Ben Barnes: Partisan dig up or concerned supporter

iamthewalrus109 · 09-09-2004, 08:24 AM

While watching the Ben Barnes interview last night as well as reading the damage control put out by the Bush campaign and the RNC, my mind starting swiriling around who the hell Ben Barnes is, and why come out now. My personal belief, and this is coming from someone who has witnessed the likes of Lee Atwater and Chuck Colson, that this man held his account due to his own embarassment. I think this and the risk of angering political friends, as well as prompting indimidation from them seems to be a plausible rationale to me. I think at his age, and with the importance of this election, as oppossed to Bush's gubernartorial campaigns or 2000, he came out to even the score. Was he dug up?, yes I think so, but I believe in at least the core of his story.

If it was only Ben Barnes talking I wouldn't be so sure, or not sure at all. The relase of National Guard documents that coincided with this interview, through various FOI filings reinforce my belief. Now having Dan Rather ask the administrative officer of the TXARG at the time whether these were forgeries or not, is not the best verification, but the claims are at least as good if not better than the swift boat vets. At least the guy worked there at the time, unlike O'Neil who simply took over afterwards. In any case this mixed with the Kelley book, true or not, makes the personal attack area a little bit more on even ground.

I think proving the GWB can stretch the truth, or even bold face lie, about his National Guard Record, proves that he can do the same about the last 3 1/2 years. I think if Kerry can neutralize this personal attack/war record issue and stay away from talking about Iraq and what he really meant on his votes, he stands a good chance of making GW crap his pants and give Karl Rove the cold sweats, but then again, just like nukes, GW has his finger on the terror switch, his ulitmate card, let's see what types of events crop up between now and November 2nd, I'm still thinking we have another 4 years of the Bushwhacker.

Walrus

Undertoad · 09-09-2004, 08:55 AM

This story may be true but it is going nowhere anyway. It's too complicated for the public to digest and sounds like bureaucratic nonsense. The issue of Bush's service has already been brought up and digested by the public and this will seem like more of the same but with less impact. It sounds like carping.

Furthermore the public is already confused by the new reality. Let's see, the Democrat went to Vietnam while the Republican avoided service; can we digest that? The Democrat who did go to war is now antiwar while the Republican who avoided service is now pro-war, can we digest that? The Democrat who went to war presses his war service as patriotic and evidence that he will defend the country, spoke against war and threw away medals, can we digest that?

iamthewalrus109 · 09-09-2004, 09:49 AM

In order to live we need to eat, right? In order to recieve the nutrients from that consumption we need to digest, well it stands to reason that it's not something we can choose to ignore as voters.

It seems strange that everybody seem to digest the claims made against Kerry just fine, but this they won't be able to handle, I find that hard to believe. What I don't find hard to believe is the public's inability to digest complex Senate votes, that's definately not hard to believe, but this is as cut and dry as it gets. Bush got preferential treatment, and he lied about it, plain and simple.

- Walrus

Undertoad · 09-09-2004, 10:31 AM

It's just the nature of what gives a story "legs" -- this one doesn't have it IMO. No really good video, nobody angry, looks all bureaucratic and political, feels anti-climactic.

We'll know in a few days. CNN is re-running a Browser sound bite every hour so if it has the legs to continue, there will be another round of questions.

SteveDallas · 09-09-2004, 01:37 PM

Well it may seem "bureaucratic" to you & me, but I guarantee you it's not so bureaucratic to men the age of my brother-in-law who were actually in the Vietnam draft lottery.

Still, I think you're right that it won't make much difference. Just like Bill Clinton's womanizing was not new news to voters in 1996, the fact that George W. Bush used family connections to avoid going to Vietnam is not a revelation to us now. (The fact that we're only now seeing all the corroborative detail only points to the basic incompetence of the Gore campaign.)

lookout123 · 09-09-2004, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveDallas

(The fact that we're only now seeing all the corroborative detail only points to the basic incompetence of the Gore campaign.)

i'm not a gore fan, but i don't think it was really incompetence. viet nam service was presented as a non-issue in the 92 and 96 elections that gore was a part of. i don't think he would have been capable of bashing bush on that issue after serving with clinton, an adcknowledged draft dodger, for 8 years.

SteveDallas · 09-09-2004, 02:27 PM

Oh they could have made something of it. Vietnam veteran Gore could have stood there and said he really thought we should just put Vietnam behind us while a bunch of little elves with no discernable connection to the Democrats fed all this stuff to the press.

I just wish it was a non-issue now. 30+ years after the fact, with no disrespect to anybody who was involved, but I'm really really tired of it.

iamthewalrus109 · 09-09-2004, 02:44 PM

I tend to agree with lookout here on Gore's ability based on his association with a know draft dodger, that mixed with the particular assignment Gore got, as a correspondent really cancelled out that attempt. I think that and the whole drug use issue that couldn't be used by the Gore campaign too, stemming from his obvious use of pot.

-Walrus

lookout123 · 09-09-2004, 03:16 PM

i agree with stevedallas i really am sick of the vietnam debate being the only real issue in this election cycle. Kerry thought he could stand on his war hero record and ignore his 19 years in the senate because of bush's less than stellar military record. unfortunately for kerry, it has jumped up to bite him in the ass and he is having a hard time moving on to the more important issues. who these 2 pampered privileged men were during the vietnam era is less important to me than who they are today, and what vision they see for the next four years.

the R's want to beat the shit out of Kerry's list of medals. it is so easy to do because people who have been in the military know what it takes to get 5 medals in 4 months. but to be fair, he was young and had political ambitions. in the state he comes from that meant he had better do something close to walking on water. he tried for a deferment and when he was denied he was commissioned in the naval reserve and went to vietnam.

the D's want to beat the shit out of Bush for a lot of reasons, but they keep going back to his ANG service. why, because it is easy. he was connected and got into a branch that was unlikely to go to vietnam, just like a lot of rich kids did. right or wrong it wasn't unusual. they are fixated on his apparent absences from drill for 6 months. for those of us in the guard and reserve - it isn't that big of a deal. missing drill periods has no real consequence unless you are trying to gain years for retirement. if you aren't there you aren't paid. gwb was just in the ANG to fill the time and avoid going to vietnam.

in the end, none of it really matters because these were the actions of young men from wealthy families, 30 + years ago. it is unreasonable to say they are fit or unfit for a leadership position in 2004 based on what they did in the late 60's and early 70's.

garnet · 09-09-2004, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

the D's want to beat the shit out of Bush for a lot of reasons, but they keep going back to his ANG service. why, because it is easy. he was connected and got into a branch that was unlikely to go to vietnam, just like a lot of rich kids did. right or wrong it wasn't unusual......in the end, none of it really matters because these were the actions of young men from wealthy families, 30 + years ago. it is unreasonable to say they are fit or unfit for a leadership position in 2004 based on what they did in the late 60's and early 70's.

Hmmmm, it sure seemed like a big deal to the Republicans when Bill Clinton was guilty of the same "rich kid" offenses as George W. Bush. And to even compare the Vietnam service of Kerry and Bush is a joke--Kerry actually WENT to Vietnam. George didn't.

lookout123 · 09-09-2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garnet

Hmmmm, it sure seemed like a big deal to the Republicans when Bill Clinton was guilty of the same "rich kid" offenses as George W. Bush. And to even compare the Vietnam service of Kerry and Bush is a joke--Kerry actually WENT to Vietnam. George didn't.

what is your point garnet? that the republicans were asses in the '92 election? agreed. it is important to note that the '92 election pitted a vietnam era candidate against a WWII vet for the first time, so that is why it came to the forefront at the time. it was the last harrah for the WWII vets in the white house (nobody took dole seriously in '96, did they?). but it was ridiculous to worry about what an early 20 something did in the 70's then, as it is now.

warch · 09-09-2004, 03:58 PM

I'm more concerned about the covert power of Bush Family, Inc. than George's drug test. Perhaps this will add a bit of muscle to Grahams charges?

garnet · 09-09-2004, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

what is your point garnet? that the republicans were asses in the '92 election? agreed. it is important to note that the '92 election pitted a vietnam era candidate against a WWII vet for the first time, so that is why it came to the forefront at the time. it was the last harrah for the WWII vets in the white house (nobody took dole seriously in '96, did they?). but it was ridiculous to worry about what an early 20 something did in the 70's then, as it is now.

I just think it's funny how you've got an excuse for the right wing no matter what they do. Very predictable. You call the the Republicans "asses" above and then turn around and give an explanation (excuse?) as to why what their dogging Clinton was acceptable as news fodder. Which is it? I can guarantee you that if the Vietnam records of Bush and Kerry were reversed you wouldn't be making the statement about how actions from 20-30 years ago don't matter.

Trilby · 09-09-2004, 04:30 PM

i think lookout and garnet make a beeeee-aUtiful couple!

lookout123 · 09-09-2004, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

i think lookout and garnet make a beeeee-aUtiful couple!

she is my soul mate can't you tell? we have so much in common it just makes other couples ill with envy.

09-09-2004, 08:24 AM	#1
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Ben Barnes: Partisan dig up or concerned supporter While watching the Ben Barnes interview last night as well as reading the damage control put out by the Bush campaign and the RNC, my mind starting swiriling around who the hell Ben Barnes is, and why come out now. My personal belief, and this is coming from someone who has witnessed the likes of Lee Atwater and Chuck Colson, that this man held his account due to his own embarassment. I think this and the risk of angering political friends, as well as prompting indimidation from them seems to be a plausible rationale to me. I think at his age, and with the importance of this election, as oppossed to Bush's gubernartorial campaigns or 2000, he came out to even the score. Was he dug up?, yes I think so, but I believe in at least the core of his story. If it was only Ben Barnes talking I wouldn't be so sure, or not sure at all. The relase of National Guard documents that coincided with this interview, through various FOI filings reinforce my belief. Now having Dan Rather ask the administrative officer of the TXARG at the time whether these were forgeries or not, is not the best verification, but the claims are at least as good if not better than the swift boat vets. At least the guy worked there at the time, unlike O'Neil who simply took over afterwards. In any case this mixed with the Kelley book, true or not, makes the personal attack area a little bit more on even ground. I think proving the GWB can stretch the truth, or even bold face lie, about his National Guard Record, proves that he can do the same about the last 3 1/2 years. I think if Kerry can neutralize this personal attack/war record issue and stay away from talking about Iraq and what he really meant on his votes, he stands a good chance of making GW crap his pants and give Karl Rove the cold sweats, but then again, just like nukes, GW has his finger on the terror switch, his ulitmate card, let's see what types of events crop up between now and November 2nd, I'm still thinking we have another 4 years of the Bushwhacker. Walrus

09-09-2004, 09:49 AM	#3
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Digestion is necessary for survival In order to live we need to eat, right? In order to recieve the nutrients from that consumption we need to digest, well it stands to reason that it's not something we can choose to ignore as voters. It seems strange that everybody seem to digest the claims made against Kerry just fine, but this they won't be able to handle, I find that hard to believe. What I don't find hard to believe is the public's inability to digest complex Senate votes, that's definately not hard to believe, but this is as cut and dry as it gets. Bush got preferential treatment, and he lied about it, plain and simple. - Walrus

09-09-2004, 02:44 PM	#8
iamthewalrus109 High Propagandist Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 111	Gore's ability to question service I tend to agree with lookout here on Gore's ability based on his association with a know draft dodger, that mixed with the particular assignment Gore got, as a correspondent really cancelled out that attempt. I think that and the whole drug use issue that couldn't be used by the Gore campaign too, stemming from his obvious use of pot. -Walrus

09-09-2004, 03:16 PM	#9
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	i agree with stevedallas i really am sick of the vietnam debate being the only real issue in this election cycle. Kerry thought he could stand on his war hero record and ignore his 19 years in the senate because of bush's less than stellar military record. unfortunately for kerry, it has jumped up to bite him in the ass and he is having a hard time moving on to the more important issues. who these 2 pampered privileged men were during the vietnam era is less important to me than who they are today, and what vision they see for the next four years. the R's want to beat the shit out of Kerry's list of medals. it is so easy to do because people who have been in the military know what it takes to get 5 medals in 4 months. but to be fair, he was young and had political ambitions. in the state he comes from that meant he had better do something close to walking on water. he tried for a deferment and when he was denied he was commissioned in the naval reserve and went to vietnam. the D's want to beat the shit out of Bush for a lot of reasons, but they keep going back to his ANG service. why, because it is easy. he was connected and got into a branch that was unlikely to go to vietnam, just like a lot of rich kids did. right or wrong it wasn't unusual. they are fixated on his apparent absences from drill for 6 months. for those of us in the guard and reserve - it isn't that big of a deal. missing drill periods has no real consequence unless you are trying to gain years for retirement. if you aren't there you aren't paid. gwb was just in the ANG to fill the time and avoid going to vietnam. in the end, none of it really matters because these were the actions of young men from wealthy families, 30 + years ago. it is unreasonable to say they are fit or unfit for a leadership position in 2004 based on what they did in the late 60's and early 70's. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

09-09-2004, 04:30 PM	#14
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	i think lookout and garnet make a beeeee-aUtiful couple! __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

09-09-2004, 08:55 AM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	This story may be true but it is going nowhere anyway. It's too complicated for the public to digest and sounds like bureaucratic nonsense. The issue of Bush's service has already been brought up and digested by the public and this will seem like more of the same but with less impact. It sounds like carping. Furthermore the public is already confused by the new reality. Let's see, the Democrat went to Vietnam while the Republican avoided service; can we digest that? The Democrat who did go to war is now antiwar while the Republican who avoided service is now pro-war, can we digest that? The Democrat who went to war presses his war service as patriotic and evidence that he will defend the country, spoke against war and threw away medals, can we digest that?

09-09-2004, 10:31 AM	#4
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It's just the nature of what gives a story "legs" -- this one doesn't have it IMO. No really good video, nobody angry, looks all bureaucratic and political, feels anti-climactic. We'll know in a few days. CNN is re-running a Browser sound bite every hour so if it has the legs to continue, there will be another round of questions.

09-09-2004, 01:37 PM	#5
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	Well it may seem "bureaucratic" to you & me, but I guarantee you it's not so bureaucratic to men the age of my brother-in-law who were actually in the Vietnam draft lottery. Still, I think you're right that it won't make much difference. Just like Bill Clinton's womanizing was not new news to voters in 1996, the fact that George W. Bush used family connections to avoid going to Vietnam is not a revelation to us now. (The fact that we're only now seeing all the corroborative detail only points to the basic incompetence of the Gore campaign.)

09-09-2004, 02:27 PM	#7
SteveDallas Your Bartender Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Philly Burbs, PA Posts: 7,651	Oh they could have made something of it. Vietnam veteran Gore could have stood there and said he really thought we should just put Vietnam behind us while a bunch of little elves with no discernable connection to the Democrats fed all this stuff to the press. I just wish it was a non-issue now. 30+ years after the fact, with no disrespect to anybody who was involved, but I'm really really tired of it.

09-09-2004, 03:58 PM	#12
warch lurkin old school Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Minnesota Posts: 2,796	I'm more concerned about the covert power of Bush Family, Inc. than George's drug test. Perhaps this will add a bit of muscle to Grahams charges?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)