From Eric Zorn’s column in today’s Chicago Tribune:
"And while every tale, tall or just on tippy-toes, Gore tells about his youth gets the full ‘did he really or didn’t he?’ treatment, most political reporters are content to let the mysterious gap in Bush’s military record slide into the ‘old news, who cares?’ file.
Did the young Bush put the ‘W’ into AWOL during the last two years of his obligation to the Air National Guard? Commanders of the Alabama base to which he was transferred in 1972 have claimed he never showed up. Bush has claimed he did, and a skeptical Vietnam veterans group Saturday offerend a $1,000 reward to anyone from that unit who’ll back him up."
The rest of the column deals with other “truth” problems that Bush has had, many of which have not been covered in the same way Gore’s “embellishments” have (and the first part of the column deals with those).
But this bit about his missing military service really bugs me. Where was he? Anybody know?
It happened because of the comma in the url. I’ve found that problem when posting myself a few times. When that happens you must phisically put the url tags around the link.
If there was any meat to this then the Gore campaign would be all over it. We have seen nothing about it, so there is probably not much there.
Clinton long ago removed any “Vietnam Stigma” from national politics. If dodging the draft, going to Russia and protesting the war doesn’t bother the American public, then this story means nothing.
The only way a person is AWOL, is if the branch he is a member of declares him so. If Bush was not declared AWOL, then he wasn’t. We can throw around glib comments and terms all we want, but AWOL is a legal term, and Bush was not AWOL.
Neither Gore or Bush completely avoided service during Vietnam, but it is obvious that both of them manipulated the system to make their service more to their liking.
As opposed to, say, joining the Indiana National Guard to get out of the draft. Nope, nosirree, before Clinton no other politician who’d avoided the Vietnam War had ever gotted elected to high-level office. :rolleyes:
Or was that his father? I find these dull, boring Republicans confusing; give me and history a Bill Clinton whose exploits, if the United States last a thousand years, will never be forgotten.
Some of his political positions may be remembered for several months, too.
I think we can both agree that joining the NG beats dodging the draft in the political arena. Notice that I am not talking about a moral or ethical right and wrong, just perceptions.
Quayle at least had something to cover his ass with. Much the same as Gore and Bush have a little something to cover their collective asses with. Clinton had NOTHING to cover his ass with on the military angle.
I have to way-disagree with you on this one…well, at least as far an any moral or ethical issues are concerned. (I won’t try to guess on perceptions, although it does seem to be true that Clinton has been given a harder time on this than Quayle.)
But, I think that the main difference between Clinton and Quayle on this is one of hypocrisy. At least the logic that “I don’t believe in this war and I personally don’t want to fight in it” has some thread of moral consistency to it. The logic that “(to this day still) I believe in the war, but I would prefer to have other people who don’t have the same connections that I do actually do the fighting (while I defend Indiana on the off-chance that the Viet Kong launch an offensive there!?!)” is considerably less consistent. Not that I completely blame Quayle…I would be scared shitless about going to Vietnam too and might do whatever I could to avoid it. But, geez, the hypocrisy in that sort of position is pretty clear.
This struck me as an illogical claim from the start, but only because of second-hand perceptions of the military (I’ve never served, so there goes my nomination). What I mean is, don’t all branches of the military sort of frown on this type of behavior? My impression is that if you’re on the hook for duty, and you simply don’t show up, Uncle Sam is peeved, and he shows his touchiness by immediately seeking you out and explaining the error of your ways. Perhaps while you spend some time in the stockade. It’s not as if George W. would have been difficult to find. You can’t just not show up without consequence, can you?
Have I just seen too many movies? A Base Commander who says something to the effect of “Yeah, now that you mention it, I’m not sure that guy ever did show up” just doesn’t sound like convincing evidence. How could this have occurred? Is it suggested that his money somehow bought a privilege? That he was on the run, in hiding? I just don’t get this one.
Has the term “draft dodging” changed its meaning since the days of Vietnam when people were actually doing it? At that point, it seemed that the meaning was very clear: a draft dodger was somebody who illegally avoided the draft (by hiding in Canada, for example). Carter granted an amnesty to the draft dodgers of the Vietnam era; if he hadn’t, they would have wound up in jail (as some did, in earlier years).
Being enrolled in college or in a postgraduate program (as Clinton was during his draft-eligible years) got you a draft status of 2-S, or student deferment: it was not the same as being a draft dodger. Similarly, National Guard service may have kept Quayle out of the jungle, but it was not an illegal avoidance of the draft. So Freedom2, unless you can come up with evidence that Clinton avoided the draft illegally or that anybody who got deferred from service during the Vietnam War should be called a “draft dodger,” we’re going to have to declare your use of the term illegitimate. You can’t misuse a clearly-defined term just because it smears Clinton more effectively.
The problem with Bush’s last two years is that the fighter he was trained in (The F-102) was phased out, and he was not trained in its replacement. It costs a ton of money to retrain a pilot, and not economically wise when the pilot is a part-time National Guardsman who is due to soon be released anyway.
So although he may have technically been required to show up on weekends at his new posting, it was common for the commanders to just not care. And anyway, in Bush’s first four years in the Guard he put in way more hours than his minimum requirement, so they probably just looked the other way.
If he had shown up he probably would have just been given make-work assignments.
Incidentally, it’s possible that Bush and the Commander are both correct. Bush may have shown up there, and essentially been dismissed without anyone going to the trouble of filing paperwork. He may have been given orders something along the lines of, “Look, show up occasionally, try to make yourself helpful when you can, but I really don’t have anything for you to do so if you have other important commitments…”
As I said, that kind of arrangement was apparently quite common in a situation like Bush’s, and it’s quite possible that the Commander in question has no recollection of the specific conversation.
Why do Gore and Bush get lumped together as having “cushy” assignments?
Gore was actually in Vietnam, right? he may not have been on ground troops, but certainly being several thousand miles away from home in the same country where the fighting was going on could certainly qualify for less “cushy” than a weekend warrior protecting the southwest from invasion?
And why hasn’t anyone mentioned that GOre flunked out of law and divinity school. Gore is painted as the smart one, yet he wasn’t even able to finish grad school. Dub got an MBA from freaking Harvard.
I guess all of those republican journalists must have missed that :rolleyes:
There is a lot of stuff on the net about both Bush/Clinton and Gore. There are allegations out there that allege Clinton dodged the draft. Just punch Clinton Draft dodger into a good search engine. (google.com, excite.com…)
I will however concede that there might be a little stretching of credibility on these allegations. In fact, I will concede that as far as legal terminology goes, Bush was probably as AWOL as Clinton was a Draft Dodger.
wring
From what I have heard, he did a 4 month tour instead of the mandatory 12. There are also people that claim he had a bodyguard.
MOST of the wealthy did whatever they could to protect their children from Vietnam. I am not trying to claim anyone is “better” than another here. My point is that up until Clinton this ocuntry had a very long history of electing heroes and ex-military. Clinton removed any stigma of NO military service. This is also probably helped by such a large part of the country never having served in the military.