Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96207,00.html

Bill O'Reilly and Bill Maher square off tonight !!!!!!! :laugh:

It will be entertaining to say the least!:)

Rob:cool:

I can't wait.:) My money is on Maher. O'Reilly doesn't have a sense of humor, especially about himself. The question is, will he shut up long enough to let Maher talk?

This will be one fantastic shouting match. :nod: :D

Like Goldie said, O'Reilly has no sense of humor whatsoever. He's a serious stiff that wouldn't know humor if it flew up and bit him in his self-satisfied ass.

Heck no. That's a part of the show!:D

Seriously, I saw Maher's standup routine recently...the latest one on HBO. It was pretty funny. He made some really good points on some social issues but the guy is out in left field on foriegn policy.

I heard Ron Silver, the actor, rip him to shreds on a talk show recently. That was probably the only time I have ever seen someone completely rationalize with Maher to the point that he had nothing to say. I wish I had the transcript.

Rob:cool:

Was that Billy O. congratulating the ACLU on their gay rights victory in a high school gay hazing negligence case. I gotta give it to him, he usually hates the ACLU but called a spade a spade in this instance. :nod:

I think the Bills went out drinkin afterward. :laugh:

I have to agree with Bill O. though. You can say W went into the National Guard and trash his record there and you can question his motives for doing so. But, the National Guard was a legitimate alternative to the draft. Conversely and to me, the term "draft dodger" implies if not states that someone did something "bad" to avoid the draft. So, while the National Guard may have not been the be all and end all, W certainly was not a "draft dodger" using the def. above.

Does anyone know know why everyone did not apply for the National Guard? I mean if it guaranteed not going to Vietnam . . . :cool:

Except that he was AWOL the whole friggin' time.

I read an interview with a rep from the Guard that knew Bush back then. He said that Bush was never AWOL and that everything he did was fine under NG law....I'll have to dig up the link....

I think that's just a claim of the Bush Haters....

Rob :cool:

http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm

1-year gap in Bush's Guard duty

No record of airman at drills from 1972-73

"But both accounts are contradicted by copies of Bush's military records, obtained by the Globe. In his final 18 months of military service in 1972 and 1973, Bush did not fly at all. And for much of that time, Bush was all but unaccounted for: For a full year, there is no record that he showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen."

But later reporting proved Bush wasn't AWOL. National Guard Magazine said it best in its Jan. 2001 edition:

Bush also was accused of skirting the draft by joining the Texas Air Guard in 1968. He became an F-102 fighter pilot before being discharged as a first lieutenant in 1973. [Former National Guard Bureau historian retired Col. Michael] Doubler says it is unfair to criticize those who joined the Guard during the Vietnam War. "The government allowed it and in many ways encouraged it," he said "There were a lot of things the government did to authorize people to serve in places other than the front lines."

Bush's drill performance also stirred controversy during the campaign. Some reports charged that he was absent for a year. However, probably the most comprehensive media review of Bush's military records concluded that while he, "served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, he did accumulate the days of service required for him for his ultimate honorable discharge." The review was done by Georgemag.com, the online version of the magazine founded by the late John F. Kennedy Jr.

Guardsmen say Bush's service record is not unusual. "In any six-year time frame you probably can find some problems," says retired Rep. G.V. 'Sonny' Montgomery, D-Miss., founder of the House Guard and Reserve Caucus. "Just learning to fly the F-102 and not getting hurt and not hurting anybody is an accomplishment." Montgomery called Bush's election, "nothing but a plus for the Guard."

The New York Times also looked into the charge and found it lacked substance:

Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story.

Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.

Even the Boston Globe's story admits Bush served more than the minimum time, and was a fine pilot:

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ''weekend warriors.''

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam, logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early release from service.

Incidentally, Bush flew with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, which was attached to the 147th Fighter Wing, based in Houston, Texas. While Bush's unit never got called to Vietnam, the 147th was. From 1968 through 1970, pilots from the 147th participated in operation "Palace Alert" and served in Southeast Asia during the height of the Vietnam War. The 147th came off runway alert on Jan. 1, 1970 to start a new mission of training all F-102 pilots in the United States for the Air National Guard.

Bush enlisted as an Airman Basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group at Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, on May 28, 1968 - at a time when the 147th was actively participating in combat in Vietnam. However, one can not train overnight to be a pilot. Bush completed basic flight training and then, from December 1969 through June 27, 1970, he was training full-time at Ellington to be an F-102 pilot.

Bush volunteered to serve in a unit at the very moment it was seeing combat in Vietnam, and only a restructuring of the unit's mission before he completed his flight training made it unlikely he would fly in combat. And he was never AWOL - he completed his required service and even served beyond the minimum.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...A80994D8404482


FYI....Rob:cool:

Isn't it past your bedtime?

The articles you posted never said that Bush wasn't AWOL. In fact they alluded to the fact that he was. The New york Times only says:

"Democratic senators Daniel K Inouye and Bob Kerrey call on Gov George W Bush to release full military record to clear up doubts raised by Boston Globe about whether he reported for required drills while member of Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973; review by New York Times shows concerns may be unfounded; Bush spokesman says he fulfilled all military obligations or would not have received honorable discharge (M)"

More:
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/20..._Scrubbed.html

When Walter Robinson of the Boston Globe broke the story about the gap in the service record, dozens of Texas National Guardsmen broke ranks and reported information to the Austin American Statesman giving more details. The information to Dick Stanley never saw the light of day. An Associated Press writer had a story until she talked with Karen Hughes and the story died.

I was outside the Adjutant general of Texas office when I overheard a call from Joe Allbaugh and Dan Bartlett that told General James to "make sure there is nothing embarrassing in the Governor's file" in preparation for his reelection run and a run for the presidency. I was present when James and Asst AG General Marty told a state services employee to do the same. I was there when the retained records person surrendered files under order of COL William Goodwin, Chief of Staff, for the scrub of the Governor's files.

Even with all of these first hand accounts, no one dared to ask questions after they talked with Bartlett, Hughes, Rove or Allbaugh. Why?

James further shielded official public files from the press and otherwise ran interference for Bush, Hughes, Bartlett and Rove during the campaign --"obstructing" the judicial and public review of this record.

Last December 1, 2001, Bush nominated James to be the Director of the Air National Guard of the United States. As Director of the Air National Guard of the US, James will be responsible for the direct control of all airspace over the Continental United States and will be the first responsible Officer for managing the network which scrambles fighters in air hijacking or hostage situations. By Standard operating Procedure (SOP) a certain number of jets are on tactical alert at all times. This means that aircraft are airborne within ten minutes of a scramble for interception. Did anyone notice that it took up to ninety minutes to scramble National Guard intercept aircraft in this hijacking situation? Unheard of - especially since they were warned.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/...bushguard.cnn/

Bush dismisses report he skipped Air National Guard service

"Responding to the Globe's report that his Alabama base commander had no recollection of Bush ever showing for drills, the governor said "I pulled duty in Alabama and I read the comments and the guy said he didn't remember me. That's 27 years ago, but I remember being there."

Asked about his Air National Guard attendance record, Bush told reporters it was "spotty attendance but I did the duty necessary... I did the time that was required in the Guard."

http://archive.salon.com/politics200...0/05/24/guard/


Though Bush promised to continue his service while stationed in that state, there is no evidence that he ever showed up for Alabama Guard duty. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," said retired Gen. William Turnipseed, who commanded the Alabama unit at the time Bush claims to have served. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Records of Bush's Ala. Military Duty Can't Be Found

"In May, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, the former commander of the Alabama Guard unit, said Bush did not report to him, although the young airman was required to do so. His orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, said: "Lieutenant Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, DCO, to perform equivalent training."

This one's dated May 31, 2003

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0531-03.htm

"Mr. Bush learned to fly in the National Guard at a taxpayer expense of $1 million, then proceeded to become absent without leave — also known as AWOL — for which many service personnel have received jail sentences. Mr. Bush's official biography shows that he served as a pilot with the Texas Guard from 1968 to 1973. Mr. Bush did not go to Vietnam. According to Mr. Gallagher's and other published reports, Mr. Bush went to weekend meetings at the Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Field in Houston from June 1970 until April 1972. Then a funny thing happened.

Mr. Bush went to Alabama to work on the U.S. Senate campaign of one of his father's friends. He continued serving in the National Guard, he says. That may be a lie. It wouldn't be his first and it certainly won't be his last. The records of the Montgomery unit he claims to have joined do not show that he ever served there. His annual effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, said he had not been observed at the unit to which he was assigned."

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgame...?bid=3&pid=633

"More curious, the records showed Bush had not reported for Guard duty during a long stretch of that period. Had the future commander-in-chief been AWOL?

In May 1972, with two years to go on his six-year commitment to the Guard, Bush moved to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. He asked if he could do his Guard duty there. This son-of-a-congressman and fighter pilot won permission to do "equivalent training" at a unit that had no aircraft and no pilots. The national Air Reserve office then disallowed this transfer. For months, Bush did nothing for the Guard. In September 1972, he won permission to train with a unit in Montgomery. But the commander of the unit and his administrative officer told the Boston Globe that they had no recollection of Bush ever reporting for duty. And when Bush returned to Texas after the November election, he did not return to his unit for months, according to his military records. His annual performance report, dated May 2, 1973, noted he had "not been observed at this unit" for the past year. In May, June and July of that year, he did pull 36 days of duty."

How do you fly at a unit with no pilots and no planes?

Well, if he did the required time, what more could he do? I mean, he satisfied the National Guard's rules. :shrug:

Also, I submit that becoming a F-102 fighter pilot required at least a minimum amount of training, which took a significant amount of time; also, becoming a F-102 fighter piolt belies the argument that W is an idiot. I mean it takes some smarts to operate that aircraft. So, although he cannot speak very well :eek: :laugh: ;) , he is not a complete and total idiot as come assert. :cool:

Note: I am not saying W did not get advantages from his family's status. I am just saying the NG was satisfied with his performance, so he was not AWOL as that term is defined, i.e., he had leave and fulfilled his duty according to their rules no matter what we may think of the way it was fulfilled.

Absolutely, but the nature of Bush-Hate (or any politician for that matter) means you have to dig through every single minute of the person’s entire life so you can find an inconsistency and go “AH-HAH! Look how bad he is!!!” Assumptions and allegations about events that happened 30 years ago are irrelevant to me judging a current situation. Besides, these same people who use this argument were defending Clinton for being a Rhodes Scholar, or whatever he was, during the war. It is all BS because there are few real issues they have to complain about.

Just my 2 cents…

Rob:cool:

You know, you’re right, I don’t have the time to be discussing and looking up obscure facts about an irrelevant topic when I could be devoting time to more important endeavors like sleep!:wavey:

Rob:cool:

A lot of people did apply to the National Guard. There was quite a waiting list. so some of them got drafted while they were waiting. In fact, there was a waiting list of 500 men when Shrub's daddy called in a favor and got him moved to the head of the line in Texas. It's in a few of the articles I posted above.:)

Yeah, I guess when you're wrong the topic becomes irrelevant. Are you sure you don't work for the current administration?

Get into politics??? You would have to be crazy. Imagine the stress of being hated by thousands of people who didn't even really know you?

Making the world a better place is all about sacrifice.:)

Agreed.

But I think there has to be a line between someone going so far up your a$$ with a microscope to find fairly minor faults we all have as human beings and then spinning those faults to make you out to be some sort of monster. For example, people complain Bush got a DWI about 30 years ago. Well, my response was who hasn't driven when they should not have. I certainly have (now I take cabs :laugh: ) and know no one who has not (remember the legal limit is about one, possibly two cocktails/beer/wine). Yet, people are like "See - W got a DUI so he is a bad person!" I just think that was being human and we are all guilty of things like that even if not this exact example. So, I think the sacrifice today is just too great.

Now - if you want to get into whether W lied about getting one - that is a different ball of wax :laugh:

I still want to know if he's a convicted felon. He never fully answered that question either.
I think we both agree that the electoral process needs to be overhauled. The first step is to take the money out of it.

A complete and total overhaul!!!!!

Interestingly, I support Bush's right to say I am not answering anything about my life before age 21 (or whenever). Yet, you gotta wonder about what happened before then. :cool:

Interestingly, Bush likes to call his drunk driving a "youthful indiscretion," but he was in his thirties at the time. Also, he was *convicted* of drunk driving with three other people in the car, as reflected in legal documents. He was an alcoholic who continued to drink well after his arrest. When he was called for jury duty in 1996, he conveniently forgot to mention his criminal conviction on the jury pool form and came up with a cockamamie excuse for why he shouldn't be called for jury duty. He was also arrested for disorderly conduct in 1966 and flatly denied that he was arrested after 1968. That proved to be a lie. Not only was arrested, he was convicted. However, he told the public that he never went to court for the drunk driving and that it was taken care of the night that it happened. That's another lie; he had two court dates and got continuances twice. He didn't pay the fine until a month and a half later, not that same night. They were going to put his ass is jail overnight, but someone paid the $500 bond to keep him out, as reflected in legal papers. The fact that he changed his drivers license number in 1995, at the height of his political career at the time, is also highly suspicious. In fact, because of his drunk driving in Maine, his license was suspended for two years in that state. Let's also not forget his past with cocaine.

We can spin it all we want, but the fact is that his dodge-drafting during Vietnam was and is highly suspicious. He's unaccounted for for lengthy periods of time, some of his former staff from when he was governor have claimed that his records were doctored by the Bush camp, former officers from the Texas National Guard claim the same thing, the public portion of his records that would have been released under an FOIA request have turned up completely missing, he used his family's power to avoid everything that he didn't want to do, etc. If he served as well is he supposedly did, then why are all of these inconsistencies turning up? It makes no sense, but the Right will spin it to make him look saintly.

Shrub has some major issues with credibility.

Yeah...so does Teddy Kennedy and probably every other politician....:)

Rob:cool:

Fortunately, not to the extent that Bush has.

I notice that you didn't try to refute any of the facts.

:wavey:

You know, all of your political squabbling just became silly, meandering, and pointless after the first forty-seven back and forth posts.

Half the country found enough merit in Bush to vote for him as president. While I am no fan of his, he's still the president, and to insinuate as it seems like you all so often do that anyone who supports him or at least doesn't spend all their free time trashing him is either A) dumb or B) uninformed is silly.

The political squabbling just gets ridiculous.

As for Bush compared to Ted Kennedy- are you KIDDING me to say that Bush's credibility in terms of his prior history with alcohol, drugs, etc. is millions worse than Ted Kennedy's... George Bush never KILLED anyone, now did he?

Once again, who has never, ever in their lives driven under the statutory definition of "over the limit." I submit few have. Moreover, who would not try and get out of it if caught. I submit no one (fess up, a cop has never let you go even though you broke the traffic law - its the same thing in that the crime was committed, the law was broken, etc.). Moreover, W recognized he had a problem and quit. he should be lauded for that - not beaten down IMO. Also, it is not unethical to get a continuance in a case or to post bond or to pay the fine after it is levied. Most of the stuff you bring up is just reg. procedure you assert is a bad thing (someone is spinning :laugh: ). I submit if W had been up to no good in this, he would have tried to have it fixed and been busted doing so. But, he did not.

My point is few people are willing to point the accusatory finger at themselves before judging. Another good example is how many of us have run a red/caution light (with intent or not)? I submit we all have done this. Did we then go immediately to the police station and turn ourselves in? I didn't. :wavey:

So, I say nail Bush on the big issues (Lord knows there are plenty :laugh: ) and leave this petty, human nature stuff alone. It is not the battle that will win the war so to speak :cool:

Then I suggest that you skip the political threads.:) We aren't squabbling. A group of us are engaged in a political debate and we enjoy talking to each other about it.

Actually half the country didn't vote for him and he still "won" the election. Go figure.:laugh:

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

Well...probably not. His wife did though.:)

Of course not but we're not running for leader of the free world either. There are different standards for that.

Touche - but still - I do not fault anyone for these little things. Now, if we can prove he obstructed justice, etc., then I may care. :cool:

What facts? Honestly...I never really cared what the guy did in his younger life, the same with Clinton. Who cares what he did 25 years ago? He didn't kill anyone. He is an admitted alcoholic. He got arrested for disorderly conduct..woopee!!! That would be one of my college roommates every other week!

What I am concerned with is his policies and actions as president, not some hearsay stories of his past who's accuracy is questionable....I don't have the will to even try and look up that stuff. That's what ticked me off about the Right with Clinton...things were going well and they had nothing major to gripe about so here comes the background check and personal issues.

Nitpicky issues about a person's past mean absolutely nothing. They won't change the fact that Bush is president and they don't affect the economy. Cheers!:)

Rob:cool:

I agree...but the same people who are now accusing Bush of all this stuff defended Clinton when he was cheating on his wife in the Oval Office. It's hypocracy.

(I don't mean gldstwm or dissention in particular, I don't know how you two saw that!)

Besides...shouldn't we give the guy a little credit for kicking the booze if he had a problem?

WTF?

I enjoy the political banter but, man, this stuff is out there.

I mean Kennedy killed a woman and fled the scene for Pete's sake! And he's still a senator

Rob:cool:

What did you want him to do? Drown in the car with her or go get help?

You must be confused, then. I was hoping to point out that he lied on all points about what happened. Maybe it isn't a big deal to you, but it is to me. He lied about how it was handled, whether or not he went to court, whether his license had been suspended, whether or not he had someone post bond, etc. Moreover, he tried to have it covered up in the early nineties to protect his public persona. And I don't know about you, but it isn't normal for the defendant to request AND receive two continuances in this kind of thing. I'm not asserting that ANY of the procedures are bad or wrong, I'm asserting that the cover-up and lies about it are wrong.

Someone needs to read my post again. :laugh: :nod:

They aren't hearsay stories, they are facts that have been reflected in court papers and other legal documents. :)

Don't read these threads, then. We're having a discussion where some may not like to participate or agree with (as Rob never does!), so if you don't, there's no need to pop in and complain about what's being posted. Leave well enough alone.