drmiler

This information was published by the globe in 2000 and in 2004. Why was no action taken in 1972, because Bush got treated differently then most other people. Why did he get into the guard the way he did? How did he get into Harvard Grad School with a "c" average in under grad school? How did he cut his time short in the Guard? How did an unknown George W. get millions of dollars from Middle East investrors in the two companies he ran into the ground? How did he with 2% ownership in the Texas Rangers become the GM? The powerful friends of Daddy.

COL Gene,

I asked, "what is the Single Most Important Consideration, in your catalog of reasons to hate Bush? What is the one you would use, if you could only use one, to convert others to your way of thinking?"

Your answer seems to be, it's his unsatisfactory National Guard service, during the Vietnam era.

Does it really all come down to this, for you? If it turned out that Bush discharged his obligations to the Guard in a responsible and professional way, you would change your mind, and support him?

I'm not saying that Bush did the right thing, with the TANG. I'm just wondering if that's the real deal-breaker for you. I'm wondering if you think that some or all of Bush's policies are good policies. I'm wondering if you'd love to support this guy, but you just can't in good conscience ignore his shenanigans with the National Guard.

Bottom-line it for us, COL: If we proved to you that Bush did not abuse his connections to get into the Guard, and did not shirk his duties as a soldier, and fulfilled his requirements in a respectable way, would you change your mind about him? Or will your real animosity towards Bush remain for other, more important reasons?

Of course, if you have other, more important reasons to hate George Bush, why have you been wasting our time with this TANG crap all week? (And, obviously, if you can't present your Single Most Important Reason, when the original question was explicitly "what is your Single Most Important Reason", then why should we trust your ability to read or process any other piece of information regarding Bush?)

Just one? But there's so many to choose from.

If it has to be just one, it would be his endorsement of a policy of torture, and refusal to state that the US will not engage in torture.

What would make me admit that I am mistaken? Well, if George would categorically state that the US is a civilized state, and will not under any circumstances engage in torture - a practice which is totally useless for information gathering, as someone will say, make up, or admit to anything to get away from the pain. He's refused to do this, despite pleas from many groups such as Amnesty International, so I don't see him doing it any time soon. To get me to concede the entire point, well, you'd have to travel back in time, and stop Bush and Rumsfeld from writing policy documents that are widely available to the public who aren't scared to look (some people would rather just remain ignorant), which outline a policy of US torture using many approved methods, such as sleep depravation, attack by dogs, threats to and actually deporting people to countries where they will without a doubt be subjected to torture, immersion in water to the point of near drowning, starvation, and others that seem to and have been taken to imply that unless it's made public and they need someone to scapegoat, all methods of torture and deaths resulting from will simply have a blind eye turned. Even after scapegoating some retard soldiers, it is clear that they've done nothing to stop the problem, as more and more cases (including photographic and documentary proof) of continued torture keep coming forward. If you could go back in time, and change that, then I'd admit to being wrong.

My answer is that President Bush does not acknowledge when his policies are not working and seek more effective solutions. He just "stays the course" even though the course he is on is not solving the issue at hand.

That is what *you* would have recommended....that's fine. But that's NOT what he got is it? As far as the National Guard is concerned he *served* honorably. Case closed. Next case.

As far as the Navy was concerned Kerry earned his medals. Why was that a big deal then?

Actually I've seen nothing to prove he fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard, but plenty that suggests that he didn't. It's like his arrest for cocaine, he won't categorically deny it, and he's pretty transparent.