September 8, 2004
THE QUALIFICATIONS QUESTION:
Missing in Action (NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, 9/08/04, NY Times)
The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. It's not fair to say Mr. Bush deserted. My sense is that he (like some others at the time) neglected his National Guard obligations, did the bare minimum to avoid serious trouble and was finally let off by commanders who considered him a headache but felt it wasn't worth the hassle to punish 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 full 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.
Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh.
Mr. Kristof would appear to have fundamentally misunderstood what is being debated here. Let us, for the sake of argument, accept as true everything that has been said about John Kerry and George W. Bush's activities during the Vietnam era. In the election of 2004, President Bush is arguing that his
performance as commander-in-chief qualifies him to remain our commander-in-chief; Mr. Kerry is arguing that his performance as a Navy Lt. qualifies him to be commander-in-chief. Mr. Bush's claim entitles Mr. Kerry to question the President's decisions over the last four years. Mr. Kerry's claim entitles Mr. Bush to question the Senator's decisions thirty years ago. The problem for Mr. Kerry and his supporters is that he can ill afford to appear soft on the war on terror and he can not defend his anti-war record. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2004 1:40 PM
The other thing is that the attacks on Kerry's Viet Nam service have come primarily from a 527 which by definition cannot be controlled by the Bush campaign. They've already told the President that they aren't going to shut-up even if he asks so Kristof's prescription is blown from the beginning.
In general, Kristof is whining because the strategy that the left thought was going to work, (Kerry's "war hero" status will insulate him from any attacks on national security issues), has actually failed spectacularly.
Myths die hard and Kristof isn't ready to bury this one yet.
Posted by: Jeff at September 8, 2004 1:59 PMoj:
Defending four months of Viet Nam service 35 years ago versus defending the last four years as commander-in-chief as your qualification for the presidency is asymmetrical warfare, no?
Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at September 8, 2004 2:39 PMAfter this election, the credibility of the mainstream media is toast. Approximately half the electorate are going to feel like their guy lost only because of a biased media, and the other half will feel like their guy won despite a biased media.
Somewhere out there in the overwhelmingly conservative media (ha, ha) there must be someone pushing the Kerry records release, right? Or is the vast right wing conspiracy so tightknit and disciplined that they're collectively keeping their powder dry on this one too?
Posted by: brian at September 8, 2004 2:51 PMWhat I find remarkable about the entire National Guard thing is the failure to recognize that GWB was obliged to agree to up to two and one-half years of active service before being accepted into the Texas ANG. In addition, at the time he signed up, the unit he joined was active in Vietnam. This has all been lost in the allegations about post-active duty obligations.
See the article at the link below for more information.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9259
By the way, does anyone know if Kerry fulfilled his post-active duty obligations? He enlisted in the Naval Reserves which, as I understand it, obliged him to commit some time to continued service even after his return from Vietnam.
Posted by: Morrie at September 8, 2004 3:01 PMBy the way, none of my previous post is intended to suggest that I believe that the service in the military that both GWB and Jean Francois performed has the slightest relevance to either man's ability to be C-in-C.
Posted by: Morrie at September 8, 2004 3:06 PMthe AP got the current records when they sued because Bush would not release them.
Something tells me that FOX or any average Joe could do the same for all of Kerry's records.
But rather than do something, they would rather BITCH at how unfair life is.
Payback is a bitch, huh?
Posted by: mkultra at September 8, 2004 3:42 PMmkultra: Not so good at reading comprehension, are we? Please find any story saying Bush "refused" to release these records. And unless you're happy with the AP being an openly partisan organization, perhaps they should be equally aggressive about Kerry's records?
Posted by: brian at September 8, 2004 4:00 PMByron York addressed this whole thing many months ago in National Review in a well-researched investigative piece. There is no "there" there.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at September 8, 2004 4:08 PMOTOH, I have to think that Bush is the luckiest man in the world. His opponents are not merely inept, they excel at ineptness. They take daily lessons and exercises at being inept. Every morning they wake up and ask themselves, "How can I shoot myself in the foot today?"
I can't believe that these guys are *still* arguing about details of their service 35 years ago! Next thing you know, they are going to spend $35 million in ads calling Bush a cowboy.
Don't they realize that NOBODY cares about the details of ANYBODY's military service 35 years ago?
Posted by: ray at September 8, 2004 7:32 PMDon't you get the feeling that "National Guard records" will be to John Kerry in the upcoming debates what "Dingle-Norwood" was to Al Gore in the debates for years ago?
Posted by: John at September 8, 2004 11:14 PM