Quote of the Day

From Ben Barnes, former Texas Lt. Governor and Speaker of the House:

I got a young man named George W. Bush in the National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. of Texas and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that was what people should do, when you're in office you helped a lot of rich people. And I walked through the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself than I have ever been because it was the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas.

I wonder what the chances are Bush will apologize?

Comments

[A. Rickey]

Riddle me this: how many Christmas in Cambodia stories are we going to have?

Ben Barnes became Lt. Governor of Texas in 1969.

Even Mother Jones, who's happy to make the same accusation as the above, lists Bush as joining the Texas Air National Guard in 1968.

And of course, you're happy to print the above without the slightest bit of fact-checking. Christmases in Cambodia, Lt. Governors with powers that defy we mere temporally-bound mortals... where will this madness end?

(Seriously, I'm not the only person to point this out. Somebody on the left really needs to start checking dates and scripting folks before making commercials.)

[Tung Yin]

What exactly is it that Bush should apologize for? Apparently he asked for a favor and got one. Granted, that might make him seem less courageous than Kerry, who didn't ask for such a favor, but so what?

[Fed.No.84]

What exactly is it that Bush should apologize for?
>>>>>>>>

For saying: "Because I am wealthy and my parent's are powerful, I do not deserve to die in Vietnam. Let some plebian risk his life."

Let's remember that Senator McCain refused an early release offered to him because of his father's status. Bush likes to talk about moral fiber. Well, he totally lacked it when he used the back door to stay out of Vietnam.

[Tung Yin]

Fed. #84, before I respond (and it may be a while, since I'm teaching two classes today), I just have a question. I understand why you like #84 (the one about no need for a Bill of Rights because the government is one of limited powers), but why do you sign your e-mails as "James Madison"? After all, it was the (greatest of the Founding Fathers) Alexander Hamilton who wrote #84!

[Fed.No.84]

How odd! Probably the explanation is that I set up my blog after pulling my second all-nighter of the week. I then fell into a pattern. (The same reason applies for my blogging anonymously, as well. It's just something I thought at the time was a good idea and that I haven't bothered to change). It's amazing what "ideas" I come up with at 4 a.m.!

But I will have to change that today and start using "Alexander" or maybe just my real name.

[Kevin Jon Heller]

Kerry critics love to argue that the minor inaccuracies in his Vietnam recollections somehow tarnish his character. I simply want to contrast the character of Kerry with that of Bush. On the one hand, Kerry volunteered to fight a war that he did not believe in even at the time. On the other hand, Bush used his family connections to avoid fighting a war that he supported at the time. If that's not cowardice and hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

[Tung Yin]

On the other hand, Bush used his family connections to avoid fighting a war that he supported at the time. If that's not cowardice and hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

I don't really want to get into defending Bush, but it seems to me that this is not a helpful line of inquiry, just as the whole stuff about whether Kerry was under fire and whether he suffered self-inflicted wounds is not a helpful line of inquiry. We can always go into people's motivations for doing things, and some might argue that Kerry enlisted because he knew that being a veteran would help his political aspirations, but he selected a type of naval service that he thought (wrongly) would not lead to combat. He admits the last point in his diary.

I, however, cut Kerry slack. At the same time, I cut Bush some slack on the National Guard thing too. First, it was 30 fricking years ago, when Bush was a different person. At least, he claims to have been a different person. If you don't believe that Bush has changed, that's fine, but the reason to oppose him is based on who he is today, not who he was 30 years ago.

Second, I don't know about cowardice, but if you want to talk about hypocrisy, I would say you'd have to consider fairly hypocritical Kerry's defense of Clinton back in 1996, when Kerry said that Vietnam service (or lack thereof) was not an issue.

Finally, as I've stated before, it's not that I view the minor inaccuracies as tarnishing his character so much as they are indicative of certain flaws of his: imprecision in speech, and an imperiousness that may possibly cause his assistants to be afraid to point out when he's wrong.

[Fed.No.84]

First, it was 30 fricking years ago, when Bush was a different person. At least, he claims to have been a different person.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Then he should apologize for taking a spot that should have been available to someone else - based on merits and not position. His choice might have caused an innocent American to have died in Vietnam. That is pretty serious business to me.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that Kerry has flaws. And Clinton almost ruined the military. The same things I say about Bush, I said about Clinton. Some of the best Army officers and NCO's resigned upon Clinton's election. So you won't find an apologist in me.

But things have gotten dirty. Everyone is throwing stones. Which I why I try to avoid politics on my blog. There just isn't much consistency in the business.

But, if you attack someone (as Bush has done), then I will show why your attack is unfair.

I don't know how many times I've told a certain friend of mine, "Hey, man, quit being a lawyer arguing a point that you don't believe to be true. Let's be philosophers and look for the right answer, even if that answer is something we don't like."

Politics is about taking a position, joining a team, and then rallying around that team. That is the major short-coming of our two-party system. The Democrats will run me out because I believe that the 2d Amendment confers upon us a right to firearm ownership, which is a good thing notwithstanding a constitutional guarantee; and because I believe in smaller government. The Repubs would run me out because, believing in limited government, I don't believe the state should exist to protecting and preserving the wealth of a few people - at taxpayer expense. DOJ's recent defense of the RIAA is one of many examples of the little guy bearing the burden to protect big capital. Guys like me really have no team to join. It is kind of depressing, actually, to be so alone.

Anyhow, Kerry and Bush are, IMHO, both pretty big losers. I'm voting for Kerry only because Bush has done so poorly. He had his chance to perform. He failed. Now it's time to bench him, even if we're going to replace him with another second-stringer.