 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Strategerical Successfullness! | Main | Comments Policy » December 27, 2003Was Bush "AWOL"?As the presidential campaign season heats up, you are sure to hear some Democrats charge that President Bush was, long ago, "AWOL" from his Texas Air National Guard duties - and imply also that he joined the guard to avoid Vietnam. Their allegations simply do not hold water. Last May I wrote several posts about the "Bush was AWOL" charge. Here are the links. Arm yourself with knowledge. You won't convince the hate-Bush crowd, but there are those in the middle who might not know what to believe. Assuring them of the truth may help assure they vote for George W. Bush in November. And just what are the facts? Bush voluntarily joined a military unit part of which was at that very moment involved in combat in Vietnam. He learned to fly fighter jets. He served honorably and was well-regarded by his fellow pilots. He put in more than his required time of service. And he was honorably discharged. Those are the facts. The hate-Bush crowd likes to point to some missing paperwork and an aging colonel's inability to remember one man out of thousands, and claim it proves Bush served dishonorably and was "absent without leave." But paperwork snafus are as common in the military as guns. And the absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense. The "Bush was AWOL" claim is so thin that the New York Times, hardly a bastion of Bush support, debunked and dismissed it. You can find the links to all of my blog posts on the "Bush AWOL" lie, here. The earliest, posted May 7, is at the bottom. Scroll up for the most recent posts (including this one). UPDATE: This post was inspired by this debate at the History Channel's website, in which the Bush-haters are losing in part because their side claims Bush was not honorably discharged, and then post links to documents that say Bush was, in fact, "honorably discharged." Comments
Thanks, Mr. Hobbs, for putting this together in one place. One question: did this allegation originate with the Boston Globe insinuation, and then gain momentum, or was it an anti-Bush pre-election canard that the Globe repeated? Best to you in the New Year. Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative at January 1, 2004 3:34 PMIf this were a non-issue, then wouldn't it have been completely cleared up by now? For example, in 1967, my brother and I volunteered to join the Army, knowing we would go to Vietnam like many of our friends and neighbors had. At that time, I personally had been a pallbearer at three war-connected funerals. For us, it was horrifying, but a matter of submission to honor and obligation to serve. Should this aspect of our histories come into question, it is documented and is a clear testament to what we did. In Mr. Bush's case, the argument back and forth still exists, and as yet is inconclusively resolved. It should be a simple, uncomplicated matter. Anyone reading this who faced the same dilemma at that time knows that rich and poor alike headed for the National Guard like panicked patrons in a burning theater. We know who had the greater advantage. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 1, 2004 11:30 PMThis discussion continues to amaze me. Who reading this blog understands the discipline required to learn to fly and fight in a jet aircraft ? It's far from trivial. Especially given the aged jet equipment the reserves had 30+ years ago (resembled strapping on an engine, aka flying coffins.. i.e. used equipment dating from "the right stuff"). Anyone know what the training maim & death rate was among jet fighter pilot students, vs, say, the same rates in training navy midshipmen (or Mr. Gore's career as an (accompanied by his own guard) PR flack)? I wager it was at least 10 to 1 (if not 100 to 1). Not something I'd expect from the always weak-in-the-knees d-dodger crowd. And can their be any doubt what Mother Barbara would have done if she'd even had a hint of this behavior in one of her children ?? It should be no surprise seeing this constantly revisited, given what other things the authoritarian left prevaricates about. Starting with what the definition of "is" is, under oath. /Ari Posted by: Ari Tai at January 2, 2004 12:52 AMThis discussion could produce some interesting insights if it is not allowed to drift off course. The bravery or cowardice of Mr. Bush or his contemporaries is not the issue here. The only question that has been presented is whether he fulfilled his commitment as did his fellow guardsmen. I can tell you that if I, or my brother, were running for office today, this issue would be open to public scrutiny and put behind us in one day. I think I made it clear that the sons of the wealthy and influential generally fared well, compared to the rest of us, no matter whose children they were. If we eventually should need to rely on resurrection of the draft, this scenario will be played out again. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 2, 2004 2:06 AMAs a former National Guard and Army Reservist from the 70s, I can see no issue here that has not been cleared up by the research presented by Bill Hobbs. Guard and Reservists alike often make up their excused weekend drills and even the annual two week annual active duty service. I worked in a personnell company and I can assure the paper work snafus were (and probably ARE still) all too common. My unit's job (among other things) was to help retiring members re-construct their service records which many times were missing important documentation. The typical guard or reservist at that time did not bother to try to straighten out their records until it was time to retire and establish eligibility for retirement benefits. And at that late date, it wasn't always possible to have service years or weekend drills verified. Bush's situation was all too common. Duty performed at another fort or base was one of the most common paperwork mix-ups we had to deal with. The military's huge bureaucracy can be maddenly inefficient. To me this is a real non-issue and a typical mountain/molehill ploy from the "let's all hate Bush twice as much as we did before" crowd who are beginning to look like they mislaid their tin-foil hats. Posted by: jane m at January 2, 2004 11:07 AMIn many ways, the argument for continued onion peeling on Bush's career in the military seems to be an argument with a pre-ordained end result. Each onion peel is a, "well, that did not work, so many this path will". I was a career (regular and reserve) military officer for many years and I can tell you that fixing admin snafus were a major part of job. More in the reserve (where people are balancing two careers). Even in my civilian career admin hassles are just as frequent. Like it or not, there is a lot of OJT and people make mistakes. Reading Bill's line of argument made a lot of sense to me. For one, I am satisfied. Swirling and spining it isn't going to get any further. Even the arguments about Dean's deferment due to a bad back (which looks a lot worse to me given his next career as a ski bum) won't solve anything. Let's talk a holiday from trying to "get" Bush et al about records unless they bring it up. Posted by: capt joe at January 2, 2004 12:50 PMMy amazement is the (continual) missing of the forest for the trees (actually twigs wrt military paperwork - warehouses full have been mislaid and destroyed by accident and neglect). Making the grade as a jet fighter pilot is a top fraction of a percent of any slice of the population you'd like (re: mental and physical ability, to say nothing of the willingness to take larger than combat-class risks on the nation's behalf, just in training). The 1950's era fighters (F105s) they flew were NOT called "Thuds" because they had the LOWEST mechanical & engine failure and crash rate of their day (though pilots loved them in combat because they had dry wings - and could take a lot of battle damage and still get them back out over the water). And this has little to do with class (or being raised in an upper middle-class family - i.e. GHWB was worth 100s of K$, not millions in 60s-70s (aka the costs of having six children), irrespective of Ms. Richards' jibes) and more to do with like-father, like-son (squared, e.g. exemplary service of GHWB's father, Prescott, as well). All reinforced by the influence of several generations of exceptionally able and strong mothers and wives - esp. when compared to other, less blessed, (political) families' scions. Posted by: Ari Tai at January 3, 2004 1:40 AMHave all of the records been lost that track attendance of the other members of the unit? It seems that there would have to be numerous cross-references of records that would confirm or deny the allegation. For example, are there roll call records where other enlistees' names occur, showing that they were all present or not? Evidently I did not make myself clear when I said that if this matter was so self-evident, it would have been settled long ago. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 5, 2004 1:25 AMSemi - IF such records existed and IF they proved GWB was "AWOL," they would have been produced long before now. GWB does not have to dig up and produce such records to prove he was NOT awol, as his honorable discharge and overall service record indicating he put in more service time than he was required, already prove he served honorably. It is up to those who make the AWOL accusation to produce hard proof, and they have failed to do so. All they point to is an absense of evidence of attendance, but Logic 101 tells us an absense of evidence is NOT evidence of absense. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 6, 2004 4:41 PMIt would appear, then, that adequate documented proof existed at the completion of service in order for the approving officer(s) to affirmatively sign off on the honorable discharge. Conversely, I think we could just as easily say that if this hasn't been settled by now, it probably never will be. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 7, 2004 12:45 AMAnother thought. I don't lose any sleep worrying about whether an AWOL occurred, as too many of the opposition seem to do. For me, it's the matter of his easily getting into the Guard in the first place. I did not mention before that my brother and I tried to get into the National Guard and found that there was no room for us. It was amazing, though, how many of the locally prominent boys did get in. By that time, it was understood that one's chance of coming back alive, or at least in one piece, was poor. That's when I lost sleep. If Bush, Gore, and all the other privileged kids weren't scared to death, too, then they just didn't understand the situation. Recall that I had already helped carry other young men to their graves. The idea of glorious conflict had yielded to the truth that our leaders were pouring young lives into the fray as one would shovel coal into a furnace. For these guys, the other recruiting offices were just as easy to find as the National Guard's--ours were all within one block apart from each other. We shopped around for the best deal we could get, and that did not include a bus ticket to Canada. We finally settled on volunteering for the draft, since we were both at the top of the list anyway. My brother served with distinction, was wounded by mortar shrapnel, was exposed to agent orange, and today is a cancer survivor. I, on the other hand, was grudgingly rejected for service after nine hours of evaluation at the Knoxville intake center, because of a birth defect--I had a fatty tumor tethered to the end of my spinal cord. I was classified 1-Y (not 4-F), making me still eligible for callup if things got bad enough. Sorry to have veered off course, but my button just got pushed. Furthermore, I'll make an offer: I'll go sit on a cane-bottom chair in the middle of downtown Baghdad at midnight if Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Adelman, and, oh yes--Bill Kristol will go with me. I'll bring lunch, and Bush can stay home. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 7, 2004 1:35 AMSemi - The "chickenhawk" argument is getting just a little bit wearying. I assume that is the thrust of your comments about having Cheney et al meet you in Baghdad. The logical conclusion to that argument is that unless one has served in the military, one may not propose military action. Posted by: Robert B at January 23, 2004 5:09 PMRobert B, Honorable leadership, however, does require integrity, honesty, willingness to sacrifice oneself for the greater good, and simple stewardship of the lives of those who serve us. To that end, I would do exactly as I said if it would put an end to this cynical power grab, and spare our children and grandchildren for some other truly justified conflict. These men have deceived their countrymen and would not make the same sacrifice. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 25, 2004 4:00 AM"The matter will never be settled" is rubbish. To any rational, decent person, the overwhelming majority of the evidence shows an honorable service record, and it is beyond reasonable doubt. When you say when you claim "it'll never be settled," you're really just grasping at straws. It's settled to any fair-minded person. By the way, SemiPundit: I understand you killed a child on your 30th birthday. Can you prove you didn't? Thought not. You're polluting your own points about the children of the prosperous making it into the Guard by continuing to pretend that there is anything credible about this AWOL nonsense. Can you please just admit that there is no basis for the allegation, so you can make your real points legitimately? Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 26, 2004 12:43 AMI find the chickenhawk argument logically flawed, and the attacks on Bush's NG service personally painful. At the same time that Bush was flying fighters in the Texas ANG, my childhood best friend, John Robert Kelley, was flying fighters in the New Mexico ANG. He died in a fighter plane crash and is every bit as dead as anyone who was killed in Vietnam. Only he doesn't get his name on a monument! John Kelley didn't have any connections to get him into the ANG, and I didn't have any when I joined the Naval Air Reserve in 1966 (2 year active duty commitment, just like a draftee), and that was when everyone was trying to avoid serving in the Army. I also lost squadron mates to training accidents during my active duty service in the Navy Air Reserve, a service which in fact did take me to Vietnam. When you enter the military, even the national guard, you are handing over a lot of your freedoms to the government. When you choose to fly (and it is voluntary in the Navy and Air Force), you are taking up a high risk occupation. If you choose to fly in a combat aircraft (as John Kelley, Bush, and myself did), you are choosing a specialty, that should you be sent into combat, is more dangerous than any ground specialty (or at least that was true in the Vietnam War). And if you think the ANG didn't go to combat, consider that the New Mexico ANG Unit (the Tacos) that my friend joined had previously already performed one combat tour in Vietnam. To argue, as SemiPundit does, that there is something dishonorable about not serving in the Vietnam War is just wrong. After all, the Selective Service (draft) system explicitly and publicly used "channeling" to try to keep the potentially most productive young people out of the service. This means that they actively encouraged college students to avoid military service! When I dropped out of college to join the service, my draft board tried to talk me out of it! So please take the chickenhawk argument and, well... let's just say, Semi, that YOU really hit MY buttons! I find the chickenhawk argument, as shown in SemiPundits last posting to be offensive, I find it illogical, and I find it applied hypocritically by the left. The left is full of people who actively and effectively sabotaged the Vietnam War effort, and they criticize non-Veterans as chickenhawks? Many of these same critics voted for Bill Clinton - a person who actually demonstrated against the war in a foreign country and avoided the draft through fraudulent communications. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven! I am thoroughly disgusted! Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at January 26, 2004 12:51 AMI got so riled up in the last post that I left out other useful information. When I left active duty and joined my reserve squadron, and then moved and transfered to another reserve squadron, the second squadron could not find any of my records. They could not pay me, and the took my word for it that I had adequate security clearances and was a qualified air crew member! I was never paid for that service, and when I recently requested a copy of all my service records, if found that there is no evidence at all that I served in the second unit! I guess I must be AWOL too! Call the Shore Patrol! And obviously this disqualifies me from ever being president, unless I run as a democrat, in which case I can send soldiers to be slaughtered in Mogadishu for lack of adequate armor, use them to bail out Europeans in the Balkans, to their eternal gratitude, and never use them to punish terrorists or actually defend my country's vital interests! Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at January 26, 2004 12:56 AMUnless you have some basis for the "Bush got into the TANG because his daddy had connections" charge, Semi, you have no grounds for making it. And again, as has already been gone over, considering the unit he enlisted in was involved in combat at the time he joined, it seems rather unlikely that he did it to avoid combat. Posted by: Big Dog at January 26, 2004 1:12 AMUm, you link to your evidence doesn't work, and there is no evidence listed in this article. From your comments here, it appears that you haven't really addressed the main charge against Bush. Namely that he did not take a physical as ordered and was grounded. http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671 Tom Paine has a fairly complete set of original documents making the case. Posted by: Bones at January 26, 2004 7:59 PMGiven the totality of the circumstances, I think there is a reasonable basis to suspect that President Bush did not satisfy his requirements for military service in the second half of 1972. The argument that a lack of evidence does not prove the charge of his failing to report does not persuade because the president was serving in an institution that kept regular records of attendance and specific people have stated forcefully that they do not recall his attendance. That being said, the charge of AWOL and/or desertion are going too far. Reasonable suspicion and convicting someone of a crime are two different things and I believe people should be more responsible about throwing such strong words around. I would note that during the Clinton presidency, many of the same right wing conservatives who so reflexively defend President Bush, would regulary call President Clinton a traitor and someone who lent aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam War -- charges that are at least as baseless as the current ones being levelled at President Bush. With regard to chickenhawk type arguments, I do find it relevant that many conservatives who now support aggressive military action and who also supported the Vietnam conflict -- those who would use their influence to avoid fighting for a cause that they would send others to fight and die for -- are those in whom I would not have the most confidence. At least President Clinton, who avoided fighting in Vietnam, actively protested against the war and opposed sending others to fight and die in his place. I find his position to me much more consistent and courageous, flawed as it may have been. Posted by: Tommyboy at January 26, 2004 11:10 PMEveryone keeps using this cliche "abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence." But consider that the evidence may be abscent because it is proof of abscence. Posted by: james at January 28, 2004 11:36 AMIf it's such a non-issue, then why doesn't Bush release his military records like McCain and Gore did in the 2000 election? To say that Bush didn't join the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam is laughable. If he wanted to serve in Vietnam, I'm sure the regular army would have been glad to have him. To say that he wasn't the beneficiary of special treatment is equally laughable. Bush scored 25% on his pilot aptitude test, which was the lowest possible passing grade, yet jumped ahead of more qualified applicants to get a spot. He did serve from May of '68 to May of '72 and performed admirably, but in May of '72 he requested a transfer to a non-flying unit in Alabama so he could work on a political campaign. The request was denied, but he went to Alabama anyway and didn't report to his Texas unit. Apparently the transfer was eventually approved, but the fact that he remained in Alabama instead of returning to Texas after the denial and was not punished suggests favorable treatment to me. Then, in August of '72, Bush failed to report for a mandatory physical and was suspended and grounded from flight duty. Expesively trained fighter pilots are not suspended casually, and Bush has not adequately addressed his reason for failing to show for his physical. He could clear his name by simply releasing his records, but refuses to do so. Any rational person would deduce that he therefore has something to hide. To those who scoff at the people who are making an issue of this, imagine what the right's response would have been had Clinton refused to release his military records after questions about his behavior during that period had been raised (yes, I know Clinton avoided the draft and didn't serve at all, but he did so legally, just like Cheney, DeLay, Limbaugh, etc.) Posted by: Modoc at February 4, 2004 10:52 PMIf it's such a non-issue, then why doesn't Bush release his military records like McCain and Gore did in the 2000 election? To say that Bush didn't join the National Guard to avoid going to Vietnam is laughable. If he wanted to serve in Vietnam, I'm sure the regular army would have been glad to have him. To say that he wasn't the beneficiary of special treatment is equally laughable. Bush scored 25% on his pilot aptitude test, which was the lowest possible passing grade, yet jumped ahead of more qualified applicants to get a spot. He did serve from May of '68 to May of '72 and performed admirably, but in May of '72 he requested a transfer to a non-flying unit in Alabama so he could work on a political campaign. The request was denied, but he went to Alabama anyway and didn't report to his Texas unit. Apparently the transfer was eventually approved, but the fact that he remained in Alabama instead of returning to Texas after the denial and was not punished suggests favorable treatment to me. Then, in August of '72, Bush failed to report for a mandatory physical and was suspended and grounded from flight duty. Expesively trained fighter pilots are not suspended casually, and Bush has not adequately addressed his reason for failing to show for his physical. He could clear his name by simply releasing his records, but refuses to do so. Any rational person would deduce that he therefore has something to hide. To those who scoff at the people who are making an issue of this, imagine what the right's response would have been had Clinton refused to release his military records after questions about his behavior during that period had been raised (yes, I know Clinton avoided the draft and didn't serve at all, but he did so legally, just like Cheney, DeLay, Limbaugh, etc.) Posted by: Modoc at February 4, 2004 10:52 PMPutting aside the question of whether George Bush was AWOL or not, I have to question why his supporters are not bothered by the obvious favoritism displayed in his entry into the guard in the first place. His score on the pilot aptitude test was in the 25th percentile, the lowest acceptable score for the test. Yet he somehow managed to vault to the top of a sizable waiting list of people. Is this fair? Republicans love to talk about how people should always only be judged on their merits, but have no trouble overlooking the fact that their beloved Dubya has reached his current position in life due primarily to his family connections, starting with his entry into the National Guard after college. Posted by: Think about it... at February 6, 2004 11:38 AMFirst of all, you can't got AWOL from the ANG. Period. If you miss too many Guard formations, your commander could discipline you by either sending you into the active-duty Air Force, or have you tossed out of the ANG and immediately reclassified as Draft Eligible, 1-A. Posted by: Greg at February 10, 2004 1:30 PMI serve in the 101st United Kingdom Royal Marine Regiment and i would just like to say that President Bush is a War Mongral, for a start he gets tony blair to brown nose him (for all u yankees out there that means lickin his ass/arse) then he tells mr brown nose tony blair there will be no more butt fckin unless he joins him on his world conquest for power, once mr fck me in the ass hole bush as finished with his world conquest campaign, what will he turn to next? poker!!!! i think not he will turn to buildin bio weapons and other types of WMD's (oh and as if he aint already) president i suck boys knobs bush needs to be thrown out of office before he fcks us all up the shitter Posted by: British Marine at March 3, 2004 4:53 AMMost people feel that Bush had an easier time of it than Kerry who was getting shot at, but remeber this - just because a person is brave in the battlefield does not make them a great leader. Hitler served in WWI with distinction he was a brave, although hysterical leader who was not afraid. Most of the charges are that W used the connections of his famous father to avoid combat duty. I have talked to many young people who have been in Iraq and I cannot find even one who is going to vote for Bush. Many of these were very patriotic young men who risk their lives everyday for their country, but they feel betrayed by Bush. Many saw "I hope Kerry can get us out." Posted by: SeoBro at August 25, 2004 12:00 PMLook, starting at birth, the rich like kerry and bush have advantages that follow them through life. My advice -- Get Over It! Sometimes you get the bear--other times the bear gets you. Case in point...Kerry couldn't fight the draft board and wanted to extend his studies far from Viet Nam...like PARIS. So, he enlisted in the Navy and Bush got in the Guard. Generally considered to be 'safe' bets. (I JOINED the Marine Corps) People qualified to be pilots don't 'jump' to the head of the line and many of them get killed in training. So Bush isn't a coward or whatever is being implied. And Kerry will still have to answer to the Paris meeting with the Vietnames communists while still a Naval Officer----as in treason............ The bottom line now is: Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
