"you can't really hold a youthful lie against him..."

[wellstone_democrat]

This was said by a colleague at a pre-meeting coffee hour today. According to him (not a Freeper, but very conservative and pro-Bush*). I'm recording this as exactly as I (and another with me here remember it). A brilliant comeback to the endless "aw, he was a kid":

The pro-Bush guy said:
"We all did things in our 20s that make us cringe now. He would not be the first guy that fudged about his youth. You really can't, if you are fair, hold a youthful lie against him."

Replied another (known conservative) member of the circle:
"I don't hold lies he made in 1972 or 73 against him as much as I hold the lie he is telling about those years today. He wasted a million or so being trained for the ANG---fine, its their problem. Not attractive but not critical to me today as a voter. What DOES concern me is that he is LYING by omission, slippery language or evasion today. What DOES bother me is that more millions are spent in time and resources propping up this lie---TODAY. Makes me wonder where the hell he *was* in those "missing months." Drugs? Booze? Lazy?I voted for him in 2000 somewhat unenthusiastically but hopefully. Never again."

Said the pro-Bush guy:
"Clinton was a draft dodger"

Replied the other conservative:
"I'll never defend Clinton but remember this:
he did register and lucked out with the lottery and CLinton *ain't* runnin' in 2004 my friend! Who cares about him."

Made my day let me tell you! Plus, I think that the first exchange had a brilliant observation----its the lying and waste of federal resources to fog it over now that should be attended to if "youthful" indiscretions are alluded to.

(But, first the focus is on the missing physical and grounding. All else is secondary.

[jean]

1. please send this to some capable reporters - thanks

[lindashaw]

2. I'm not so disturbed by a twenty-year-old lie as I am what Bush...

told Tim Russert: I'm making decisions as a "war-time president." It just doesn't appear seemly for him to concoct the pre-emptive doctrine and alienate the entire world as a war-time president with this bad record in his past. Human decency would require a more humble approach and less arrogance.

[StClone]

3. Then opposites must be true

What defines Bush is not this one affair it's the line of failures from his pRezidensy and business ventures back to that point.

The only thing that was successful was his ability to move to a bigger scam and cover his glaring inadequacies for next "job". Oh, but he got rich -- Christmas does that say a lot about the honesty of his ilk.

[Hamlette]

4. great comeback about Clinton

to which I would add: "yeah, but Clinton didn't have a rich connected Daddy to get him into the guard."

[Terwilliger]

5. How much he cost the taxpayers IS an important question

NOT ONLY did he get into his Lieutenancy without merit

NOT ONLY did he score the lowests score possible to still pass on the entrance exam

NOT ONLY did he get flight training ahead of hundreds of people MORE QUALIFIED than he...


Just how much did Texas taxpayers pay to give a paycheck to Bush, AND how much exactly WAS the cost of his flight training?

WHY did he quit flying?

WHY didn't he take the required physical?

WHY does he say he went to Alabama but no one can verify it?

[tibbiit]

7. also how much did his

Carrier stunt, Mission Accomplished cost tax payers? Another couple million.
tib

[SaddenedDem]

6. But they held "youthful indiscrections" against Clinton

for 8 long years, didn't they? Hell, they are STILL holding Clinton's military record against him.

Good for the goose and all that........

[ComerPerro]

8. Wow, the other conservative

Actually knew that Clinton went through with it and his number didn't come up?

Wow.

I have one conservative friend. One. He is a good guy.

What kind of guy is he? He is conservative, but still really loves the Dixie Chicks because of their music. He doesn't care about what they said in England.

[wellstone_democrat]

9. yes, surprised me as well

but, apparently he'd been corrected on the "dodging" issue one time too many and it stuck. Basically you have to realize that this is more mainstream conservatism with a contingent of religious conservatives who are highly educated professionals and politically "aware"----basically, some are ideologues and power hounds but I didn't think I'd live to see Clinton-antics (as they term them) dismissed and a (frankly) pissed off response to AWOLs problems. For them the focus was on the privelege and the money wasted. I was struck by the "lie then vs. lying now."

In the case of the "smart" speaker his endless harping on "honor and integrity" vis a vis Clinton vs. Bush sank in more than his masters might like: now he sees Bush as a liar. And a liar right now! That is key (although I like his *assumption* that drugs were undoubtedly involved. Once you see someone as untrustworthy, your attitude doesn't change. He might not vote Democratic in the fall but I guarantee you he isn't going to the polls for "His Majesty"

Different people are animated in this by different things-0--=that is why it is an effective issue (trust me on that, I do this for a living). For this fiscal conservative its "money wasted" plus the added disgust at covering it up now (note: he mentioned money wasted doing that). This issue provides something for everyone's little pet peeve.

[proud patriot]

10. Excellent points made

Thanks for sharing that