SERIAL LIAR BUSH FINALLY GETS CAUGHT, by Bill Gallagher
“I did my duty. I was honorably discharged!” Bush proclaimed (on Meet the Press), as though that proves anything. Keep this in mind. Convicted D.C. sniper and serial killer John Muhammad served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978 to 1985. He was twice court-martialed, once for striking an officer, another time for stealing. He was AWOL and spent time in the jail. Muhammad left the National Guard with an honorable discharge.
It’s not useless in the least. It provides evidence for the assertion that an “honorable discharge” is no guarantor that someone’s military history is without serious misconduct.
What bearing does the discharge of a convicted serial killer have on the discussion? None. It is completely irrelevant, not only because discharges are issued on a case by case basis, but also because Bush is not a convicted murderer.
This kind of blatant guilt by (sort of) association is stupid. It’s an obvious attempt to associate someone with a serial killer when that connection isn’t warranted, and it’s an irresponsible association by the author of the article. Why doesn’t he try to pin Tim McVeigh to Bush too? He was in the military.
If you can’t see that that comment is out of line then I don’t know what to tell you. Bush’s Guard debacle has zero to do with John Allen Muhammad.
Airman pretty well summed it up there. The article brings nothing but a backhanded guilt by association, like the folks that claim that because Hitler was a vegatarian, blah blah blah.
Be nice to hear back from the OP as to exactly what he DID think the debate was here. Or was this a drive by?
Airman, you’re of course correct. The implied comparison of George Bush to a serial killer is outrageous in the extreme.
However, as a civilian, I admit to an assumption that an honorable discharge implies generally adequate if not positive behavior during the term of service. This is enlightening for that reason. Heck, those two kids who were ordered to Code-Red Private Santiago got dishonorable discharges. I offer that last as a sample of what the civilian population knows about the military.
The OP attacks the reasoning used by some, including the President himself, to deflect concerns about Mr. Bush’s completion of his duties as a member of the National Guard. Mr. Bush’s opponents assert that he failed to attend to his duties while in Alabama in 1972. One of the arguments advanced by supporters, and the President, in opposition to this assertion is that Mr. Bush received an honorable discharge, so presumably the National Guard wasn’t unhappy with what he did in 1972, and felt he had managed to discharge his responsibilities. (I, personally, tend to agree that, if the National Guard didn’t take him to task for whatever did happen in 1972, why are we concerned if he got far less involved in his Guard activities than he had been up to that point? But that’s for another thread)
The OP notes that receiving an honorable discharge is no guarantee of quality activity as a Guardsman. It notes a case of reductio ad absurdem where a well-known “bad guy” received an honorable discharge despite really poor behaviour as a Guardsman. This is not an attempt to tar the President as being like John Muhammed. It is an attempt to answer the idea that one cannot have received an honorable discharge if one had failed to complete one’s duties satisfactorily. The linked article simply provides a more in-depth commentary on the idea.
The proper response, of course, is that there is a tremendous difference between giving an honorable discharge to one who behaves badly, but who nevertheless did everything requested of him (reported to duty, attended exercises, etc.) and giving an honorable discharge to one who refuses to do required duties. Were the poster or the article to provide evidence of significant (more than one or two) numbers of people who were honorably discharged despite having failed to attend to their postd duties as required, THAT would be evidence that would cast doubt upon the assertion by the President that he must have been doing what he was asked because he did get that honorable discharge.
Honorable service pretty much guarantees an honorable discharge. However, because dishonorable discharges are the job seeking equivalent of leprosy, they are only given out for really bad stuff. They also have general under less-than-honorable circumstances, and for all intents and purposes they are as bad as a dishonorable discharge.
That’s why they do it on a case by case basis. There’s no reason to really mess someone’s life up over a mistake. That’s also why an honorable discharge doesn’t necessarily say anything about someone’s character or service, as in President Bush’s case. All it means is that you’re out of the service and you didn’t do anything too egregious. And that’s the truth of it.
Time and again on the Meet the Press interview, Bush entoned his “I got an Honorable Discharge” assertion. Like it meant something.
But as we have found out, just about any asshole can get an HD from the guard, even that scumbag who, before he morphed into a sniper, committed some serious crimes, but was still awarded an Honorabe Discharge. And he got it without having any of the political pull that Bush had. Doesn’t that put the guard’s HD in the proper perspective?
Airman Doors just can’t stand the fact that Bush is being revealed as a full fledged phony.
Tell us Doors, did you read the rest of the article? Doesn’t it bother you that whenever Bush opens his mouth he lies, and lies and lies?
Bad example. Are you claiming Hitler’s Iron Cross was not earned?
The referenced article clearly uses Muhammad’s legal status for identification. The interesting thing is his misbehavior in the guard (worse than anyone is claiming for Bush) and his subsequent honorable discharge.
Any comment on the quote from the guy who was looking for Bush at the time and never found him?
I fear you are worrying the wrong trouser leg. Airman Doors does not like us liberal wussies, but he has shown no prejudice nor obstinance when it comes to accepting the facts as the facts. He has shown on more than one occassion an entirely honorable open mindedness and a willingness to accept facts for what they are.
Yes, I read the rest of the article. Other than that blurb that you quoted, it’s the same old stuff.
And yes, it bothers me. Which is why he doesn’t have my vote in November. That doesn’t mean that it’s OK for him to be equated with a serial killer.
The Hitler comment was to point out that honorable service is not necessarily an indication of character. It simply means that the person didn’t do anything egregious enough to warrant a dishonorable discharge.
So, that would make the debate: “SERIAL LIAR BUSH FINALLY GETS CAUGHT”?? Yes, this definitely has been proved by your cite. :rolleyes:
Or, is the debate perhaps: Having an honorable discharge doesn’t really show anything about your military service one way or the other, except you didn’t do anything bad enough to get a dishonorable discharge? If so, very profound. Stop the presses and all that.
Why don’t you tell us all what you think this actually MEANS, Antiochus (i.e. why don’t you put together a real OP outlining points, your thoughts, something)? Perhaps that the Republicans are putting spin on Bush’s honorable discharge to make it look as good as it can? Again, knock me out with a feather. Or perhaps that the Democrats are trying to spin it the other way for their own political gain? Wow, profound. Perhaps you’d like to take a shot at why exactly this is THE important piece of evidence showing that Bush has been ‘caught’ as a ‘serial liar’?? What exactly IS a serial liar btw? Isn’t that the definition of a politican??
Ah, you meant YOUR headline. I see. So, the debate then is: “Bush’s Honorable Discharge in proper perspective”? I see. All comes clear now. You are right…you didn’t need to back such a clear and concise OP with your own views, thoughts, ideas, etc.
Um, for those of us who are reading challenged (as you pointed out I am), could you maybe expand just a tiny bit? This lesser mortal would really appreciate it.
Apparently the “proper perspective” is that because a psycho was honorably discharged, then Bush can’t hide behind that saying he did his duty. That’s an absolutely false conclusion.
I’m not saying that Bush fulfilled his obligation (in fact, from what I’ve seen I’m not at all convinced that he did), but it’s not correct to extrapolate one person’s service based upon another’s service.
When I retire about 32 years from now from the Guard (if I don’t go active), I expect that I will be honorably discharged. What can you tell about me from that? Yeah, that’s exactly right. Nothing. Get my point?
Antiochus, your lengthy 6 word debate topic was not very clear as to what you were trying to argue. I assumed you meant something similar to DSYoung’s post, but you did not say so explicitly, leaving posters to believe you were trying to imply Bush was as bad as a serial killer or simply thinking you had nothing to say at all and were posting articles just to link Bush to a killer. If you have an argument to make, spell it out, don’t hint at it and leave posters to try to figure out what you’re saying.