It's never the mistake or the cover-up
It's the mission to create a story out of nothing.
Moorewatch pointed to a new story on National Review detailing the presidents service and making logical, reasonable arguments on why the president served with honor in Alabama and Texas.
Notice how the "AWOL" story isn't the lead, or is even mentioned on the front pages of most news sites (and yes, Dean quitting is big news). The only thing mentioned on CNN, MSNBC, and FOX websites regarding Bush are his "troubling" remarks regarding gay marriage.
Comments
You believe what you want to. I've learned that about you. You wanted to believe this idiot when he told you Iraq was a grave threat to your security. So you did. But I'll talk the brick wall you call a brain anyway. :P
Why was he grounded? He says he decided he wasn't going to fly anymore. Well guess what? A pilot doesn't make that decision, the Guard makes it for him. Any time a pilot is grounded, there is an investigation, and there are papers the pilot must sign to avoid getting in trouble. Where is the documentation concerning the investigation that HAS to have happened?
Turnipseed can try to recant all he wants, but he said what he said. It's unfortunate that it speaks poorly of a guy he supports. But he said it.
There still isn't a single credible story from anyone that served with him in AL.
The one thing he had going for him, the aura of honor and accountability, has been sufficiently damaged. Unless the Dems really make some aggregious error, they should win this election. Frankly, I don't think it will be that close.
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | February 18, 2004 8:15 PM
You know Dan, if you would have opened up comments on your site, I would have just responded there. Also last time I checked, defaming your opponent in debate is usually frowned upon. Attack the message, not the messenger. :-)
Reporters usually record their interviewees on tape, or whatever is conveinient these days. They not only ae conveinent, but also cover the collective asses of the reporter when the interviewee says "I didn't say that!". Saying that, all the original interviewer has to do is provde the tape where he said "If he was there, I never saw him".
You are placing 100% belief in an interiew from several years ago. What you are assuming is that you are getting the entire story and that the storyteller and the reporter are being 100% factual, whether through error or intentional ommission.
Now lets get to your points. Training a pilot is expensive. Very expensive. It is also an extensive process which usually involves months/years of schooling, fuel, the occasional screwed up landing, etc. Talk to anyone who has learned to fly a jet engine and I'm sure their training took more than two weeks, and i's more like one to two years for today's jets. The biggest question about Bush's fifth and sixth year are that he served the minimum amount of hours. Let's take this into account. His plane, the F-102, was orginally designed in the 1950's and was being slowly moved to the scrap heap. Now here's where logic kicks in. Do you recertify a pilot on a new plane when he only has two years left on his enlistment? Seeing as how that person will spend the next year in training and only a year of flight time in the plane; it doesn't make sense to go through the training only to have the money walk out the door in a year. Don't believe it? Ask any out-of-work commericial pilot who is nearing 55. Trust me, after a year of recertification, they won't get their investment back.
Dan, I acually like you and your blog. We might disagree on well, almost everything; but I've never thought of you as being a complete idiot. And even though you are hanging on to this fantasy that secret black helicoters skirted GWB away every time he walked on base back in 1972, that's your choice. I just would like to know where in any of this GWBs argument is illogical.
Posted by: Brian | February 18, 2004 9:11 PM
Sorry about the comments. Just trying to mitigate the spam. I'm lazy, so it's taken a while for me to really do something about it. :)
I wasnt' attacking you. I was merely stating what I've learned. :)
No, there is not much about Bush's story that defies logic. Well, the story about Bush anyway, because he hasn't really said much about it. What there is, is a few inconsistancies, and some things that should be there, but aren't. For instance, an investigation would have taken place when he missed his physical and was grounded. That's SOP. But no documentation exists in his record.
No explanation has been given by him for moving to AL WEEKS before he applied for a transfer. And then not doing anything when his request was denied. The only person that claims to have seen him, says he saw him at times W wasn't assigned to Dannelly, and are thus not credible. There are several people, not including Turnipseed, that say they were LOOKING for him, knowing he had a reputation as a member of a prominant family, and never saw him. Other pilots, not some random CO.
So all we have is a sheet that shows he was paid. But doesn't tell where he was. Calpundit has all the documents, you can read them yourself.
Additionally, there is no explanation for why an individual who at no other time in his life showed any grain of conern for something other than drinking and whoring, worked at an inner-city program (whose Board his father sat on) for a few months following the time period in question.
Now, all I, or anyone, has are questions. Where are these other documents? Why was he doing charity work? Was it community service stemming from an arrest? Why are the records so sparse after May 1972? Were they been tampered with when he was Governor?
The only reason we tend to think he's hiding something, is that he refused to release his records, and when he did release most of them, they were practically void of anything from May 72 to March 73. Now, every single person that has run for President and served in the military dating back at least until the 70's has released all their records upon running. Bush stands alone as refusing to do that. Why?
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | February 19, 2004 1:11 PM