Please. Of course it was dangerous. That's why he didn't take the flight physical.

Bush logged 600 flight hours in a first generation all weather jet fighter, no-one denies that. It is obscene to call that cowardice. This whole contraversy is absurd. If Bush wanted to be safe he could have gotten a job as a clerk or a truckdriver.

For those who would like to crunch the raw numbers go here.

Welcome back, klaatu. Thanks for the non-sequitur.

BTW, How did "son of Klaatu's" service in Iraq turn out? Has he rotated home yet, or is he still in country?

Gort: Klaatu barada moron.

That's why Bush wasn't shipped to the s@%t.

I think it would be interesting to compare how dangerous it was to fly the F-102 with, say, piloting a swift boat in Viet Nam during combat.

Its also dangerous to drink and drive, but I wouldn't raise this as an example of Bush's bravery either. But that's just me.

Thanks for the welcome back, Joe.

My son made it back OK, after being extended for three months (15 months total in Iraq: no leave, no R&R) because of Bush's incompetence in dealing with al-Sadr.

Maybe I was too harsh on the prez, but no more unfair than the stuff being promulgated on Kerry.

600 hours in a "Deuce?" Maybe 600 total flying hours, including pilot training. But he only flew with his ANG squadron for a couple of years, so it's hard to believe he got that much time in type. Anyway, getting through USAF pilot training is no walk in the park, and it was a general practice for instructors to give a thumbs up/down for anyone slated to go into fighters, so no one should doubt Bush's intelligence or ability. What continues to bother me is that upon graduation from pilot training he incurred an obligation of at least four years rated service, and he was allowed to bag the last two years or so, with no penalty from the Texas Guard. This is a guy who's gotten away with a lot in his life, floating along on a river of entitlement.

From what I've heard, that was far from unusual during the closing days of Vietnam. A ton of veteran pilots were returning home and there was a glut. There simply werent enough aircraft or positions to go around and guys like Bush werent going to get them.

From retired USAF pilots I've talked to who flew in Vietnam and afterwards, there was a huge draw down in rated (pilot/navs) following Vietnam. You almost had to fight to stay in, and they were more than happy to let you go well before your service commitment expired.

I also think you'll find most 102 units were standing down or transitioning to other aircraft around '71 or '72. It really doesn't make sense to send a pilot to an FTU to train for another aircraft, just have them get out in a year. Better to let them go and give the spot to someone who will fight to stay in.

VT, an educated guess, if the criterion is relevant: flying an F-102A in the USA would be more dangerous than being on a ship in the Gulf of Tonkin (Kerry's first posting, and the one he thought he was getting), and less dangerous than being on riverine patrols on the Mekong et. al. (where Kerry ended up, and won a medal for bravery).

But it would be foolish to think of it as "safe" or "protected". Thought the stats would be interesting, and Lt. Sparky presented them in a very accessible way.

Had the USAF decided to switch W's Guard unit to F-105D attack aircraft (which replaced the F-102s in Vietnam), W's service would have become much MORE dangerous than even river patrols. Had Kerry's swift boats not been reassigned while he was there, his service would have had almost no element of danger. Step into a uniform, and the role of chance enters the picture. Sometimes in very strong ways.

Which is one reason why debates over types of service or the relative value of service in branches other than, say, SOCOM (Special Operations Command), are futile and counterproductive.

On the bright side for W., at least he never had to fly the Canadian CF-104 Starfighters (110 lost in accidents out of 239 delivered, 1962-1983). More frightening still - during this period, it was Canada's BEST aircraft. And we weren't alone in having this problem:

"In Luftwaffe service, the F-104G got a bad reputation because of the large number of accidents, many of them resulting in fatalities. Intensive flying operations with the Starfighter did not start in Germany until 1961... By mid-1966, 61 German Starfighters had crashed, with a loss of 35 pilots. At the height of the crisis, the Starfighter accident rate peaked at 139 per 100,000 flying hours... One running joke at the time was that if you waited long enough, just about every square mile of Germany would have a Starfighter crash onto it.....

During its period of service with the German armed forces, about 270 German Starfighters were lost in accidents, just under 30 percent of the total force. About 110 pilots were killed."

Canada's RCAF now flies CF-18 Hornets, similar to the US F-18A/Bs but with less advanced equipment. If you want to fly a "widowmaker" in Canada these days, you need to pilot one of our navy's 40-year old Sea King helicopters while our government in Ottawa spends its funds upgrading its fleet of private jets for use by government ministers et. al.

That explains why no one has ever claimed the $10,000 reward for having seen Bush doing his Guard duty the missing year. Half his cohort crashed their planes and died, and half were let out early the year before.

More realistically, Bush got off to a good start in the Guard. Then something (probably alcohol or drug related) went down, and the Bush Rescue Team went to work.

"More realistically, Bush got off to a good start in the Guard. Then something (probably alcohol or drug related) went down, and the Bush Rescue Team went to work."

That is wreckless speculation. The biggest problem with this story is that there is zero context. Nothing in Bush's NG record was unique or even unusual in that period.

Joe, you made a great point, and it was what I was trying to get at, although somewhat obliquely.

When most people join the military, they do not necessarily know the amount of danger they will be put in. The best idea is to expect the most danger, so as not to fool yourself into thinking that joining the military isn't a potentially deadly commitment.

The truth is, both Bush and Kerry served. They were assigned due to the needs of their services. To compare swift boats and fighter jets is both a waste of time and insulting.

Now, if you want to compare combat leadership, then go ahead. But that is a completely separate and unrelated issue.

A bit OT, re: "On the bright side for W., at least he never had to fly the Canadian CF-104 Starfighters (110 lost in accidents out of 239 delivered, 1962-1983). More frightening still - during this period, it was Canada's BEST aircraft ...."

My Dad flew 104's right from the start, through 1972. (brief time out at Staff College somehwere int here) He probably ended up with as many or more hours in them than anyone in Canada. All the widowmaker stories .... you will almost never get them from the pilots. Those guys, as a rule, loved the airplne. The problem is, the mission was fly fast, low. When you do that, you tend to occasionally run into cumulo-granite clouds. Everyone flying it knew the nature of the job.

I lost an uncle in a USAF jet training accident, in the F-80 Shooting Star. So I see red when I hear or read a Kerry supporter denegrating the President's serive.
Such as Buehner above. Guess what B, Bush #41 wasn't President or VP at that time. There was no Bush Rescue Team. Your kind make me sick.

Had the Soviets actually attacked the United States, Bush would likely be killed. The F-102 fired the AIM-26, an air-to-air nuclear missile. The radius of the explosion was greater than the range of the missile. Essentially, it would be a suicide mission.

pedro, I think you misread the attribution. On this blog (uniquely, as far as I can tell) the author is listed above the comment. It was Lazarus, not Buehner, who made the vile comment.

"If Bush wanted to be safe he could have gotten a job as a clerk or a truckdriver."

And if he truly sought a dangerous job, he could've went active duty like McCain and flown missions over Viet Nam. The guy went and joined the Guard to fly planes. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I would've probably done the same thing at the time, but the way I've seen people trying to defend the President by continually saying that the plane he flew was "dangerous" and then equating that danger with combat service in Viet Nam is nonsense. It's grasping at straws at its finest.

I've seen a lot of dangerous jobs in the military, but I would never take anything away from a combat vet by comparing jobs that have an element of danger to them with anything a vet encountered in-theater.

Neither would I take anything away from a guy that did a fairly dangerous job while he served. You can say they served and did their part and any criticism of that service, especially by those that never served at all, is safe to ignore because those people don't know what they're talking about. You give them legitimacy when you aknowledge their crap.

The only reason any of this is under debate is because politics is involved, and when you involve politics, you involve a class of scurrilous and craven people whose very existence is antithetical to the values the military strives to uphold.

"I lost an uncle in a USAF jet training accident, in the F-80 Shooting Star. So I see red when I hear or read a Kerry supporter denegrating the President's serive."

Yeah, not too many people have that problem when it comes to Kerry's service, though. Again, politics.

Let's all make a deal. Let's all get in the Way-back Machine and return to 2002 and agree never to bring up Vietnam in any way, shape, or form - ever again.

Please. It has to be possible!

Stryker:

I would've probably done the same thing at the time, but the way I've seen people trying to defend the President by continually saying that the plane he flew was "dangerous" and then equating that danger with combat service in Viet Nam is nonsense.

The point is that not a few people believe that flying in the NG is the coward's way out. Joe's post is a rebuttal of that.

FWIW, flying F-102s was more dangerous than being on a U.S. Navy warship (Kerry's intended position). I've yet to see anyone make comparisons between Bush's service and any Vietnam combat vets - and conclude that they're on any sort of equal footing in terms of danger encountered.

Stryker,

Lt. Sparkey's comment (#28830) speaks to the key point here. The National Guard is not a lower tier of service. It did not guarantee immunity from combat even in Bush's unit, it had its own real risks, and the amount of danger involved in one's service can and does change abruptly due to decisions by higher-ups over which a serving individual has no control. There are lots of NGs in Iraq who are living that right now.

Is your own long service any less worthy because the biggest danger you personally face (for now) is an industrial accident? No. Does America being at war change this? No. You're serving, it's a necessary job, the higher ups decide where your unit goes, and your efforts deserve thanks and gratitude from your fellow Americans.

Both Bush & Kerry faced real dangers, and both were within the rules. George W. Bush filled a military need via his choice of the Air National Guard, and was within the rules in his deferments and his acceptance of an early phase-out given the pilot glut and low priority on the F-102. Different military/political decisions in certain places, or fate, could have completely changed his life story. Kerry filled a need via in his selection of what seemed like a cushy and risk-free "combat time" in swift boats, and was within the rules to leave his crew in a combat zone after 4 months thanks to 3 purple hearts. Different military/political decisions in certain places, or fate, could have completely changed his life story.

It is reasonable to speculate that military service in the McCain sense was not either man's first priority. But once you're in, fate doesn't give a damn what your priorities are. Bottom line: Kerry's service was worthy. Bush's service was worthy. Both faced risks in service. Both were honourably discharged.

That's where it ought to end, and then we can get on to discussing things like each man's public record.

Lurker...

What you are describing is the decades-old Vietnam Truce in American politics. It is broken now as a result of Kerry's own strategic choices and failings - like Humpty-Dumpty, it cannot be put back together again. At least, not in this campaign or by these candidates.

Kerry has chosen to make his service and combat leadership a centerpriece of his campaign. This has drawn scrutiny. Some has been fair (and it should be answered). Some has been unfair (and it should be challenged). But given his strategy, sharp scrutiny was inevitable and even required.

Bush is choosing to make the Global War on Terror a centrepiece of his campaign. This has drawn scrutiny. Some has been fair (and it should be answered). Some has been unfair (and it should be challenged). But given his strategy, sharp scrutiny is inevitable and even required.

Given that setup, a focus by each party on the opposing candidate's Vietnam service is an ideal situation for the Republicans. It undermines the core of Kerry's campaign, and doesn't much affect the core of W's. Stepping into this trap was a deep mistake, and has served America as a whole very poorly. Your coming frustration and boredom will be a good index of that, I think, as preoccupation with this issue continues.

Our frustration, too. You'll notice that we've largely avoided these issues ourselves, with the exception of the speech I wish Kerry would give by A.L. and context-setting background posts (i.e. Vietnam Truce as a force in American politics and "data point" posts like this one) from me.

The records show Bush, a lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, was ranked No. 22 in a class of 53 pilots when he finished his flight training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1969.

Over the next three years, he logged 326.4 hours as a pilot and an additional 9.9 hours as a co-pilot, mostly in his the F-102a jet used to intercept enemy aircraft.

The records show his last flight came on April 1972, which is consistent with his pay records that show Bush had a large lapse of duty between April and October of that year, a time he says he went to Alabama to work on an unsuccessful Republican Senate campaign. Bush skipped a required medical exam that cost his pilot's status in August 1972.

A six-month historical record of his 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, also turned over to the AP on Tuesday, shows some of the training Bush missed with his colleagues during that time.

Significantly, it showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United State beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a time when Bush did not report for duty, according to his pay records.

Bush's lone service in October came at another air base an Alabama, where he sought temporary permission to train away from his assigned squadron.

As part of the mission, the 147th kept two F-102a jets — the same Bush flew before he lost his flight status for skipping a required medical exam — on ready alert to be launched within five minutes warning.

Nice, Praktike, I was just about to link to the same article.

Here's a key passage that deserves highlighting, in light of Joe's note above that Bush's unit could have been called up for service at any time, thus making it perhaps something less than a trip to Canada as a way to avoid combat:

"Significantly, it showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United State beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a time when Bush did not report for duty, according to his pay records."

Hmm. Lt. Bush seems to have skipped out just in the nick of time. Maybe he knew in April (when he stopped flying) that these orders were coming through?

After all, he did say:

"I'm saying to myself, 'What do I want to do?' I think I don't want to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam. What I do decide to want to do is learn to fly."

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 1989

"I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."

Dallas Morning News, Feb. 25, 1990

"I don't want to play like I was somebody out there marching when I wasn't. It was either Canada or the service. ... Somebody said the Guard was looking for pilots. All I know is, there weren't that many people trying to be pilots."

Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Nov. 29, 1998

P & VT,
All this stuff about Bush was all vetted months ago when the Demo's 527s first started pounding it again after it was originally brought up before the last election. Who cares? I didn't care in 2000 and I still don't care. Bush got elected before. So, it didn't hurt him then. It's not hurting him now either. Who had the bright idea to start this tired rerun all over again? Oh, I forgot for a second.... I don't care. Is this manufactured apathy?

Nor do I care about Kerry's Vietnam service. I don't care about his medals. I don't care about his war protests. I don’t care about his boo-boos. I just don't care. This stuff was old before I cast my first vote; and I'm no spring chicken!

Though, I must admit a certain morbid curiosity as Kerry's plans unravel, apparently after three decades of machinations. Full disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat and have never voted for a Republican for President. So, please, spare me your sniping.

Joe,
I was only wishing, that’s all. I did read that post about the Vietnam Truce and all the links too. We definitely agree that Kerry should have left Vietnam in the past. And, you're right, if only Kerry had made issues and an actual policy the core of his campaign instead of digging up Vietnam again....

Of the Americans, 58,226 were killed in action or classified as missing in action. A further 153,303 Americans were wounded to give total casualties of 211,529. The United States Army took the majority of the casualties with 38,179 killed and 96,802 wounded; the Marine Corps lost 14,836 killed and 51,392 wounded; the Navy 2,556 and 4,178; with the Air Force suffering the lowest casualties both in numbers and percentage terms with 2,580 killed and 931 wounded.

Sheer number of casualties listed as killed or wounded during the war indicates that the betting man would want to join the Air Force instead of the Army. Or, in the case of the priviledge few who could CHOOSE their own method of involvement (both GW and Kerry), CHOOSE the Air National Guard. I wonder what the killed and wounded figures were for GW's unit.

All this stuff about Bush was all vetted months ago when the Demo's 527s first started pounding it again after it was originally brought up before the last election.

Actually, no. This is brand-new information, the result of the AP's FOIA request.

As to the relevance, well, this is politics. And just as Kerry chose to highlight his service, Bush chose to dress up in a flight suit and land on an air craft carrier and declare, in effect, "Mission Accomplished."

As you reap, so you sow.

praktike and/or VT

"Significantly, it showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack"

What does a "24-hour active alert mission" entail and why is it significant?

The USAF was indeed a comparatively safe place to be in Vietnam (but tell that to the USAF pilots in the Hanoi Hilton). The same is true today - but I'm awfully glad America has pilots for its A-10s, F-16s, AC-130s etc. all the same.

Bush's descriptions above mesh well with my presuppositions: an unserious party guy facing the usual "go or split" choice of his time, who liked fast living and wanted to 'ride the ultimate hot rod' in a jet. He put other things first, and got out as soon as the military allowed him to. This may be a questionable motive, but he wouldn't be the first or last to serve for this reason and his service is still worthy of respect.

For many people, W's straightforward lack of claims to heroism will reassure. And not only are his status and early discharge due to a glut of pilots non-conflicting with the above account of the exercise, but once you're into that debate with the electorate, these minutiae cause a fast MEGO (My Eyes Glaze Over) reaction. One would think Clinton's victorious experience would have taught this.

My perception of Kerry is a political wannabe who wanted the resume item and tried to game a cushy job, until fate intervened - at which point he served well but worked to find a technicality and get out, even it meant leaving his people in a combat zone. In other words, he put other things first, and got out as soon as the military allowed him to. As I say, people sign up for all sorts of reasons. He
This may be a questionable motive, but he wouldn't be the first or last to serve for this reason and his service is still worthy of respect.

Thing is, if this shows up as a pattern in Kerry's accounts, it hits at his central 'Vietnam war hero' story and hurts him in a way that similar political strikes at W. don't. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) won a 1982 Senate selection by blowing up a Republican opponent's Vietnam war hero stories, and Kerry's are best left without overly close scruity. Yet he and his party continue to invite it.

Bottom line: Bush was discharged honourably, as Kerry was. That means something, and both deserve honour for it and also for all medals and awards won - incl. the Purple Hearts. The commitment of a serving veteran discharged honourably must be above question.

That should have been the Democrats' story, and it should have been their mantra against every attack. But it wasn't. Still isn't.

Some people may see each man's service as wanting, and not entirely without cause in either case. Opening this can of worms was not in the interest of EITHER party's candidate - or of America as a whole. Yet here we are.

The cans will open wider still. Meanwhile, far away, an Islamofascist theocracy seeks to unlock the secret of heaven's destroying fire for use here on earth. And the response, on both sides of America's political divide, is a combination of silence and navel-gazing trivia.

While I am in agreement that Bush's TANG service does warrant some respect, I think it is pretty clear that it pales in comparison to the respect Kerry deserves for his service. Regardless of any motives, intended or perceived.

No amount of quibbling over whether Kerry was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve or not, or efforts to equate his foggy memory of some events with the apparently purposeful misrepresentation by Bush of his own service, will alter that simple truth.

And since such behavior does show up, not only as a pattern, but as the modus operandi of this administration, what further evidence do you need to conclude that Bush is far from qualified to be President and Commander-in-chief?

Going out on a limb without proof or cite: USAF POW's in Vietnam dwarf all other sevices combined. Watching TV of repatriation, I saw 40-50 faces of men I knew personally, from acquaintances to good friends, who were tortured specifically because of Kerry's statements about war crimes and atrocities. I also lost a roommate, a GIB (guy-in-the-back) and 4 other members of my squadron during 13 months in-country. Kerry needs to apologize to all those who served honorably and gave the ultimate sacrifice. Will he?

VT, I'll simply point you back to my earlier post - note that this predates the Swifties.

"It's not a matter of doubt to me that Kerry - as much or more than Bush - used privilege, probably connections, and his knowledge and ability to manipulate the system to get himself what he wanted; possibly, in my estimation, to get his ticket punched so that, like his hero John Kennedy, he could campaign as a warrior. Why does this matter? Not because I'm making a 'Kerry is as bad as Bush' argument (although I reserve the right to make it later). But it matters, because in truth if you look closely at the resumes of the thousand people in the country who could plausibly run for President, what percentage of them do you think have gamed portions of their careers?"

A.L.

A.L.

I'm becoming less and less surprised that you are willing to substitute conjecture for fact when taking Bush's side.

Here's evidence that Bush used "privilege, probably connections", to get into TANG (and thereby avoid duty in Vietnam).

(I'm also newly curious about his well-timed failure to report for duty in advance of his unit being put on alert. Inside info?)

Where's the proof that Kerry did this, or is your suggestion, based on pure speculation, that some substantial proportion of all potential Presidential candidates past and future have "gamed" portions of their careers, enough to satisfy you?

…who were tortured specifically because of Kerry's statements about war crimes and atrocities

I am not sure I understand this. You claim that Kerry's speech about war crimes and atrocities was the but-for, the sine qua non, for the torture of certain American POWs? Not (1) the underlying, and sometimes mistaken, testimony of other soldiers that Kerry was synthesizing, (2) the actual war crimes themselves when they did take place (you surely aren't going to insult our intelligence by denying all of them), which were surely known to the North Vietnamese, nor (3) general barbarity and failure to uphold the not-yet-quaint Geneva Conventions?

It's not easy to believe that, I would think that at most Kerry's testimony provided a convenient transient excuse, and something else would have served in its absence.

Larry;

Of course you can speculate all you want about whether Kerry's statements did indeed inspire the torture of American POWs. I'm wondering whether they would have been tortured anyway.

Also, do you have any evidence that the Vietcong actually heard his testimony and/or statements? After all, a substantial portion of his testimony was only a reiteration of items in the Winter Soldier Report and are now unfairly being ascribed to him.

In my view, what John Kerry did after coming home from Vietnam was in fact a great service to many who remained there as it likely hastened the end of the conflict and the senseless loss of lives. Then and now, and throughout history, those who speak up in such a manner will always be labeled "disloyal" or worse by those who want to squelch opposition and ignore reality in order to achieve their ends.

If Kerry came back but said the exact opposite in his testimony, it is likely there would be an equally vociferous outcry from those who saw what happened there and could not ignore what it said about America and it's use of force, and we'd be hearing from them today about how he let them down.

And while I wouldn't object if Kerry wanted to apologize to those who perhaps didn't understand that his post-war efforts were in the service of his fellow soldier, neither do I think it is necessary that he do so. I'm sure he regrets any real harm his statements may have caused, and if it were it possible to link the two he certainly seems an honorable enough man to admit this.

VT-Who cares what either of them did in 1970? My support for Bush is based on his performance in the last four years. My disgust with Kerry is based on his performance as a Senator since 1984 and his waffling on the issues since he declared for the 2004 Presidential race.

Both have recent records in abundance. If you believe we are at war, Bush is the clear choice. If you believe 9/11 et al were crimes to be solved by your local cops, by all means, vote for Kerry.

This Vietnam focus is a loser for the Democrats. Why did they keep bringing it up? Certainly my respects to the POW's and all who served - in whatever capacity, buy why do all these old wounds need to be reopened now? Continuously. Seriously, did Kerry really think this would win the election for him?

ok, here's the deal. I'm 52 so I and my buddies were prime draft bait. If you wanted to fight you joined the army, if you had a high draft number you relaxed and smoked dope. If you had a low draft number you joined the Navy. The Navy had long waiting lists as did the National Guard. Both Bush and Kerry as rich guys may have pulled strings to get into low risk service. Kerry tried to get a deferment and failed.

VT,

I'm sure he regrets any real harm his statements may have caused, and if it were it possible to link the two he certainly seems an honorable enough man to admit this.

And yet he has not done that. Not ever, to my knowledge.

Seems a simple enough thing to do, really. The American Legion thing in Nashville would have been a great forum for an apology or even a clarification, but no.

I'm probably closer to Kerry than Bush on social issues, and I think the Presiden't handling of the WoT has been less than stellar at times. I'll admit to a number of sticking points vs. Kerry, but this is a major one. He was inexcusably careless in his characterizations of American soldiers in Vietnam, and he acted as a willing transmission belt for the charges of some men who never even served.

Lord Whorfin, I take it that the glory of being a War President outweighs (1) deficits, which he promised would be small and temporary, but whose estimates grew just yesterday; (2) job losses, already a million jobs behind the Administration's estimates from Feb 2004 (much less the earlier estimates), etc.? Well, I can guarantee that the country will see a lot more War Presidents if they can cover up the rest of their performance so easily. Poor Jimmy Carter. If he had only thrown some troops into an Iran quagmire, he'd have had Whorfin's vote against Reagan.

But wait! Of our recent successes in the war against Al Qaeda and transnational terrorists: haven't they mostly been coming from small, SWAT-style captures? The sort of thing a super-police force does? To return to the point of the thread, had Mission Accomplished Bush stuck with the small-ball plans in Afghanistan (now falling apart) and Pakistan, he wouldn't have gotten that chance to brush up on his carrier landings.

Andrew,

Police forces go where they're permitted to go by local authorities, with their cooperation, in order to arrest people. Commandos take the war to the enemy wherever they may be, with or without local permission, and their missions may include killing those deemed threatening.

Both look, to an untrained observer, like SWAT teams. But the resemblance ends there.

VT #1

bq:I'm becoming less and less surprised that you are willing to substitute conjecture for fact when taking Bush's side.

VT #2

bq:I'm sure he regrets any real harm his statements may have caused, and if it were it possible to link the two he certainly seems an honorable enough man to admit this.

res ipse loquitor, as they say...or better, "VT, can I come over and get some conjecture lessons?"

A.L.

A.L.,

Now you've resorted to playing gotcha games in lieu of answering my questions.

Par for the course.

Does not in any way explain or refute your own totally unsubstantiated conjecture that both Kerry and Bush received equally preferential treatment and that therefore this is a non-issue.

Wondering whether you saw 60 minutes II last night, or read my link above, or have already dismissed this issue a priori based on your beliefs.