Well, I managed to stay awake during the Democratic Debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire. There weren’t any surprises, just the same old platitudes and the same old tired rhetoric.
Howard Dean had to stop the bleeding in his campaign, and while he may have reduced it from a flood to something considerable less, there was nothing in his debate performance that is going to result in his poll numbers still thinking. His patently idiotic statement that he leads from his heart and not from his head is enough to kill him – that’s exactly why he got into trouble in Iowa and that’s why he’ll continue to slide into irrelevancy.
John Kerry had to look Presidential, which he did, but he still is yet another Massachusetts liberal who is going to be no more successful than the last ACLU-card-carrying liberal from Massachusetts to run from office. He did exactly what he needed to do in order to keep his lead, but he didn’t wow anyone either.
Sharpton clearly doesn’t belong in there, he’s not a serious candidate, and never was. He’s enjoying living large on campaign funds and getting his name on TV, but that’s all.
Edwards and Clark were both adaquate, but that’s all. Edwards got hit with a difficult question on Islam and looked flustered – that’s not good for someone who is to be President in the midst of a war against Islamic fundamentalism. Clark is trying to defend his sudden change of heart on the war, and his defense rang hollow. His unwillingness to repudiate Michael Moore’s idiotic statements about Bush also reflect badly on him.
The winner of this debate as far as I’m concerned? Joe Lieberman. He defended his position on the war with aplomb and conviction. He is the only person on that stage that I’d even consider allowing in the White House. Lieberman is right, if he got the nomination, he is the only Democrat I could see having a chance at unseating Bush. Of course, Lieberman stands almost no chance of getting the nomination, but that speaks more about the radicalism of the Democrats than the strength of his campaign.
His unwillingness to repudiate Michael Moore’s idiotic statements about Bush also reflect badly on him.
Idiotic?
If you can provide evidence that Bush was serving his duty between May 1 1972 to April 30 1973, you’d be the first.
Peter Jennings called it a “reckless charge not supported by the facts”. What the facts really say is that there’s no evidence Bush was doing his duty during that year, and significant evidence that he wasn’t. I’d say skipping out of a year’s worth of required service is a dereliction of duty. But that’s just me.
Actually, there’s absolutely no mystery about Bush’s service record. As the National Guard’s own magazine put it:
If that weren’t enough, The New York Times also investigated the charges and determined that there was no substance to them. The Boston Globe also stated that:
If you don’t believe that, the Annenburg Center says the claim is false as well.
There’s no substance to the claims that Bush was AWOL, and Clark should have known better to lend such bullshit credence.
Can you point out to me where either of your citations explain what he was doing between the dates I mentioned? Because I didn’t see it.
The Annenburg Center link says:
The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave.
which of course is not an argument that he didn’t go AWOL, just that he wasn’t charged with it. Even the Annenburg Center concludes (from the Washington Post):
It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.
Even if that’s the least that can be said, it’s clear that Bush’s connections got him out of doing his fair share. Your arguments constitute little more than a defense of “but he put in the minimum effort!”
I’m not impressed. By the same reasoning you conclude that Bush isn’t a deserter you can conclude that O.J. Simpson isn’t a murderer.
From the NY Times:
As for your comment:
Well, you were never charged with selling pornography involving underage yaks, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have an extensive yak porn collection.
It’s a case of affirming the consequent. It is not true that if A then B, B therefore A. It is not logically valid to argue that if Bush missed time in the ANG he was a deserter, and he missed time, therefore is is a deserter. In fact, it is already known that he was in Alabama, that he could not have engaged in flight duties because the Alabama ANG did not have F-102 fighters, and that he later made up enough time to earn an honorable discharge. The National Guard gave Bush that discharge, which they would have not done had he not completed his obligations. There is simply no validity to the charge.
It’s a case of affirming the consequent.
No, Jay, it’s a case of evidence. And the evidence is rather clear that Bush Jr. was able to duck out of a whole lot of obligations simply because of his family connections.
Well, you were never charged with selling pornography involving underage yaks, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have an extensive yak porn collection.
True. And of course if you had evidence I had yak porn, I could hardly defend myself by pointing out I haven’t been charged. After all to presume otherwise is to assume that the courts are infallible and catch everybody, which we both know isn’t true.
The National Guard gave Bush that discharge, which they would have not done had he not completed his obligations.
Why not? They gave him plenty of other considerations, all because of his dad. Who’s to say that the nepotism wouldn’t have extended that far?
Check out http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671. It’s considerably better researched than any of the links you’ve shown me.
I will take the word of The New York Times and the Annenberg Center before I’ll take the word of a partisan website with an axe to grind. There is nothing unusual about Bush’s service record, major media outlets have already looked into this and found nothing scandalous, and the whole thing is little more than a partisan smear.
Yes, because obviously the National Guard is going to bow to the whims of a back-bench first-term minority-party Congressman from Texas, which is what George H.W. Bush was at the time.
I’ll be sure to look up the number of Yakaholics Anonymous for you… again, the logic here is more than just twisted.
The whole thing reaks of attempts to make the facts fit the case than the case fit the facts. Bush was neither AWOL nor was he a deserter – he served his obligations and was granted an honorable discharge. At the end of the day, those are the facts, and anything else is supposition based on flimsy evidence.
Yes, because obviously the National Guard is going to bow to the whims of a back-bench first-term minority-party Congressman from Texas, which is what George H.W. Bush was at the time.
You forget that he was also a war hero. Taken together I think that’s enough to command some nepotism.