Never mind the CBS memos . . . what did Bush do, or not do, in the National Guard?

Great Debates
1

The flap over Dan Rather’s hasty reliance on apparently forged documents to show that Bush was an indifferent and disobedient Air National Guardsman during Vietnam has obscured the underlying issue, if issue it be: What kind of guardsman was he? Did he get in through Daddy’s influence or did he not? Did he go AWOL, disobey orders, etc., or did he not? Did he use cocaine during his service, or did he not? Did his commanding officer “sugarcoat” his record, or did he not? Were his records purged just before he ran for governor of Texas, or were they not? These questions were being debated, based on various sources of evidence, before Dan Rather broke that story on 60 Minutes II. We might as well try to settle it before the election, if we can: What do we really know about Bush’s Guard service?

As a starting point, here’s the Master’s piece on the issue, written April 2003: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

2

Yes. TX then-LG Ben Barnes has been giving interviews admitting it and apologizing.

You already cited Cecil. There’s little else to go on.

Ah, 1972, the missing year. Not enough info to confirm it, none to refute it.

Beyond the requirements of not getting into trouble with the powerful father of a champagne-unit Guardsman? No evidence of it - and that wouldn’t speak to Bush’s own character anyway.

Depends on who you believe.

All we know.

Mainly, as he himself said, “When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible.” The question is, what is he* today*?

3

Call my cynical, but I can’t imagine that YET ANOTHER THREAD on this topic will shed any light on the subject. It’s been done to death here.

4

The CBS memos have been done to death, by those who have trouble seeing the point, but the OP is explicitly *excluding * them.

5

Not since the 60 Minutes II flap, it hasn’t. Razorsharp started a thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277468) which has now gone on for seven pages and which nominally has something to do with this story, but it’s really more about the “liberal media” than anything else. I’m just trying to move the focus away from Dan Rather, who is not running for president, and back to George Bush, who is.

6

It’s 2004. I don’t care if both Kerry and Bush bit the heads off live kittens in 1968. I wish to heck they’d start dealing with current issues.

7

Look, what do you expect? Bush is running as an incumbent “war president.” So the Dems nominated a Vietnam vet and attacked Bush’s own Vietnam-ear record. Then the Swiftvets waded in . . . there’s just no way, at this point, to un-issue this issue. But just be patient, there’s three more debates (counting the VP debate tomorrow) and I doubt any of this stuff will come up, even obliquely, in the course of those.

8

Give it up BG…the issue is dead. No one except the true political partisans on either side GIVES A SHIT! It didn’t matter to most American’s that Clinton was a draft dodger for gods sake…it only mattered what he stood for, what his stance was on the issues, etc.

People care about the issues now…not some obscure bullshit that happened 30 years ago when the two men in question were fucking KIDS. What will Bush/Kerry DO…today??? What will Bush/Kerry do about Iraq? What will Bush/Kerry do about the economy? The environment, social programs, taxes, international relationships, war on terrorism, etc etc etc? What will Bush/Kerry DO???

Dan Rather merely put the nail in the coffin for this issue…it was dead and stinking already, but now its got a stake through its heart. Only good thing Danny boy has ever done IMHO. Let it rest in peace…

-XT

9

They were? :eek:

10

Obviously my grasp of english syntax is tenuous at best. I suppose that should have been ‘the two men in question were kids’. :smack:

-XT