New ad questions Bush's service record

[Destino]

http://69.59.167.160/tft/AWOL_Large.mov

[Kilmer17]

Im sure Kerry will be quick to condemn it.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
Im sure Kerry will be quick to condemn it.

I was going to time how long it took you to post that....but I hadn't finished digging out my watch and you'd already posted.

[Phat Hog]

Well Kilmer, all he’s been talking about is his service… right? :rolleyes:

WTF is all the what-to-do about 30 something year old events?
:doh:

[Kilmer17]

lol. I did that just for you. Have a good evening.

[codeorama]

This election is just like Aliens vs. Predator....

Who ever wins, we lose... :laugh:

[Phat Hog]

Originally posted by codeorama
This election is just like Aliens vs. Predator....

Who ever wins, we lose... :laugh:


Good tag line :laugh: :notworthy

[Hooper]

That is classic, Code.

[TheSteve]

Isn't it sad that our two choices for president are just the lesser of either evil? If there is even one. It's really sad, because if the person running against Bush was really any good and actually had a feasible plan that had potential and made sense and he was able to connect with the people then he would be running away with it. I mean come on, most conservatives don't view Bush as some Ronald Reagan, but Kerry is just as bad.

[Duckus]

The weird thing about this is how the "Pentagon officials said they discovered the documents released Tuesday while performing a more comprehensive search." Does anyone else find this slightly weird as I do? I wonder what else Mr. Bush has hidden away or "lost" in the pentagon…..

Hold on let me guess the conservative response…. “Why does Kerry not release his records?” Because he does not want to, and that is his right. However, what is better: to not release the records as is his right OR to lie and say you released all the documents only to “suddenly find” more.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/index.html

[aREDSKIN]

Originally posted by Duckus
The weird thing about this is how the "Pentagon officials said they discovered the documents released Tuesday while performing a more comprehensive search." Does anyone else find this slightly weird as I do? I wonder what else Mr. Bush has hidden away or "lost" in the pentagon…..

Hold on let me guess the conservative response…. “Why does Kerry not release his records?” Because he does not want to, and that is his right. However, what is better: to not release the records as is his right OR to lie and say you released all the documents only to “suddenly find” more.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/index.html

I think D you might not be paying attention. Many of Kerry's surrogates continually claim that Kerry has released all of his service records. So to claim that Kerry has a right to do something may in fact be correct but in reality is false because they are claiming something he has not and WILL NOT do. I know whom to believe.

[Riggo-toni]

Brilliant, Code!!!! :cheers:

Kerry is this year's Bob Dole: A Senator running against his voting record and showboating his military service because there just doesn't seem to be any other reason to vote for him, other than contempt for his opponent. It failed for Dole. I don't see Kerry doing much better.

Man, what a lousy choice we have in the 2 major parties...again.

If only Lieberman had won the Dem primary...

[SPare]

The thing here is that even if true, it plays along with the narrative that Bush has gone with from day 1- that he was an irresponsible young adult, but that his life has changed and that he's stronger for it. So, someone chipping away at Bush's history of 30 years ago doesn't really damage him that much in the present.

The reason that the swift boat stuff hurt Kerry so much is that he was basing his entire campaign on the fact that he was a war hero. When someone chips away at that standing, it very much hurts him in the present.

My guess is that the only people energized by this stuff are people who have already decided that Bush is the anti Christ.


Riggo's got it right- the Dems hitched their wagon to the wrong horse.

[Stu]

Originally posted by Duckus
The weird thing about this is how the "Pentagon officials said they discovered the documents released Tuesday while performing a more comprehensive search." Does anyone else find this slightly weird as I do? I wonder what else Mr. Bush has hidden away or "lost" in the pentagon…..


Not the slightest bit weird. Freedom of Information searches are notoriously long since there is so much to search through. It's not like searching a hard drive. In some cases, individuals have to go through boxes of files not to mention the files aren't centralized. Even a high profile search like this takes times.

[Funkyalligator]

Well...I think everybody knows that Bush shirked his National Guard commitment....but who really cares....

[red zone]

Clearly despiration has set in in the Kerry camp.

[Destino]

Originally posted by red zone
Clearly despiration has set in in the Kerry camp.
Nice try but this issue goes back before Kerry every decided to run for President. It is back in the headlines because a lawsuit is yielding some results.

[Kilmer17]

It's back in the headline because the Liberal media is starting to panic.

There is nothing here that wasnt accused and debunked 4 years ago.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
There is nothing here that wasnt accused and debunked 4 years ago.

"Pentagon officials said they discovered the documents released Tuesday while performing a more comprehensive search."

It's Bush's time to squirm, now. :D

How ironic (or hypocritical) is it that the head of the Republican party (the party that proclaims you should succeed on your own, with no one else's help) has never earned anything on his own?

Just another in the long list of things that Bush got because of who his daddy was.

How ironic that the party that constantly wraps everything they do in the flag is led by a deserter...

How ironic that a man who is now the commander in chief denied a direct order from a superior...

---

When you run out of ways to debunk a fact, just blame the liberal media! It's almost as good as pinning something on Clinton!

[Kilmer17]

Your vitriol is showing again. Try thinking on your own for once. Im sure it get's tiring simply spewing the talking points from the DNC.

This stuff didnt gain any traction 4 years ago when the Dems tried to use it to slime Bush. It wont have any traction this time either.

Has Kerry come out against this particular 527 yet? Or does he still only oppose the ones that hurt him?

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL 20040909d.html


I wonder if this will hit the National media as fast as the accusations did?


'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.

The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com honed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

[Hooper]

Two sons of great privilege. One volunteered for Service, then protested the war when he got back. The other had his Dad pull some strings to get him in the National Guard, then couldn't even be bothered to show up. It proves a lot...

... if the election was being held 35 years ago. I mean, who gives a crap? On both sides. It seems like the important issues are never discussed. Not sexy enough for the media, I guess.

Politics blow.

[Kilmer17]

Im sure all of the Natl Guardsmen appreciate your well wishes.

One served for 5 years, and despite constant lies about his attendance, served honorably.

The other lied about his injuries and served only 4 months.

[aREDSKIN]

Using phony documents to smear a political opponent, they don't call it SeeBS for nothing. A total fabrication concocted by the Dems and their cronies in the LIBERAL media. Man I can't believe they though they would get away with this tripe. I guess it's ment to motivate their sheeple base. Anyone who questions the liberal media; their agendas, their fabrications, their slanting, their one-sided incomplete reporting, their elitist view of themselves, their activitism, their partisianship all cloaked, in thier view, of objectivness needs their head examined.

[ross3909]

They will get away with it because it will only be covered on Fox. All the other "News outlets" will take the forged docs at face value because they support their cause. Did you catch the interview on 60 min? Every question was a softball. The man had made statements under oath that Bush was present and accounted for. Here is an easy question for Ben Barns...Were you lieing then or are you lieing now?

[SnyderShrugged]

Do we have any members with the proper background in 1970's typewriters and wordprocessing that can weigh in on the potential "forgery" issue?

Some of the links in the article were very convincing?

[SnyderShrugged]

http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx


some more interesting facts:


Bush’s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.


Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail:

[Cskin]

As I mentioned on another thread on this subject, the more Kerry slips in the polls the more "mysterious" documents are going to magically fall out of "personal" file cabinets.

The Liberal desperation.... comical.

[Hooper]

"Im sure all of the Natl Guardsmen appreciate your well wishes." -- I have nothing but respect for anyone who served and serves in the Guard. I'd have respect for Bush's service too -- if he could prove it.

"The other lied about his injuries and served only 4 months." -- Oh, I see. You don't respect those who served in Vietnam for only four months and didn't suffer massive injuries. I guess Kerry should have just pulled some strings, got out of the war, and then blown off his National Guard duty. Then he would have gotten your respect. Hilarious.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Hooper
"Im sure all of the Natl Guardsmen appreciate your well wishes." -- I have nothing but respect for anyone who served and serves in the Guard. I'd have respect for Bush's service too -- if he could prove it.

"The other lied about his injuries and served only 4 months." -- Oh, I see. You don't respect those who served in Vietnam for only four months and didn't suffer massive injuries. I guess Kerry should have just pulled some strings, got out of the war, and then blown off his National Guard duty. Then he would have gotten your respect. Hilarious.


umm, You might have missed the last few posts, but to help you out here, you might not want to present ":facts" as you see them until they are real facts next time. You look a lot less foolish when you are informed and not speaking from the Kerry campaign website.

[SEF]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas
Do we have any members with the proper background in 1970's typewriters and wordprocessing that can weigh in on the potential "forgery" issue?

Some of the links in the article were very convincing?

The IBM Selectric II was released in the 60's. It had proportional type and could do superscript. Tons of them bought by the Government. Where did they find their "experts"?

[SEF]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
Im sure all of the Natl Guardsmen appreciate your well wishes.

One served for 5 years, and despite constant lies about his attendance, served honorably.

The other lied about his injuries and served only 4 months.

Classic.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by LC80


The IBM Selectric II was released in the 60's. It had proportional type and could do superscript. Tons of them bought by the Government. Where did they find their "experts"?


I'm not sure either. This is another one that I need to withold judgement until something "official" is released.

I was reading the link to internet reports where all kinds of "experts" were writing in with additional information. It really seemed fairly legit, but again, I don't want to make hasty comments or misstate what facts that have been presented so far. It wouldnt be fair to either side's argument to do anything else. The posts that seemed to be the most telling were those from former Naval personel who worked in that department or in similiar areas. All of them said that they would never have used the highly expensive equipment to send memo's from such a minor area.

LC80, do you know, by chance what the average pricing was of the IBM Selectric 11 was back then?


whoa! just noticed this latest update.


http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=4596&R=9FCD2F192



Is It a Hoax?
Experts weigh in on the 60 Minutes documents. Says one: "I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but . . . I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."
by Stephen F. Hayes
09/09/2004 7:20:00 PM





DOCUMENTS CITED Wednesday by 60 Minutes in a widely-publicized expose of George W. Bush's National Guard Service are very likely forgeries, according to several experts on document authenticity and typography. The documents--four memos from Killian to himself or his files written in 1972 and 1973--appear to indicate that Bush refused or ignored orders to have a physical exam required to continue flying. CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported the segment and sourced the documents this way: "60 Minutes has obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Col. Killian's personal file," he said. The 60 Minutes story served as the basis for follow-up news reports for dozens of news organizations across the country. The memos were almost immediately questioned in the blog world, with blog Power Line leading the charge.

And according to several forensic document experts contacted by THE WEEKLY STANDARD say the Killian memos appear to be forgeries. Although it is nearly impossible to establish with certainty the authenticity of documents without a careful examination of the originals, several irregularities in the Killian memos suggest that CBS may have been the victim of a hoax.

"These sure look like forgeries," says William Flynn, a forensic document expert widely considered the nation's top analyst of computer-generated documents. Flynn looked at copies of the documents posted on the CBS News website (here, here, here, and here). Flynn says, "I would say it looks very likely that these documents could not have existed" in the early 1970s, when they were allegedly written.

Several other experts agree. "They look mighty suspicious," says a veteran forensic document expert who asked not to be quoted by name. Richard Polt, a Xavier University philosophy professor who operates a website dedicated to typewriters, says that while he is not an expert on typesetting, the documents "look like typical word-processed documents."

There are several reasons these experts are skeptical of the authenticity of the Killian memos. First the typographic spacing is proportional, as is routine with professional typesetting and computer typography, not monospace, as was common in typewriters in the 1970s. (In proportional type, thin letters like "i" and "l" are spaced closer together than thick letters like "W" and "M". In monospace, all the letter widths are the same.)

Second, the font appears to be identical to the Times New Roman font that is the default typeface in Microsoft Word and other modern word processing programs. According to Flynn, the font is not listed in the Haas Atlas--the definitive encyclopedia of typewriter type fonts.

Third, the apostrophes are curlicues of the sort produced by word processors on personal computers, not the straight vertical hashmarks typical of typewriters. Finally, in some references to Bush's unit--the 111thFighter Interceptor Squadron--the "th" is a superscript in a smaller size than the other type. Again, this is typical (and often done automatically) in modern word processing programs. Although several experts allow that such a rendering might have been theoretically possible in the early 1970s, it would have been highly unlikely. Superscripts produced on typewriters--the numbers preceding footnotes in term papers, for example--were almost always in the same size as the regular type.

So can we say with absolute certainty that the documents were forged? Not yet. Xavier University's Polt, in an email, offers two possible scenarios. "Either these are later transcriptions of earlier documents (which may have been handwritten or typed on a typewriter), or they are crude and amazingly foolish forgeries. I'm a Kerry supporter myself, but I won't let that cloud my objective judgment: I'm 99% sure that these documents were not produced in the early 1970s."

Says Flynn: "This looks pretty much like a hoax at this point in time."

CBS, in a statement Thursday afternoon, said it stands by the story. The network claims that its own document expert concluded the memos were authentic. There are several things CBS could do to clear up any confusion:

(1) Provide the name of the expert who authenticated the documents for Sixty Minutes.

(2) Provide the original documents to outside experts--William Flynn, Gerald Reynolds, and Peter Tytell seem to be the consensus top three in the United States--for further analysis.

(3) Provide more information on the source of the documents.

(A spokeswoman for CBS, Kelly Edwards, said she was overwhelmed with phone calls and did not respond to specific requests for comment.)

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

[New]

Originally posted by Duckus
The weird thing about this is how the "Pentagon officials said they discovered the documents released Tuesday while performing a more comprehensive search." Does anyone else find this slightly weird as I do? I wonder what else Mr. Bush has hidden away or "lost" in the pentagon…..

Hold on let me guess the conservative response…. “Why does Kerry not release his records?” Because he does not want to, and that is his right. However, what is better: to not release the records as is his right OR to lie and say you released all the documents only to “suddenly find” more.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/bush.national.ap/index.html

Let me clue you in as a prior service army officer, the military (pentagon), is damn good at destroying things. Not holding onto them. It doesnt surprise me one bit.

I know one thing for sure. When Kerry got back from Nam, we all know where he stood. Funny how that's the only time that I get a real sense of what this lame ***** really believes! Thanks for your time in service, now get lost!

[New]

Originally posted by Destino

Nice try but this issue goes back before Kerry every decided to run for President. It is back in the headlines because a lawsuit is yielding some results.

You and the rest of the Kerry camp would like to think so.

[New]

Originally posted by NavyDave
So when is Dukakis going to join in the fray

I'm not sure. I heard he's gotten that tank stuck somewhere on I-95.

[Joe Sick]

Originally posted by Kilmer17
One served for 5 years, and despite constant lies about his attendance, served honorably.

The other lied about his injuries and served only 4 months.

Get your facts straight. Kerry served 1 year and 4 months. But that doesn't sound as good, does it?? That's 2 tours of duty in a hostile part of the world. Of course, Bush DID keep Texas from being invaded...:rolleyes:

So, you accept the documents that say Bush served, but instantly dismiss the ones that say Kerry did?

You can't have it both ways...

As to the first part, please find someone that served with Bush. There is a nice reward out if you can find something in Alabama who remembers him.

I love seeing conservatives squirm when there boy is called on his BS.

-----

[Tarhog]

My personal feeling is that unless you've served and risked yourself, you have no valid opinion, and shouldn't be critiquing others on their choices, whether its Kerry or Bush you're lambasting or spreading innuendo about.

Its similar to spouting off about the Redskins. Its fine to have AN opinion. We all do it. It makes us feel good. But truth is, the chances we have any earthly idea what we're talking about are slim.

Its unfortunate this has become an issue on either side of the aisle, because to a large extent, its entirely irrelevant. There's no turning back. Both campaigns are determined to destroy the opponent personally and professionally.

And you know what? Even if these records were proven to be forgeries, it wouldn't blunt the assertions one bit. You want to believe something, view history in a certain light, you will. Its as simple as that.

[Cskin]

I happened to catch the Peter Jennings "Blame America" hour and saw the segment detailing the above. The bias is absolutely staggering. 85% of the segment detailing the "Bush ignored a direct order" and "Poor evaluation and recommendation" while 15% of the segment.... the very end and very tongue and cheek on the news that the memos could in fact have been forged. Amazing...!!!

[SkinsHokie Fan]

Raise your hand if you really, honestly, truly CARE what happened during Vietnam.

Honestly now. Lets see em. Yeah thats what I thought.


It is a damn shame this election is turning on a war that ended years before I was born.


And look up my posts on this topic. On both sides I could have cared less what you did in 'Nam. I care what you are going to do about Social Security