How many soldiers in Nam were allowed to go home 8 months early? You can count the jet jockeys that flew off the carriers.
Well?
Was it only a Bush thing?
Diog:
If none of the paystubs convey this information, it’s hardly Bush’s fault. It’s more like the National Guard’s fault, but even you can hardly call them to task for not anticipating the information that would be needed by a zealous press in pursuit of scandal.
You made this argument alread, if you recall, and I responded to it, explaining about inference and how somebody did remember him.
You’re not happy because nobody remembers. Now you’re not happy when somebody remembers. Maybe you’re just not happy.
Who sat next to you in Math in the third grade? What did they say or do? Prove it.
I don’t know how you can read those things. Really bad copy. One appears not to be complete. I’m sure they say something, but I can’t see it. Not your fault though. I’ll conditionally accept that they say what you say they say.
Name three textbooks and authors from the 6th grade.
He says he showed up. Somebody else remembers him. He got paid. He got his teeth checked. This is evidence that he was there.
I have a paystub in my drawer from my work at a summer camp in 1989. I was there for three days, and quit because of a family illness. I took no pictures. I doubt anybody remembers me. There is no other evidence that I was there and worked. Nor, should there be.
A pay stub is a receipt for services rendered. The fact that you got paid is pretty strong proof that you did something. Since Bush’s job was to sit in a corner and read training manuals it is hardly surprising that it didn’t make a big impact and leave a lasting impression on history.
If you wish to suggest that the pay stub is falsified, that is up to you to prove.
If you wish to assert that the pay stubs were falsified, please do so and be prepared to prove it.
The fact that it is conceivably possible that they were is not an argument.
Good question. Since you question whether Bush received special treatment, perhaps you should examine whether Bush’s early discharge was uncommon considering his circumstances for Guardsmen at that time and get back to us.
I just want to know why you think Nam was over in 1973?
I stand corrected.
And as I’ve cited already, it is mandatory in order to remain on flight status. Bush was not remaining on flight status.
Yes indeed. And Bush had less than a year? left in his service and was not going to continue on. Presumably it would take a while to train on a new plane, and an economical and efficient National Guard wasn’t going to waste the time effort and expense on a person for whom they were not going to receive a reasonable return.
Really? You didn’t know this? It’s not a lifetime commit. It’s a term of service. By electing fighter training Bush obligated himself for six years. When those six years were up, or if he was released early, he would have no obligation. They couldn’t make him sign up for more years, you know?
Again. It’s your eye. If you have to train a man on a new plane how much return will you get for that effort if you have a total of 8 months?
I’ll never tell.
Stupid mistake, I guess.
Not knowing the times you are arguing about says a lot about you.
Bend history to fit your needs. The war was over in '73 so they didn’t need him.
Does the fact that our troops were still being killed in '73 change your mind?
Reeder: You are correct that the Vietnam War did not end until 1975. However, it is my recollection that Americans pulled out after the U.S. & N. Vietnam negotiated peace in late 1972 (I remember my eighth-grade math teacher saying he always thought the war would end in an election year). All fighting after 1972 was between the two Vietnams.
Will review my copy of Karnow when I get home tonight to learn the answer.
I don’t think anyone is really thinking about having charges instituted against George II. The standard of legal evidence and the right of presumption of innocence are not the appropriate criteria to ask voters to follow. The one that should apply is the test of what a reasonable man would do, if accused of not fulfilling a significant social expectation. The Commander in Chief isn’t supposed to be a guy who didn’t break the law to avoid military service, he is supposed to be an example to other men.
And the reasonable man, say, me for instance, asks himself, “What would I do, if someone claimed that I had deserted from one of the military bases where I was stationed all those years ago?” Well, I was stationed with a couple of hundred guys, each time. And you know what? Whether or not I made an impression on any of them, all these years later, I remember a few dozen of their names. If I had become President of the United States, I bet that at least one of them would be willing to say, “Yeah, he was stationed with me. We ate lunch together, now and then, and the son of a bitch borrowed fifty bucks and never paid me back!”
So, whether or not it is a crime, if George II is simply too stupid to think of that incredibly subtle way of proving that he was there, I consider that to fall short of what I want in a president. It’s sort of odd that not a single one of those other airmen ever became partisan Republicans, either, huh? I know I would remember serving with the President, even if I never actually ate lunch with him, or loaned him a bag of coke.
Tris
This seems like evidence to me. What do you all think?
The Master speaks:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html
A partisan site, by all means, but loaded with documents and links to respected newspapers like the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and the New York Times, all discussing the “evidence:”
http://www.awolbush.com/
http://www.suntimes.com/output/swee...t-sweeth05.html
Bull ca ca
Again…history from one who does not know his history.
Saigon didn’t fall until '75, but the US involvement was over by '73:
My bad. The last combat troops left in 73. We still had troops there though.
Hey, at least Nixon didn’t say: “Mission Accomplished!” 
Always gracious to a concession, I see.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, they didn’t need him. We weren’t fighting anymore, so right back at you.
So it appears that I was right, after all. Heh.
You’re right. That’s the least.
Don’t embellish.
Indeed not. But there is no evidence that he was therefore granted permission to skip his physical. That would be a document. One that would be included in his records. Which it isn’t.
Big Svins quote indicates otherwise, that he could have flown a different plane had he been required to do so.
Actually, yes, they could have, as has been noted before. He could have been hustled off into the regular service for his poor attendance. But that’s not what I meant. I meant that as long as he was in, he was subject to military orders. Absent a document saying he was excused from his physical, that’s where he was supposed to be. It wasn’t his decision to make.
And this curiosity as well…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40964-2004Feb13.html
"For Bush’s fifth year in the Guard, May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a total of 41 “points” for his service and was granted another 15 “gratuitous” points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records showing he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972. "
He was granted another 15 “gratuitous” points? What the hell does that mean? 'Cause it looks like he was below the minimum requirement and was just flat out given the needed points.
elucidator:
Which he wasn’t.
You may be right. Yet apparently, the Guard didn’t have much of a problem with it. I honestly don’t know if this was a mere formality, or technicality, or a case of gross negligence. I’m assuming that because the Guard treated it as a formality that could be ommitted, and because I have a cite saying “there was no reason to take it,” that it was a formality.
I don’t know. This could be anything from perfectly normally to grossly negligent and irregular. I am not wise in the ways of the Texas Air Guard circa 1972. You’d have to show me what it means.
Yeah, sure thing young Diogenes, that’s easy for you to say, you are documented everyday of your wreched life by your rap messages that are recorded on the worldwide web. But take time to pity our poor young innocent Bush; he had no such documentation.
He was stationed in the wilds of Alabama. Back then many people ran around largely undocumented, especially in Alabama. Boy Hiddie, won’t it be great when our every private thought and our every private action are properly documented by the all-seeing omniscience feds.
Why they could even reconstruct obscure events like who you saw and who you kissed thirty or so years ago.
Oh yes, mine leader, I say hallelujah! Man the barricades comrades.
Oh happy day.
Until then, Dio, accept your fate and make your point clearly, please?