Just a note to thank you for providing information on the fact that our commander-in-thief was AWOL from his cushy job during the Vietnam War.
I’ve been gathering information on the topic, complete with newspaper articles and documents gathered through the FOIA (pre-Ashcroft, it seems). But your article has made the topic easy to understand by those who do not relish digging through documents. I’ll be linking directly to this article. (I already link to your home page.)
I’m an independent, belonging to no political party. Over the past 30-some years, I’ve voted for candidates in a number of parties.
This time, given what’s been going on over the past three years, I’m definitely leaning toward anyone who MIGHT be able to beat Dubya: Clark, Kerry, Dean, Edwards, Kucinich, Sharpton, Pat Paulson. Mickey Mouse – doesn’t matter. Any one of those would be better, IMHO.
I look forward to reading more in this forum and on the website. Both are very well done.
That “please don’t gush” thing is really just the modesty of Cecil’s supporting staff. You’ll get much more personal attention from Cecil, The Perfect Master, if you really go to town on the gushing, nay, even sucking up.
Just make it sound sincere. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
The Master forgets one important thing. When young President Bush* skipped to the front of the line, some poor bastard had to go to Vietnam in his stead. I sure hope he made it home in one piece. We’ll never know. That makes President Bush* a pampered rich yellow deserting chickenhawk in this veteran’s book.
Interesting that this topic has now become news again. John Stewart brought it up with Bob Dole last night. Dole responded that there was nothing wrong with Bush being in the Guard, and when Stewart said that people objected to Bush not being in the Guard Dole had no response.
Saying any more would pop this over to GD, so I’ll shut up except to say that Cecil was prescient as usual.
I think Unca Cecil may have grossly underestimated the potential explosiveness of this issue. As far as I’m concerned, the 2000 race doesn’t count. If Al Gore didn’t even have the enery to fight back against phoney-baloney accusations of his claiming to have “invented” the internet (Gore, factually speaking, said no such thing) it doesn’t seem very likely that he’d go after Bush over his military record.
Also, since GWB has sent over 500 American soldiers off to their deaths for reasons that have proven to be controversially fungible, the issue has only gotten more potentially damaging in the meantime. :eek:
Look, I know it’s a fine line, but political speculation about the upcoming election, comments about the prior election, etc. all belong in the Great Debates forum. In this forum, please limit comments to being somewhat relevant to Cecil’s column. Cecil’s column is about George W Bush being less than diligent in fulfilling his duties, so let’s keep comments here on that issue, OK?
You know what happens in my company when employees turn in timesheets but the supervisors say they don’t recall the employee actually showing up for work?
I’m amazed that I have seen no attempt to explain how service in the guard actually works. The documents shown were not time sheets made up by the President, they are pay documents proving his service. In other words this is not what he said he did, its what his superiors said he did. There is a roll call, attendance is taken, and the roster is submitted for pay.
It seems that he had what is called a bad year meaning he did not have enough points for that year for it to count towards retirement. I can’t give a percentage but a lot of my fellow guardsmen have bad years. Couple of years ago I had to miss three months of drills, does that mean I can’t be President?
The way I have read the information given, it seems like his story is not unique. He had four good years and then other commitments started to intrude on his time. After being accepted to graduate school he resigned his commision and requested a discharge. During my 12 years in the Guard I can think of at last 5 people in my unit who did the same thing.
If you wish to appear uninformed use the word desertion in this case. The term AWOL may be correct but it is different in the Guard. Those on active duty fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The National Guard does not. If someone in the NG is activated, such as for their 2 week training or my upcoming 18 months of active duty, then they fall under title 10 and are subject to UCMJ. AWOL is used as a term in the Guard indicating someone is absent. In the active military it is a crime. It is not a crime to miss a drill.
On this matter I choose to listen to the junior Senator from Massachucetts who said that Viet Nam service should not be used as an issue in a presidential campaign. Wonder what could possibly change his mind :rolleyes:
Loach. Missing a drill doesn’t disqualify anyone. Saying you didn’t miss the drill when you know you did miss it does disqualify you.
In addition, the pay records don’t cover the period most people have been asking about the last 8 years. So not only is it questionable proof, it’s not even proof of the right thing.
It all looks highly evasive when (according to Dubya) there is nothing to be evasive about. Why?
Richard Cohen had a column claiming that he (Cohen) served in the guard during the Vietnam era, but did not attend drills. Cohen says that he both got paid, and got an honorable discharge.
Sorry, couldn’t find a link . It was published in the San Jose Mercury News on 10 February., but is not on their website. This of course does not prove that Bush did not show up, but it is evidence that pay records do not prove that he did.
Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.
Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.
As a commander, I would put such “visitors” in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can’t even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to “pull drills” for a couple of months, I wouldn’t be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.
Tear away at your leisure.
According to this article in the Boston Globe, what Dubya missed was his annual flight physical. You don’t get behind the yoke if you haven’t proved you’re fit to fly.
A quote from the article states:
And there is supposed to be paperwork somewhere that should detail the situation.
