Joe LeFevers is obviously a fake, plastic member of the 187th.

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

Personally, I think you should stop labeling other Americans who disagree with you, and may vote for the Democratic nominee, "Bush-haters". It's by and large not true, and unworthy of anybody who considers himself a patriot, in my opinion.

Regards,

Malloy

Malloy:

Judging by the unwillingness of the folks who are questioning Bush's service to accept ANY explanations for his service - it would seem to me that hatred, not skepticism, is what's ruling them. They may not see it as hatred - YOU may not see it as hatred, but then the KKK doesn't see their particular viewpoint as being unreasonable, either.

When it comes to military regulations - what is, is. It's not open to interpretation based on what political philosophy you adhere to, what religion you are, what skin color you are.

Did Bush serve? Yes, because there's records of points showing he served.

Did Bush attend where he should have attended? Again, yes - because he wouldn't have gotten the points recorded if he hadn't been with the unit that was supposed to record them.

Did he miss some time and make it up? Yes, judging by my interpretation of the points score, he did.

Was that miss authorized? Yes, because he made it up later. If he hadn't made it up, it would be because it was unauthorized (or unexcused in the first place) and conversions of absences from unexcused to excused are NOT allowed to make up pay and points.

How much clearer does it have to be?

J.

I think this is a ridiculous "debate", personally, as I have said elsewhere.

What might, maybe, be worth talking about with respect to Mr. Bush are the breaks he has been given throughout his life by virtue of being born a Bush. There is no doubt about that. Does that make him less able to connect with most Americans? Maybe.

On the other hand, he doesn't need to connect with most Americans, or for that matter even a plurality. As the last election shows, he just needs an arguable majority of the Electoral College and a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia, with your Fourteenth Amendment rabbit out of the hat federal question (states' rights be damned), reselect the President.

Who, by the way, I don't hate. He seems like a good guy. He's just wrong about almost everything.

What might, maybe, be worth talking about with respect to Mr. Bush are the breaks he has been given throughout his life by virtue of being born a Bush. There is no doubt about that. Does that make him less able to connect with most Americans? Maybe.

Yes, John F. "Do You Know Who I Am?" Kerry is SUCH the common man, Malloy.

"Next up on the schedule - 'Silver Spoonism and why GWB can't connect with America' follwed by 'Selected, not Elected'"

Sigh.

God, it's gonna be a looooooong time until elections.

J.

Yeah. Notice that Malloy even brings up things that are specifically refuted in this story and the next, without bothing to treat them at all. (eg, Bush's "special influence" in getting a flying slot that they were having trouble filling because it meant two years of dangerous active duty.)

I guess we've got to keep refuting these dolts, but it sure is frustrating some times.

Malloy,

You really have me confused here. You claim not to hate GWB, but you justify your feelings about him with just about every distortion, exaggeration, and outright lie that has shown up about him for the past 3+ years. If you have to make stuff up about a person to make them sound like the epitome of all evil, I don't know what else one can call it but "hatred".

Well, what can we say? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. For myself, I must be guilty, just as the Prez is. Why?

I sat and thought back to the same time period under review for the
president and tried to imagine how I might be able to deal with the same
types of questions. I have exactly the same problem as he does. I was in
college then at a large Midwestern university.

I have no proof whatever where I was in 1972 when I was a student at the
University of Minnesota. I have lots of proof that I was playing the piano
for a singing group and traveling around the country. My wife remembers
when we first met, that year. I have class transcripts indicating that I
got credit for classes, but I could not find a soul to say that I ever
attended a class, no bluebooks to prove that I took any tests, no receipts
for buying textbooks, no copies of my homework in some professor's file
drawer.

I didn't hang around the student union or join organizations because I had
a job to work my way through school (my dad wasn't rich like Kerry's or
Dean's- I think only Democrats get a free ride through school) and played
for the aforementioned musical aggregation, so casual free time was
limited. Other than the U transcripts that say I passed the courses and
graduated (even though my class attendance was probably spotty, and I
dropped the odd course here and there) I can't prove now that I actually
showed up. I told my mom that I was going to school, but, heck, she can't
be trusted because she likes me. All I have is the secondary evidence of
the outcome, kind of similar to having a DD214 and a few pay records that
wouldn't have been generated unless the work being paid for actually
occurred.

Go back to my transcript. Identify the classes I took, when they met, who
the professors were, where there were held, who the TAs were who ran the
small discussion sessions or labs. Then look for other students who were
in the same classes at the same time, and find one, just ONE, who would
ever be able to say I showed up. I did, though- but the only evidence I
have is my diploma, because after the grades go in, they toss the working
papers- because there is no room for, nor any reason to, save them.

By Kevin Drum's and Peter Beinart's standards, though, I never showed up
for school. OK. Here's my first degree back. I surrender. I know that I
was in class the day the purse was snatched from the little old lady, but I
can't prove it. Lock me up.

Sorry, Dave, but I need you to point out exactly what constitutes a "distortion, exaggeration [or] outright lie" in anything I've posted.

I didn't think I made up the deficit, but maybe that's it.

Are the lost jobs figments of my imagination?

Maybe it was the exaggeration of claiming that the budget is the most pork-filled abomination in the history of the Republic. (Actually, I didn't previously say that, but wish that I had.)

Perhaps it was the lie I committed when I said that Americans have become despised in most of the world.

Maybe it was that I was kidding or exaggerating when I said that I don't give a rat's ass what George Bush or anybody else did thirty-odd years ago.

I guess too that I may have been lying or exaggerating by suggesting the Mr. Bush has been given a lot of breaks by virtue of being born into his family? Was that it?

Or maybe it was a perfidious, outright falsehood when I unjustly maligned Halliburton by saying it got no-bid contracts from the government in Iraq and then overcharged us. One more damned liberal (or what do you like to call us -- loony leftists?) lie.

I'm need your help here to mend my ways. Which ones are the distortions, lies and exaggerations?

Personally, I think we all deserve better from one another.

The press is still trying to feed it. Look at the AP headline at:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=13&u=/ap/20040212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_48

It reads:

"Military Dentist Doesn't Recall Bush"

Someone just browsing the headlines would get the idea that Bush's dental records don't prove anything. He wasn't there.

Yet in the details of the article we find:

Dr. John Andrew Harris of Montgomery, Ala., who performed Bush's dental exam on Jan. 6, 1973, said Thursday his signature appears on the record released by the White House.
Harris, now chief of dental services for the VA Medical Center in Montgomery, said he doesn't remember Bush, who would have been one of as many as 60 unit members seen over two days.
"He was just another pilot," he said. "They had to be seen on an annual basis."

There is a lot of disgust at the idea of push polling. Most people consider it political dirty tricks. We need a term for "push headlines" that is treated with the same derision and seen as the same level of dirty politics. This level of journalism has crossed the border to unethical. In fact the entire Bush is AWOL has now crossed that border.

For a guy who only has policy disputes, etc with Bush Malloy certainly seems to spend a lot of time on a blog where he unlikely to convince anyone. No emotional involvement there whatsoever, right?

Actually, read Bill's posts. The "lost jobs" may well be a figment of your imagination. Whether or not America is the most despised nation in the world is a matter of judgment. I, for one, don't find it to be true. (Don't bother to tout lousy polls done by biased pollsters in third world nations. I teach polling and know the difference between good ones and bad ones.)

Halliburton has been given no-bid contracts under provisions passed by a President I would bet you had a better emotional attachment to. And, the overcharge was by a subcontractor, driven at least partially by US Army demands.

There are lies, damnable lies, statistics, and half-truths. There are also opinions grounded in wishfulness rather than even disputed data. Ride that hobbyhorse as long as you want. I can't convince you. You can't convince me. I, for one, don't care.

If the heart of this issue is that certain people are angry that Bush received alleged special treatment for being a Bush (prove it, btw), then these same people simply cannot support John Forbes Kerry without engaging in astounding hypocrisy. Kerry is the ultimate son of privelege.

Malloy:

You said: "Are the lost jobs figments of my imagination?"

They certainly are not, though linking the loss in jobs specifically with Bush is a distortion. The economic down-turn began before the 2000 elections--this is attested to by the number of news stories in mid 2000 speculating on whether the declining indicators would hurt Gore or not.

You said: "Maybe it was the exaggeration of claiming that the budget is the most pork-filled abomination in the history of the Republic. (Actually, I didn't previously say that, but wish that I had.)"

I would call this an oversimplification, at least. Firstly, how do we define "pork"? Does the prescription drug entitlement--not yet in effect--count as pork? What about Homeland Security spending?

Secondly, do we blame Bush for spending due to budget recommendations under the previous administration? Much of that spending was mandated in years past, but is only coming out of the coffers now. (The WSJ chats about this today).

Thirdly, shouldn't Congress share some of this blame, if blame is to be heaped? The President recommends, but the Congress controls the purse.

Lastly, are we using as our overall basis for comparison sheer dollars, the budget as percent of GDP, or Federal spending as a percent of GDP?

You said: "Perhaps it was the lie I committed when I said that Americans have become despised in most of the world."

If by "have become" you mean "have become due to the Bush administration," I would kindly remind you of the WTC bombing in 1993 and the African embassy bombings a few years later. Both pre-Bush II.

As for being "generally despised," I'm not sure if an increase in media coverage of anti-American sentiment constitutes an actual increase. Consider: how many nations around the world have broken off trade over how much they despise America? How many have officially boycotted our products? I think generally our trade situation is much the same now as it was under Clinton, overall.

If your usage implies "have become under the Bush administration", then I'd say this is a distortion.

You said: "Maybe it was that I was kidding or exaggerating when I said that I don't give a rat's ass what George Bush or anybody else did thirty-odd years ago."

Your own words immediately following the above statement imply you were perhaps kidding or exaggerating: "I guess too that I may have been lying or exaggerating by suggesting the Mr. Bush has been given a lot of breaks by virtue of being born into his family? Was that it?"

So in your "rat's ass comment", you're either lying or specifically mean you care about events starting no earlier than 29 years ago.

You said: "Or maybe it was a perfidious, outright falsehood when I unjustly maligned Halliburton by saying it got no-bid contracts from the government in Iraq and then overcharged us. One more damned liberal (or what do you like to call us -- loony leftists?) lie."

This is a small lie compounded by a larger distortion. Even Clinton era bureacrats concede the no-bid Halliburton contract wasn't particularly sketchy, as Haliburton is the much larger of only two companies that have regularly received military logistical contracts in the last few years.

The small lie is that Haliburton over-charged the Federal government. They didn't, a sub-contractor over-charged them, and they incorporated that into their costs. The "overcharging scandal" left the pages of newspapers quickly, as I recall, because the sub-contractor insisted THEY had been over charged by a Kuwaiti company they were doing business with.

In conclusion, Malloy, I don't think you're an inveterate liar. I do, however, see that you indulge in all the bad behaviors so typical in "opinion-crafting" nowadays (and perhaps since the dawn of time--maybe it's only lately weblogs and their comments have made it so obvious). You tend ignore pertinent evidence and present false dichotomies for the sake of rhetoric.

In short, you present the symptoms of someone trying to justify a hypothesis with some facts (but not others) rather than trying to craft a hypothesis to explain all facts as fairly as possible. This is usually, but not always, due to someone holding an axiomatic, problematic belief--an erroneous assumption. In this case, I think that problematic axiom you're seeking to defend is "Bush is a bad President."

There is nothing wrong with "Bush is a bad President" as a hypothesis to explain all facts as fairly as possible. The problem is how this assumption is used, a priori, to reshape facts that are then used in order to prove the hypothesis "Bush is a bad President."

I believe assuming part of your hypothesis in order to confirm your hypothesis is called "begging the question."

So, to help you mend your ways, I offer this advice: "Please stop begging the question."

--VRWA

I'm glad that after almost 4 years of this story laboring on, someone has finally come forward that says they remember Bush being on site in Alabama. I guess this guy must just have been too busy to read a newspaper prior to this week, huh?

I would rather stick to the subject of debating the National Guard bit, but your post Malloy, really needed some facts straight. Most importantly Halliburton. I must ask you how you figure Halliburton, bidding with several other companies on the LOGCAP, makes that a "no-bid contract." Clinton gave Halliburton a no-bid contract to do work in the Balkins when Halliburton DID NOT own the LOGCAP. That is a no-bid contract. Most democrats that argue against Halliburton are not even aware of what the LOGCAP is, obviously, this is your case as well. Take Care.

Rereading this response to VRWA (the Vast Right Wing Articulacy), I realize that it may seem a little disjointed. It is intended to be responsive. It may require reference to that prior post to seem cohesive.

I would have thought that $100 million to build an indoor rain forest in Senator Grassley's (R-Iowa) (Chair of the Budget Committee) state qualified as pork. Perhaps I am mistaken. Or maybe we should ask Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the senior senator from the most heavily subsidized state in the country, per capita. It is not close, although as usual, Texas gives it a run for its money. So to speak.

There is a real issue with Halliburton concerning the extent to which we really want to privatize national security. You observe correctly that it was done under Clinton. I question whether it is the right thing to do under any President. Particularly when your Vice President is still on the payroll. By the way, what, exactly made Vice President Cheney the right man for the Halliburton job? I, unlike many of you, dear readers, remember Dwight Eisenhower's last address, warning of the dangers posed to our Republic by the military-industrial complex. Folks, we are there.

I don't need to be reminded of the WTC bombing in '93 or '01. I was there (actually, almost outside on the second one because we started evacuating immediately when the North Tower got hit) both times. In '93, it felt like we took an Exocet. I was on a conference call. And I still say that our President has squandered the goodwill most foreigners felt toward the United States in the immediate aftermath of that attack.

Mr. Bush's breaks, like his father's and his brothers', are a matter of record. I was actually involved in a deal with Jeb, in his former life as a real estate developer, seeking an FHA guarantee. There is really no doubt about this aspect of the Bush approach to life. I've seen it. Don't forget good old Neal and Silverado, for that matter. Is there a pattern here?

I plead guilty to viewing President Bush as a bad President. Probably the worst since Jimmy Carter. But it is not a priori. It's based on the record.

Thank you for your thoughtful response, however. I could have done without "inveterate liar", but I guess that's the price of doing business.

I don't see the point of singing to the chorus. I'm not here to persuade anybody of anything. You want to reinforce your own views with other like-minded people, go right ahead. I think I learn more from people of opposing views than those with whom I agree.

I will repeat, I don't hate President Bush. I just disagree with him. I thought that was what America was all about. Maybe not in the conservative blogosphere, though.

I would like to correct myself.

Senator Grassley is Chairman of the Finance Committee.

Senator Stevens is Chairman of the Budget Committee.

I regret the error.

And the fact.

bk

Either that or the media was too busy screaming Bush AWOL to hear otherwise.

Ryan- a little clarification to your correct assumption but unclear exposition:

"'I must ask you how you figure Halliburton, bidding with several other companies on the LOGCAP, makes that a "no-bid contract.'"

It is frustrating to see all the media blithely use such terms without having a clue at all about any aspect of the military rocurement process. The LOGCAP is a top-level, requirements-based basic ordering agreement, unfunded at the time of award, that is source-selected on a competitive basis, using evaluation factors such as labor and overhead rates, technical qualifications, and management plans. Essentially, this is an agreement on basic terms and conditions, and the government promises a minimum level of funding as requirements come up, in exchange for the LOGCAP contractor's promise to have people available to do work for set pre-negotiated unit costs as needed. Essentially, it is a time and materials contract for tasks whose scopes will be determined later as needed.

Each requirement comes through, and DoD decides what to do with it- enough time to compete THIS piece? Special qualifications needed? and so on. What they will often do is what they did in this case- bundle the time-and-mission-urgent needs into one package and apply it to a basic ordering agreement without seeking multiple bids (hence the misleading term "no bid", which does not mean no bid), then take the requirements for six months from now and on out, for which there is time to go through the exhaustive "start from scratch" competitive process and put them out on the street.

Now, as to why the term "no bid" is wrong. Virtually no money is obligated on a "no bid" basis. Almostalways, even a LOGCAP or other BOA contractor will provide some kind of estimate that can be used as a basis, a ceiling price for the order. Then, the finds are obligated, and the contractor has a set time in which to get a detailed proposal together to definitize the contract. That is likely what was being reviewed when all the lying flack was tossed all over about "overcharges". This was essentially a time and materials order, the oil and gas element was a subcontractor bill ("materials", for the Kevin-Drum-IQ-intellectually-or-integrity-challenged out there).

The DoD auditors decide what is reasonable for KBR to be paid. If they did not adequately evaluate subcontractor selection proposals, they take it out of their own hide and try to recover from the subcontractor. But the DoD always has the last word, and can even unilaterally decide what the "fair and reasonable" price should be.

Read my lips- it is almost impossible for the Clinton-DoD-selected-and-awarded Halliburton subsidiary to screw the government. Get over it.

"I guess this guy must just have been too busy to read a newspaper prior to this week, huh?"

If you read the story, he tried several times to get the story out and ran into problems. So much for "they could just come forward and tell their story, it should be easy." Also the idea that the Natl. Guard story was nearly as big as it is now in 2000 is pure poppycock. I followed the campaign closely. and never heard a thing about it then.

Kevin Drum "rabid"? Obviously, you haven't been reading enough of what he's written, because he is careful to withhold conclusions on this. Your calling Calpundit rabid makes you come off as rabid, sir.

I'm less excited about the National Guard story than I am facinated by the idea that it is being used now. Why NOW? Why at the beginning of the campaign? Bush is going to have a long time to recover from whatever incremental damage this story causes simply by virtue of the fact that old news talked about becomes older, not better. We're about two days away from the Bushies going "Been there. Heard that. Answered that. Time to move on and do the business of the American People." In the fall, Kerry is going to need items to bung off independants from the president, and this story, mooted about in the last two weeks, could have been fatal. But not now. So why? I think I have to agree with an assortment of other folk out there in Blogsville....the Denocrats knew the Kerry story was coming, and decided to even the odds, as it were. My initial reaction, indeed, was that the Clintons were behind it, looking to get a "draft Hillary" movement going now that the president's poll numbers have slumped. But, while I fully expect that they will take full advantage, I doubt it was either Bill or Hill.
Personally, I blame Noam Chomsky. Why? Because I blame him for everything anyway and see no need to broaden my view.

VRWA,

You're friggin hilarious. Doing a study on types like you...would love to have you in it. Would you mind? We are trying to find out why people with obvious capabilities to construct sentences are so FUCKING stupid!

-mpr

Was anyone able to link to the Times Dispatch story? I only saw a headline there. While I am appalled at the AWOL story's bogus legs, I kinda doubt Bush put in for Vietnam, would think it would have come out by now, or even yesterday when the records were released

David Pittelli

The assertion that George Bush volunteered for Vietnam service is an assertion by George Bush. I have never seen or heard any independent collaboration. There was a program called Palace Alert which sent volunteer F102 guard pilots to Europe the Far East and occasionaly to Vietnam (one pilot a Lt Col from Bush's Unit in Texas actually flew missions in Vietnam in the late 60's). However this program was discontinued in the same month that Bush got out of flight school in 1970. The program was designed to get experienced pilots (the Lt Col from Bush's unit for example had over a 1000 hours in the F102). While George Bush got the necessary hours to graduate from flight school (300) he was certainly in no danger of being picked for this program even if he did in fact "volunteer".

Malloy:
I've spent the last 34 years going back and forth to foriegn countries, even lived in five of them. I experienced anti-americanism since day one. The vast majority of these attitudes are not for what we do, but for what we are.
The people who hated us on 9-10-01 still hate us, and the people who did not hate us on 9-10-01 still don't hate us. NO CHANGE! there was no "period of goodwill" to be "sqandered".

Hmmmmm lets see Bill if I can follow your logic here (hobbs post where this thread began) you say that we should believe the guy who says he saw Bush but discount the two guys who say they didn't (even though they were looking for him) because their story was published in a liberal newspaper.
I'm sure that logic makes sense to someone.
The real issue here is one of the credibility of the President not people who say they saw him or didn't see him. You can spin this thing anyway you like but it comes down to this:

George Bush signed on with the Texas Air National Guard for a 6 year hitch. When he was asked whether his fathers influence got him a spot in the TANG he suggested that the reason he got in was because he was willing to assume the lengthy COMMITMENT necessary to become a pilot. In order to keep that COMMITMENT it was necessary for him to show up on a reasonably regular basis to maintain his flying skills and to maintain his flying status by taking his physical once a year. As a junior officer it was NOT George Bush's perogative to decide when he no longer wanted to fly and /or whether he was going to bother to show up for his physical. The current story seems to be that he didn't take his physical because he wasn't going to fly anymore in Alabama. If there ever was an example of tail wags dog its this explanation. He didn't have any right to make that decision. He was the property of the Texas Air National Guard and by default the U.S. Airforce until May 1974. Despite all the crap to the contrary his unit in Texas DID NOT stop flying the F102 until 1974 after his original COMMITMENT was over. His CO in Texas has been quoted as saying that if George had returned to the unit he would have been expected to do what he COMMITED to do and fly the F102. Bottom Line is that GW made a COMMITMENT ducked out of the COMMITMENT and is now trying to manipulate the truth in order to avoid responsibility. The critics of Bill Clinton (myself included) have long held that his greatest sins were not so much what he did or did not do but the fact he found it so easy to lie about it. My problem with GWB is that he also seems to want to fudge on the truth rather than just admit that he had other priorities (wow sounds like Dick Cheney). Hey I would forgive him if he would just give folks some straight answers. After all I would rather go to the Harvard Business School too. Just like Clinton decided he would rather go to Oxford on a Rhodes scholarship than be a 2nd Lt. But please lets try to exhibit just a little objectivity here and not lose track of what the issue is. ITS COMMITMENT and OBLIGATION --nothing more nothing less!

Clearly Mr. McDaniel is accusing every person who took an early out for Higher Education to be a slackard. Tens of Thousands of people took advantage of that option...an option the AF was pushing because of the downsizing of the active force. An option that, afaik, remained in place through the 80's.

Moreover, the job that Bush had at the AAFNG would _not_ have put him on flight status, nor even in the same unit as the two pilots quoted. Hell, I can't remember most of the names of the guys I served with twenty years ago.

Mr. McDaniel clearly has no concept of how reverve drill is performed.The pay records indicate that Bush served thirty UTAs in the first quater of 1972 in the TXAFNG. That is enough, in fact, to make a valid year. Bush's pay records pick up in October, 1972, with two days drilled and November when he drilled for four days. Despite the fact that Bush had enough days in.

Since he already had enough days for the year, he really didn't _have_ to persue assignment to another unit. In point of fact, units like the 111th carried 150% strength precisely for that reason.

Soldier in the Guard and Reserve have always had the option to go where the civilian work is. That is why the system is flexible for the members. In the Active Duty force you can't simply pack up your bag and move to anotehr unit. In the Reserve and Guard force it is done all the time.

He ws not, in fact, "property of the Texas Air National Guard". He was "property" of the NGB; and they allow soldiers to move for civilian reasons. So your statement that he had to stay and meet his "commitmant" is utter, ignorant, nonsense. You are, quite clearly, clueless on the regulations for there is no regulation that mandates a reserve service member to stay in the State. There is a regulation that a service member perform a certain number of drills per obligated year.

Facts are such tiresome things, aren't they Mr. McDaniel?

QM

Jody

They have eyes but they do not see!
Silly arguments have no limits do they? The point of the first paragraph of my previous post seems to have eluded you. I am not going to argue about whether GW should have been one place or another in Alabama and whether people who say they saw him or didn't see him should have been one place or another. I was only trying to point out to Bill (admitedly in a somewhat sarcastic way) that it made no sense to automatically dismiss what two people said just because of the supposed politics of the newspaper that they were quoted in and then automatically accept what somewhat else has to say because it happens to agree with what you believe. Nothing real complicated about that point is there? I don't have time to give the rest of your post the time that it deserves so I will just post this response for now and get back to it later in the day.

"Clearly Mr. McDaniel is accusing every person who took an early out for Higher Education to be a slackard. Tens of Thousands of people took advantage of that option... "

Good Grief Jody where did I accuse anyone of being a slackard... once again you seem to have read what you wanted rather than what I wrote. I SAID yes if I had been George Bush I would rather have gone to the Harvard MBA program than stay in the Air National guard. And if I had been Bill Clinton I would have rather gone to Oxford than be a 2nd Lt. What part of that is too complicated to understand clearly?

Ok, I am sick of the liberal left bringing up GW's service... Where were you with Clinton? Did you vote for him?

Liberals, leave this story alone, you don't have any legs to stand on..