Ben Barnes to break silence on "60 Minutes"

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
As one of the yawners, let me be clear - I couldn't care less about how President Bush got into the National Guard. I couldn't care less whether or not he went to Viet Nam. It is completely and totally irrelevent to me when it comes to voting for someone in 2004. It just doesn't matter to me.

Same for Senator Kerry. I honor and value his service in Viet Nam, but other than that, I really don't care. He received his medals, and it doesn't matter to me whether or not he got his Purple Hearts for a minor scratch or a major wound. He was in combat, he was wounded, and he received his decorations. It was 30 years ago for God's sake, and it just doesn't matter to me at this point.

Well said, AFR. Unfortunately, I am afraid that quite a large percentage of the country disagrees with you (and I, btw) on this topic. All it takes is a look at the national polls before the swift boat lies and after to see that people DO listen to this stuff.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by charlie,nj
Boy that bomb must have some long delayed fuse...it didn't go off in 1999..so what makes you think it will go off in 2004?

Yeah, I'm thinkin it just might.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by charlie,nj
Boy that bomb must have some long delayed fuse...it didn't go off in 1999..so what makes you think it will go off in 2004?

In 1999, the republicans weren't spending millions trying to defame Al Gore's military record. Like it or not, it HAS become an issue, and to simply dismiss it because you think people don't care about it now is rather naieve.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by auntpolly
That paragraph is just, well it would be funny if it wasn't such a big fat lie. Neither he nor daddy-o made any calls.....Barnes did it on his own because.....?????? Give me a break!

spend some time with rich people or politicians, they call in unsolicited favors for each other all the time..


it amazes me how many people will so quickly call something a lie, becasue they don't believe it

 

[rascalmom]

What I keep seeing is that Kerry is using his Vietnam record as a "selling point" for his worthiness to serve as President. Mr. Bush is not. Sure, Mr. Kerry has an impressive military record, but is that the only attribute by which to judge potential leaders? If so, how did we get Mr. Clinton? (and several others for that matter.)

Mr. Bush points to his record as President and as governor of Texas. Why doesn't the Kerry campaign seem to have much to say about Kerry's senatorial record? It seems to me the more recent leadership roles (or lack thereof) speaks volumes more about a candidate's qualifications to be President than how or whether you were shot at 30 years ago.

Sorry, not usually political, but I just don't understand why this issue is such a big deal. Its comparing apples and oranges. To me being lucky enough to have saved your own skin in active combat (most people naturally duck - most people will help their comrades when able) is much different than leading the nation diplomatically, militarily and economically. Very tough decisions there.

 

[Gary M]

As just mentioned, Kerry will not let Vietnam drop. He doesn't want to talk about his nearly 20 years in the Senate.

I see where the liberals are hammering Dick Cheney about his draft deferments. What is the military experience of John Edwards? Edwards isn't as young as he looks. Edwards was born 6/10/53 and the cease fire in Vietnam wasn't until 1/27/73. He was 19 1/2 years old at that time. I knew several people that were drafted or volunteered at 18 yrs. old. The draft didn't end until 1973.

 

[Geoff_M]

swift boat lies

So Kerry DID run guns along with the CIA into Cambodia?

In 1999, the republicans weren't spending millions trying to defame Al Gore's military record.

Care to compare the donations by "Bush backers" to the Swifties with the amount of money pumped into Demoractic 527's by George Soros et al?

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by Gary M
As just mentioned, Kerry will not let Vietnam drop. He doesn't want to talk about his nearly 20 years in the Senate.

You mean in commercials? -- is that where you're getting your news? Every time I see Kerry talking he's talking about issues.

Vietnam is a part of Kerry just like it is for Dean and lots of other people. Republicans just don't want to hear about it because it doesn't make Bush look good.

You think I care about whether George's dad made a call for him? God bless him; God bless him if he was able to stay out of harm's way. But this stuff has always been sooooo important to you guys in the past. How we need a man with character and honesty and military experience. Why the effort to quash the "integrity" conversation this time?

 

[AirForceRocks]

But this stuff has always been sooooo important to you guys in the past.

And it's never been important to "you guys" in the past (Bush/Clinton 1992 and Clinton/Dole 1996), so why is combat service so important now?

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in both parties on this issue.

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
And it's never been important to "you guys" in the past (Bush/Clinton 1992 and Clinton/Dole 1996), so why is combat service so important now?

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in both parties on this issue.

Like I said, it's not. If GWB was truthful I'd surely admire him for it. You think I don't have friends that did things to get out of going to Vietnam? You think I fault them for it? Heck no.

But after years of hearing from the Republican party that democratic candidates were'nt tough enough -- weren't men of character -- weren't trustworthy and didn't have integrity -- I'm just "amused" that it's not an appropriate conversation this time!

 

[inaminute]

I also posted a yawn, and I agree 100% with Brenda. I simply do not care about things that occurred 30 years ago--from either party. I want to know what is happening now and in our future. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a lot of that from Senator Kerry. I'd like to, but all I hear is that Bush is bad and that Senator Kerry is a hero.

I would sincerely like to know exactly WHAT he is planning to do and the steps he's going to take to get there.

...is that the only attribute by which to judge potential leaders? If so, how did we get Mr. Clinton? (and several others for that matter.)

I am more concerned about the future of the Democratic party in this regard. It seems they're setting a precedent they may not want. If the requirement to be President is that a person serve in the military, I'm wondering how Senator Clinton will run in 2008 as she never served in the military?

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by inaminute


I'm wondering how Senator Clinton will run in 2008 as she never served in the military?

Oh, you can bet there will be Republicans that will be making that an issue! LOL

This isn't about the war. It's about honesty. And lying to get elected.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Originally posted by auntpolly
Oh, you can bet there will be Republicans that will be making that an issue! LOL

This isn't about the war. It's about honesty. And lying to get elected.

So enlighten us - who is lying?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer, but I'll ask anyway...

 

[auntpolly]

Originally posted by AirForceRocks
So enlighten us - who is lying?

I'm pretty sure I know your answer, but I'll ask anyway...

You're so sweet to ask! But you're right. You already know what I'm going to say.

 

[bcvillastwo]

First, if this guy says what the OP claims he is going to sayon 60 minutes but doesn't have some corroborating evidence there really isn't a story. But, he has to be able to substantiate his assertion with corroborating evidence.

Second, it's possible that George W. Bush did benefit from preferrential treatment. However, it's also possible that neither his father or himself actually knew about the leg up he got.

Third, if he did benefit from preferenctial treatment and either he or his either knew about and this fact is able to be supported by corroborating evidence then and only then does it become a story. Otherwise what this fella says means nothing because it can't be proven.

Another point about preferrential treatment. Since the Vietnam War it's been rumored that people of privilege were able to get their son's out of serving in Vietnam by getting them some type of deferrment or by getting them into the reserve, National Guard, or Air National Guard.

Regarding deferrments, remember deferrments were legal ways to avoid military service. If your family had the money they could keep you out of the military as long as you made good grades in school.

Regarding, preferential treatment that got certain people into the Reserve or Guard, it probably happened but I haven't seen much in the way of evidence to corroborate these assertions.

We will just have to wait and see what the guy says and whether he can prove it. If so, well George has some explaining to do. My guess is, he will not be able to substantiate his assertion.

 

[dennis99ss]

Uh, right, Adger, who was a very close business associate, and is one of the business associates who bailed young George out when his companies did not make any money, simply used a favor to help a friend, who happened to be a senator, who was involved with the cia, who had the finacial connections of the east coast, st louis and west texas.

Adger would simply recommend that young george be placed into the air guard.

The senator could not make the call because he would be accused of using his status to protect his son. Not a good thing for someone with political aspirations. So, a friend did.

Would a friend make a call that would effect someone elses life, without first knowing that this is what young george wanted. If young george and old george did not want this to happen, don't you think young george would have done something to get out of the guard. don't you think adger would have lost some of the bush connection. He didn't, as he continued to enter deals, and prop up george thereafter.

I find it amazing that the so called swift veterans for truth allege that the navy records are fraudulent, forged, etc. and therefore cannot be believed. However, the records on george are not to be questioned. So, the federal records on Kerry cannot be trusted, but the Bush records should be trusted, for no reason other than they are federal records.

Bush is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

 

[AirForceRocks]

dennis99ss, I might take your opinions a little more seriously if you didn't have so many facts wrong.

 

[dennis99ss]

and which ones do you not like?

 

[AirForceRocks]

and which ones do you not like?

It has nothing to do with not liking them, it has to do with them being inaccurate.

Uh, right, Adger, who was a very close business associate, and is one of the business associates who bailed young George out when his companies did not make any money, simply used a favor to help a friend, who happened to be a senator, who was involved with the cia, who had the finacial connections of the east coast, st louis and west texas.

George H.W. Bush was never a Senator, and he wasn't "involved with the cia" until 1975 when he became the director.

He didn't, as he continued to enter deals, and prop up george thereafter.

Really? And what deals would those be?

 

[UncleKyle]

Originally posted by UncleKyle
Why can't we just look past Vietnam. I liked what Senator McCain said. These swift boat ads and all the attacks on Kerry and Bush about Vietnam get us no where. We have war we need to focus on now, not something that ended over 30 years ago. Rehashing Vietnam won't bring back those 58,000 names on the Wall. We all know Bush used his family connections to get out of Vietnam, the Dems have been harping over it for the last 4 years. We all know Kerry used his Vietnam service for political gain, the republicans bring it up all the time. But I really don't care what Bush or Kerry did 30 years ago, what are they going to do now?

I like what I said.