Denial is also a river.
There is none so blind as those that will not see.
The F-4 is ‘slightly’ different from the F-102? :rolleyes: Nice cite, Reeder.
Stupidity is also a small town in Nevada.
[Moderator Hat ON]
I hear Stay-on-the-Topic-Which-Is-Not-Amusing-Place-Names-That-Can-Perhaps-Be-Taken-as-Personal-Insults is the translated name of a small borough in Germany (Staydëntüpicasnosprechenstüpicas).
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Boiled down, the question of “privilege”
Just so. That GeeDubya recieved, and almost certainly expected, a military committment with little of the vexations common to that committment.
I refer you to the previous post, where linked to a cite reviewing some of the documents in question:
"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. "
This paragraph, to my partisan mind, says that in the year from May 72 to May 73, GeeDubya was below the minimum requirement for the year, and was simply “…granted another 15 gratuitous points by his superiors…”. Unless, of course, in some arcane semantics “gratuitous” means “awarded due to exceptional diligence”. I think not, I think it means what it means in English: simply just plain given.
All in all, it paints a picture of minimal effort, minimal concern, and an eye on the “gentleman’s C”. Scylla valiantly defends the innermost barricade, that there was no actionable wrong-doing, or at least none that we Google hounds and blog sniffers will ever prove. Quite probably so, I wouldn’t doubt it.
But if all you can do is offer a defense of genteel mediocrity, of a committment to perform to the legal minimum (unsuccessfully, it would seem), so to protect GeeDubya from a charge of actual criminal neglect of duty…well, its a small enough smattering of dignity to cling to. Whyever should you bother?
Another blow together for the ‘bush was AWOL’ crowd. Remember the good General Turnipseed? The one who blew this case wide open with his flat-out statement that Bush wasn’t there? Well, it turns out that Calhoun says that he was introduced to Bush by none other than Gen. Turnipseed. And guess what? Turnipseed can’t disagree with him.
See, he’s got alheimers.
Bush ‘Guard’ Accuser Admits Faulty Memory
And here’s what else Turnipseed had to say today:
Alzheimers.
from link:
So 4-5 years ago he’d have been what, about as far along as Reagan during his second term? The alzheimers bit calls into question the recantation more than it does Turnipseed’s initial statements.
That’s nice, Sam. Now, would you like to talk about Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop, two members of the Alabama National Guard who insist Bush never showed up? Neither of them have Alzheimers…
Even the current claims by Bill Calhoun that he saw Bush are suspect:
No Alzheimer’s here, sorry:
And a bonus for elucidator: those “gratuitous points” Bush received don’t look so good, either:
But don’t let me interrupt Sam’s delusions; I’m sure he’ll have some excuse for why we should ignore these guys; after all, they’re daring to speak ill of El Presidente!
After reading this thread, the links, and many articles, this seems to be the most truthful, sensible conclusion to reach. Bush was not AWOL, he was not a deserter. What he was was a lazy, spoiled, political hack with a rich, powerful Daddy and the sense of duty to his country of a tree stump. Through his Daddy’s influence, he was able to jump over 100,000 people on the waiting list and get an assignment to the Texas National Guard.
When he was needed for the next big election for a buddy, he requests a transfer to Alabama, it gets denied. He then re-requests a transfer, which is then miraculously granted. He then goes to Alabama, shows up for a couple times (possilbly), doesn’t get his physical, and skips most of his requirements. Ah, but here’s the rub. They aren’t really requirements. More like “guidelines”. When it appears he may not be able to get the early release he wanted, he gets a few “gratutitous points” that allow him to leave early.
I don’t believe he did anything that would amount to desertion or being AWOL. What he did was take full advantage of a lax system that was, at that time, a babysitting service for rich kids. He met all the “requirements” of his stay, in the end because they weren’t really “requirements”. And, oddly enough, I’m not sure I would have done any different were I in Dubya’s father’s place.
What really gets my goat though, what makes me seethe with anger when I think about this, is how different his political rhetoric is currently when compared to his actions in the National Guard. His current nationalistic, “if your not with us, you’re against us”, “war presidency” is almost the opposite to his avoiding actual service in Vietnam, relying on Daddy’s power, and doing less than the minimum actions of his youth. But hey, some people change. I’m sure he’s grown up and learned to love his country. God knows it couldn’t be because he wants to get elected.
If that’s really the bottom of it, I’d agree with you despite the administrative details of AWOL and desertion, and wonder why Bush refuses to acknowledge it. He has, after all, said things in the past about being “young and irresponsible”, and the, well, stonewalling preceded his commitment of Guard troops to Iraq.
Which is why I still smell a drug arrest connected to it, that has the potential to be exposed if the layer of the story over it is ever removed, and political fallout that would be far more serious. But that’s suspicion only, based on the timing and the inner-city community center this spoiled rich kid was somehow drawn to, as well as his careful nondenials, nothing more. The drug story wouldn’t bother me personally, either - it’s the hypocritically inconsistent treatment he propounds for drug users today, and the lesson about the responsibilities of privilege that he has yet to learn.
Well, I suspect that’s the crux of it, Elvis. It’s ironic; those of us who press hardest on the issue – that is, we pinkos – are also that group which would probably be least concerned about a youthful indiscretion or two. But there is a group of voters out there who are extremely stringent in their views of such things: voters for whom duty, service, patriotism, and moral piety are central. They are the group most likely to react negatively should it turn out that some of these allegations are true. They are also among Bush’s most ardent supporters, and I suspect that’s why Bush & Co. are trying to stonewall on this issue so tenaciously.
If you see what I mean.
In relating to the last couple posts, I can say for myself also that whether Bush blew off his Guard duty, or snorted coke, or drunk himself blind before getting the wheel of a car, will have no effect on my reasons for not supporting his reelection. It does effect my assessment of his character in that he is being such a weasel about the whole issue, and it makes me scoff at the hypocrisy of his supporters, but it doesn’t effect my vote.
I oppose Bush because of his policies, both foreign and domestic, which I believe have been disastrous for the country and for the world. I oppose Bush because of his continuous pattern of secrecy and deception on vital national issues. I suspect the vast majority of people who oppose Bush do so for similar reasons.
The whole Guard controversy is incredibly small potatoes compared to manipulating (“cherry picking”) intelligence and deceiving the U.S. public, Congress, the UN, and NATO about the reasons for prosecuting a “damn fool,” preemptive war…among the numerous other examples of gross misconduct and mismanagement perpetrated by our current president and his administration.
No laws were broken and there is no case of unpunished offence, of course. However, this seems to be an episode that makes Bush look not so good. It was mostly overlooked in 2000 because situation was different then. Now, we are, indeed, “at war”, as many Republicans constantly remind us, therefore it is only fair to re-evaluate Bush military record. If a Republican veteran were running to unsit a Democratic president with a similar record as Bush has right now, we’d hear about such an issue constantly and in detail, especially on the radio. Would it be “the worst form of irresponsible derogatory muckraking” then?
It is, indeed, an “accusation for political value” and is intended to bring Bush down a bit, and make him look bad vs. Kerry. I think it’s a fair play. In a sense Republicans were asking for it when they were trying to build Bush up as a “war president” and filling the airwaves with such nonsense as “Thanks God for Bush!” after 9-11.
The whole thing is highly politicized and extremely inflammatory, but what else an issue in a political campaign can be? At least this is a real issue, not some bogus “LIES!!!” or “NO WMD!!!” hysteria.
Elvis:
So if Bush was convicted and sentenced as you say, there would be a public record of it seeing as he was past the age of majority.
Well…
You say that like no one past the age of majority has ever had their record expunged.
It does happen you know.
We knew his first application in May for a transfer to Alabama was denied because the unit he was requesting transfer to was inactive. Then, he misses his physical and gets grounded around the end of July. Then, from the details discussed in this thread, we knew that Bush was ordered to report to Alabama in September. Now, is your contention simply that we didn’t know before that Bush himself requested this transfer?
Question: Could there be a link between missing his physical in the end of July and waiting a month before re-applying for a transfer to a different unit in Alabama? Could his grounded status have helped with the second application for transfer?
I read that the Pentagon started random drug-testing around April 1972. Let me state clearly that it does not mean Bush missed his physical because of that but it is a fact to be considered while building up a case.
I suppose it is possible that Bush was arrested, sentenced and convicted then served a community service sentence, and then later the record was expunged, and then the record at the inner city group was then expunged, and subsequently everyone who ever had knowledge of it, either died, had their memory altered or forgot so that there is absolutely no trace that it ever happened.
I am essentially open to the idea, just as I was essentially open to the idea that Bush had his family pull get him the Guard appointment. I am not an unreasonable human being.
I just need you to show why believing it to be true is the most rational interpretation of events.
Correct.
You’ve got the sequence of events wrong. Bush “Cleared the Base” in Houston on May 15. He was not yet reassigned at the time he was grounded, his first request having been denied. By the time his second request got approved he was already grounded.
I have no idea whether he could have taken his physical somewhere else though, but he was no longer in Houston and not yet reassigned when the time to take his physical expired.
Bush claims that his paperwork had not caught up with him, and it was bureacratically inevitable that he was unable to take his physical due to his transient status.
[quote]
Question: Could there be a link between missing his physical in the end of July and waiting a month before re-applying for a transfer to a different unit in Alabama? Could his grounded status have helped with the second application for transfer?
[quote]
I think the dates are referring to when the transfer requests were acted on, not when they were made. I base this on the fact that the transfer request referred to as the Sept 5, one had him supposed to be reporting on the 15th. If Bush only applied on the 15th and it got reviewed approved and mailed back to Bush in 10 days that would be very fast, indeed. So, I assume the Sept 5 refers to the approval date and not the actual date Bush applied.
I guess. On would need to connect that fact with Bush having missed his physical in some way in order to make it anything but an idle speculation though. I’m happy to consider it as a possibility. That’s still far from an assertion, though.
Here’s an interesting article about community service…well…it was a press conference. Why couldn’t Scott McClellan just answer yes or no?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002555