Does Dubya's "military service" matter? Or his lack of actually..

Great Debates
1

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/306/nation/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+.shtml

Kerrey blasts Bush on service

              By Walter V. Robinson, Globe Staff, 11/1/2000

                  Senator Bob Kerrey, a Nebraska Democrat who won the Medal of
                  Honor for his service in Vietnam, expressed disgust yesterday at
              evidence that George W. Bush sidestepped National Guard duty for months
              in 1972 and 1973, a lapse that Kerrey said amounts to Bush being AWOL
              - absent without leave.

The man is without shame.

              ''It upsets me,'' Kerrey said in an interview, ''when someone says, `Vote for
              me, I was in the military,' when in fact he got into the military in order to
              avoid serving in the military, to avoid service that might have taken him into
              the war. And then he didn't even show up for duty.''

              Bush, Kerrey said in an interview, ''needs to explain where he was when he
              was supposed to be fulfilling his military obligation. If he is elected president,
              how will he be able to deal as commander in chief with someone who goes
              AWOL, when he did the same thing?''

              Dan Bartlett, Bush's spokesman on the issue, said Kerrey's remarks were
              ''an outlandish claim to make in the closing stages of a campaign.'' Bartlett
              noted that Bush received an honorable discharge and said Bush fulfilled his
              obligation.

              Kerrey was reacting to a Globe article, published yesterday, that cited
              evidence that Bush, as a Texas Air National Guard pilot in 1972, stopped
              flying after 22 months with his unit. Then, during a six-month stay in
              Alabama, Bush failed to report for required Guard drills. And six months
              after he returned to his home in Houston, his superior officers wrote that
              they had not seen him at his Houston air base for the previous year. Shortly
              after that, Bush was given an early discharge.

              Neither Gore nor officials in his campaign would comment publicly on the
              issue, because, Kerrey said, they are fearful that the Bush campaign will
              respond by pointing to President Clinton's active avoidance of the draft - as
              a Bush spokesman did last week when the Globe asked questions about
              Bush's service.

              Kerrey, who is not seeking reelection, said he called the Globe of his own
              volition, and in expressing his anger at Bush's service record referred twice
              to Clinton as a ''draft dodger.''

              But, referring to Bush's attacks on Gore's character, Kerrey said the Texas
              governor has a moral obligation of his own to search his conscience and
              answer questions about where he was when he was supposed to be
              attending National Guard training.

              ''For someone who wants to be commander in chief, this stinks,'' Kerrey
              declared. ''I can understand if he forgot a weekend. But 18 months?''

              Since the Globe first reported on the absences in May, Bush has declined to
              be interviewed on the issue. Bartlett has said Bush did appear for drills in
              Alabama. But there are no records that he did, and the commander of the
              Alabama unit which Bush was assigned to in 1972 has said that Lieutenant
              Bush never showed.

              In both Alabama and Texas, Vietnam veterans and Gore partisans have
              recently offered reward money for any Guardsman from that period who
              can verify that Bush appeared for duty between mid-1972 and mid-1973.

              Kerrey, who won the nation's highest award for heroism as a Navy SEAL in
              a 1969 action that cost him part of his right leg, said he is amazed that
              Bush's military service has escaped any real scrutiny. ''George W. Bush got
              into the Guard because of his father, and he got out because of who he
              was,'' Kerrey said.

              This story ran on page A22 of the Boston Globe on 11/1/2000.
              © Copyright 2000 Globe Newspaper Company.
2

One of the things that made Kerrey such an interesting candidate for President was his military service. Democrats are always going to get tarred as soft on defense, backed up by examples of hyperdoves like John “Invade Cuba” Kennedy and Lyndon “Carpet Bombing” Johnson. Kerrey would have a shield from those simplistic criticisms simply from his medal and his injury.

The point is, Bush has never needed this shield. He’s a Republican. Reagan never needed it either. Sure, Republicans should be held to the same standards as Democrats, but they’re not. Too bad.

In fairness, I think that Gore would be getting a lot more grief over allegations that he called homosexuality “abnormal” if he were a Republican. I just don’t think that most people are going to get mad about a Democrat being too intolerant of homosexuality. I might get mad about it, but I support legalized gay marriage, acceptance of gays in the military, and other stuff which is pretty far from the mainstream.

3

Nobody cares that this man might have his hand on the button Jan 20??

4

Are you suggesting that Bush’s military service (or lack thereof) 25 or so years ago makes him a threat to start a nuclear war?

I’m not sure I see the connection. I mean, Clinton avoided military service to a greater extent than Bush, and as much as I can’t stand the guy, even I can’t say that I’ve been in fear of his hand being too near the “button.”

5

Clinton never his his actions. Has Duhbya mentioned the fact that he deserted the military? This man will make us stronger militarily? Besides…I don’t think Clinton is running is he?

6

his his??

heh…

Hid his.

7

Of course Clinton is not running for President. My post does not indicate any confusion on who is running for President. My point, and I will speak s-l-o-w-l-y here, is that I do not understand how one’s military service, in this case Bush’s military service, makes him any more likely to start a nuclear war.

In addition, Bush has not been accused of desertion. “Desertion” is a very specific charge, not met even if Bush did skip some drills.

If you wish to debate the issue of him skipping drills, okay. Fire ahead. But unless you show me some solid proof that I am risking nuclear holocaust by a vote for Bush, I ain’t buying it.

8

Asmodeus is right. Big Bill’s actions to avoid military service, however calculating they might appear in retrospect, were hardly unique. By the late 60’s/early 70’s the only folks serving on active duty were those who wanted to, those who didn’t care, or those with no other options.

While there apparently is no documented evidence Bush did not fulfill his military obligation, there is considerable anecdotal evidence that he was not where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be there. In the military that’s called AWOL and it’s frowned upon. Not at all the same as trying to evade the draft.

Boris B is right. George used his pull to leapfrog over 500 others to get in the Air Guard. OK, not unique, as I said. Others used deferments based on college, the ministry, marriage. (See Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Bill Archer, Phil Gramm, Bill Bennett, Newt Gingrich, Dan Quayle among others.)

But I can hear the Gops if roles were reversed and Gore had hid in the Guard and Bush had served 5 months in Viet Nam. As it is, I’ve heard Gop supporters demean Gore’s service since it was rear-echelon and not front-line–as if serving anywhere in a combat zone is anything but terrifying.

The facts are both Gore and Bush made their decisions on what course they would follow. Gore did his duty; there exists real doubt that Bush did his.

9

One argument for a candidate’s military record being important is the fact that, in addition to being in a position to influence economic and social policies within the U.S., the President is also the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces. Being at the top of the chain of command for what is arguably the world’s most powerful military force, it might seem a good idea for such an individual to have served, and thus to have gained a pretty good idea as to how it all works, what its capabilites are, and so on. Lacking any first-hand knowledge, a President could wind up being forced to rely solely upon his military advisors; it is possible, but perhaps not all that probable, that such advisors might have their own agendas in mind when giving advice to the President regarding military matters.

Lacking any military background, a President may not be in a position to make an informed decision about the use of military force.

As an additional point, our current pool of candidates is such that many could have served in such conflicts as Viet-Nam or even WWII (though the pool of potential WWII vets is decreasing rapidly). If a President did, in fact, serve in a combat role in such conflicts, he is more likely to be aware of the human element of armed conflict, rather than merely dealing with blips on a computer screen, large-scale satellite photos, or statistics regarding ‘our losses’ vs ‘their losses.’ He might, therefore put a little more thought into the matter before singing, “Hi ho, hi ho, it’s off to war we go!”

Then again, there’s nothing that says that having served in the military will necessarily make one a better C&C, or that not having served means one will not make a good C&C. I am of the opinion that having served makes it a more likely, but by no means a definite, proposition.

10

JCG…

I notice all those you mentioned are republicans. It’s amazing ain’t it? Do I sense a trend here? Those that scream so loud for a strong military ducked serving.

Eisenhower knew military men didn’t make make good leaders…but men who lie…even if it is only the sin of omission don’t either.

11

George W.'s military record (or lack of it) MIGHT be a valid issue if he were campaigning for President as a war hawk. In reality, however, George has argued AGAINST most American military actions since the end of the Cold War. It’s the DEMOCRATS who have been gung ho to send troops into Haiti, the Balkans, Rwanda, and anyplace else where there’s anarchy, bloodshed and civil war.

12

astorian said:

That’s not the issue at all.

The OP cites Senator Kerrey: ‘It upsets me, when someone says, `Vote for me, I was in the military,’ when in fact he got into the military in order to avoid serving in the military, to avoid service that might have taken him into the war.’

As I said above, I don’t find this conduct objectionable. The well-born, the gifted, the lucky evaded the draft. Those with advantages of birth and wealth, like Quayle and Bush, found homes in the Guard, often leap-frogging over hundred of other applicants. Not very nice, maybe, but that’s the way the world works, and no more contemptible than Clinton or Gingrich or thousands others using their brains and money to hold a 2S deferment.

Kerrey goes on: ‘And then he didn’t even show up for duty.’

And this is the point. If Bush did what Kerrey alleges, and failed to appear for his commitments, his actions were those of a pampered, privileged boy-man who had never been held to reckoning and a betrayal of those who had favored and succored him; they indicate a withering disdain for those less fortunate and less connected than he.

If this is what Bush did, his weakness and contempt in my mind automatically disqualify from achieving the presidency.

As I said in my earlier post there is no documentation indicating he ignored his military commitments. Nor is there evidence indicating that he fulfilled them. How likely you are to believe Kerrey’s charge depends on your view of Kerrey, as well as your view of Bush.

13

There are few times in life when anyone is asked to take a legally binding oath. One of them is when being inaugurated as President, and another is when enlisting in the armed services. Well, is it not a valid point that disregard for one may make it problematic to believe that the other would be carried out faithfully?

14

Um… I thought Gore did the exact same thing. Didn’t he go to Nam for a few months and then mysteriously disappear for the rest of his tour of duty? I’m not saying that excuses Bush for missing a few drill practices when he was in the reserves, but another good reason to vote for Nader if you ask me…

15

I wouldn’t think that evading military service is a justification for concern about Bush and nuclear war. Perhaps his past tendency to hit the bottle would be a better reason not to trust the man with his finger on the button.

Needs2know

16

Nope. Gore served a two-year hitch as an Army journalist and was sent to Vietnam in late 1970, when he had only seven months remaining of that hitch. He served five months as a reporter covering the activities of the 20th Engineer Brigade in Bien Hoa, South Vietnam, during which those who served with him report that he “pulled his weight just like everyone else.” Two months shy of his obligation, he took an early discharge, which was allowed for personnel who wanted to teach or attend school if their services were considered “not essential to the mission.”

Hardly a glorious military career, but certainly not shirking his duty, either.

17

I have it on good athority that Dubya was on a secret mission for the head of the CIA during the time frame he was claimed to be AWOL.

The facts of the incident are of course still classified, so the young George can do nothing to clear his good name.

All I can say, is that every time I look around, and I see that this great nation of ours is not a nuclear wasteland, destroyed at the hands of an evil dictator,… …well let’s just say I know who to thank.

You can thank him too.
Vote Bush.

18

See? I knew there was a perfectly reasonable explanation. And no doubt he was captured and brainwashed into mispronouncing subliminable.

Well, once W wins it’ll be a fun four to eight years. Although I’m sure Hillary will give him a run for his money in 2004.

19

Couple things I’d like to point out:

  1. There is no “button.” (Or a spoon…) The President cannot launch missiles by simply pushing a button or barking out an order. He may be Commander in Chief, but there is a chain of command. There are a number of protocols that have to be satisfied and not the least of which is that a number of people have to verify that the President is both sane and sober and that they agree with the course of action. Which brings me to:

  2. Once Bush or Gore becomes President-elect, he will have a Secret Service contingent everywhere he goes except for the bedroom and the bathroom. (And maybe even there, for all I know. Clinton once said the White House is the crowning jewel in the Federal prison system.) They don’t just protect the President and family from outside threats, they also watch the President’s health. While Bush or Gore could theoretically get drunk in the bedroom from a secret stash, I doubt very much either of them could hide a continuing abuse of alcohol (or any other drug) for very long without an agent noticing the symptoms.

20

This Salon story makes a strong case that voting for Gore will enhance the likelihood of straight males getting laid.