| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
20 Sep 2004 11:06:02 PM |
| Object: |
What Is Bush Hiding? |
From The Washington Post, 9/21/04:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37081-2004Sep20.html
What Is Bush Hiding?
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004; Page A21
It is to be welcomed that President Bush wants to clear up questions
about his National Guard service.
He wants more details out there, and good for him.
This story should be laid to rest, and the one person who can do it is
named George W. Bush.
Up to now, Bush has been interested in a rather narrow aspect of the
story.
He wanted Dan Rather and CBS News to come clean about whether they
used fake documents in reporting on the president's Guard service back
in the 1970s.
"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered," Bush told
the Union Leader in Manchester, N.H., last week.
"I think what needs to happen is people need to take a look at the
documents, how they were created, and let the truth come out."
I couldn't agree more.
And apparently CBS came to the same view.
CBS messed up, and yesterday, Rather fessed up.
He said the network could no longer stand behind the documents.
There will be much hand-wringing about the media in the coming days,
and properly so.
But what's good for Dan Rather, who is not running for president,
ought to be good for George Bush, who is.
"There are a lot of questions and they need to be answered."
Surely that presidential sentiment applies as much to Bush's Guard
service as to Rather's journalistic methods.
The New York Times put the relevant questions on the table yesterday
in a lengthy review of Bush's life in 1972, "the year George W. Bush
dropped off the radar screen," as the Times called it.
The issues about Bush's National Guard service, the Times wrote,
include "why he failed to take his pilot's physical and whether he
fulfilled his commitment to the guard."
Oh, I can hear the groaning:
"But why are we still talking about Vietnam?"
A fair question that has several compelling answers.
First, except for John McCain, Republicans were conspicuously happy to
have a front group spread untruths about John Kerry's Vietnam service
in August and watch as the misleading claims were amplified by the
supposedly liberal media.
The Vietnam era was relevant as long as it could be used to raise
character questions about Kerry.
But as soon as the questioning turned to Bush's character, we were
supposed to call the whole thing off.
Why?
Because the media were supposed to question Kerry's character but not
Bush's.
And, please, none of this nonsense about how Kerry "opened the door"
to the assault on his Vietnam years by highlighting his service at the
Democratic National Convention.
Nothing any candidate does should ever be seen as "opening the door"
to lies about his past.
Besides, Vietnam veterans with Republican ties were going after
Kerry's war record long before the Democratic convention.
But, most important, there is only one reason the story about Bush's
choices during the Vietnam years persists.
It's because the president won't give detailed answers to the direct
questions posed by the Times story and other responsible media
organizations, including the Boston Globe.
Their questions never depended on the discredited CBS documents.
Bush could end this story now so we could get to the real issues of
2004.
It would require only that the president take an hour or so with
reporters to make clear what he did and did not do in the Guard.
He may have had good reasons for ducking that physical exam.
Surely he can explain the gaps in his service and tell us honestly
whether any pull was used to get him into the Guard.
But a guy who is supposed to be so frank and direct turns remarkably
Clintonian where the National Guard issue is concerned.
"I met my requirements and was honorably discharged" is Bush's stock
answer, which does old Bill proud.
And am I the only person exasperated by a double standard that treated
everything Bill Clinton ever did in his life ("I didn't inhale") as
fair game but now insists that we shouldn't sully ourselves with any
inconvenient questions about Bush's past?
I'm as weary as you are that our politics veer away from what matters
-- Iraq, terrorism, health care, jobs -- and get sidetracked into
personal issues manufactured by political consultants and ideological
zealots.
But the Bush campaign has made clear it wants this election to focus
on character and leadership.
If character is the issue, the president's life, past and present,
matters just as much as John Kerry's.
Dan Rather has answered his critics.
Now it is Bush's turn.
_____________________________________________________
The question is: What did Dubya do during the Vietnam War. The
*whole* story would be nice to have. We're waiting, Dubya.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "Sir Cumference" |
|
| Title: Re: What Is Bush Hiding? |
21 Sep 2004 12:43:15 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Washington Post, 9/21/04:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37081-2004Sep20.html
What Is Bush Hiding?
What is Kerry hiding? He won't sign the form to release *all* of his
military records...Bush did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "False Document" |
|
| Title: Re: What Is Bush Hiding? |
21 Sep 2004 01:03:39 PM |
|
|
Sir Cumference <radiodaze@this.not> wrote in news:dfydnTr9icrx9M3cRVn-
vA@gbronline.com:
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Washington Post, 9/21/04:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37081-2004Sep20.html
What Is Bush Hiding?
What is Kerry hiding? He won't sign the form to release *all* of his
military records...Bush did.
Bush didn't.
--
Bush/Cheney '04
Vote For Us or Die!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Riddick" |
|
| Title: Re: What Is Bush Hiding? |
21 Sep 2004 10:24:54 PM |
|
|
False Document <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns956B8F0907313biodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4>...
Sir Cumference <radiodaze@this.not> wrote in news:dfydnTr9icrx9M3cRVn-
vA@gbronline.com:
Harry Hope wrote:
From The Washington Post, 9/21/04:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37081-2004Sep20.html
What Is Bush Hiding?
What is Kerry hiding? He won't sign the form to release *all* of his
military records...Bush did.
Bush didn't.
Not necessarily National Guard:
Google: Bush Cheney scandals - http://tinyurl.com/6sqpn
Google: Bush Harken - http://tinyurl.com/4rb3v
Google: Bush Enron - http://tinyurl.com/6qwjp
Google: Bush Plame - http://tinyurl.com/5g797
Google: Bush Carlyle - http://tinyurl.com/5q88t
Google: Bush Funeralgate - http://tinyurl.com/4867j
Google: Bush AWOL deserter - http://tinyurl.com/4brjf
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SwiftBoatVet." |
|
| Title: FOX NEWS: MCCAIN WHACKS BUSH AS COMMANDER |
21 Sep 2004 08:11:40 AM |
|
|
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1833
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, [John] McCain whacked Bush on Iraq. He
accused Bush of making "serious mistakes after the initial successes
by not having enough troops there on the ground, by allowing the
looting, by not securing the borders. There was a number of things
that we did. Most of it can be traced back to not having sufficient
numbers of troops there." When he said "we," McCain actually meant
Bush, ***** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza
Rice. He noted that the Bush administration has allowed insurgents to
establish sanctuaries--such as in Falluja--where anti-American rebels
or terrorists can be trained and harbored. McCain, saying he still
supports the US mission in Iraq, was making a serious charge: that
Bush and his gang have screwed things up tremendously.
Anchor Chris Wallace then asked what seemed to be a Bush-friendly
question: "Some have suggested that what we're seeing, to use a
Vietnam analogy, is kind of a rolling Tet offensive to try to break
the will of the American and Iraqi people and to play a role in
defeating President Bush. Do you think that's what's going on?"
While other GOPers have tried to make such a point to shore up support
for Bush among potential voters, McCain would not. "I don't think
they're interested so much," he replied, "in defeating President
Bush."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, they like having a coward and a fuckup in charge of opposing U.S.
forces.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
