Ghosts of Viet Nam: Bush, Kerry, and The War

Great Debates
1

An issue rises from the dead, and puts a cold, spectral hand on Geedubya’s shoulder. The Texas Air National Guard, an oldie but a coldie.

Those dopers with a pulse will recall the furor kicked up when Michael Moore endorsed Wes Clark and asserted that GeeDubya was a “deserter”, followed by howls of fury from the Tighty Righties and demands that Clark repudiate such claims, demands that Clark rather gracefully skirted, thus showing his Presidential capability.

But now John Kerry looks to be the likely nominee, and, oh my….when GeeDubya was protecting the skies above Amarillo from Viet Cong aircraft, Kerry was up to his eyeballs in the Real Shit. The camera pans across his crowd of supporters, and cannot miss the middle-aged guys in campaign hats standing in the front row. (I use the term “middle aged” generously, since I don’t personally know anyone who’s 110 years old)

And the subject comes up again. The best take on it I’ve seen comes from FactCheck, a project of the Annenberg Foundation. (I recommend that you bookmark these people, they truly seem determined to be non-partisan and factual). Regretably, their approach is fairly narrow, they are focused on the issue of “desertion” per se and rather skirt the question of whether or not GeeDubya actually faithfully and honorably discharged his commitment.

I think this all rather misses the point. To put it perhaps too succinctly “what commitment?”

A couple of notes from the original Boston Globearticle to emphasize:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000619121358/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/One_year_gap_in_Bush_s_Guard_duty+.shtml

I remember those times, I had many friends who would have cheerfully sold their grandmothers for a position in the National Guard. For my money, it is safe to say that this was a matter of privilege. I invite intelligent rebuttal, if you have such.

We are given to understand, as well, that “records are missing”. Personally, I find this laughable, the military obsession with records in triplicate is the stuff of legends. Clearly, a case can be made that Geedubya regarded his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard as being less rigid and more forgiving than most such military commitments.

The White House has recently released GeeDubya’s honorable discharge papers (which were already a matter of public record) as though it proved something, that he would not have been honorably discharged if he had failed to discharge his commitment. To my mind, it proves nothing more than a child of privilege and power is subject to different strictures than the rest of us. (Cue music: Fortunate Son, Creedance Clearwater Revival)

Disclaimer: your correspondent from the Conservative Wing of the Extreme Left does not state, nor does he imply, that if such charges of lackadaisical military service are true (and I believe, barring further evidence, that they are) that this, by itself, discredits GeeDubya’s standing as a President or a candidate. Few indeed are the men who reach 55 without regret.

But refusing to accept and admit the truth: that is another matter.

Further disclaimer: I am admirer of John Kerry of long standing, I regard his military service followed by a repudiation and protest of the Viet Nam war as service of the finest caliber, words fail of adequate salute. My opposition to GeeDubya persistence as a stain on the Oval Office is already well known to most of you.

I submit: that GeeDubya’s “commitment” was of such a shallow nature that his failure or success at discharging it is of little consequence. If he were to forthrightly say “I was young, I was callow, I had not John Kerry’s courage or commitment”, I could not condemn him for it. But he has not, and will not, and this speaks volumes.

Thoughts?

2

Mr. Bush could certainly do worse than praise Mr. Kerry’s commitment and heroism; they are indeed praiseworthy.

I don’t agree that you’ve proved any case aginst Mr. Bush. The post above is a masterpiece of argumentum ad ignoratium: because we don’t know, we assume it to be true.

Even if a friend of Bush’s father asked for preferential treatment in selection as a guardsman, that doesn’t mean that young Bush sought it out; it merely means he got it. You certainly cannot condemn the man for applying to the Guard, as so many others did. It’s a far sight better than dodging the draft or lying to your draft board.

I have always admired Cassius Clay - he didn’t “dodge” anything. He refused, and made it clear he was willing to accept the consequences of that refusal. Bush did not refuse - he joined an organzation where it was possible he’d be called up - although unlikely. That was not the behavior of an eager warrior, I agree, but neither was it craven or sallow.

You have presented no compelling argument for any special treatment that Bush requested. I don’t think Bush needs to say that he was a coward; he was not. But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry’s service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush’s own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero.

  • Rick
3

Great minds truely do think alike, because I was just in the process of formulating a similar thread. :slight_smile: Mine would have been more focused on “Is it correct to say the Bush was AWOL?” But I’m sure that will surface in your thread even though you imply that’s not the thread’s purpose.

So, to your question I say: Yeah, probably, so what? You are basically charging Bush with being a politician. The only verdict can be GUILTY! And by your logic, Clinton would be less deserving than Bush of the office, if we use a candidate’s service record (or lack thereof) as a guage. Bush at least did serve in some capacity, while Bill wrote letter to Congressmen expressing angst about his own future “electability”.

Please note that I don’t want turn this into a Bush did it/Clinton did it debate. I’m just submitting that your logic makes that inevitable, and so offers little of value in one’s judegement of Bush, or any other politician for that matter.

4

Agreed. Just like a politician. Would be refreshing to find a politician who DID have to guts to stand up and say “Ya, I fucked up on that.” on a tough issue or some past indiscression…but I’m not holding my breath for one of THOSE on either side of the political fence.

Bush Sr. definitely used his position and status to get his son a cushy, non-combat assignment that would keep him out of harms way, and Bush Jr then abused that (I’d go so far as to say he shit on it), as children of privilege do…often. Its certainly a black mark against him IMO. Even my dad, who is a vietnam veteran, has some bad things to say about this, but over all he supports Bush (my dad is a staunch Republican). The good, in his opinion, outweighs the bad. My dad also respects Kerry as a man, but doesn’t agree with his politics…and I guess for him politics are more important.

For myself, its just another in a long list of marks against Bush. It really doesn’t factor in to my own decision NOT to vote for the man to be honest. Better reasons abound IMHO.

-XT

5

It’d be interesting to research the records of, say, fifty other guys who signed up for the National Guard around the same time as Bush.

If it turns out that three or four of them have missing records similar to the ones missing about Bush, then that makes it considerably harder to pin any sort of desertion charges on him.

But if out of fifty-one soldiers, only Bush’s records are missing, why, wouldn’t that be interesting?

Daniel

6

Just dropping by to keep up with the OP host role…

Bricker

Aw goddam contrary, as we say in Lubbock. Cites and verification abound. I am too lazy to go cite-grubbing for stuff I presume the average Doper is well aware of. But if my companero Big Svin is in the mood, you will be subject to an avalanche of cites. I hasten to note that you offer nothing in rebuttal but your assertion that the case is weak. No, the case is quite strong, if shy of definitive, I simply haven’t bothered to re-plow ground already known to most of us. Be careful what you wish for.

John-boy

True enough, but it is the weightier mind that precedes, much like an icebreaker precedes a cruise ship. Be advised, as well, that I am entirely immune to flattery, however well deserved. Mostly immune. Somewhat.

But nonetheless worthy of mention? Let us simply stipulate that no virgin is ever elected Queen of the Harlots. My whore simply has less running sores than yours. 'Nuff sed.

xtisme

No argument here. But this one isn’t going away any time soon, I warrant. Got two bits that sooner or later one of Bush’s stalking horses will allude to Kerry’s Viet Nam protest time as indicative of one who is less than completely patriotic. He won’t do it himself, of course. But this is going to be one ugly sumbitch, pals and gals.

Lefty

A fascinating conjecture! Truly! I have no idea how one would go about this, but Shirley somebody here must. To be entirely on point, the sample would have to be of persons in his same unit, as National Guard units vary from state to state. I do somewhat recall GeeDubya’s being referred to as a “champagne” unit, but am vague on detail. Not that that would prevent me from alluding to it.

And of those, how many qualified for flight training with the absolute minimum acceptable score?

(Aside: anyone who refers to Ursula LeGuinn in thier cognomen gets ten points in my book, anyway. The Dispossessed should be the companion to Animal Farm. I commend our shared good taste.)

7

Only a logical extension of your reasoning. BTW, how is the whole “missing records” deal anything more than absence of evidence as opposed to evidence of absence? The Honorable Discharge would seem to trump any “absence of evidence”.

8

You misunderstand, I presume in good faith. The “missing records” refers only to the lack of any substantiation that GeeDubya attended all the drills and dutys expected of him. There are those who are perfectly content to shrug this off as a bureaucratic flub. Those who have even glancing knowledge of military culture find this unlikely, there are usually at least two clerk-typists for every rifleman.

For instance: he was removed from flight status due to failure to report for a required medical exam. Others darkly insinuate he was fearful of failing a drug test, which must be regarded as speculation by one as fair-minded as myself.

A defense of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” is far too generous. Again, this is all well-plowed ground. If you base your case on an a presumed absence of cites, you will be digging your own bear trap.

9

Hey, I was just asking a question. If you have cites, “bring 'em on”. I honestly don’t know.

BTW, anyone with even a glancing knowledge of what it takes to successfully train to fly fighter aircraft would not characterize a person who did so as having a “‘commitment’ [that] was of such a shallow nature…”

10

I base my case on lack of evidence. When evidence is presented, then I’ll base my case on that evidence.

11

Just a reminder for the reflexively-thinking lawyers: This is *not * a court of law, but the court of public opinion. Standards of evidence are far less rigorous, but they do exist and do include the absence of evidence under suspicious circumstances. Use the “reasonable person” standard, not your law books.

Since the inevitable retort of the name of Bill Clinton has already occurred, I’ll point out that he was never legally charged with anything, either - but what difference did that actually make then or even now?

Be ready to repeatedly see the footage of a young Lt. Kerry asking the Senate committee “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”, interspersed with a scene of the bannered deck of the USS Lincoln.

Carry on.

12

Ask and it shall be given…though I don’t quite understand, other than an affidavit attesting to being on a cave on Mars for the last several months, in a Google free zone. This took about ten seconds on a kerosene powered computer…

Start here, with this article at Tom Paine.com. TP is an unabashedly partisan site, though more progressive than simply Democrat. I have found it consistently straightforward and honest, YMMV.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671

Several of the documents referenced are available here:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

I note there is no reference in either of these to the report that GeeDubya did not take his required physical. That should be doable, if you should find the aforementioned documentation inadequate.

I’ve been down this road, better take a sandwhich if you are doggedly determined to nail down every jot and tittle. I can tell you where you’ll end up.

I’m partisan as Hell, guys, but I ain’t a bullshitter.

13

I’ve tried that ‘reasonable person’ bit before…it never seems to work though. Maybe everyones ‘reasonable person’ idea is different…who knows?

Personally I think the case against GW on this subject is pretty grim…and pretty indefensable. Had he taken the opertunities granted him by his birth and served his time in the guard to the maximum, then I wouldn’t have a problem.

I can see why Bush Sr. did what he did…if my own son’s were threatened to be shipped off into a meat grinder (and if I wasn’t who I am and think service to your country is vitally important…though fairly wealthy now, I’m encouraging my son’s to military service, just as my father encouraged me), they I can certainly see myself doing the same for them…getting them into something far less dangerous (well, flying a fighter jet isn’t exactly ‘safe’ either, but safer than combat).

I can grant that, though my own father didn’t have that chance (though, in honesty he volunteered…lots of people didnt though). I can even grant GW a pass for going to the guard…given that kind of oppertunity, LOTS of folks would have jumped at it at the time. What I can’t grant is what he did when he got there. Thats a serious black mark against him, no doubt about it in my own mind. He basically took what was given him, and then didn’t even serve, but fucked around doing god knows what (its unclear to me just WHAT the hell he was doing the whole time…but he certainly wasn’t doing his duty IMHO).

The deeper question to me is…so what? We knew about this prior to the LAST election (just like we knew Clintons record). Ya, in comparison to Kerry, GW’s record certainly sucks militarily…no doubt in my mind. No doubt in my mind who was the more responsible and more patriotic individual…Kerry.

However, when selecting a president, this is only one small factor IMHO…and I think generally people feel the same way about it to be honest. GW’s FATHER was a war hero also…and Clinton was not, to say the least. Clinton was elected twice, Bush I a one termer. We aren’t hiring a president to go into the trenches, guys. We aren’t hiring a military man at all…thats why we HAVE a Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff, and myriad officers. The president is supposed to be the CIVILIAN head. The key points are a presidents politics…not what he did or didn’t do in ‘the war’, which ever war that was.

To me this issue is fairly unimportant. I didn’t really give a shit about it when Clinton was running for office (or Bush I either…hell EVER)…I don’t really give a shit about it as far as Bush goes either. There are LOTS of other issues I DO care about, that are much more important to me when selecting a president. This is just one more thing, as I said…there are LOTS of others that, to me at least, make it clear that I won’t be selecting GW for president in the next election.

-XT

14

The TomPaine site is interesting. I think I did see it awhile back-- it looks very familiar.

The one problem I have with jumping to your conclusion is the whole issue of “what is common practice in the National Guard”. My mind blurs on that as I have no way of knowing what is and isn’t common practice, especially what was common practice 30 yrs ago (in Texas). I’d like to see what the guy who signed the Honorable Discharge had/has to say.

There certainly are questions, but calling Bush a deserter is, IMHO, irresponsible. About as irresponsible as calling “liberals” treasonous.

15

W apparently moved to Alabama while he was in the National Gurad so he could work on someone’s campaign. I’d be interested to know if the person he was supporting was a Hawk. It would really be ironic if W was avoiding service in Vietnam while professing support for it.

16

Ironic? Sounds like par for the course to me.

Those who are quick to rush to war tend to be those who don’t have to fight it, IME.

17

Do I count, rjung?

18

Your case didn’t get any stronger.

Some time ago, as a Beltway bandit, I worked on the RCAS program - the Reserve Component Automation System, designed to automate the Army Guard, Air Guard, and Army Reserve to integrate with the active Army’s computer and database systems. This grew out of a previous, expensive, and legendary failure: CAMIS, the Continental Army Management Information System.

One reason this program was so desperately needed was the lack of speed and accuracy concerning paperwork, especially as between two units. In fact, in my then-company’s documentation and user training, we showed a number of “test cases” of solldiers that were simply lost by the system – one soldier that did not receive a promotion for over a year, although eligible, because his receiving unit did not have his paperwork. Another Title X AGR (Active Guard/Reserve) soldier did not get paid for six months after a transfer within his own state from a detatched company to a headquarters battalion - and this was a guy who was on actual active duty, coming to work in his BDUs every single day.

This was twenty-some years AFTER the events surrounding Mr. Bush. I have no reason to believe the service got worse in that time, and everything the Tom Paine article relates are perfectly buyable. If the victim of these events were some poor E-3 that didn’t get paid, I’m sure you would (quite rightly!) rail at the injustice and inefficiency of the system. When the victim is the son of a Congressman, you hint darkly that this can only mean one thing: power and influence have again taken their toll.

Not true. It’s much more likely that this was simply the reserve component’s legendary inability to accurately track transfers, IMAs, and IRRs. As even the article admits, Bush ultimately was judged by the PEOPLE he worked for to have fulfilled his obligation and thus eligble for an honorable discharge.

Now, that said – did the story represent a young officer brimming with integrity, eager to serve efficiently?

Of course not.

There are levels of integrity: if you get all the way to your car in the parking lot in the freezing weather before discovering that the cashier gave you an extra $5 in change by accident, do you turn around and go back, do you resolve to fix it the next time you come in, or do you just pocket it?

Bush hovered between resolving to fix it next time and pocketing it. He knew, or should have known, that he was falling through the cracks - as was very common during my association with the Guard and that I have no reason to believe was uncommon during his time. Did he step up and say, “Excuse me, I believe you’ve forgotten about me, and I’d like to set the record straight!”

No, he did not. He simply let the inefficiency work in his favor. If discovered and ordered back to drill, I have no doubt he would have complied. But he chose to let things slide.

That’s the middle ground for integrity. I would absolutely prefer to be hearing about a candidiate who always takes the high road, and not the middle ground. Such candidates have been non-existant recently.

  • Rick
19

Fair enough.

Now you’re basing your case on “making stuff up”.

20

This is a mystifying analysis. The “middle ground” for military service with integrity is not “I’ll show up for duty if and when they notice my absence.” Military orders do not contain gray areas for compliance. Whether a supervising officer checks or fails to check for your presence at an assigned billet/station/rotation, your duty is no less clear.

There’s lots of “middle grounders” in all branches of service. I occupied that ground for six years of my life; generally that included a commitment to “Never Again Volunteer Yourself” and a particular attitude of careful cynicism. AWOL status however was not to my knowledge a place inside the borders of MiddleGround. Trust me. I crossed that border once, and I knew it when I did it, and it was very clear to me (and my C.O.) that I was shirking a duty.

(Hey, don’t look at me like that! I was young and dumb and there was a girl involved, and I paid the penalty… It was a youthful indiscretion! Yeah, that’s the ticket…)