I don't have an opinion either way yet when it comes to George B. Jr. But if your NOT a fan of Clinton, you'll appriciate this story of hipocrisy.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_dougherty_com/19990707_xcjod_the_medias.shtml

Article:

The media's hypocrisy on Bush

) 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

It is much too early in the 2000 presidential campaign to predict who will next be anointed with the free world's most powerful office of public service -- the presidency of the United States. And, with some 17 months left before I will cast my ballot for the nation's next president, I can't honestly say who I will vote for -- though I know already who won't get my vote (sorry Al -- no how, no way).

However, after last Sunday's hit piece in the Los Angeles Times against GOP frontrunner and Texas Governor George W. Bush, I feel compelled to defend him against what I view as a quintessential example of just how frightened, hypocritical and biased the liberal media really is.

The article openly questioned Mr. Bush's military service record during the Vietnam War, suggesting that because of who he was -- the son of former President George Bush, a Republican representative in Washington from Texas at the time -- he somehow received preferential treatment to become a Texas Air Guard fighter pilot.

According to the Times and subsequent Associated Press and media reports, liberal editors and reporters are hinting that Gov. Bush is a louse because he was able to get an officer's commission and a coveted fighter pilot billet on account of his name rather than his qualifications. In fact, if the research is right -- and much of it isn't -- Gov. Bush was neither competent nor in line for his promotion to second lieutenant and subsequent appointment to fighter pilot training after boot camp.

The problem is there were so many things wrong with this story that I honestly didn't know where to begin. So I decided to start at the top, so to speak.

First, the Times' treatment of the controversy surrounding President Clinton's shameful dodging of the draft at the time Bush was climbing the ranks bordered on insanity. The Times wrote, "In 1969, Arkansas Rhodes scholar Bill Clinton offered to join a Reserve Officers Training Corps program, even though he had received an induction notice that made him ineligible to do so. His draft maneuvers got him a deferral but brought him harsh criticism when they were revealed during his 1992 run for president." Oh, please.

Not only is this obvious fluff but it is factually wrong. Clinton never completed his Rhodes scholarship, he repeatedly lied to his Draft Board to make sure he never had to serve one day in the military, let alone Vietnam, and he broke his promise to return for ROTC training (he just never showed up). In addition, he eventually wrote his board a scathing letter in which he whined about being eligible for the draft and spoke of his "loathing" of the military in general. In short, Clinton never intended to spend a day in a military uniform and, as has been his trademark throughout his political career, sought only to delay and thus defer his obligation -- which he did.

While there is no evidence to suggest that either Bush or Clinton were going to be drafted at all, clearly there is a difference between a man who volunteers for any service during a war and a man who lies, cheats, and bashes in order to usurp his obligation. To me that contrast is stark and manifest.

Further, the Times article led readers to believe that Bush's commissioning process was somehow tainted because of his father. Yet the report listed several sources, all of whom said there is just no evidence that former President Bush lifted one finger to get his son into the Guard's pilot program. Those who served with him also said the younger Bush was dedicated, worked very hard and expected no free rides. In fact, many of them confirmed to the Times that Gov. Bush had volunteered for air combat duty in Vietnam but was never sent -- hardly something he or his father had control over.

The Times also made it sound as though Bush, who joined the Guard because he thought it a better opportunity to get into the cockpit of a fighter jet, only chose that branch because he knew Guard units "never saw combat." In fact several did, including the Indiana National Guard, whom former Vice President Dan Quayle was a member. Quayle didn't go, but others in the Indiana Guard were not so fortunate.

Times reporters also spoke of Bush's stint as a pilot as being during the "height of the war" -- further suggesting that he must have done "something" to get out of having to go to Vietnam. In fact, by the time Bush graduated flight school, the war was winding down anyway and the Paris Peace Accords were only months from being signed. According to the Times, "pilots were in demand in Vietnam," but the report conveniently failed to mention when pilots were in demand.

Besides, after Operation Linebacker II in December 1972, U.S. air and ground forces were no longer needed in large numbers because the Nixon administration was already well into bringing tens of thousands of them home. In fact, that was one of his 1972 election campaign promises.

Finally the Times tried to make something out of the fact that Bush received a transfer to an Alabama unit in 1972 "for three months to work on the Senate campaign of a politician there." The report continued, "At the time, the Alabama unit was downsizing, and there appeared to be no real task for him to perform."

It's likely true that the Alabama unit was downsizing, but at that time so were virtually all Guard and active duty air and ground combat units. Like I said, Nixon had already decided that war was just about over for America and was determined to bring it to an end as soon as possible. The first way to achieve that, one would reason, is to remove your forces from battle. Duh.

What is ironic is that throughout the report the Times repeatedly said that no enlistment or promotion rules had been violated and no established procedures were broken in order to give the junior Bush his spot. That in and of itself should lead any rational person to ask, "Why is this worthy of the front page, and where's the story here?"

The answer is there simply is no story. The mainstream liberal press is just scared to death of losing the White House in 2000 and, to be fair, after eight years of Bill and Hillary Clinton they ought to be worried.

Even if Bush did receive special treatment to get in the Guard, it is obvious he worked hard to make his appointment worthwhile, that he sought to fly jets in combat over Vietnam, and that he served the nation's military with honor and distinction. Clinton, on the other hand, has never served any office he has held with honor and distinction. His denigration of the office of the presidency is the stuff legends are made of and, barring revisionism, will be remembered as the most corrupt administration in U.S. history.

The blatant irony and hypocrisy behind the Times' motive, however, didn't even register with the editorial staff. It was just a few years ago when they and most of the other establishment liberal press were admonishing Americans for making such a big deal out of Clinton's lack of military service. In fact back then, it wasn't supposed to matter even that Clinton lied repeatedly to avoid the draft and avoid military service altogether.

To smear Gov. Bush for trying to perform military service -- regardless of the entrance circumstances -- is absurd, ludicrous and typical of a hypocritical media apparatus that is destroying the last of its own credibility. I don't believe this "story" will go nowhere because it isn't a story to begin with -- at least not one most Americans will find newsworthy. In fact, I predict millions of Americans will find it too offensive to forgive.

If only Clinton had received as much scrutiny for his patently more deceptive behavior.

Jon E. Dougherty is a senior writer and columnist for WorldNetDaily, as well as a morning co-host of Daybreak America.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999

Answers

"If only Clinton had received as much scrutiny for his patently more deceptive behavior."

Give me a break! Over one year of prodding and poking into Clinton's pants, broadcast throughout the World, at a cost to the taxpayers of over $50 million, no to mention all of the real work which was simply neglected by the Grand Old Farties. If that wasn't excessive scrutiny then why did they vote down the independent counsel law?

Bottom line: Bush Jr., like most Republicans these days, is a wimpy whining faggot who got his daddy to move him up to where he wouldn't have to get his fingernails dirty or trudge into combat. George Bush was the worst president we have had in my lifetime, and his son is just like daddy. This is typical rhetoric for the right-wing extremist agenda of the capitalist pigs at WorldNetDaily. It is easy to guess what those guys will write about, regardless of what the truth is.

-- @ (@@@.@), July 07, 1999.

I suggest you read the article before you spout off. Then if you want to debate, you'll have something more than liberal rage to work with.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

Yeah, yeah I read it, and like I said, there is no need to read WorldNetDaily because it is easy to see where they're coming from, spreading lies to suit their selfish needs. At least the LA Times cites their sources. WND can spew their propoganda till they're blue in the face, but I still know a snake when I see one.

Remember this: "Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES!" Yeah, right pal. Then he proceeded to screw up the economy so good that I was laid off for the first time in my life, from the best job I ever had. One president lies about what he is planning on doing with my hard earned money, the other one lies about a personal affair, which is none of our business in the first place. It's not hard for me to see who the crooked one is, and WorldNetDaily sure as hell isn't going to change that.

Fact of the matter is that the corrupt right-wingers know how to dish out their medicine, but they sure can't take it themselves. At least Clinton took it like a man. The only reason they voted to get rid of the Independent Counsel after they bashed Clinton is because there is no way the Republicans could handle it if the same thing happened to them. Now THAT is hypocrisy!

-- @ (@@@.@), July 07, 1999.

If you're going to argue about him, you at least ought to get his name right. He's not a Jr. George W. Bush. In Texas we call him Dubya.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 07, 1999.

Thanks for the article Mike. This is awesome. I can understand why @@@@@ is running scared.

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), July 07, 1999.

Hey @@@@@, whoever you are, take another look at "worldnetdaily". Do you see anything there posted by "counterpunch"? That group is about as leftwing as I've seen (from what I've seen). You'd like it.

-- libswantyourmoney@guns (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

@@@@@@@. When a liberal cat backs into a factual fan blade, they whine and whine and howl and howl.

Mike, good review. Likewise, can't say I am for or against W., but I do like to see fair and equal treatment of those who become targets of the press.

-- # (#@###.com), July 07, 1999.

I'll only say this about that...

As I LIFELONG Democrat, there's NO WAY IN THE WORLD that I'd vote for Al "Y2Wha?" Gore. Actually, there IS one way; he'd have to be running against Dan Quayle... ;^)

I am DEEPLY sorry that I voted for Klinton, TWICE. He has done more to damage our country (China spying anyone?) than ANY president that I can recall throughout history. And that says NOTHING about his attempt to grab power via his "Executive Orders", or his "happy face" Y2K spin (a SURE BET to panic the masses in December, but does Klinton Kare? F**K NO!). I will not sit idly by while the attempt to prolong this dirty, dastardly little dynasty continues.

OUT with them! ALL! And, make no mistake, I feel that Georgie Sr. is a FELON, albeit untried and unconvicted, pure and simple. (Conspiracy do defraud the federal gov't pops into mind over Iran-Contra). Also worthy of note, Sr. did NOTHING in his ENTIRE career in terms of making policy changes ANYWHERE he worked! What made people think he'd do any different in the White House? So he just SAT THERE while our economy went to hell. Actually, he didn't just sit there. He went fishing each weekend on his half million dollar boat, while *I* (and millions like me) lost our jobs, our homes, and filed bankruptcy. Yup! I was NEVER happier to see a SCHMUCK go! (until NOW, of course).

BUT, I do NOT equate Sr. to Jr. The "new one" is an unknown quantity. Perhaps when (not IF, not against Al "inventor of the Internet" Gore) he takes office, we can return to some level of sanity in that big ... white ... house.

Dennis (the Democrat, and got the precinct card to PROVE it!)

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 07, 1999.

World Net Daily is a rag making a career of slanted, yellow journalism.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), July 07, 1999.

I might get upset if I thought about the quality of condidates seriously, but since I'm wondering how there can be elections in 2000, nah, ain't sweatin it. Still looking for NEW & IMPROVED tho ;^)

The current Prez will not become King. The weeples will rise up in fury, anger and volatile destructive rage of betrayal. So there's room for the Don't Worry Be Happy tune on the political score. It may be neighborhood heroes taking Constitutional leadership at the "local" level: "local" is what we'll all become in the near future. The global village's watering hole will go dry at midnight crossing. Look for local rollover everywhere.

Time Will Tell

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), July 07, 1999.

Um...ah...thanks Dennis.

Speaking of KKKlintons, I think we should put a picture of the word Troll in the dictionary. Anyone have a picture of Hillary? And if we can convince the ancestors of Webster to add Sleazeball to Daniels dictionary, I vote for a picture of Slick Willie. Or better yet! Under the term DELETE.

-- ddedeldeledelete (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

Midwest Mike,

If you're not already working for Farah at WND I'm sure he'd hire you. You like to post messages to compliment yourself and hype the propoganda that you spread (see answers by "Rick" and "#"). I can see right through it.

And FYI, WND is not left wing, but extremely right-wing, so don't try to confuse the issue. What would you call someone who calls Al Gore a racist and socialist, and is in favor of limited government. Definitely not leftist, but a capitalist fat cat.

Farah on Gore

And if that weasel Bush gets elected everyone will have reason to be scared, not just me. Everyone that is, except perhaps the Oil and Banking industries, and probably Nazis.

-- @ (@@@.@), July 07, 1999.

As a good friend recently pointed out, we should all get away from the deceptive and inaccurate labels of Left and Right. Let's view candidates as Government CONTROL vs. Freedom. Where do they stand on this spectrum? My opinion of Jr.? I think he is a Politician. (Like his Daddy.) Politicians are in it for the money, the power, and the career. Politicians play a manipulative game that tramples on ethics and integrity. I think he is the Republican version of Clinton when he ran as a "centrist". (hurling...) Jr. is promoting himself as representing family values, while kissing up to anyone with money in Hollywood, and wooing the homosexual voters. (Don't flame me over this comment,... I am merely pointing out that he stands for Nothing. Does that remind anyone of Klinton?) Jr. says he is "pro- life" but is unwilling to commit to appointing judges with that view and conviction. What do Jr.'s convictions really mean? Maybe squat? What does Jr. really believe? I think... that he believes he "should get elected". I am looking for someone who has real convictions, so I know where they stand when I cast my vote. No more professional Politicians! (By the way, I am registered Republican, but vote for whoever I feel has the most integrity, or sadly, is the lesser of two evils. I do not vote a party line.) It's pretty hard to tell most of the Democrats and. Republicans apart these days. World Net Daily does not endorse Jr. I have read positive and negative about him on that site.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

We have lost our right to choose . Read the documentation in "Votescam, the Stealing of America" by James Collier. We Must go back to paper ballots to have a halfway decent national election. Wake up!

-- Betty Alice. (Barn266@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

I honor our veterans, but I did not and would not have served in vietnam. It was an immoral war. Oliver Stone's analysis was right on. My son will not serve in the Armed Forces either, because our wars aren't improving much. We are prepared however to defend ourselves and our loved ones. The idea of nations will hopefully collapse with everything else next year. After we get that out of the way perhaps we can toss out racial and religious differences as well...after all we'll all be in the same boat and it may be real leaky.

-- Sand Mueller (smueller@azalea.net), July 07, 1999.

I agree with you Mumsie. What is really sad is that the next Pres. has already been chosen before even one ballot has been cast. Or have I just missed the A and E Biography, the cover story in News Week, the Time article, on the other candidates?

Anyone know anything about Alan Keyes? Now that one has expressed opinions.

-- not in this life (politics@crap.com), July 07, 1999.

You can't even have an intelligent opinion until you quit calling him Junior. I made this clear earlier in this post. If you can't even name your opponent correctly, your opinion is not important.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 07, 1999.

As a lifelong Democrat, I would find it almost impossible to vote for George W. However, I cannot vote for clueless Al. Bill Bradley is such a bore that he makes that dolt Dan Quayle look like the Michael Jordan of politics.

We all have a way of measuring George W. If Texas makes it through Y2K without disasterous problems, he may well deserve to be President. Unlike all of the senators, commentators, and tycoons, he is in a position to make a difference for good or ill.

IMHO Slick Willy BJ Klinton has led us to the brink of disaster. I hope that once he leaves office that we never hear from him again.

-- Mr. Adequate (mr@adequate.com), July 08, 1999.

With all due respect Dog, I read your earlier post, and I did understand the differentiation. I have a son with his Daddy's name and a different middle name. No junior technically. I called George W. Jr. because to me the apple did not fall far from the tree. Or is that a chip off the old Bush block? Sorry if the "Jr." offended. I am cynical when George W. was notorious for drinking, infidelity and drugs, and now it's all behind him? Just in time to run for family values and get elected? Did you ever hear George W.'s answer to the reporter who asked him (while Daddy was still President) what he and his father talked about? His one word reply..."P-ssy". Dubya just reminds me so much of his father. Apparently he is anointed to inherit the throne. I very reluctantly voted for George Bush because I thought he was the lesser of two evils. He never impressed me as a statesman. My main objection is against those who make a self- serving greedy career out of being a Politician.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 08, 1999.

not in this life... I have heard "of" Alan Keyes... I have heard Alan Keyes. He is very eloquent. I don't know anything of his personal reputation or past record. I know that he was illegally booted from a debate, and if it had been Jessie J., it would have made the nightly news for sure.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 08, 1999.

Alan Keyes is wonderful, but, wouldn't stand a chance of being elected due to his strong Christain foundation. I am in complete and TOTAL agreement with mumsie (nice 'call') Could we possibly have just one ----ing candidate who has the balls to call a duck a duck? Give me Heston or Ventura. Perot was so ----ing honest...he scared people into believing HE was insane, the whole time he was surrounded BY insanity!

Registered Independent who leans to the right, hugs trees and just keeps hopin' for a miracle,

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 08, 1999.

I wrote:

"Hey @@@@@, whoever you are, take another look at "worldnetdaily". Do you see anything there posted by "counterpunch"? That group is about as leftwing as I've seen (from what I've seen). You'd like it."

-- libswantyourmoney@guns (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

@@@@@@ wrote:

"And FYI, WND is not left wing, but extremely right-wing, so don't try to confuse the issue."

***************************************** I know WND is not left wing, I was refereing to the articles posted there that are attributed to "Counterpunch".

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 08, 1999.

Dog Gone,

Junior! Junior! JUNIOR!

I can't blame you for not wanting to make the association with his father.

-- @ (@@@.@), July 08, 1999.

Jr. is just like his daddy in that they are both NWO-pro. He will never get my vote. Give me a patriot for pres.

-- rick (I'mset@home.house), July 08, 1999.

Tree hugger? Don't scare me Will!

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 08, 1999.

I honor our veterans, but I did not and would not have served in Vietnam. It was an immoral war. Oliver Stone's analysis was right on. My son will not serve in the Armed Forces either, because our wars aren't improving much. -- Sand Mueller (smueller@azalea.net), July 07, 1999.

Sand Mueller,

Thanks for the post, I sympathize (I have no children so I cant emphasize) with you. All American wars were fought with vehement opposition on the part of parents with the possible exception of WWII. But this is a discussion for another day. The fact is Vietnam was not an immoral war in concept. If you believe that your address should have the word Cuba in the send to. It was, however, un- winable war. This is because the American people were not behind it from the start. Those same people (or their ilk) are in the white house today. They are basturdising the office of the president and all who fall under his continually expanding control.

No, Mr. Sand, you are wrong. I believe you are just a patriot who has given up. Good luck to you and yours. Only time will tell.

-- Mike (midwestmike_@hotmail.com), July 08, 1999.

Sorry mumsie, the environmental issue is the one and only point of agreement I have with liberals. Just about all of their other shared views seem distorted to me, to say the least. Gotta strive to meet them in the middle someplace!

From one who used to be liberal and then grew up!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 09, 1999.

Okay, we are big on respecting and caring for the environment too... just don't tell me that ya talk to tree spirits or use crystals to phone home to Mudder Earth...

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 09, 1999.

I am ashamed to admit it, but I read WND regularly. There's some garbage in there but there is also some stunning insight that can be found nowhere else in the media. Keyes is among my favorite reads. He truly strikes a chord like no one else except for maybe the libertarians, whose position i find much more realistic in this age of the failed War on Drugs.

If Keyes had a snowball's chance in hell of winning I would vote for him, but it looks like Bush Jr. already has the whole primary under wraps. In a way it's kind of comical, almost like the role of Peter Sellers in _Being There_. The Bush-man has very little to say except extremely vague generalities, couched in fluffy language of himself trying to stand as the "Compassionate Conservative." When he runs for President, the Democrat-weasels are going to circulate pictures of him dancing on a pool table in the buff. This and other hyped images will cause fractures in the Republican base of support, scattering right- wing neoconservative globalists, Reform partyists, anti-NAFTA nationalists (Pat Buchanan), libertarians, and country-club Republicans (ala Bush Sr. & Jr., Rockefellar, Ford). One or more third party candiates will again sabotage the Republican party, and once again the Left-Center Democrats will gain the White House on a plurality (not a majority). Only in the event of a looming national crisis (can you say Y2K?) will something interesting happen, like the formation of a brand new Party to replace the Republicans.

One area where I part from Republicans is on environment. I'm a slight tree-hugger myself. Yes it is true that some policies are absurd, but not all. And none of them have to collide with the principle of private property, because environment is ALL ABOUT property. If one neighbor hurls a bucket of sewage onto the fresh daisies on your lawn, your own rights and liberties are infringed upon. The same is true with air pollution. You shouldn't have to suffer because some other careless fool dirties the air around your dwelling.

I smell a rat in the Democrats' environmental wheeling and dealings. Many of them are pathetic excuses to further expand the vast powers of the federal government and deprive the states and people of liberty. Many of them are "band aid" approaches to gain votes but no results.

If we really cared about the environment, we'd stop subsidizing the oil industry and their medieval Middle Eastern feifdoms and let this dinosaur die its natural death. Instead, we ought to be ambitiously funding businesses and grants to develop a hydrogen/solar based economy.

Enough babbling, gotta go.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), July 09, 1999.

coprolith....don't stay away too long.....I REALLY like your thought patterns! On the money. The possible loss of the ability to conduct the 2000 elections would certainly stir the pot, eh? If it happens, I can't help but feel that 'anything goes'....especially Clinton!

hoardin' popcorn for the big show,

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 09, 1999.

Clinton on Dubya the non Jr. ...

The Washington Times - News http://www.washtimes.com/news/news2.html resident Clinton accused Texas Gov. George W. Bush Thursday of lifting his trademark "compassionate conservatism" from the president's New Democrat philosophy. "The rhetoric of compassionate conservatism -- half those speeches sound like I gave them in '92," Mr. Clinton said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), July 09, 1999.

people voted for Hitler,why not Bush?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 10, 1999.