Whoops! Bush's military records "accidentally" destroyed

[Seeker]

LOL can anyone picture what Apolyton would be like during Watergate?

Imran telling us about Mission Impossible and DD saying he wouldn't care....I can just imagine.

[Dauphin]

I don't see this as particular noteworthy. I doubt that even if his records weren't destroyed and they implied a few bad things about him that it would make much difference. As it is people don't seem to care that much the whole Iraq lie which is far more impacting affair.

I don't believe it was accidentally on purpose either.

[JohnT]

Not only that, but attacks on an opponents patriotism is as old as the country itself and is immediately discounted by all but the most rabid on either side.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder why you didn't actually answer the questions, but just went off on another lawyerish diversionary tactic?

I answered the most important one. The one showing how full of **** you really are.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I wonder why you didn't actually answer the questions, but just went off on another lawyerish diversionary tactic?

I answered the most important one. The one showing how full of **** you really are.

Still not answering the questions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the questions are moronic ones, which you have preselected answers for and want to pin it on Bush I. Since you have already decided that they were deliberatly destroyed, you think Bush I was the one that did it. And your idiot, loaded questions serve no purpose than to stroke your moronic theory, which you seem so proud of.

If you want an 'answer' to your questions, they are yes and a number of people, but not Bush, who was a former President at the time.

But, of course you won't admit your theory is full of holes bigger than the one occupying your head between your ears, and you'll say oh no, I didn't answer them correctly .

In the end, I'll just tell you to shove it and leave you to your PWNED-ness.

[Boris Godunov]

Imran, for the last time, since you're incapable of reading, I'll reiterate: I have not "decided" the records were deliberately destroyed at all. That's why my questions were hypothetical, but they do make people think. You happen to not like where those thoughts lead, so you lash out with your usual childish "pwned" crap.

Do you seriously think Bush Sr. wouldn't have had the ability to have such a thing done, considering not only was he a former president with very close ties to the Pentagon, but the former head of the CIA who still reads their daily briefings to this day? Come on, you're not THAT stupid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I have not "decided" the records were deliberately destroyed at all. That's why my questions were hypothetical, but they do make people think.

Yeah, sure. Purely hypothethical to get people "to think" . Do you really believe the **** that comes out of your mouth? I can read fine, I just think you are a bald faced liar.

Do you seriously think Bush Sr. wouldn't have had the ability to have such a thing done, considering not only was he a former president with very close ties to the Pentagon, but the former head of the CIA who still reads their daily briefings to this day?

Yes, I don't think he would have been able to have them done. What do you think goes on in Washington? Every former President or CIA Director gets to decide what should be deleted without the currents head of government or CIA knowing? You think they wield that much influence and there is that much corruption involved in these agencies? Come on, you're not THAT paranoid! Stop watching Hollywood movies and listening to crackpot conspiracy theorists and come back to reality!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, sure. Purely hypothethical to get people "to think" . Do you really believe the **** that comes out of your mouth? I can read fine, I just think you are a bald faced liar.

Now you're just frothing around in ad hominems and attacks. I do find it amusing that you go into such hysterical fits when your sacred cows are questioned. It's a shame, however, you can't do better than personal attacks.

Yes, I don't think he would have been able to have them done. What do you think goes on in Washington?

Um, are you serious?

Every former President or CIA Director gets to decide what should be deleted without the currents head of government or CIA knowing?

Do you think the destruction of such files had to have been such a production that such people would need to know about it? We're not talking highly-classified material here.

You think they wield that much influence and there is that much corruption involved in these agencies?

That much corruption? To have one person go in and destroy some not-too-classified microfiche? That's not corruption, that takes having knowledge the files exist and having one person go in and do the deed. But it does take influence, yes.

Come on, you're not THAT paranoid! Stop watching Hollywood movies and listening to crackpot conspiracy theorists and come back to reality!

Richt, nothing nefarious goes on in government. Nobody uses their influence to do secretive, underhanded things. Mind you, I'm not talking about the Kennedy Assassination here, I'm talking one guy destroying a microfiche or two. I don't think it's me who needs the reality check...

[Dauphin]

If Bush Sr was to wield his conspiratorial hand I doubt that he would choose to do so on something as inconsequential as his son's military records.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a shame, however, you can't do better than personal attacks.

It's like this ad hominem misunderstanding that Aggie always posts about. If you are calling someone a liar based on the evidence he puts forth, it ain't an ad hominem, nor a personal attack. I simply don't believe you.

I'm talking one guy destroying a microfiche or two. I don't think it's me who needs the reality check

Actually it is. Aside from the Bald Assertion here, did you even read JohnT's post? What makes you think Bush I is even capable of ordering something like that (either morally or practically?). What, because you don't like his son, his dad was a corrupt pol on par with Nixon? Any proof for the BAM, or will you continue to shoot your mouth off because you love the conspiracies?

If Bush Sr was to wield his conspiratorial hand I doubt that he would choose to do so on something as inconsequential as his son's military records.

I mean this is a guy who at times critisizes his son's handling of things (albeit in a low key way) and he's going to destroy files for his son to maybe, one day, win an election? For what purpose? It includes an awful lot of assumption about Bush I and how he would act.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's like this ad hominem misunderstanding that Aggie always posts about. If you are calling someone a liar based on the evidence he puts forth, it ain't an ad hominem, nor a personal attack. I simply don't believe you.

Where's the "evidence" that I "lied," especially when I specifically said my scenarios were hypothetical? You're just lashing out again. If the scenarios make you uncomfortable, I'm sorry, but that's your problem.

Actually it is. Aside from the Bald Assertion here, did you even read JohnT's post?

What Bald Assertion?

And yes, but JohnT's post isn't an issue, because my scenarios weren't addressing accidental destruction. Shifting the sands of the argument yet again. They were both based on a hypothetical--the first IF the microfilm was damning and extant, the second IF the destruction was deliberate and malicious.

As a side note, the articles all say the records were "inadvertantly destroyed." That denotes a deliberate destruction, not a deterioration. The reports said it was ruined during a project.

What makes you think Bush I is even capable of ordering something like that (either morally or practically?).

Morally? He was President of the U.S. and is an ex-CIA chief.

Practically? He was President of the U.S. and is an ex-CIA Chief.

What, because you don't like his son, his dad was a corrupt pol on par with Nixon? Any proof for the BAM, or will you continue to shoot your mouth off because you love the conspiracies?

Demanding proof when it's just hypothetical scenarios, what a brilliant response. Hey, can you give me any proof that it didn't happen that way? No? Oh, well, I guess you're wrong...

And where was the BAM again? I asserted nothing, as it's--repeat it with me--h-y-p-o-t-h-e-t-i-c-a-l.

For what purpose?

Um, to make sure no one ever found out/proved his son had indeed gone AWOL? Can you think of a more damaging revelation to be proven for a Republican presidential candidate than this? It would easily have destroyed W's career, were it shown to be true. I don't think it's beyond belief that it could be a motive. And how about some legal repercussions that could hit his son?

[Drake Tungsten]

Nice work, Imran. It's nice to see someone else pwning Boris for a change.

[JohnT]

I don't want to get in the middle of this catfight, but:

As a side note, the articles all say the records were "inadvertantly destroyed."

Here's what the article said:

The New York Times quoted an office of the department as saying the records were lost as staff tried to salvage deteriorating microfilm.

Most of the microfilm lost during my wife's campaign was lost in the transferring process, not before... it wasn't as if they looked at it and saw that it was ruined, that the film had dissolved into a messy goo or broke up as if it had rusted through. The microfiche "looked" OK or was slightly damaged (Laura says that a lot of the bad ones smelled of vinegar, which is a clear sign of mid-level deterioration), but once they ran it through the machine that performed the duplications, it fell apart under the stress. Hence, it was "inadvertantly destroyed."

Generally, the two biggest external factors in film decay are heat and humidity, however exposure to decaying film will cause other film to become increasingly damaged as well (akin to a disease). Since 1995 Bush's Air National Guard records would've been stored in Dayton OH, but before that I have no idea - possibly on the base itself (in Alabama, a place notorious for hot and humid weather - and Dayton is no slouch in those categories as well, in my experiences).

Regardless, my point is that the article doesn't do anything to disprove the fact that this was a natural accident, one that happened (and still happens) all the time with the acetate-to-polyester film transfer process. One could surmise that the military would have better record-keepers than this... but that doesn't really fly in light of the fact that this has struck just about everybody who uses the films, including libraries, corporate records, financial institutions, universities and colleges, and so on.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh, shut up.