For just a minute let's forget the memos, CBS, the talking heads, the recriminations, the teevee commercials and the internet push polls. Let's just talk like two relatively sane people for a sec.

Let's just keep this between you and I, okay?

Karol, do you think that George W. Bush got into the TANG without any help or influence from his family? And while he was there, do you think he was treated just like any other recruit, getting absolutely no preferential treatment at all?

Really...what do YOU think?

Karol, do you think that George W. Bush got into the TANG without any help or influence from his family? And while he was there, do you think he was treated just like any other recruit, getting absolutely no preferential treatment at all?

The thing is, I don't care one way or the other. And the fact that Democrats think the public will care about this only proves how out of touch they are. But since they insist on following this non-story, the least they can do is not make up the evidence. Your question reminds me of people who ask me 'but really, don't you think Bush is stupid, I mean, c'mon can't you see he's stupid'. They want it to be true so bad. I don't think he's stupid. I don't think people who finish Harvard Business School are generally too stupid. And I don't think that someone who completed his service in the Guard honorably with no proof to the contrary used family influence to get in or stay in should be accused otherwise.

Yeah. I know...neither one of us were there, there are far more important issues, we cannot have Absolute Knowledge of anything etc etc etc.

But that's not what I asked you. I want to know what you THINK.

Do you think George got into the TANG based only on his merits as a student, pilot, and soldier---or do you think his family pulled some stings?

Dou you think that while in the TANG George was treated as just another recruit---or do you think that he enjoyed preferential treatment?

There's no right or wrong answer. I just want to know your opinion.

I don't know. How can I know? I lean towards 'no' but that's probably because I like and trust Bush. You lean toward 'yes' because you feel otherwise.

I can't believe I'm having this much trouble getting a blogger to state her opinion!

Are you serious? You really think that George got into the TANG on merit, with no help at all from his powerful family? REALLY?

What part of 'I don't know' isn't clear? Again, I lean toward 'no' but anything is possible.

Well, I'm trying to wrap my head around your obviously too, too trsuting nature.

Can you tell me what attributes you see in George that make you lean towards thinking he got into TANG on merit and not influence.

I mean---we know it wasn't his test scores (he barely passed) and we know it wasn't his grades (he got a C average). So again I have to ask you---with the obvious caveat that neither one of us can know, we aren't the brass at TANG, blah blah blah---how do you THINK he got in the TANG?

I don't know. Show me proof that it wasn't his tests or scores and it won't make me care about it any more. Again, it's a non-issue.

Given how many times you've posted about this whole brou-ha-ha, it's hard to believe that you don't care or that it's a non-issue. I'm just trying to understand your position better, since I admit I don't get it at all.

Let me turn the question around Karol---If it wasn't his grades and his test scores, how did George get into the TANG? How did he jump ahead of all the more qualified applicants ahead of him?

Do you think it's possible that his rich and influential family pulled some strings?

Don, I've posted on the CBS angle, which I think is extremely interesting. Here is a 'reporter', Rather, who has been accused of liberal bias for years. He gets this document that looks fake from 10 feet away and runs with it. It's now over a week later and he still won't admit its a fake. The complicit media that is dying for John Kerry to win would've gotten away with this, maybe, in the pre-blog world. I find it awesome and fascinating that they won't today.

I don't know that Bush 'jumped ahead' of other applicants etc. Was that a different Word doc?

Uh... I think both of you need to calm down.

The issue is a non-issue.

Bush was part of a powerful family in Texas. If his dad (or family, or family friends) didn't pull strings of some sort to keep him out of combat, I'd say they were being irresponsible.

If you had the choice of seeing your kid drafted into combat, perhaps never to return, or sending him down a track that got him a Harvard MBA, which way would you go? Would you just shrug it off if he got killed in Vietnam?

And if you were in your early-20's and your dad gave you the choice between maybe-dying in a losing war, or getting a head start on a big career in business... what would you choose?

If Mr. Bush hadn't already shown his character as commander-in-chief over the past four years, it might matter... But he has. He's been the civilian leader of the fricking military for four years, and somebody thinks it matters that he may have evaded combat 30 years ago? If it turns out that it's true, should we expect something different from Bush than what he's already been delivering?

I'll admit that for John Kerry, its different. By having enlisted and led in combat, he may have a different perspective on military action than Mr. Bush. And his Vietnam experience speaks to that.

But in terms of determining who is who, we really ought to be comparing what we might expect from Bush (based mostly on his history in the role) vs. what we can expect from Kerry (based on his related experiences in the past).

So would you both just shut up about it?! :)

Andy and Karol:

See? This is good! We're developing some common ground here! We just need to build on that.

Andrew, you put the question this way:
If you had the choice of seeing your kid drafted into combat, perhaps never to return, or sending him down a track that got him a Harvard MBA, which way would you go? Would you just shrug it off if he got killed in Vietnam? And if you were in your early-20's and your dad gave you the choice between maybe-dying in a losing war, or getting a head start on a big career in business... what would you choose?

You point out that Dubya made the perfectly rational decision to save his own skin and let his daddy hand him a life of ease. He let somebody else go to Veitnam in his place. make no mistake---I would do the exact same thing if I'd had the opportunity.

Yet so many members of the right-wing blogoshpere forcefully declare that Dubya did NOT pull strings and served without any special treatment. Since this flies in the face of both common sense and the paper trail, I'm struggling to understand why so many pewople believe this.

Karol, you started this conversation by linking to someone who claims that Bush got into the TANG on his own merits, and I'm trying to understand how any reasonable person can believe that so fervently. After changing the subject and avoiding the question you ALMOST got to the heart of the issue when you said:
I don't know that Bush 'jumped ahead' of other applicants etc.

Again, I ask you again directly: "Based on your own common sense and your own understanding of human nature, do you still think Bush got into the TANG strictly on his own merits and recieved no special treatment while he was there? ANd if so...WHY? HOW?"

Andy, here's another point we agree on:
If Mr. Bush hadn't already shown his character as commander-in-chief over the past four years, it might matter... But he has.

He cerainly has, Andrew. He's completely bungled the fight against al Qaeda, totally mismanaged homeland security, diverted military assets AWAY from terrorism in order to fight a for-profit war in Iraq, and now has made it clear he has no idea what to do now that we've occuptied that nation.

I'd be happy to change the subject away from Dubya's drug use and stupidity 30 years ago and talk about his incompetence and stupidity today. But Karol started this topic and I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it.

With zero evidence you 'believe' or 'feel' that Bush got preferential treatment. I don't believe you're actually trying to get to the bottom of anything.

That Bush got preferential treatment is certainly plausible. That there were very few records of that kind of treatment is plausible. That personal testimony on either side may be falsified in respect of partisan interests is plausible.

Put all the plausibilities together and you still have very little evidence (either way) about a subject that carries very little import. This is the smallest and most typically political secret that the Bush campaign may be actively hiding.

Even if you could get to the bottom of the issue, Don, [and I don't think you'll do that here,] you still wouldn't have accomplished much.

Don,
You're comparing apples and oranges here. There was a waiting list to enlist in the National Guard. The key word is enlist. Enlisted men are for the most part guys who have not completed college. Pilots are officers and college graduates. There was no waiting list to go through pilot training. Bush was not drafted and then sneaking into the Guard. I don't know what his draft number was or if it ever came up. Your guys (Kerry, DNC, and their lackey Rather) are wasting time chasing this issue. The more you guys raise this issue the more people realize Bush was a pilot and say "flyings cool, man."