Well well well, it Seems Bush DID volunteer for Vietnam.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From the very little I know - Kerry suffered minor wounds after he was shot at by VC on a few different occasions.

I can't see how that could be spun in such a way as to suggest he deliberately orchestrated it (which conjures up a bizarre image of him giving backhanders to the enemy to shoot around him and make it look convincing).

You can get a purple heart if you get a piece of shrapnel in the #######, or if you accidentally shoot yourself in the foot.

[nowhereman 1]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

How is a purple heart awarded? I can't see how it can be deemed meritorious when one person receives it and a con when another person does. Can you explain how that happens? Is it not the military hierarchy who decides these things, or does one simply fill in a form and apply for one?

Its awarded by being wounded in combat and the injury has to be verified (I believe an 0-6/Colonel is the approving authority). You can't stub your toe walking to the mess hall & get a purple heart.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

Have you ever served in the military? If so you would know that a Silver Star is a very rare award & it would be extremely difficult to fake your way into receiving one. Moreover your reasoning is flawed, as the point of the OP's article is that Bush the serviceman & Bush the politician should be viewed separately (same would go for Kerry). You can say Kerry isn't a good politician... you can say what he did after the war is questionable... but question his service record based on heresay & you've crossed the line.

So did he cross the line when he maligned hundreds of other servicemen's records?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you say these things in the hope that a person's answer will be different or inconsistent somehow?

[_Simpson_ 250]

Do you say these things in the hope that a person's answer will be different or inconsistent somehow?

Maybe it was a rhetorical question, you know trying to make a point

[nowhereman 1]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

Have you ever served in the military? If so you would know that a Silver Star is a very rare award & it would be extremely difficult to fake your way into receiving one. Moreover your reasoning is flawed, as the point of the OP's article is that Bush the serviceman & Bush the politician should be viewed separately (same would go for Kerry). You can say Kerry isn't a good politician... you can say what he did after the war is questionable... but question his service record based on heresay & you've crossed the line.

So did he cross the line when he maligned hundreds of other servicemen's records?

If he did then yes that's fair game.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you say these things in the hope that a person's answer will be different or inconsistent somehow?

Maybe it was a rhetorical question, you know trying to make a point

You decide, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation

To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals."

I guess the question would be whether Kerry attack the service records of specific named individuals (which would be equivalent to what he, Bush and McCain were subjected to) or if this idea that he maligned "thousands of service personnel" comes from a general denouncement of things he saw in the war and/or were told to him by other servicemen.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Private Pike

[Tahoma 2,292]

Forget Bush the Politician (many wish we could) how about Bush the person, is it acceptable to knowingly slander the guys military record? This is the stuff unfortunately that lowers the bar of "payback".

Bush Volunteered for Vietnam, CBS's Mapes Knowingly Omitted from Story

By: Brad Wilmouth

August 26, 2009 00:14 ET

On Tuesday, FNC's The O'Reilly Factor hosted FNC analyst Bernard Goldberg as the former CBS News correspondent highlighted a story recently posted on his Web site, BernardGoldberg.com, in which he complains of how little mainstream media attention was given to the fact that former President George W. Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam as part of his service in the Texas Air National Guard, but that he was turned down because other pilots were more experienced, and that CBS News producer Mary Mapes, even though she knew this part of the story before the report aired, did not include this important angle in the infamous piece by Dan Rather that used forged documents to paint Bush as trying to avoid Vietnam War service.

[uPDATE: Accuracy in Media, in a January 10, 2005 press release, had highlighted the same revelation in the report conducted by the outside panel for CBS News.]

On his Web site, BernardGoldberg.com, Goldberg chastizes Mapes:

However the complexities and seeming contradictions are interpreted, if Bush at any point had volunteered to fly combat missions in Vietnam – as the CBS investigation unequivocally states — how then could he have been a slacker? The clear answer is that he could not – unless, of course, he volunteered to go to Vietnam knowing full well he wouldn’t be taken. But if that was the case, Mapes would have had an obligation to report both that he volunteered and then produce a credible witness to say it was a sham. She did neither.

Mapes, a well-known liberal at CBS News, has always contended that she had no agenda, that she was not out to get President Bush. But if she knew that George Bush had volunteered for service in Vietnam – as the CBS outside panel clearly concludes — she obviously had an obligation to share that with her viewers.

Below is a transcript of portions of Goldberg's observations from his Web site, BernardGoldberg.com:

What seems like a long, long time ago Dan Rather was a very powerful force in American journalism. He not only was the anchorman of the CBS Evening News, he was also the face of the network’s renowned news division — the “Tiffany” network of bigger-than-life legends like Ed Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Mike Wallace and many, many others.

That was then. Now Dan Rather is suing the network that employed him for 44 years, asking for $70 million dollars in damages. Technically, the lawsuit is about a dry legal issue — breach of contract. But it is also about something much more personal to Rather: his legacy. It is a lawsuit, fundamentally, about saving Dan Rather’s reputation.

That reputation took a turn for the worse back in 2004. As has been widely reported, just 55 days before a very close presidential election, Dan Rather and his producer Mary Mapes put a story on the weekday edition of 60 Minutes that brought on the media equivalent of World War III. There were accusations that Rather, Mapes, and maybe the entire CBS News Division had set out to deliberately destroy George W. Bush and get John Kerry elected President of the United States – a charge everyone at CBS vehemently denies.

The story was about how the young George Bush got preferential treatment during the Vietnam War; how he wangled his way into the Texas Air National Guard back in the 1960s to avoid service in Vietnam; and how he was able to do it because his father was a big-shot, a United States Congressman from Houston. The story portrayed the Bush as a slacker. Others have said it portrayed him as a “cowardly draft dodger.”

And to bolster their story, Rather and Mapes got their hands on “never-before-seen” documents (as Rather put it in his story) that supposedly backed up their months (and in Mapes’ case, years) of reporting. But in no time flat the documents came under attack, mainly by conservatives on the web who examined the typeface of the memos and concluded they were fakes.

CBS News management aggressively defended the story in general and the documents in particular – until they didn’t. After about two weeks, CBS threw in the towel and said it could no longer stand by the story. Rather, who had been vigorously defending his story, reluctantly went on the air and admitted the documents could not be authenticated. Later he would say he was forced to do it.

In the aftermath of the fiasco, CBS established an outside panel to look into the matter. In January of 2005 the panel issued a report which concluded the news division failed to establish that the documents were legitimate and not bogus. Mapes was fired. A vice president and two producers were forced to resign. And Dan Rather was a dead man walking.

He had already lost his job as anchorman of the evening news but was allowed to stay on the weekday edition of 60 Minutes, which his story had sent on a glide path to oblivion. And when that show died an inglorious death Rather went over to the Sunday edition of 60 Minutes. But that wouldn’t last long, either. When his contract ran out CBS yanked him off the show, but made him an offer he decided to refuse: Rather would get an office and an assistant and he could report stories for any CBS News broadcast that called on him – if any CBS News broadcast ever chose to call on him. CBS offered Rather $250,000 a year, according to my sources, who say he wanted a million. When he didn’t get it, he quit. According to Rather, he was pushed out the door by the head of CBS, Leslie Moonves.

In 2007, Rather filed his $70 million lawsuit against his old company saying he wasn’t allowed to defend his story because the top management of CBS’ parent company, Viacom, wanted to appease the Bush Administration and protect its business interests.

Until now, the controversy over the Rather/Mapes story has centered almost entirely on one issue: the legitimacy of the documents – a very important issue, indeed. But it turns out that there was another very important issue, one that goes to the very heart of what the story was about – and one that has gone virtually unnoticed. This is it: Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Who says? The outside panel CBS brought into to get to the bottom of the so-called “Rathergate” mess says. I recently re-examined the panel’s report after a source, Deep Throat style, told me to “Go to page 130.” When I did, here’s the startling piece of information I found:

Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 [2004] Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.

This information, despite the fact that it has been available since the CBS report came out four years ago, has remained a secret to almost everybody both in and out of the media — one lonely fact in a 234- page report loaded with thousands of facts, and overshadowed by the controversy surrounding the documents.

I made an online check and discovered that while a few websites noted the CBS finding, the story got no ink (that I could find) on the news pages of any big mainstream paper. I did manage to find two opinion pieces about the CBS mess – one in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the other in the Miami Herald — that briefly, and only in passing, mentioned the “Bush volunteered” angle. But that was it! A check of network newscasts turned up nothing. And when I questioned two journalists with intimate knowledge of the story, both said Mapes never shared her information with them.

For the record: George W. Bush has always maintained that he joined the National Guard not to avoid service in Vietnam but because he wanted to be a fighter pilot. He has openly acknowledged that he did not want to be drafted and serve in the infantry, and says he signed up for the Guard knowing full well he would have to spend almost two years in flight training and another four years in part-time service.

It is also true, however, that in his 1968 application to join the Texas Air National Guard Bush was asked if he wanted to go overseas and he checked the box that said “do not volunteer.” But as the Washington Post reported on July 28, 1999: “Bush said in an interview that he did not recall checking the box. Two weeks later, his office provided a statement from a former, state-level Air Guard personnel officer, asserting that since Bush ‘was applying for a specific position with the 147th Fighter Group, it would have been inappropriate for him to have volunteered for an overseas assignment and he probably was so advised by the military personnel clerk assisting him in completing the form.’” He later told the Post: “Had my unit been called up, I’d have gone . . . to Vietnam. I was prepared to go.”

However the complexities and seeming contradictions are interpreted, if Bush at any point had volunteered to fly combat missions in Vietnam – as the CBS investigation unequivocally states — how then could he have been a slacker? The clear answer is that he could not – unless, of course, he volunteered to go to Vietnam knowing full well he wouldn’t be taken. But if that was the case Mapes would have had an obligation to report both that he volunteered and then produce a credible witness to say it was a sham. She did neither.

Mapes, a well-known liberal at CBS News, has always contended that she had no agenda, that she was not out to get President Bush. But if she knew that George Bush had volunteered for service in Vietnam – as the CBS outside panel clearly concludes — she obviously had an obligation to share that with her viewers.

Now the question is, did she share what she knew with her correspondent, Dan Rather. Or to put it another way: What did Rather know — and when did he know it? The answers may come out at trial, if his case against CBS goes that far. At the moment, neither side appears anxious to settle.

— Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

Chicken-hawk Bush dodged the draft (and serving in Viet Nam) by joining the Air National Guard. Anyone who was around at that time knew their choices. Bush didn't want to go to Viet Nam, he didn't want to go to Canada, and he certainly didn't want to go to Leavenworth. So, he joined the Texas Air National Guard. Fat chance of going to 'Nam if you were in the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush checked the "no overseas deployment" box because he understood exactly what it meant. What is lame is Bush "forgetting" that he checked the box. I don't buy it. What is even lamer is Bush's office spending two weeks to "find" someone who would make up an excuse for him. I don't buy this either. Of course his Guard buddies are going to back him up. This proves nothing.

The issue with CBS was an issue of verifying the document in question with two sources. This is their policy. The document was not verified by two sources. This does not in any way mean that the document is bogus. It has never been proven to be bogus. As a matter of fact, the Texas Air National Guard secretary at the time who received the document from Bush verified that it was the same document.

Bush's father may or may not have pulled strings with his buddy who was the head of the Texas Air National Guard in order to get little Bush accepted into the Guard. I'll give him a pass on that one.

Another thing I won't give him a pass on is the fact that, as soon as he saw the war winding down, he skipped out on his final year of duty. Is this what someone who "wants to be a fighter pilot" does? I think not.

[alienlovechild 75]

Bush checked the "no overseas deployment" box because he understood exactly what it meant.

Which branch of military were you in during the Vietnam War? You're telling me everyone could opt out serving in S. Vietnam?

It has never been proven to be bogus. As a matter of fact, the Texas Air National Guard secretary at the time who received the document from Bush verified that it was the same document.

It was written with Microsoft font and there were several errors on like not even knowing abbreviations for rank. It's not credible except to CBS.

Bush's father may or may not have pulled strings with his buddy who was the head of the Texas Air National Guard in order to get little Bush accepted into the Guard. I'll give him a pass on that one.

The Texas NG wasn't an exclusive country club at the time. Some states were overmanned but not Texas.

Another thing I won't give him a pass on is the fact that, as soon as he saw the war winding down, he skipped out on his final year of duty. Is this what someone who "wants to be a fighter pilot" does? I think not

Do tell us about what was happening in Vietnam in 1972 and why your statement doesn't make any sense in light of what was going on.

[HAL 9000 96]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

This post brought to you by

[Craneman 2]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

Not only self inflcted but he submitted the papers himself for the purple heart

[HAL 9000 96]

And he sprayed himself with Heinz Ketchup too.

[nowhereman 1]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

Not only self inflcted but he submitted the papers himself for the purple heart

Tin foil hat wearing BS from the right... the military can & does prosecute legitimate cases of false claims of earning a medal & last time I checked Kerry was never even brought up on these charges.

[nowhereman 1]

I guess the question would be whether Kerry attack the service records of specific named individuals (which would be equivalent to what he, Bush and McCain were subjected to) or if this idea that he maligned "thousands of service personnel" comes from a general denouncement of things he saw in the war and/or were told to him by other servicemen.

The Vietnam War was not our proudest moment & a lot of horrible things happened that shouldn't have, for a lot of reasons that I will not go in to. I don't know specifically what Kerry said but if it was limited to denouncing the atrocities that occurred then there's nothing wrong with that. However as I stated earlier what Kerry has done as a politician and/or what he said after Vietnam are separate issues from what he did as a military officer. Same goes for Bush, although any way you slice it Kerry served in a combat zone & Bush didn't.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Only problem is that Kerry injured himself for the purple hearts, shot a 17 year old in the back, and only spent 3 months in the war.

While my father, a swift-boat veteran, spent 3 years in the war, legitimately won a purple heart from enemy fire, and is an honorable man.

Kerry came back and betrayed the country, and accused the military at the same time Jane Fonda was saying the same things. How many military men and women like Jane Fonda (democrat or republican). You'd be hard pressed to find one.

Whether the war was worthwhile or not is another story.

Have you ever served in the military? If so you would know that a Silver Star is a very rare award & it would be extremely difficult to fake your way into receiving one. Moreover your reasoning is flawed, as the point of the OP's article is that Bush the serviceman & Bush the politician should be viewed separately (same would go for Kerry). You can say Kerry isn't a good politician... you can say what he did after the war is questionable... but question his service record based on heresay & you've crossed the line.

So did he cross the line when he maligned hundreds of other servicemen's records?

Did you cross the line talking out of your sphincter?