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

The other thing that bothers me about this story (in terms of overall believability) is that the mainstream press is not running with it. In fact, I saw Peter Jennings (surely no fan of Bush’s) laying into Wes Clark in one of the recent debates over the Michael Moore remark and the fact that Clark did not repudiate it. Jennings’ own outrage was almost palpable.

At any rate, if this issue has legs, let the press and Dems run with it-- if it is true, it should wreck any politician’s career. If they don’t press the issue, I see no reason not to accept Bush’s account of his own record.

The reason not to accept Bush’s version of the story is that it’s demonstrably a goddamn lie. He never bothered to show up in alabama. It wasn’t important to him. There are no “missing records.” There are no records of his attendance, period. His CO says he never showed up and not one other person from his division can remember him ever showing up for duty despite a sizable reward offered for anyone who can substantiate his weak-ass defense that he “remembers” doing so. The records say otherwise.

More than 30 days AWOL is desertion under the UCMJ. The little prick was AWOL for over a year. How is that NOT desertion?

There is absolutely no defense here. The argument that he DID show up and the records went missing is fucking laughable. I guess Clinton’s record as a Green Beret are “missing” as well.

This was in the paper today
GOP counterattacks to defend Bush’s Guard service.
The Bush camp is claiming anyone who tries to bring this up is promoting “character assassination.” :rolleyes:

A more mainstream source

Give that crocodile a handkerchief.

Cecil leads the Bush loyalists to water. Any remaining quibbles from that quarter?

My, John, what a charming faith you have in our press! Are you new to this country? Not from around here?

As to Peter Jennings…well, what of it? Am I to take him as some sort of expert pundit, rather than an overpaid and pampered talking head? What significance does he have that should give me pause? He does bring up a semantic issue worthy of some small attention: “desertion” as compared with “AWOL”. “Desertion” is clearly an inflammatory word, which is precisely why Mike “The Mouth” Moore used it. For my two bits, it only should apply to situations of hauling ass to save ass while under direct threat. GeeDubya was under no more threat of enemy action than the average Eagle Scout, there was no combat to shrink from. “AWOL”, however, does seem entirely applicable, given the information at hand. Note in the documents cited above a warning sent to young Lt. Bush of the possible consequences:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif “Penalty for Bad Attendance”

Note that it is signed by Lt. Bush as an acknowledgement that he has been so advised, hence we may fairly assume that Lt. Bush was entirely cognizant of his poor attendance performance. If we accept the further documentation herein noted, to the effect that Lt. Bush’s performance and attendance did not markedly improve, we are on pretty safe grounds to avert that a) he knew that, at least technically, the term “AWOL” applied to him and b) he did not regard it as much of a threat. I am, of course, open to other interpretations, if you have such.

Note, as well, that applying the documentation that we have at hand, a charge of “desertion” might have been applied if they wanted to be pricks about it, technicly, there is some basis for it.

To sum up: that label “deserter” is inflammatory, and uncalled for, but legally applicable. “AWOL”, however, is well documented and unanswered.

The White House’s counter, as noted by friend Vanilla, is to release a document already entirely in public view, that is, GeeDubya’s honorable discharge. This is offered with the assertion that it would never have been issued unless GeeDubya were a splendid credit to the Texas ANG. I hold this to be approximately as valid as the suggestion that he was rushed to the top of the eligibility list, despite his ghastly performance on qualifying tests, due to some unrevealed excellence of character or ability.

GeeDubya got out the same way he got in: patronage, privilege, and Poppa. I take him at his word when he suggests he wanted to be a pilot as well, but it appears he found the ordinary facts of service tiresome once that was accomplished, and simply wandered off.

“Desertion under fire”? Of course not, there was no threat of hostile fire, save for a possible bar-b-que mishap. But a military obligation cheerfully met and honorably discharged? Just about as ridiculous.

I ain’t no Bush loyalist, but all you’ve done here is added an “appeal to authority” argument to what already exists. Cecil’s article has no info that isn’t in the TomPaine site. And the latter is a much better source since it has more info, and Cecil invites skepticism by blatantly adding unnecessary Bush-bashing to his summary.

I’m not saying that Cecil’s article makes the charge less credible, just that it adds no new info.

Jeez, Elvis, I had completly forgotten that! No doubt The Cecil will be relieved and gratified to know of our complete concurrence with his analysis.

It’s hardly an “appeal to authority”, but a link to a cogent listing and discussion of the relevant facts that makes restatement here unnecessary. You do know you have to be careful about disparaging the Enlightened Master here, of course. But it’s good anyway to know you can accept facts when they’re inescapable.

elucidator, speaking of that, Cecil also pointed out that a soldier who is declared AWOL is redesignated, after a fixed period of time, as a deserter. The only reason Bush was not officially so designated is that he was not officially designated AWOL first. But we do have a good basis for understanding why that would not be done to the son of a Congressman. So the charge of desertion is, if not proven to the satisfaction of a lawyer in court, provable to the satisfaction of a “reasonable” voter hiring a Commander in Chief.

As I noted, we are in agreement that, technicly, a charge of “desertion” could have been brought if they really wanted to be pricks about it. I just say that it is unnecessarily inflammatory, the truth is quite enough, or at least should be.

Let them have the “spin”. We’ve got the facts. And, as well, we have The Cecil.

Personally, I like him better if had gone AWOL or even better if he’d been a draft dodger.

I have some respect but mostly pity for those that were drafted. I’m more impressed by Kerry’s renouncement of the war than anything.

All the same, since this is the sort of thing Republicans would try to roast a Dem over, I hope GW gets at least a little singed on it.

I don’t know, Doors. How many fingers am I holding up? :slight_smile:

In any event, I’ll just politely remind you that I said “Those who are quick to rush to war tend to be those who don’t have to fight it, IME.” Which means this is neither an all-inclusive rule, nor anything borne by anything beyond personal experience. If you’d like to make anything more out of that, I suggest bringing it up with your therapist. :slight_smile:

Hopefully, this will be helpful.

An honorable discharge, while meaningful in the end, does not necessarily reflect the quality of career service. I knew many in the military who acted out for 10-15 years or more and still managed to retire with “good paper”. I’m talking about AWOL, drunk and disorderly, refusing orders, an endless litany of misdemeanor behavior. Many of these folks spent several years being alternately promoted and busted, yet retired honorably.

For someone to wave his discharge papers in the public face is entirely laughable to any who have spent significant time in the military. For a child of privelege and wealth who served in a part-time capacity to do so is ludicrous and insulting. It’s not the end we should be focusing on, it’s the means used to get there and what is says about the man’s integrity.

I’ve read the White House people’s reply to charges of Bush’s non attendence at Texas Air National Guard (TANG) drills… they include, "this is outrageous, this was covered in 2000 and Bush got an honorable discharge so all eles doesn’t matter.

To which I reply… Maybe, it WASN"T covered in 2000 and lots, and lots of things that are important can occur that are germain to the election of a President while still producing an HD. Like, drug use, arrests and being absent without permission.

The Boston Globe did a very good article on this back in 2000 and there’s been alot more since then. But these are the questions I want answered that were never addressed in 2000, to my knowledge.

  1. Did Bush Sr. or anyone else get Bush Jr in to the guard ahead of the lengthy wait list? It’s alleged that Bush Sr contacted the Texas Sec. of State and got Bush Jr in the guard about 7 days before he was to be inducted into the army. Is moving someone ahead on the wait list legal? It sure is unfair, regardless and needs to be publisized.

  2. Where was Bush during the 12 to 18 months in question? He said he went to Alabama to work on Winton Blount’s senate campaign but no known records show this… so it seems like Bush could clear this up if he wanted to by releasing his military records… also, by producing any bank records that may exist. If he was in Bama then his checking account should show checks cashed in Bama, for example…

  3. A document that has been released (Anyone want to see a copy?) that needs to be publisized is that form Bush filled out stating that he WAS NOT volunteering for overseas duty… (VN, 'Nam) I was a freshman in college in 1968 and guys like me KNEW getting an appointment to the Guard was virtually impossible since it kept you out of VN. Since some made such a huge issue out of Clinton’s not wanting to be drafted during that time period, it’s only fair that his intention NOT to serve in VN is explored. Also, that document showing his flight status was revoked because he failed to appear for a physical, is available.

  4. Every vet gets a DD-214 when he or she leaves the service. This is a form that has your complete military record including where you were stationed and what was your rank, etc… All Bush has to do is show us his DD-214. Every Vet I know could lay there hands on his in about 15 minutes. If Bush’s is lost, then he can order a new one from the military records joint in, I think, St. Louis or maybe it’s Indianapolis.

Finally, if Bush didn’t show for drills then I’m pretty sure he was shown some incredible favoritism. Being in the Gurad back then was a huge benefit and guys that missed drill were called to active duty and essentailly ship righjt off to VN. I’m sure several never came home.

Bush can clear this stuff up EASILY by releasing his records… saying it was covered in 2000 ain’t gonna cut it. Especially, when you’re the guy responsible for ordering guardsmen off to their possible deaths in 2003 ands 2004.

All a DD-214 will tell anyone is where Bush was assigned, his rank, when he enlisted, discharge date and awards received. It will say nothing about whether or not he actually arrived at his assigned post or served there as ordered. As a smoking gun, it’s a bust.

Bush says he was in Bama working on the Blount Senate campaign and attended drills there. though neither the head of the Bama guard says he doesn’t recall being there.

If Bush wasn’t assigned to the guard unit thereas his DD-214 night show it seems like that might be a problem, don’t you think?

And one other thing that I’m quite certain that someone might just ask Bush about… I read a quote he made that was carried in the Houston newspaper in 2002, in which Bush said, …“I’ve been to war. I’ve raised twins. If I had a choice, I’d chose war.”

Anyone know what war he’s refering to? Just a guess here, in this election he’s going to be asked what war he was in.

I’d like to see that!

So, what is being said is that, in the midst of a real-live shooting war, one of the fellows who was supposed to protect us from Russkie bombers could, while operating completely within the rules, take a year off and not get in trouble, even get elected President, because he made up his missing hours? Sweet!

Bush is going to be on Tim Russert for the full hour this Sunday. I hope TR asks some hard questions so we can see what Bush has to say.

I will be dumbfounded to the point of stupefication if Russert is allowed to ask anything other than pre-screened questions.

Russert’s show doesn’t work that way.

Just to be clear, I’m talking about “Meet the Press”. Perhaps some people might have been confused when I referred to “Tim Russert”. I have no doubt Bush’s military record will be discussed, as well as WMDs, and all our favorite topics. :slight_smile: