|
 |
February 10, 2004 NATIONAL GUARD ROUNDUP....Here's a roundup of the latest on
the National Guard stuff. I gotta tell you, it's starting to get hard
to keep track of everything — which may be either a good sign or a bad
one. Here we go:
This is all pretty confusing and we'll just have to wait and see how it pans out. In the meantime, I have a few comments. First, payroll records alone are simply not enough. If Bush wants to put this controversy to rest, he needs to commit to opening up his complete record. So far he appears to hedging mightily on this. Second, many of these documents have been available for years. It's just that no one ever thought to look for them. Bob Fertik of Democrats.com (not associated with the Democratic Party) got copies of the ARF attendance records back in 2000 via a FOIA request, something that any reporter could have done as well. Bob has a long post about all this here. Finally, the reason this is all controversial is because the existing record is both fragmentary and contradictory, a toxic combination that inevitably leads to lots of speculation as well as some outright conspiracy theorizing. A little Googling will show you what I mean. My advice: don't go there. A bit of speculation is OK, but stay away from the wilder stuff. At the same time, there's also no reason to blindly accept whatever White House spin Dan Bartlett places on these documents. There are at least two good reasons to be skeptical about Bush's story: (1) some of it simply doesn't add up and (2) he has refused to release his entire military record. Considering the trouble it's causing, why would he do that unless there were something awfully embarrassing in there? Bottom line: if Bush's story is really true, he can put a stop to all this speculation instantly by simply ordering all the relevant archives to release his entire record, warts and all. Why won't he? Posted by Kevin Drum at February 10, 2004 10:43 AM | TrackBackComments
"...the reason this is all controversial is because the existing record is both fragmentary and contradictory..." Exactly. It's not about "denigrating" the Guard. It's not even about using family connections to get in the Guard -- though an AP story today would lead those just tuning in to think that's what the hubbub is about. And, thanks to Richard Cohen, it's not really about whether he diligently served his time. It's about Bush *saying* he served his time, and expecting us to believe he did. The only reason we doubt his word is because, A)the records are fragmentary, and B)he tends to lie about other things. Posted by: Grumpy at February 10, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKIt's funny, but I think the bottom line of this post could easily be applied directly to the 9/11 Commission. Wild speculation and unfounded rumor abound now, to the benefit of no one. Why must this administration stonewall on every single issue? Posted by: will6 at February 10, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKHe won't come clean because it has gone too far now. Even the slightest infraction that could have been cleared up with a "mea culpa, my bad", is now, under the media magnifying glass, just too huge. He made the mistake of believing his mess would be cleaned up (as all the ones in the past have) and smoke-and-mirrors would befuddle the press (look, it's Osama!). That has worked just one too many times. Posted by: chris at February 10, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKFinally, the reason this is all controversial is because the existing record is both fragmentary and contradictory, a toxic combination that inevitably leads to lots of speculation as well as some outright conspiracy theorizing. A little Googling will show you what I mean. My advice: don't go there. A bit of speculation is OK, but stay away from the wilder stuff. Heh. You're funny Kevin. You're like the rightwinger who would link to all the info on the Vince Foster suicide (or is it "suicide"?) and then go and say, "but stay away from the speculation that Bill and Hillary killed him!" Posted by: Al at February 10, 2004 10:53 AM | PERMALINK"...why would he do that unless there were something awfully embarrassing in there?" Kevin, Why would Saddam act this way unless he had them weapons of mass distraction... Posted by: ch2 at February 10, 2004 10:53 AM | PERMALINKWhy won't he? Well, he is obstinate, and someone (Hello, Mister Cheney!) has convinced him of the importance of doin' the executive privilege two-step...but I think you're exactly right about the real reason: There's something there he doesn't want us to know. Posted by: Jason at February 10, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINKRight on, Kevin. They have something to worry about in the fact that at today's press briefing it was stated that all records they "know of" have been released. Yet it seems the records from St. Louis indicate they know of other records. This is just not adding up. Posted by: Spinback at February 10, 2004 10:57 AM | PERMALINKWill6, hy must this administration stonewall on every single issue? Because the American voting public couldn't take the truth. Try and think of one thing Bush has done for the good of the country and not just the good of his cronies. If Bush told the truth about any thing he pulls, he would be handing the presidency to the Democrats. Posted by: chris at February 10, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKTo Ch2: Actually a lot of people--including Hans Blix and the UN--thought "Why would Saddam act this way if he didn't have WMD?" So the fact is that a lot of people thought Hussein might have WMD but they still didn't support going to war against him. I don't see Kevin making the jump to conclude that Bush was definitely AWOL and should be impeached or something. Instead, he's saying that if the president has nothing to hide he should simply release his entire record--like Wes Clark did. His failure to do so is indeed suspect. Just as Hussein's failure to provide proof that he had destroyed his WMD was suspect and meant that one could not determine convincingly that he no longer possessed WMD. The problem is that when you have someone of questionable character, known to lie (like Bush), you can no longer accept what they say at face value. The reason this whole AWOL thing is a story now when it wasn't in 2000 is because in 2000, Bush still had enough credibility to be believed when he denied something. In 2004, he no longer has that credibility. Posted by: CatM at February 10, 2004 10:58 AM | PERMALINKch2, "Why would Saddam act this way unless he had them weapons of mass distraction..." Well, the working theory is that Saddam really thought he did have WMD, because his scientist lied to him. Are you trying to say that Bush thinks he really did show up every day? After a few Hunter S. Thompson New Year's parties, I guess it's possible, but this sounds like the Rush Limbaush "I'll have to know all the facts about my own actions before I can talk about what I, myself, personally did" defense. In other words, it sounds like BS. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 10, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKIs it OK for me to feel some schadenfreude right now? Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 10, 2004 11:01 AM | PERMALINKAs Admiral Ackbar Announced: It's a trap! He'll let us all get lathered up, then sometime in late October, he'll show the records which prove he fulfilled his obligations. ...just kidding. Posted by: ChrisL at February 10, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKI'm suspicious about this thing about the records being sent to the Pentagon. It looks like a chance to make another attempt at destroying records they don't like before releasing anything. Posted by: cindy at February 10, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKWhy not disclose the entire record? Perhaps your suggestion is correct, and he was sent to ARF for disciplinary reasons. That would be well-documented in his records, and he may not want those reasons made public. All this speculation.... over something Bush could resolve in an honest thirty second statement about his service. Posted by: Aaron at February 10, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKHow else would a country with no available means of self-defense against the world's largest military power act? They're going to attempt a combination of bluffing (assuming that Americans aren't going to go along with an action that would allow their sons and daughters to be gassed by Saddam) and cooperation - which is exactly what Saddam did. He wants to stay in power, Bush wants him out. He cooperates to the minimum degree possible hoping to wait Bush out and leads us to believe simultaneously that there will be personal cost involved for Americans if we attack. Saddam had other enemies in the mid-east. He couldn't let it be known that Blix had satisfactorily destroyed 95% of his weapons and that Clark and Clinton had taken out the rest without running the risk of being attacked by Iran. Nor for Bush, there is no down side in releasing all the records if he did what he said he did. No one's going to go after him if he proves he's telling the truth. He isn't going to lose the election because he didn't lie. OTOH, if he did lie, it's going to cost him dearly. He releases the records, he deprives the Democrats of a huge stick that they are beating him quite successfully around the head and shoulders with right now. Release the records, the beating stops. However, successful forgery does take time.... Posted by: lilly belle at February 10, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKWhat's the difference? The decision to invade Iraq was made on the "best intelligence at the time". The decision to conclude that Bush did not serve his time in the Air Guard made on the "best intelligence at the time". And why not ASK the other members of the unit that were there at the time? Certainly, these guys exist. And why was Bush "allowed" to work on the AL campaign? What did he know, and why didn't Bush disclose this? AirGuardGate here we come... !!! Wheee! PSS: But Bush is so honest and mumble. (I mean humble.)
If the records have been removed they'll likely be wiped, destroyed, or altered. One more time Shrub will get away with lying. Posted by: Norman at February 10, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINKOh, yeah, and his supporters will still think he's a great and moral leader. Posted by: Norman at February 10, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKWhat we need is some sort of rag-tag gang of teenage outcasts who can hack into the government database and broadcast Dubya's military records on every channel in the middle of an important debate. Posted by: tps12 at February 10, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKSee White House Releases Bush Military Record in the NYT for some up to date info. Here is an interesting bit: The documents indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that has been cited by Democrats as evidence that Bush shirked his military responsibilities. Nine days in a year? That's it? Problem solved? My bad. Posted by: karog at February 10, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKAl, why won't he release his records, like all the other candidates? Hey Al, why won't Bush release his military records? You know, like the other candidates? Al, babe, why won't candidate Bush release his military records? The tax payers paid a lot to have him trained as an F-102 pilot. Shouldn't they be allowed to know what happened to their investment? Al, dude, why won't Mr. Bush release his military records? It's causing him a lot of trouble. Do you think he's weighing the current and known cost to the potential cost? Must be embarrassing. Alberto! How about some openess on those records. Remember, it's our money, not theirs. Al, by refusing to release all records of his military career, as all other candidates have, Mr. Bush opens the door to speculation. Why would he do that? Al, the last time the administration asked us to trust them, they told us they had information about existing WMD and direct threats to our security. Do sort of kind of around the edges begin to comprehend why maybe we don't feel like giving Bush a pass...again...? Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 10, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKAl - your complaint isn't with Kevin. It's all Peter Jenning's fault. ch2 - Kevin isn't advocating sending the combined elements of the American Armed forces against Bush. Bush's logic was good enough to support the continued presence of Hans Blix in Iraq. It wasn't good enough to spend the lives of 1000 US servicemen and $800 billion. Kevin's questions are good enough to insist that Bush release his records. It's not good enough to start impeachment proceedings. See how that works? Posted by: LowLife at February 10, 2004 11:13 AM | PERMALINKKevin: Max Cleland was on Hardball last night, saying that the crucial document to uncover is Bush's DD-214. He said "Everybody that went through military has one. It shows exactly your tours of duty, where you served, and exactly the times and dates. Where is the DD-214?" What are your thoughts on this? Is the DD-214 the document to go after here? Posted by: David at February 10, 2004 11:18 AM | PERMALINKWait until they find out that Bush collected pay in Alabama and Texas at the same time....and Scott McClellan explains that 'the evidence is clear that GWB is twice as patriotic as anyone else.' Posted by: Jim7 at February 10, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINKAm I the only one who's bothered not so much with whether Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations, as with the fact that he supported the Vietnam war but never volunteered for active duty? It tells us a lot about his his lack of character. Especially compared with Kerry, who put himself in harm's way and did his duty to his country, despite the fact that he was not enthusiastic about the war. This fact -- this indisputable fact -- will not change even if Bush proves that he made up the missing drills. He'll still be someone who expected others to serve and die in a war he supported. Posted by: Ares Akritas at February 10, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKActually, I see no impeachment coming out of this whatsoever. No matter what the records reveal, the matter was clearly dealt with by the National Guard internally decades ago. Sure, maybe Bush did something for which he should have been punished, but he wasn't. Kevin's scenario matches up with what I suspect the truth probably is: that the records contain something embarrassing but not all that criminal. However, the stonewalling has now guaranteed that this will be a bigger deal than it would otherwise have been. As usual, the coverup is more damaging than the original offence. Posted by: Kevin Brennan at February 10, 2004 11:24 AM | PERMALINKThis fact -- this indisputable fact -- will not change even if Bush proves that he made up the missing drills. He'll still be someone who expected others to serve and die in a war he supported. Yup. If he wanted to fly planes so bad, the Air Force was hiring. It must have shamed his Dad, a WWII fighter pilot, something fierce to have his eldest son use his family influence to get into the Guard. That must still rankle. In his shoes, I would be pissed at the kid. Damn right. Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 11:29 AM | PERMALINKAres, the bigger hypocrisy is that Bush Sr. was in Congress supporting the Vietnam War, signing the death warrants of thousands of kids other this his own. Posted by: John Dillinger at February 10, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINK"Removed? Or... copies made and sent to the Pentagon? It seems to me that standard procedure would be to be given a copy and be allowed to peruse the originals. A person is not usually able to take records away...because they do not belong to them. Being president of course has perks, and security concerns, yet I cant credibly see them applying here. I mean can Bush, leagally, go into any Texas courthouse or division of motor vehicles or state tax office and simply "remove" documents? To what degree does the administrative rule of law apply to a citizen who happens to be president? Posted by: J at February 10, 2004 11:31 AM | PERMALINKOf interest ? http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bushservice.htm Posted by: poster at February 10, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKYe gods, they ARE trying to play us. I feel it in my bones. The realities are these: (1) If Bush authorized full release of his records, it could have happened a long time ago. It would take about 5 minutes to sign off a few waiver forms. This does strongly indicate that Bush is fearful about something that's either in the files, or that he thinks might be in the files. (2) Unnecessarily moving files from one repository to another -- if we're talking about sole original documents, not mere copies -- is the sort of thing to make conspiracy freaks of us all. Are these efforts by the Bush people to get a chance to privately review the files for negatives, and then sanitize (via removal and/or addition of forged documents)? Since there is compelling (albeit not conclusive) evidence from first-hand witnesses that Bush operatives have violated federal law by altering his service records in the past, it seems hardly a stretch to think they may be doing it again. (3) Ironically, we're all getting twisted out of shape over a lot of minutae when some of the biggest and most damning facts are already known. I mean, Bush did NOT show up for a required physical when ordered to, and for that was grounded. That's IN the printed records that have already been released. He seemingly claims (in his autobiography) that he flew his F102 for several years after completing his training. As phrased (as I read it), the claim may actually be true, but it SOUNDS as though he claimed to have flown regularly for the full duration of his enlistment ... and that is clearly NOT true. Maybe there's something even worse in the not-yet-released records. But since the records already out indisputably show these things, in the real world we really do have plenty with which to heartily condemn the little weasel. (4) But, again, I'm struck with the fact that they appear to be playing us. Playing us by dragging the process out longer and longer and longer (in the hope that they can outlast public and media interest and memory); playing us by dribbling a bit here, a bit there, each piece with enough contradictions and complexities to make the entire process slightly less interesting to the general public than watching paint dry; playing us by looking for ways to simply drown us in a flurry of paper, a very old bureaucratic trick. And, maybe indeed, playing us in another way: trying to get us into a lather about it all, just so they can then chop us off at the knees by eventually releasing docs that DO appear to totally vindicate the president (or at least vindicate him on the most outrageous of charges raised by the intemperate among us; knowing how the media works, that might be enough to kill further interest in the matter and allow Bush and him minions to then claim "He was completely cleared in all of that" even if it's manifestly untrue. Well, I have no crystal ball, and haven't a clue what's going to happen next. I'm hoping we've got him on the ropes, but I don't think we can yet rule out the chance that Rove and Company are playing rope-a-dope with us and that it is we -- not they -- who are at risk right now. -- Roger Shorter ch2: "Bush's previous lies mean we should be less skeptical of Bush's future lies." Posted by: phil at February 10, 2004 11:37 AM | PERMALINKI worked for the VA as a federal adjudicator for claims based on service during the Viet Nam Era in San Francisco Regional Office at 49 4th street under G. A. Loftis. All military service is verified through the DD 214. These records have been studiously kept and relied upon. Posted by: Yoduuuh at February 10, 2004 11:41 AM | PERMALINKdid they sign a receipt for each document taken? Posted by: J at February 10, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKSurely Bush has a DD-214? Surely he could release it, right? Posted by: Deana Holmes at February 10, 2004 11:46 AM | PERMALINKanyone have any thoughts on why reporters at the gaggle were so
persistently grilling Scottie on *where* GWB had accumulated those
points?? "Don't go there." Yes it is tempting but sort of a diversion. If it turns out that he really did attend, then that won't change the quality of decisions he has made in the last three years as prez, which is the real scandal to which the public must hold him accountable. It is just like, if it were Clinton and the guy really had skipped out 30 years ago, that wouldn't change the good things he actually did do. Better avoid the ad hominem arguments. There's plenty to work with in his performance record in office. Posted by: david sanger at February 10, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKI'm wondering if there should not be more attention paid to the indisputable fact that Bush disqualified himself from flying for the last two years of his obligation. How much did it cost the government to train him to fly? What does the government expect in return for that investment. Did Bush give back to his country what was expected of him. As Bush himself says, many National Guardsman have and are now fighting in Iraq. Was his service while a pilot essentially of no consequence to the defense of the nation. Or at least of small enough consequence that he personally felt that he was of little use? What if his unit had been called up, as many National Guard units have been called to serve in Iraq, after he opted out of his flying obligation? Seems to me it is an issue that he would on his own decide that his expensive years of pilot training were of no value to his country. Posted by: ehos at February 10, 2004 11:53 AM | PERMALINKKevin Brennan: "Kevin's scenario matches up with what I suspect the truth probably is: that the records contain something embarrassing but not all that criminal." I agree- however at this point, Bush has overplayed his hand. By framing his entire re-election platform around national security and the "war-time president", it would be awfully embarassing to reveal that he (for example) spent the winter of '72 spending his trust fund on booze while thousands risked and lost their lives fighting for their country. In other words, even if whatever is in there isn't that big of a deal (plenty of people did all sorts of things to get out of vietnam), the fact that Bush has made his military service a big representation of his character is turning into a hole he won't be able to dig himself out of very easily. There are only two ways out at this point: release everything and let the chips fall where they may; or delay, obfuscate, and stonewall, hoping that everyone else has the same short attention span that the President does. I wonder which will happen? Posted by: apl at February 10, 2004 11:53 AM | PERMALINKIf he wanted to fly planes so bad, the Air Force was hiring Very well put. Indeed, joining the Guard in those days was the most shameful way to avoid combat. It was a pretense of serving in the armed forces while making sure that you wouldn't see combat -- the Guard in 1972 was absolutely not the same thing as today's active duty Guard. It took far more integrity to be a conscientious objector or even to run away to Canada. Conservatives were quite right in excoriating Clinton for managing not to serve, while trying to preserve the pretense that he didn't try to get away with not serving. Is showed Clinton to be cynical and to lack integrity. What Bush did is even worse. Not only he supported the war -- while Clinton at least didn't -- but he made sure he put on a quasi military uniform that virtually guaranteed non-combat duty, preserving the pretense that he somehow wanted to serve. Serving and fighting are two totally different things. His "Mission Accomplished" stunt was an insult to all veterans and patriots (I am both) and should have been an abomination to the Moral Clarity crowd. Posted by: Ares Akritas at February 10, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINKMarsman has my thoughts on the matter. They be cooking a souffle, collecting lists of speculation that can be popped. Pop enough and the serious stuff gets thrown out with the bath water. Posted by: Troy at February 10, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINKanyone have any thoughts on why reporters at the gaggle were so persistently grilling Scottie on *where* GWB had accumulated those points?? Because Scottie was trying very hard not to say that Bush got them in Alabama, but clearly wanted the media to come away with that impression. Ergo, Bush performed them somewhere else. Colorado, perhaps? Let me put my tinfoil hat on a sec. Say Bush DID wind up eventually taking a flight physical, and they piss tested him, and found drugs in his system. No evidence, obviously, but it could be present in his record that he got caught using drugs and sent to a disciplinary unit. All we know is that he was ordered to take a physical, and APPARENTLY didn't. He never said he didn't eventually take that flight physical. Just speculating as to what might prompt them to keep refusing to reveal why he was apparently disciplined. That would Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKRE: Ares Akritas wrote: "Am I the only one who's bothered not so much with whether Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations, as with the fact that he supported the Vietnam war but never volunteered for active duty?" GW could have volunteered to go to Vietnam, but it would have been for naught. The aircraft that GW was qualified on, the F-102 Delta Dagger, was withdraw from combat ops in S.E. Asia in 1968. The F-102 was designed as an interceptor for continental defense of North America against Soviet bombers like the Tu-20 "Bear". It was not designed to act as either a fighter-bomber or air superiority fighter. They were designed for one purpose only: to engage and destroy nuclear armed long-ranged Soviet bombers. After only three years of service in 'Nam it was quickly realized that the F-102 was unsuited for either ground support operations or dog-fighting against MIG-17's and 21's over the North. Heck, it didn't even carry guns, just missles and rockets. RE: Mr. Drum wrote: "Finally, the reason this is all controversial is because the existing record is both fragmentary and contradictory, a toxic combination that inevitably leads to lots of speculation as well as some outright conspiracy theorizing." ...although still early in the year, and election cycle, I will boldly nominate this statement for "Understatement of the Year". Concocting increasingly rabid conspiracy theories seems to almost be a competition, jolly sport even, among the resident posters here. The quality of discourse seems to have sunk to the same depths of irrationality as an Indymedia or DU bbs. Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 11:56 AM | PERMALINKMonkey: That's kind of what I was thinking. Or maybe he never earned the
points at all -- if the ARF summary of points earned was completed as a
political favor, either contemporary with Bush's "service" or ca. 2000. There just has to be so much more to this than lackluster guard duty attendance. My husband also got into the guard to avoid Vietnam. His comments about that time mirror some of what Cohen said "the weekend drills being a joke, playing cards, going to the movies, etc..". But I believe he said (and he is not here right now so I can't pick his brain) that attendance was a serious requirement (at least signing in and signing out) and as he had little enthusiasm for the military, he was busted back down to private on several occasions (after several promotions to higher ranking private or low ranking sargeant)for being late or not showing or what not. I know he did not care about his rank but he very much cared about being transferred to active duty if he screwed around too much. (So Cohen being "AWOL" for TWO YEARS sounds a little odd to me.... But (now comes my quandry)) On MTP, it was taped and I understand Bush wore a earpiece. When he said he would release his records, there was enough of a pause before he said "just like we did in 2000" that it could have been fed to him. Did Rove want to pull Bush back from committing to releasing all his records with another lie about 2000 when they did not release all the records? Why? Why does Bush believe his record is fine but Rove does not? Or is Bush convinced the coverup is solid and Rove is not? It is all very strange to me. Posted by: Mary Ellen Moore at February 10, 2004 12:01 PM | PERMALINKGW could have volunteered to go to Vietnam, but it would have been for naught. The aircraft that GW was qualified on, the F-102 Delta Dagger, was withdraw from combat ops in S.E. Asia in 1968 Totally irrelevant. He could have volunteered for active duty in any number of posts, in the air, on the ground, in the jungle, in the rivers, etc. He did not volunteer to fight in a war he believed in. That's the relevant fact. bubba: I will boldly nominate this statement for "Understatement of the Year". I agree, bubba. What Kevin no doubt meant to say is that "the existing record is both EXTREMELY fragmentary and HIGHLY contradictory." Posted by: 71077345 at February 10, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINKGW could have volunteered to go to Vietnam, but it would have been for naught. The aircraft that GW was qualified on, the F-102 Delta Dagger, was withdraw from combat ops in S.E. Asia in 1968 And maybe he could have used his Dad's Influence to say, get trained in the F-4 Phantom, if he was such a gung-ho pilot? Got another one? Cause I don't see how the fact that he was trained in one obsolete plane would have prevented him from going to Vietnam IF HE HAD WANTED TO. My Dad served two tours over there, and it burns me that he was sent when he didn't believe in it, but Rich Kid Bush got to avoid it, while professing he was all for the war. If he wanted to fly planes, the Air Force would have LOVED to have a Congressman's son among it's pilots. Good for morale. That he didn't, and used his pull to get into the Guard over hundreds of other applicants, must have shamed the hell out of his Dad. Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 12:13 PM | PERMALINKbtw, you made froomkin's WH briefing today Posted by: praktike at February 10, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINKRE: Ares Akritas The relevant fact is that he served in a unit assigned to the protection of the continental United States during the Cold War against nuclear threats. Vietnam was one of several contemporaneuos theaters during the Cold War, albeit the hottest one. Are fighter pilots who served in Europe and Korea from the late 60's to early 70's, out of conviction that the containment policies of the Cold War were correct, equal recipients of your scorn? Or do you reserve your opprobrium simply for those pilots who patrolled and defended the CONUS? Or, is it simply one particular Cold War ear pilot? Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 12:28 PM | PERMALINKNobody has actually established the Bush knew the Vietnam War was going on, have they? Posted by: John Dillinger at February 10, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKBubba - If patrolling and defending the continental US was so important, shouldn't you be feeling some opprobrium for a pilot who shirked that vital duty? Posted by: Blue the Wild Dog at February 10, 2004 12:32 PM | PERMALINKHere is another interesting excerpt from White House Releases Bush Military Record: Bush says no one in his family pulled strings and that he got in because others didn't want to commit to the almost two years of active duty required for fighter pilot training. Bush neglected to comment on the fact that after going through this training he failed to take a required physical examine thus losing his flight status and pissing that training away. Posted by: karog at February 10, 2004 12:34 PM | PERMALINKIt was interesting after reading Cohen's article today how his experience, what we are hearing about GWB's service, and my own experience in the Army Reserve at that time show how loose the whole Guard/Reserve system had become. In context - the war was winding down and Nixon had "Vietnamized" the effort. I had a low draft number and enlisted in ROTC. When I graduated in Dec 1973 I was commissioned a 2LT. Just after the first of the year in 1974 I did about 100 days active duty in the Army taking my branch basic course in Ft. Eustis, VA. At the completion of the course I was offered the option of two years active duty or release to the Reserves. I was going to graduate school that fall, so I chose reserves. I was told by the Reserve Command that I had 90 days to pick a unit to join or they would assign me to one. I was given a form to send in whenever I changed addresses. I did not join a unit and they never assigned me to one. I faithfully sent in change of address forms whenever I moved and once a year I got a statement of my status, much like the records of GWB I see reproduced here. I didn't go to drill, didn't accumulate retirement points, and never got paid. About once every other year I got a phone call from someone at the Reserve Command asking me if I was interested in doing two weeks active duty. I always said I would prefer not to and it was always fine with them, it was stricly voluntary. After three years of this I was promoted to 1LT and after eight years they sent me my Honorable Discharge. They just plain didn't need us. As I was told when I attended Branch Basic, (these numbers are approximate) between ROTC, OCS, and West Point the Army at that time was commissioning 50,000 new lieutenants a year and they only had requirements for 10,000. It was competitive to try to stay on Active Duty. Basically, if you weren't interested, they weren't interested in you. They always knew where I was, and I could have been called up at any time, and would have willingly gone. I have heard similar stories from other people. The Cohen and Bush
stories remind me of this. Near the end of the war, the Guard and
Reserves relaxed control when they didn't need to have bodies on hand to
potentially feed into the Vietnam meatgrinder. Wow. Good pickup by karog. Not to mention that that "strings' thing is, well, kind of a lie. Posted by: TedL at February 10, 2004 12:40 PM | PERMALINK1. I asked Bob Rogers, a retired Air National Guard pilot who's been following this for some time, and what follows is his interpretation of what happened...ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons ... ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush. We've found nothing, thus far, that links "disciplinary" action to "ARF" itself. Moreover, ARF, for Air Reserve Forces, appears to be an interchangeable acronym for ANG or AFRES[1], essentially, anyone serving in the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve. For example, an "ARF-ID" is required to "further delineate reserve assignments" according to one HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center(ARPCM) memo describing procedures for promotion [2]. Was "Bob Rogers" referring to something else on the ARF points statement that suggested "discplinary" context? 2. Otherwise, these statements, if authentic, would substantially refute charges that Bush was AWOL for the period in question, although the provided ARF statements do not indicate points accumulated from May through Oct '72. 3. Moreover, if these ARF statements really "dont' show anything" in the way of evidence re Bush's service during the period in question, then the easiest way to establish "worth" is to compare: What do ARF statements from other ANG personnel who served approximate to Bush in time or locale show in detail or descriptive content? 4. This has all the markings of a controversy about to blow up in Democratic faces with unpredictable public consequenes(i.e., pro-Bush backlash). Bush still needs to account for his ANG time from May to October '72, but the charge of AWOL-for-a-year appears badly crippled, primed and ready for public scorn. 5. Blaming the media won't help. Blaming Bush won't help either. Apologies will only confirm the debacle. Democrats have chanted "Bush was AWOL" for at least 4-5 years. If Bush can prove his service with credible documentation, the only plausible rejoinder would be "what took him so long," which is to say, weak at best. [1] [2] http://arpc.afrc.af.mil/promo/arpcm/arpcm0102.htm Notice that Bush said "no one in his family pulled strings" but that leaves lots of opportunity for family friends or other possible connections. Posted by: karog at February 10, 2004 12:45 PM | PERMALINKThe relevant fact is that he served in a unit assigned to the protection of the continental United States during the Cold War against nuclear threats. Vietnam was one of several contemporaneuos theaters during the Cold War, albeit the hottest one. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. That was delicious. So Texas was a theatre in the Cold War? Funny, nobody alive in the US at the time saw it as that, as far as I can recall. Good pickup, in any case, Blue the Wild Dog, Posted by: No Preference at February 10, 2004 12:50 PM | PERMALINKRE: Monkey GW joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968. The F-4 fighter was a front line aircraft used only by USAF and Navy squadrons at that time. None of the three TANG squadrons where equipped with F-4's. Let's try to stay on topic, o.k.? Pilot slots aviailable were for F-102's of the 147th and 149th, or the air refuelling tanker's of the 136th Squadron. He choose the F-102. The F-102 was not an obsolete aircraft - it was simply not useful in the S.E. Asia theater of operations. The North Vietnamese simply weren't deploying any inter-continental strategic bombers. That was what the F-102 Delta Dagger Intercepter was designed to intercept. Think you can grasp that? And just out of curiousity, if your father was so ardently against
the war in Vietnam, why did he volunteer for a second tour of duty? The interesting thing to me, something which sort of sustains the questions and speculation, is how this bit about the ARF did not come up in 2000. So this is new news, is it not. So you have to ask yourself, what else don't we know? Why couldn't the press find this out the last time? Oh, and Bubba, if he'd've SERVED, maybe this wouldn't be such an issue. But it doesn't appear that he did, his claims to the contrary. So it is an issue. And since we can't believe pretty much anything that crawls out of his mouth, we ain't gonna be nice about it. You know, fool me once, blather mumble stumble blabber, won't get fooled again! Posted by: Duckman GR at February 10, 2004 01:03 PM | PERMALINKBubba, Here's a quote for you, since you're such a Bushie: I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes. Now, who do you suppose said that? I think he makes my point pretty well. He clearly wanted to get out of going to Vietnam. Fine. So did a lot of people. But let's not pretend he was doing some noble anti-communist duty. If he believed that, do you think he'd have: A. Asked permission to leave his unit and join a political campaign? B. Not wound up missing a flight physical? C. Not have gotten his wings clipped, after the government spent a lot of money presumably teaching him how to fly? The point I was making is that if he wanted to go to war back then, he could have easily gone. He obviously did not, and people have testified that they pulled strings to get him into the guard over the heads of the waiting list. So I really don't see what the fact that the F-102 was not in Vietnam had to do with it. If he pushed for it, really pushed for it, he could have gotten a spot in the Air Force flying whatever planes they had over there. He didn't, but still claims to have supported the war. Uh huh? And you guys call Clinton a draft-dodger? Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKI'd agree with those who said that W's failure to get his physical and making himself ineligible to fly is the best point to hammer on. Posted by: Tom Hoffman at February 10, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKBubba - GW could have volunteered to go to Vietnam, but it would have been for naught. The aircraft that GW was qualified on, the F-102 Delta Dagger, was withdraw from combat ops in S.E. Asia in 1968. This is sooooo cart-before-horse. From the July 28, 1999, WaPo piece, "The Life of George W. Bush | At
Height of Vietnam, Graduate Picks Guard" by George Lardner Jr. & Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas[i.e., Vietnam]. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer." Bush said in an interview that he did not recall checking the box. In other words, Bush volunteered "not to volunteer" for Vietnam before he even knew what an F-102 was. Posted by: thinkblot at February 10, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINKAs others have said, the fact that Bush didn't want to serve in Vietnam is neither here nor there. The war was pretty discredited by the time he entered the Guard. What gets under my skin is Bush's pretense of being a jut-jawed warrior. He got into the Guard because he came from an influential family. Yet he has no compunction about dissing people like Max Cleland, who made tremendous sacrifices. It is all so phony. It's all so in line with the tenor of this war on terror, which neither the warmongers nor their children have to fight. Posted by: No Preference at February 10, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKAs others have said, the fact that Bush didn't want to serve in Vietnam is neither here nor there. Actually, "the fact" always matter. It's the difference between no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and a war which has to date killed 500 U.S. servicemen plus thousands of Iraqi non-combatants. Inventing or choreographing "fact" is precisely how the Bush administration brought America and Iraq to the here and now: Jobless, indebted and chaotic. Posted by: thinkblot at February 10, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINK"As others have said, the fact that Bush didn't want to serve in Vietnam is neither here nor there. The war was pretty discredited by the time he entered the Guard." Vietnam is here and now, and has been kept here and now **by the GOP**, who never stopped using as something to beat Democrats with. Except when, of course, it became necessary for draft-dodging Republican politicians found it convenient to slander honorable Democratic veterans. Then the GOP stuffed Vietnam back into a closet and locked the door. Posted by: Barry at February 10, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINKActually, "the fact" always matter. I agree. What I meant was that the question of whether Bush wanted to avoid service in Vietnam is not a moral issue for me. What is an issue, in light of his actual record, is that idiotic flight suit. And, more important, his attacks on Democrats who are just as interested in the safety of the country as he is. Posted by: No Preference at February 10, 2004 01:39 PM | PERMALINK"he can put a stop to all this speculation instantly by simply ordering all the relevant archives to release his entire record, warts and all. Why won't he?" Because the minute he does people like Kevin et al will scour everything in his record trying to find something (those warts you refer too), anything, with which to bash bush over the head with. DUH!! None of you are interested in the truth anyway. God forbid you actually have a platform that sings to the American people. >i>God forbid you actually have a platform that sings to the American people. A singing platform would be more in the Republican line, with their dominance in public relations. Posted by: No Preference at February 10, 2004 01:47 PM | PERMALINKehos: I'm wondering if there should not be more attention paid to the indisputable fact that Bush disqualified himself from flying for the last two years of his obligation. I think this might be a particularly fruitful line of inquiry. Bush failed to appear for his mandatory physical and was grounded in 1972, which was when the military instituted drug testing. By early 1973, Bush had interrupted his playboy life for a few months of volunteer work with inner-city kids at Project PULL - which just might have been community service in lieu of a prison sentence for drug possession. James R. Bath, described somewhere as Bush's "drinking buddy" in TANG (and later a businessman with Saudi connections who invested Saudi money in Bush's Arbusto), also failed to take his physical at about the same time. This is admittedly the grossest sort of speculation, but the coincidences are intriguing. Posted by: reffie at February 10, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINKThe main reason Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry, and you liberal blogs have taken to regurgitating the "Bush was AWOL" charge with such verve is because you know you can't beat the president arguing national security policy so you have to try discredit him personally. Frankly, I find it to be a bit on the scummy side. I'm not such a Kool-Aid drinking Bush supporter to be completely closed off to the idea that Bush may have missed a few meetings in Alabama while serving in the National Guard. But as things stand now - and as they've stood for the past three years - the facts don't support an AWOL charge against the President, no matter how much you may love or hate him. Because if you take a step back and think about this for a second, even if you grant your worst case scenario against Bush - that he blew off Guard duty for an entire year and then crammed at the end to fulfill his requirement before heading off to business school - there really is no getting around the fact that Bush did indeed fulfill his service obligation and received an honorable discharge from the National Guard. That fact alone makes the AWOL charge a scurrilous one. Let's assume for the sake of argument the truth lies somewhere in the middle; that Bush reported to duty in Alabama a couple of times and the records got lost along the way, but also that he did miss some service during that year. Unless you're willing to challenge the veracity of Bush's discharge then you are left trying to prove the unprovable, all the while ignoring the only salient fact (Bush's honorable discharge) in order to trade in speculation and innuendo that casts aspersions on Bush's character. But if you can't produce proof or come up with anything more than endless streams speculation over the next 8 months then you will have performed a great injustice to the President and to your readers. And you may also help reinforce the notion among some that the blogosphere is nothing more than an online rumor mill. That would be most unfortunate. All I can say is, "keep it up." Please. The Democratic party looks increasingly like a junkie strung out on Bush-hating drugs. They have no vision for the future, are unable to articulate any serious policy alternatives, and now live only for the next high, which usually comes in the form of slanderous, ad hominem attacks on the President like the one Al Gore delivered last night. Or the ones channeled through groups like MoveOn.org. Hence the base's utter indifference to John Kerry as a person, as a candidate, and to his current and past positions on the issues. The party's hollowness is summed up neatly by the breathtaking banality of their current call to arms: "Anybody but Bush." This is the first presidential election in America since three thousand of our fellow citizens were killed by terrorists on our own soil and Democrats are coming to the country with the message "anybody but Bush." Um, okay.
Tom Hoffman is exactly right: the point to hammer home is that Bush shirked his duties by failing to show for his flight physical. Once he was grounded, all of that training went to waste. And the sole rationale for his being in the Guard, as opposed to a fire team in a rice paddie, was gone. Bush's excuse for not getting the physical -- that his doctor was in Texas, not Alabama -- is hard to swallow. Montgomery is home to Maxwell AFB, one of the largest and oldest Air Force installations in the country, and home to a fully-staffed hospital that routinely administers flight physicals. If he wanted to schedule a physical there, he could have. If he had to drive back to Texas on the weekend to see his personal physician, he could have. The bottom line was: he didn't. There's a lot of speculation that Bush avoided a physical because he was afraid he'd be identified as a drug user via urinalysis. There's another possibility: that Bush was afraid of flying. Pilots sometimes lose their nerve. Given his macho-man facade, the last thing Bush would want to surface is a document suggesting he was afraid to go back in the cockpit. Posted by: Californian at February 10, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKRE: No Preference Yes, as a matter of fact Texas-and Indiana, Massachusetts, or Irkutsk and the Ukraine for that matter, was a theater of the Cold War. CONUS was a theater level command. Don't you remember the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction? Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINKreffie: Yes, those are good points, though admittedly speculative, they may be worth pursuing if there are any facts that can be dug up. However, it should be emphasized by all those covering the story that his not appearing for his physical was disobeying an order. So, while he may have gotten an honorable discharge (possibly thanks to having a family with great political pull), it's indisputable that he disobeyed a direct order. I wonder if that's part of his record of service that he is "proud" of? K Posted by: Keef at February 10, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINKBlack Oak - Better a platform that doesn't sing than one that sings "Horst Wessel". Posted by: Blue the Wild Dog at February 10, 2004 01:58 PM | PERMALINK
Bill, it's always interesting to get an alternate view on reality... even one on mind-altering drugs. Bush has a credibility gap. This week, it's his military service - or lack of it - and, more to the point, the lies he told about it to make it sound better than it was. This one has legs: it's a nice, simple issue. Bush bragged about his military service, and let himself be used in publicity stunts like "Mission Accomplished". And yet Bush seems to have spent at least the last two years of his service goofing off. On an ongoing basis, it's the crap his administration shovelled at the American people to justify war with Iraq - as Al Gore acutely said, Bush & Co "took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, that was preordained and planned before 9-11" - at a time when the US could ill-afford the distraction of fighting another enemy, Bush & Co wasted resources that should have been devoted to al-Qaeda on invading Iraq. That gap is going to widen as it becomes clear that Bush & Co lied about the WMD in Iraq. Again, a nice simple issue, for everyone with normal memories: Bush & Co spun a line about vast stockpiles, and while they can try to blame it on the CIA, it was Bush & Co up there making public speeches about these non-existent WMD. There's the results of the 9/11 commission, which, however spun, cannot look good for the Bush administration: they presided over the worst security failure in US history. (Of course, they can try to blame it on Clinton. But at some point, blaming Clinton is going to backfire completely, making the Republicans look like irresponsible clowns, and it could very well be on this issue. Bush had been in power for 8 months - if Clinton should have moved to stop 9/11 from happening, so should Bush) There's the Plame Affair, which is more complicated, but comes down to a single issue: did someone in the Bush administration betray a covert CIA agent to punish her husband? Well... we'll find out. Added to this, there is the simple fact that Bush & Co have oversold. They've promised too much to too many people and it's beginning to be damn obvious they can't deliver. 15% of the registered Republicans in Vermont voted for Anyone But Bush. Not because people don't care what the Democratic candidates are individually like: if you've read Democrat blogs, you'd know there's a good deal of difference in assessing them. But it's evident to a majority of people in the US that any other candidate has got to be better than Bush. Hence: ABB. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 10, 2004 02:03 PM | PERMALINKYes, as a matter of fact Texas-and Indiana, Massachusetts, or Irkutsk and the Ukraine for that matter, was a theater of the Cold War. CONUS was a theater level command. Don't you remember the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction? Yes I do, very well indeed. You're saying that every American was serving in that Cold War theatre, which is the same as saying that the service of peopole like Bush was meaningless. The USSR had hardly any strategic bombers in 1972. Its deterrant was in ICBMs, with a few subs. Posted by: No Preference at February 10, 2004 02:09 PM | PERMALINKI was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes. -- George W. Bush Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Fierce Anti-Communist. Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 02:15 PM | PERMALINKDuring a visit to West Virginia in January 2002, Bush joked, “I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d rather go to war.” How the hell can people ignore the fact that this man is a walking insult to our veterans? Posted by: Crabb at February 10, 2004 02:59 PM | PERMALINKRE: No Prefence The Soviet Union had 140 strategic bombers in 1971. A not inconsiderable force. And enough of a threat to inspire the creation of 93Interceptor squadrons over the duration of the Cold War. Perhaps, you should change the handle to "No Reference" Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 03:00 PM | PERMALINKThe relevant fact is that he served in a unit assigned to the protection of the continental United States during the Cold War against nuclear threats No, no, no! The relevant fact is that he supported a war, but did his
best not to fight it. That's it. Nothing to do with where he served, or
what airplane he flew, or any other nonsense. It shows he has no real
convictions when it comes to putting them to the test. He's a hypocrite
and a phony. WHAT? Bush has a CREDIBILITY GAP? Doesn't EVERY politician? I'd take Bush's credibility over Kerry's any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Kerry is as real as Clinton was monogomous. It's inherently hypocritical to decry Bush for not connecting the dots for 9-11 but then decry him for connecting the dots (i.e. hyping the war) in Iraq. This is such nonsense. You are fishing for something that's not there. You're looking through the conspiracy theories like a bunch of dirty old men looking through porn sites. Get a life. Posted by: Bill at February 10, 2004 03:22 PM | PERMALINKBubba - Thanks for convincing me of the importance of our air defence forces during the Cold War! It shows what a traitor Bush was for shirking this vital duty! Posted by: Blue the Wild Dog at February 10, 2004 03:31 PM | PERMALINKYou are welcome, Blue. The depth of historical ignorance I've witnessed by the posters here is truly breath-taking. Anything I can do to uplift the rabid foaming-at-the-mouth illiterate masses here seems like a noble task worth engaging in. I hope you now feel enlightened. Now, please define "shirking". Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINKBubba - Shirking - failing to show up for a required physical, resulting in his suspension and inability to serve his country in the role he was trained for. Posted by: Blue the Wild Dog at February 10, 2004 03:43 PM | PERMALINKMy Vietnam War Journal by gw bush
RE: Blue the Wild Dog (interesting handle, btw) "Shirking" as defined by who? You? If GW had "shirked" his duty, then he would have faced sanction under the Uniform Military Code of Justice and in likelihood been dishonorably discharged. Do you disagree? But, perhaps you're judging him under the somewhat more subjective "Blue the Wild Dog" Code of Military Justice? If so, sorry to puncture the balloons that hold aloft your delusions of granduer, it doesn't really matter. Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 03:55 PM | PERMALINKIf GW had "shirked" his duty, then he would have faced sanction under the Uniform Military Code of Justice and in likelihood been dishonorably discharged. Or reassigned to a paper unit. Interesting how Scotty wouldn't say where Bush served his final year, eh? This is JUST getting interesting. Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKBubba - "shirking" has an everyday English meaning as well as a technical one. "To avoid or neglect (a duty or responsibility)." That seems to fit Bush's behavior to a T. And I tend to agree with you about the importance of serving in any capacity. "They also serve who only stand and wait." Too bad Bush didn't bother. Posted by: Blue the Wild Dog at February 10, 2004 04:00 PM | PERMALINKLook at us! We look like idiots to be worrying about this stuff. Kerry's backing away from it and if he had integrity, he'd apologize and leave the race. Its because of Clinton. People used to say the Republicans couldn't get over Clinton; Democrats are still suffering from the disgrace Clinton plopped on them and it made them demented. Posted by: Embarrassed Democrat at February 10, 2004 04:03 PM | PERMALINKRE: Ares Akritas Millions of Americans supported the war in South Vietnam, as witnessed by two elections of Richard M. Nixon who took quite a hard-line on the prosecution of the conflict even as he tried to extricate us from that Kennedy/Johnson morass. What I find hypocritical is that there are muddle-headed partisans who decried the American involvement in S.E. Asia, yet excoriate an American who choose to fulfill his military duty during those very same years defending the continental . Such a counter-intuitive position clearly demarcates them as nothing more than "hypocrites and phonys". Posted by: bubba at February 10, 2004 04:07 PM | PERMALINKThere are at least two good reasons to be skeptical about Bush's story: (1) some of it simply doesn't add up and (2) he has refused to release his entire military record. And number 3 of probably many more: The pattern of his life is to lie, shade the truth, equivocate, and avoid responsibility- (remember his SEC paperwork?- He knows he filled it out, those lawyers must have lost it, the dog ate it,) and he still blames Clinton for anything he can't take credit for. This shallow fraud is hiding something...and his smarmy, sickening
"I'd be careful here..." to Tim Russert about "denigrating" the Guard is
typically of his thuggish and vindictive behavior. Keep diggin' Kevin! Posted by: marty at February 10, 2004 05:01 PM | PERMALINKRe: bubba You have inadvertently pointed out a fact that is very relevant in assessing Bush's military record and character: The fact that Bush chose to serve in a military branch that at that time was guaranteed to stay put in the continental US, while a war he supported was raging elsewhere, demonstrates quite clearly his hypocrisy, cowardice and lack of integrity. As you seem to acknowledge -- but without appreciating the significance -- the National Guard at that time was indeed a continental force and that's why is was such an attractive way for the well-connected to avoid being drafted for combat duty. As I explained above, joining the Guard in those days was the most shameful way to avoid combat. It was a pretense of serving in the armed forces while making sure that you wouldn't actually do any fighting. If Bush was against the Vietnam War and was man enough to state that he joined the Guard to avoid combat, he would at least show some integrity. But this self-described "war president" chose to avoid fighting a war he supported by making sure he stayed stateside. It was fine for others to fight and die, but he, of course, was too good to be placed where bullets where flying. And, of course, as we know now, he muddle even that modicum of service to his country. Principled conservatives who quite rightly -- yes, rightly -- excoriated Clinton for dodging the draft should be the first ones to apply the same standard to Bush. Unfortunately it's obvious that there are no principled conservatives any longer, just partisan hacks. Posted by: Ares Akritas at February 10, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINKinterrupted his playboy life for a few months of volunteer work with inner-city kids at Project PULL - What is also intriguing is that Shrub, who so often pontificates on the great "lessons" he supposedly has learned, or the things he "believes", like- "I believe people ought to take responsibility for what they do", or "We need to love a neighbor the way we'd like to be loved", and his other platitudes about the benefit of service to others, has never so far as I have heard talked about this period of his life, which would be fodder for much comment on the lessons he learned from it. Instead, he goes to college campuses and smirks, "And for you C-students, heh-heh, there's hope for you, too." He is hiding something, and he has used up ANY benefit of the doubt he had. Posted by: marty at February 10, 2004 05:19 PM | PERMALINKIT IS EXACTLY BECAUSE This is the first presidential election in America since three thousand of our fellow citizens were killed by terrorists on our own soil and Democrats are coming to the country with the message "anybody but Bush. He has so badly mangled and damaged our country with his lies and deceit that yes, ANYBODY BUT BUSH. This is a profoundly unserious man, a shallow fraud who in manifestly unfit for the job. He has cynically used 9/11 for cheap and partisan reasons, and millions of Americans have been slimed by Republican punks who don't have the balls to fight, but send others to do it for no other reason than they disagree with Shrub. SO, take your "3,000 dead" attakc and shove it- this fraud of a President spits on the graves of those 3,000 every time he stonewalls the Commission,and NYC was chosen as the Repub convention site precisely to exploit 9/11. So, tough shit, Republicans......ANYBODY BUT BUSH!!!!!! Is it possible the reason the DoD was requesting the records, is some people there are pissed off about Dubyious for various reasons? (All the kind of stuff Hackworth and Galloway have complained about, the diversion of force, money, etc.) There are so many people in so many institutions that have a beef. I'm hoping that, even with all that campaign booty, W will be a boot-ee come November. Put the Reshrublicans down! Posted by: danderous at February 10, 2004 05:52 PM | PERMALINKre: Bubba Yes, many Air (and Army) National Guard members did honorable service. I knew many myself, some who went to the Guard so they could finish school or graduate school or important family business before going to Nam for a year. Most of those Guard units did not have a guarantee to remain stateside. Many Air National Guard units were subordinate to the active duty Tactical Air Command and could have been deployed overseas at anytime. I have no argument with those Guardsmen. However, the Texas Air National Guard was widely known to work for North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and had the mission to defend the Mexican-American border from those 140 strategic soviet bombers you mention. btw - none of those 140 were stationed in Cuba. This is why there were so many applicants (500+) lined up in Texas. This duty was guaranteed not to get you into combat - either in Nam or Stateside. The bigger issues here are: Signed: a prodigal Republican (I voted for Goldwater, Nixon (to my shame), Ford, Reagan, and Bush Senior). I hope to return to the fold someday when you cleanse the party of radicals. Posted by: spotted dog at February 10, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINKI think the important and completely ignored issue here is not whether he logged a few drill dates that he can prove, but the MISSED PHYSICAL EXAM that he did not take. This is the achilles heel...I didn't hear any of the reporters raise the issue and McClellan sure as hell didn't go there. The physical exam is the key... Posted by: K at February 11, 2004 06:30 AM | PERMALINKIt's hilarious that this is the big issue that the left can come up with to try to bring Bush down. You folks are going to explode when Bush wins by a landslide. Posted by: Reek Stankleberry at February 11, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINKBush IS going to win in a landslide! But, just to correct some of the many actual misstatements (and then I'll try to stay out of the fray): John Kerry has refused to release his medical records to prove he did, in fact, deserve the Purple Heart, did you know that? www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com John Dillinger: "Ares, the bigger hypocrisy is that Bush Sr. was in Congress supporting the Vietnam War, signing the death warrants of thousands of kids other this his own." George Herbert Walker Bush was Ambassador to the UN, not in Congress, during 1972-1973 http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/biographies/president/bio.html Maybe you were mistaking that for his two terms in the House - 1966 and 1968? Crabb: "I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war." While that has been floating around the Internet for a while now, attributed to Bush interviews in both the Houston Chronicle and CNN - a quick search at either fails to come up with the phrase at all - I wonder why? Your side is really going to have to do a lot better than this if you want to at least avoid the landslide coming this November! Posted by: Charlie at February 11, 2004 09:04 AM | PERMALINKHey, I heard that during one of his guard drills in Alabama, Bush showed up without first shining his belt buckle! What a scandal. You liberals are such a bunch of pathetic, illogical, whiners. It's a great time to be a conservative. I can't imagine what it feels like to be on such a losing team. Posted by: Steve Johnson at February 11, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKWhen is someone in a position of authority going to investigate whether President George W. Bush, the "Commnader in Chief" as he refers to himself, is guilty of war crimes for ordering the slaughter of innocent Iraqis in a Baghdad restaurant that was bombed the night before the war began, because "intelligence sources" (the same ones who cited evidence of WMD?) reported that Saddam Hussein was in the restaurant? Posted by: Steve at February 11, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKSo much for the appetizer, now pass me the Aloha Oil. The SEC had to say no, and you thought the ANG was sticky? By the way, did you hear that the Saudis just snubbed American Oil companies for the Russians, Chinese, French and Italians? Do google that one. I guess they really didn't want us to create chaos and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Imagine an oil exec wanting to get rid of aWol. Posted by: Glenn at February 11, 2004 12:21 PM | PERMALINKK is right. The missed physical exam in Sept. 1972, 26 months before the expiration of Dubya's obligation in November, 1974 is the key. You can be court-martialed in the Marines for getting a sunburn that affects your ability to perform your duties. Failure to preserve flight status by ducking a physical exam is more like shooting yourself in the foot to get out of the front lines. Michael Moore's desertion charge looks more justified all the time! What we all need to do is get over attacking those who disagree with us. Bush supporters here make outrageous statements and characterizations of the ABB people, and vice versa. This country is divided as no time since the Civil War. All of us need to do something each day to learn to honor and respect everybody's opinion about stuff. I for one, who disagree with the administration, would like to see this issue put aside, as it is really not high on the list of things we should be discussing. Let Bush release the damned records, we'll look at it, and move on from there, no matter what the outcome. We have other more important matters, most dear of which to me is the poor policy of this administration regarding weakening of the EPA and a consistent pattern of always supporting business interests over those of the environment. This is the sort of thing that we all ought to be able to agree on: humankind depends on the environment being able to sustain us! Posted by: bill peppin at February 12, 2004 01:38 AM | PERMALINK"All of us need to do something each day to learn to honor and respect everybody's opinion about stuff." - Bill Peppin That's a lovely sentiment, but forgetful of one glaring fact: Respect is earned, not bestowed. When an opinion is based on lies, deception, ignorance, blind faith, self-delusion, wishful thinking, what have you-- I am under no obligation whatsoever to "respect" it. For example, my next-door neighbor, an elderly gentleman, holds the opinion that the moon landing back in '69 took place on a Hollywood soundstage. Am I expected to "respect" his opinion? I hope not, because that is one expectation I will not fulfill. I recognize the fact that he obviously has an opinion on the subject, but recognition and respect are two very different things. Posted by: ABB Texan at February 12, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKA man who runs away from his military service .is not fit to run the military .... Posted by: paratrooper at February 12, 2004 10:35 PM | PERMALINKCan you explain these theme more attentievly, please.... I didn't understand... Posted by: gay porn fan at April 7, 2004 12:14 AM | PERMALINKCan you explain these theme more attentievly, please.... I didn't understand... Posted by: gay at April 7, 2004 12:44 AM | PERMALINKMediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius. Posted by: Colangelo Josh at May 3, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINKMisfortune shows those who are not really friends. Posted by: Dulabaum Nina at June 30, 2004 12:04 PM | PERMALINKjackpotcity | kiwibingo | kiwicasino | luckyemperor | luckynugget | luckynuggetcasino | luckynuggetpoker | magicboxcasino | magicoasis | medprescribe | miamiparadisecasino | millionairecasino | musichallcasino | netdetective | netdetectiveplus | newyorkcasino | omnicasino | orbitalcasino | palaceofchance | partypoker | phoeniciancasino | planetluck | platinumplay | playanddeal Posted by: all poker casino at July 1, 2004 12:28 AM | PERMALINKI have found the best online pharmacy for buying Generic Viagra online You can also check some helpful info dedicated to http://www.melincs.org/ order phentermine http://www.worldwide-deals.net/ order phentermine http://www.phentermine-today.com/ phentermine order http://www.phentermine-pharmacy-deals.com/ phentermine order http://www.phentermine-experts.com/ phentermine order http://www.phentermine-375-deals.com/ cheapest phentermine http://www.phentermine-use.com/ cheap phentermine http://www.online-deals4u.com/ buy phentermine online http://www.worldwide-90.com/ online phentermine http://www.phentermine-online-sale.net/ phentermine online http://www.phentermine375.net/ phentermine buy http://www.bestbuys-online.net/ buy phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ phentermine diet pill http://www.kmag.biz/ casino online http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino game http://www.online-casino-4u.com/ casino game online http://www.onlinecasino-4u.com/ online casino gambling http://www.online-casino-555.com/ free online casino http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino free http://www.online-deals21.com/ best online casino http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ free online casino game http://www.onlinecasino777.net/ online casino bonus http://www.online-casino-winner.net/ online casino blackjack http://www.hokitika.info/ poker online http://www.online-poker-4u.com/ free online poker http://www.onlinepoker-4u.com/ online poker game http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker room http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker rooms http://www.online-deals99.com/ texas holdem poker online http://www.bestbuys-winner.com/ texas hold em poker http://www.onlinepoker777.net/ play poker online http://www.online-poker-winner.net/ online poker tournament http://www.onlinepokersite.net/ live online poker http://www.mrspike.biz/ generic viagra http://www.viagra-experts.com/ viagra generic http://www.viagra-100-deals.com/ order viagra http://www.viagra-use.com/ viagra order http://www.online-top-deals.com/ viagra online http://www.worldwide-50.com/ online viagra http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ buy viagra http://www.viagra24x7.net/ viagra buy http://www.buyviagra50.net/ buy viagra online http://www.viagrapills100.com/ purchase viagra - Tons of interesdting stuff!!! Posted by: casino game online at July 16, 2004 12:46 PM | PERMALINKPlease check some information dedicated to http://www.melincs.org/ x http://www.worldwide-deals.net/ x http://www.online-deals4u.com/ x http://www.worldwide-90.com/ x http://www.bestbuys-online.net/ x http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ x http://www.kmag.biz/ x http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ x http://www.worldwide-21.com/ x http://www.online-deals21.com/ x http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ x http://www.hokitika.info/ x http://www.worldwide-em.com/ x http://www.online-deals99.com/ x http://www.bestbuys-winner.com/ x http://www.mrspike.biz/ x http://www.online-top-deals.com/ x ... Posted by: x at July 16, 2004 12:46 PM | PERMALINKVery good subject. 882 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 12:46 AM | PERMALINK3133 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 6004 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINK8559 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 05:14 AM | PERMALINK
Posted by: pocket bikes at August 13, 2004 03:36 AM | PERMALINK 467 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINK1548 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 04:50 PM | PERMALINK3342 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 09:16 AM | PERMALINK3892 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 2903 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 12:57 AM | PERMALINK1131 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 870 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:49 PM | PERMALINK5319 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 04:43 AM | PERMALINK3414 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 26, 2004 06:56 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
