favor.) Kerry has said repeatedly that Bush handled the task of booting Hussein wrong, that Bush went in the wrong way at the wrong time with the wrong amount of preparation (that is, little to none preparation). "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure," Kerry said on Monday. But by voting in 2002 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq (a vote that I believe was misguided), Kerry handed Bush a large club to use against Hussein. There's your evidence that Kerry was willing to see pressure and perhaps force applied against Hussein and was not satisfied to embrace the "stability of dictatorship." But as Bush does so often, he was saying that if you don't support the way he does things that means you're for the bad guys. To see the full silliness of Bush's position, apply his remarks to other spots of the world. Since Bush has not called for overthrowing the Chinese government, does that mean he fancies the stability of repressive government over democracy and freedom there? Ditto for Saudi Arabia--and Pakistan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere. Don't forget Russia. When Vladimir Putin recently proposed new rules that would cripple independent politics in Russia, Bush--who has called Putin a "courageous" leader--could not issue a whimper of criticism. Opposing Bush's folly in Iraq is not the equivalent of supporting dictatorship. Only a simpleton could actually believe that. (On a lighter--or sadder--note, the Bush campaign released an ad today that poked fun at Kerry for supposedly changing his position on Iraq by showing the senator windsurfing back and forth. Is this the type of discourse the Leader of the Free World wants to see in the most important nation in the world regarding the most important challenge facing that nation? It must be, for at the start of the spot, Bush says, "I'm George Bush, and I approve this message." The commercial apparently cuts out Bush's next line: "Man, we're kicking his butt. Wish I could have a brewski.") It certainly is fair for Bush to argue that his policy is better than Kerry's, that invading a nation that possessed no WMD stockpiles and had no significant ties to al Qaeda was the right move for safeguarding the United States from a still-at-large Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang. But this does not have to entail mischaracterizing Kerry's position and placing put him on the side of dictators and tyrants. (Are the Swift Vets adopting the White House style or vice versa? In its most recent ad, the GOP-financed band of anti-Kerry vets blast Kerry for having "secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris" when Kerry was an antiwar leader in the early 1970s. One problem: when Kerry testified publicly in the Senate he talked openly about his not-so-secret meeting with Viet Cong representatives, who were holding peace talks with South Vietnamese government officials.) The Bush campaign's blog recently noted, "So long as George W. Bush is our President, this nation will not close its eyes to threats, even when things get tough." Bush should open his eyes, and his mind, to what has happened and is happening in Iraq and at least stop pretending all is black and white--or black hats and white hats.

THE UNFORSEEN FRUITS OF HOPE
by Paul Rogat Loeb
published by The Impossible Will

The Unforseen Fruits of HopeIf John Kerry wins, he'll have America's peace movement to thank. Last year, when millions of ordinary Americans rose up against the Iraq war, many felt like their efforts were futile. They forced a debate, but couldn't avert the war. Yet their actions made had an unexpected impact-as courageous actions often do, even when they seem like immediate failures. And their fruits may well make the difference in November. During the initial flush of victory, those who disagreed with the war were branded as whiners, even enemies of the troops. Bush seemed virtually unbeatable. Media pundits cheered his every move. Democrats scuttled for cover like whipped dogs. Citizens who dared to raise a contrary word felt isolated and alone, and their actions seemed futile. The Bush administration continues to attempt to brand protestors present and past as disloyal. But as the occupation has unraveled, the arguments of once-isolated activist voices have fallen on increasingly receptive ears. Had there been no significant opposition, Bush would now have a far easier time rationalizing the war as a risk the entire country had embraced. Who could blame him that it hasn't quite worked out? Instead, the voices that cautioned about missing Weapons of Mass Destruction, sundered ties with allies, and resistance and resentment from the Iraqi population, seem steadily more prophetic. A war that helped the Republicans capture the 2002 elections has now become a prime liability. We can thank the peace movement for helping highlight the key issues, even as John Kerry distances himself from their voices. The movement has also significantly broadened the base of those willing to actively challenge Bush's regime-a critical development in an election likely to hinge more on turnout than on persuading the miniscule number of those still undecided. Citizens who first came in to political participation through this movement, or returned after years, continued their involvement through the Howard Dean campaign and groups like MoveOn. They're now registering voters, reaching out to the undecided, and doing all the critical tasks that give John Kerry his best possible chance to win despite his own limitations. What is it that enables people to take difficult stands despite all the pressures to stay silent? They recognize that history turns in unexpected ways-and that getting involved is itself transforming. They created engaged communities, because few can act alone. They recognize that action creates new possibilities, a process Reverend Jim Wallis describes as "believing in spite of the evidence--then watching the evidence change." Think of heroes of the past who persevered through bleak times for visions of justice: Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Václav Havel. They did it by maintaining hope, precisely when success seemed most elusive. We think, because we've been told, that one day Parks stepped onto a bus in Montgomery, Alabama and single-handedly inaugurated the Civil Rights movement by refusing to move to the back of the bus. "Rosa Parks wasn't an activist." Garrison Keillor said a couple years ago, well-meaningly, "She was just a woman with her groceries who was tired." But by that time Parks been a civil rights activist for twelve years, was the secretary of the local NAACP chapter, and acted not alone but in concert with others. The summer before her arrest, she'd taken a ten-day workshop at the Tennessee labor and civil rights center, Highlander School, which is still going strong. Only because she and others persisted was she able to visibly make history that day on the bus. Even in a seemingly losing cause, one person may unknowingly inspire another, and that person yet a third, who go on to change the world, or at least a small corner of it. Rosa Parks's husband Raymond convinced her to attend her first NAACP meeting, on lynching. But who got Raymond Parks involved? The links in any chain of influence are too complex to trace. But hope blooms when we realize that only by acting with courage and faith can we create these links of possibility. Think of how people learned to act in a seemingly even more hopeless situation. In the 1970s, future Czech president Václav Havel became involved after the authorities first outlawed and then arrested the rock band Plastic People of the Universe, claiming their Frank Zappa-influenced music was "morbid" and had a "negative social impact." Havel helped organize a defense committee that evolved into the Charter 77 organization, which in turn set the stage for Czechoslovakia's broader democracy movement. The Czech dissenters didn't instantly succeed, any more than our American dissenters. When we stand up for our deepest beliefs, we rarely see immediate results. Social transformation doesn't happen in the blink of an MTV ad. But we never know when someone we help take their first difficult stand will play a key role in advancing human dignity down the line. In Havel's case, critics mocked the early human rights initiatives that he and others launched, particularly a petition to free jailed dissidents. They belittled those who circulated the petitions as "exhibitionistic," dismissing their motives as an attempt "to draw attention to themselves." Dissenters everywhere receive similar treatment. Havel's group didn't free a single political prisoner-just as last year's protests didn't stop the war. But both immediately apparent "failures" were more significantly worthwhile. The imprisoned Czech dissidents said the mere fact that others had taken up their cause sustained them in prison. Nelson Mandela calls this the multiplication of courage. And the movement built by once seemingly hopeless actions eventually toppled a dictatorial regime. As Havel wrote, three years before the dictatorship fell, "Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart." We need the courage to persist between now and the November election-and beyond. Too many people hold back from volunteering or even voting, because they feel politics is out of their control. We need to remind ourselves-and others-that history isn't some inevitable pendulum. It's contingent on the hope that enables us to act. Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, just published by Basic Books, and four other books on citizen involvement.