Any of you read the Michael Moore letter to Bush?

[abound media]

I am curious to hear what many of you think about what he had to say in the letter. Regardless if you think he is a liar for some of his point in Bowling for Columbine, this letter seems to be right on the money. Atleast in my opinion??

Im anxious to hear what others think from both sides. Im quite open minded to new and differnt points of view.

Here is a link if you haven't seen or heard it on TV.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php

[japangreg]

``I don't remember seeing him. That does not mean he was not there,'' said Wayne Rambo, who was a first lieutenant with the 187th Supply Squadron at the time. The AP contacted more than a dozen former members of the unit on Wednesday, and none could recall ever running into Bush.

Anyone wanna argue with Rambo? Didn't think so.

Meanwhile, a retired Texas National Guard officer said Wednesday he overheard a conversation in 1997 between then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, and then-Adjutant Gen. Daniel James of the Texas Air National Guard in which he contends those two men spoke about getting rid of any military records that would ``embarrass the governor.''

Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett told the AP that he saw documents from Bush's file discarded in a trash can a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, Texas. Burkett described them as performance and pay documents. He said the documents bore the header: ``Bush, George W. 1lt.'' -- meaning first lieutenant.

(both quotes from here)

Moore has moments of insight in his writing (as was shown in 'Dude, Where's my Country?') but I often find he crosses the line and starts to sound just plain whinny. He asks good questions, but the tone of his letter is a bit too confrontational for me to believe that he doesn't already have his own conclusions for this matter drawn up. In short, he isn't asking questions, he's making accusations with having to use a period.

That being said, I am not a Bush supporter; I dislike his policies, his mannerisms and his cocky sneer. I don't trust him at all, and I'll be voting against him in the elections.

I like the current pressure being put on Bush, not only from the AWOL issue but the discretionary spending issues, the pre-war intelligence failures, etc. What a change in the political climate from a year ago when criticizing the man was greeted like burning the flag while defiling mom's apple pie. It shows a recovering sense of accountability in this country that had all but vanished after 9/11.

Another good article on this issue: Yeoman of the Guard

[abound media]

Very well said, I can see where you're coming from. I had not read anything in regards to the NYtimes article. Atleast from the point of view that they share.

[japangreg]

It's actually an AP piece, before someone starts bashing the Times as a liberal rag...

...would Jason Blair lie to you?

[XU1]

Ahh election year.....the mud slinging starts, the dirt is dug up-or made up-...I guess Bush will have to go a bit further in time than his opponent, possibly world war II since Kerry is about 63.

I mean talk about trivialities, did he serve in Alabama or not? man if thats the best they can do at this stage... Now who was it that dodged the draft---entirely??


Tony

[japangreg]

Originally posted by XU1
I mean talk about trivialities, did he serve in Alabama or not? man if thats the best they can do at this stage... Now who was it that dodged the draft---entirely??

Yes, election years are great; lace up those gloves, gonna be a bloody fight.

I assume you're talking about Clinton: I find this funny, seeing as it follows a comment about going back in time (Clinton isn't running again, is he? Then why bring it up?)

I think this is a very pertinent question, since Bush keeps wrapping himself in the mantle of 'war president' during interviews. How far can you really trust someone that tells you he is all about national defense when he skips out on 6-months of rather cushy duty when the nation was at war?

[CNO]

Originally posted by XU1
Now who was it that dodged the draft---entirely??

Dick Cheney?

[XU1]

Originally posted by japangreg
Yes, election years are great; lace up those gloves, gonna be a bloody fight.

I assume you're talking about Clinton: I find this funny, seeing as it follows a comment about going back in time (Clinton isn't running again, is he? Then why bring it up?)

Because it shows that it didnt hurt Clinton at all...so the tactic is a no hoper...

also in this case the question is..."Where was he"?... the latest dental records show that he was there...I mean he could have been on light duties, or in the Kitchen...or sweeping the pavements...at least he enrolled..

Tony

[XU1]

Originally posted by CNO
Dick Cheney?

I though it was Liza Minelli.....but..Was this man ever president??

Tony

[japangreg]

Originally posted by XU1
Because it shows that it didnt hurt Clinton at all...so the tactic is a no hoper...

Not true when there is an ongoing war. Clinton wasn't hurt because the country was in a state of calm, enjoying a good economy.

Bush is in the White House during a time of domestic and international turmoil, with an open-ended, unconventional 'war' and nation building, and has sat though one of the worst economies in decades.

Clinton didn't have to have any war credentials; the country didn't need a military leader during his presidency.

If Bush is going to keep pushing the war as the main reason to keep him in office, he better be able to show that when given the light responsibility the ANG represented during Vietnam he didn't just act like a spoilt brat and drop the ball.

[abound media]

This AWOL issue is not a tactic to slander Bush as a whole. It is QUITE relivent today when he has sent our children and friends overseas. How many hundreds of people in the national gaurd have died in the last 9-11 months?

This is why it is important, what kind of leader is he if he cant set the example for the nation. If he doesnt have the balls to serve than why should anyone else? Its like telling your kid that swearing is bad and only to turn around spewing those same words from your mouth.

This is why it is important. In the Tim Russert interview this passed weekend, Bush acknowledged that the topic is brought up around any election he is in. However no one made it an issue before. Why you ask? BECAUSE WE WEREN'T AT WAR and at that point 600 of our kids were still breathing and enjoying there youths.

btw, it doesnt help that he has been unable to find WMD on land that we have control of. The only thing that any of us can truly proove about this war is that we captured Saddam (which I am thankfull for) and Cheney has become one hell of an oil Tycoon.

[TallGuyLittleCar]

Originally posted by japangreg
[B]Not true when there is an ongoing war. Clinton wasn't hurt because the country was in a state of calm, enjoying a good economy.

actually we were in the same war we are now in during the clinton administration. Clinton just choose not to fight, not suprising from a man who once said he despised the military.

Bush is in the White House during a time of domestic and international turmoil, with an open-ended, unconventional 'war' and nation building, and has sat though one of the worst economies in decades.

can't help what you inherit. I suppose by that thinking abused children are responsible for the abuse they recieved.

Clinton didn't have to have any war credentials; the country didn't need a military leader during his presidency.

So the first world trade center bombing was cool? the cole was cool? the embassy bombing in africa were fine. 9-11 was no big deal?

If Bush is going to keep pushing the war as the main reason to keep him in office, he better be able to show that when given the light responsibility the ANG represented during Vietnam he didn't just act like a spoilt brat and drop the ball.

So you think Franklin Roosevelt was the wrong guy for ww2?

[aversion]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
So the first world trade center bombing was cool? the cole was cool? the embassy bombing in africa were fine. 9-11 was no big deal?

just interested... how does that relate to the comment you quoted above it? Did I miss something?

[japangreg]

Originally posted by TallGuyLittleCar
actually we were in the same war we are now in during the clinton administration. Clinton just choose not to fight, not suprising from a man who once said he despised the military.

C'mon now, all of you're responses here are aimed at bashing Clinton for not attacking Al Queda.

Neither did Bush. Not until we got hit.

And all the conservative sobbing over inheriting a bad economy doesn't excuse the problems that have occured on the Bush watch: even if we forgive him 9/11, the administration is directly responsible for the Iraqi war and the mishandling of the information. They are responsible for passing tax cuts while the nation's debt soars, underfunding their own educational programs, encouraging suspision of our intentions in Iraq by awarding no bid contracts... the list really does go on and on.

The point of this letter (remember the letter? The subject of this post? The one that doesn't mention Clinton at all?) was to ask a 'war time' president about his military service record, which appears to have several discrepancies.

You can try to blame Clinton for that all you like, but I believe he was in the UK at the time...

[japangreg]

Originally posted by aversion
just interested... how does that relate to the comment you quoted above it? Did I miss something?

I think he's saying that we did need a war time pres during that time, to deter/prevent what happened.

Off the mark, TGLC?

[TallGuyLittleCar]

I think he's saying that we did need a war time pres during that time, to deter/prevent what happened.

said it better than i did, hence this edited post

[XU1]

Bush was handed a very difficult set of cards since 9/11...no one on earth could have envisioned the changing nature of terrorism, or how determined these people were/are to bring the fight to the US.

I really dont think that people will see Bush as some sort of Coward...

I just think Bush sees the world situation as it is.....I think he shows far sightedness....which means tough decisions, that are not going to be popular..

And if your going to bring the Hypocrisy issue up....does this mean that everytime a president needs to make a decision he has to stop going ahead with it because of some past mistakes or wrogdoing?

Its been a long time since he was in the service to be bringing this type of issue up...
once again at least he enrolled.

He could have been hiding behing some trees for six months..

Tony

[japangreg]

That was wierd; I went to quote something TGLC said ('...he's either doing a great job or a terrible job'... something like that), and when the form came up, it had his edited reply.

Spooked me.

I was going to say that that is true for just about everyone...

[XU1]

Originally posted by japangreg

even if we forgive him 9/11,

???...Ok I give up now...I thought that some one else was responsible for 9/11...

Tony

[japangreg]

Originally posted by XU1
[B]And if your going to bring the Hypocrisy issue up....doese this mean that everytime a president needs to make a decision he has to stop going ahead with it because of some past mistakes or wrogdoing?B]

Only when he makes a decision on that issue. Would you take hair care advice from a bald barber? How about being told to floss by a toothless dentist?

How does someone who ducked out of a cushy stateside post during a war where thousands of US service men are killed have the authority to ask other Guardsmen to risk and give their lives for something?