 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Democrats "On the Wrong Side of History About Iraq" | Main | Landslide? » January 23, 2004Bush AWOL? FactCheck.org Says NoFactCheck.org, a project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, analyzes the facts and concludes Michael Moore - leftwing lying filmmaker and celebrity endorser of Wesley Clark - is wrong to call President Bush a "deserter" in reference to Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Says FactCheck: The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave. After graduating from Yale in 1968, Bush escaped conscription and possible combat duty in the then-raging Vietnam War by getting into the Texas Air National Guard. During the next four years Bush served the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, according to the Globe account, including more than a year of flight training. The Globe quoted Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew."I have examined the Left's Bush AWOL allegation and written a series of detailed posts examining and refuting the AWOL Bush lie, and agree with FactCheck's overall analysis - FactCheck is right to slam Moore for perpetuating a lie. But FactCheck is wrong to imply that Bush guaranteed avoidance of combat by volunteering for the Texas Air National Guard. As I learned through investigation, 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. Are you a pro-Bush blogger who'd like to help stamp out the Left's lie that Bush was AWOL? Send me an email and I'll tell you how you can help. Editor's note: Darren Kaplan, who publishes one of the nicest and best blogs I've ever seen, alerted me to the FactCheck.org posting on the Bush AWOL story, and offered to let me post on it first because it's one of the key topics of my blog. I appreciate that. Now... go visit his blog! Posted in Was Bush AWOL?
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
I've posted this on BlogsForBush. Let me know if you need help with yer anti-AWOL project. Posted by: Jettison at January 23, 2004 05:06 PMClark: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. That says a LOT to me about Clark's character right there. Although I guess if you buy into the "if you feel it's true, it's true, and damn the 'facts,' because 'truth' is a relative thing anyway and 'reason' is an artifact of our dualistic patriarchal culture" line of thought, it kind of makes sense. Posted by: Reginleif the Valkyrie at January 23, 2004 06:14 PMAbsent Without Leave (AWOL) is a legal term. If Mr Bush was ever AWOL there will be a Morning Report from his unit that will so state. As I remember from my days as a company clerk the line item will read, after giving his name, rank and serial number, "From duty to Absent Without Leave." Absent such a Morning Report Mr Bush was never AWOL let alone a deserter. Deserter is also a legal term and, as I remember, is defined as anyone who is absent without leave with the intention of never returning to service. Barracks gossip had it that to be a deserter one only had to be AWOL for 30 days or more. However, I remember a Special Court Martial in Korea where a couple of guys were gone for more than 30 days and their counsel argued that they were not deserters since they made no attempt to leave Korea, hence they did intend to return, at some point, to their unit. They were convicted of AWOL but not desertion. Desertion seemed to be hard to prove. It is self-serving of General Clark to allow one of his supporters to speak such utter nonsense in his presence. He knows better and should be ashamed of himself. Posted by: Larry R Duncan at January 23, 2004 07:09 PMClark's weak support for Moore's lies only shows that the ex-general has no character. The fact that he would endorse the lie as he did, is a testament to Clark's unsuitablity to serve in a political office, or as an officer in the military. I cannot help but wonder how many of the soldiers under his command died, because of his weakness, and unsuitability. Clark is less than a-moral. To contenance a lie is to repeat the lie. Further, Clark is smart enough to know and understand that bit of knowledge. Thus, by his own words, Clark Lied! Posted by: gmroper at January 23, 2004 08:28 PMAWOL. Actually A.W.O.L. Absent without official leave. Without being one word. Okay, a few points need to addressed here. The first is that Wesley Clark probably knows whether the charge of desertion could have been applied to President Bush during his short tenure in the National Guard. That charge has been out there for some time, and it's likely that it was the subject of some very thorough fact-finding mission at the Pentagon in the first months of President Bush's term, if not sooner. And it's likely that such a mission would not remain secret among the four-star generals, especially if it revealed that George Bush did go AWOL, and was considered by his unit to be a deserter. I've seen the grapevine at the Pentagon move faster than the speed of light when the gossip was much less juicy than that. The second point is that if Clark knows this to be untrue, or if he knows that it's most likely untrue, he is a cad for raising it, especially under the welcomed gaze of such a sack of shit as Michael Moore. Had he still been in uniform, he could have been charged under UCMJ for bringing what he knew to be false claims against a commander. Whether that still holds for retired officers, I don't know. Last point is that the Army has sent message after message to the officer corps, reminding them that it is illegal under UCMJ to disparage the President, whether the disparaging remark is true or false. The reg doesn't make the distinction. Again, I don't know if this applies to retired general officers, but it seems that Wesley Clark has very quickly thrown out his many years of Army training (and honor, for that matter) all for the purpose of scoring some random, meaningless political points. Is he really willing to say and do anything to get back some of the power he once had as a general? I'm embarrassed. Although I guess if you buy into the "if you feel it's true, it's true, and damn the 'facts,' because 'truth' is a relative thing anyway and 'reason' is an artifact of our dualistic patriarchal culture" line of thought, it kind of makes sense. Exactly! That's a perfect analysis of the Bush administration dissemination leading up to its invasion of Iraq. Well said. Posted by: PeterB at January 23, 2004 09:27 PMBut FactCheck is wrong to imply that Bush guaranteed avoidance of combat by volunteering for the Texas Air National Guard. As I learned through investigation, Bush voluntarily joined a military unit part of which was at that very moment involved in combat in Vietnam. Let me get this straight. You are seriously suggesting that Bush was so eager to join the fight in Vietnam that he bravely volunteered to join a National Guard unit? How 'bout sharing the fruits of your investigative efforts? I'm sure America (including Michael Moore and John McCain) would appreciate knowing what wicked twist of fate denied Bush his opportunity to join the fight. diggs I think that retired general officers have a different status from that of other retired military personnel. It seems to me that they are simply on some sort of inactive list as opposed to "retired" status. But Clark's inactive status be damned: I know other West Pointers who, even after retirement, still hold with the oath, not to lie or tolerate others who lie, they took on their first day there. Clark is in fact a disgrace - a pitiful characterless main chancer. Posted by: Larry R Duncan at January 23, 2004 10:07 PMThis is the kind of thing that gets picked up and quoted as truth by the likes of Moore and Al Franken, who usually excuse their use of such slander on the grounds that sites like FreeRepublic are full of hatespeech toward liberals. Unfortunately, what they consider scurrilous is usually backed up with evidence, like the DNA on Monica's blue dress. Of course, that doesn't count because it violated WJC's privacy. What are the bases for calling Bush a liar? The inference that he when he stated that the British had reported that Saddam what seeking nuclear materials in Africa, he knew positively that it was false, because one document available to the public was an obvious forgery. Just yesterday, I heard Peter Beinart resort to the AWOL story on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. Peter Beinart is not a shlub like Michael Moore. He should know better. He would never have let such an unsubstantiated charge against a Dem candidate go by unrefuted. That's the difference between the current frenzy of the left over George Bush, and the right's Peter B, you're making up strawmen. Nobody — least of all President Bush — is claiming that he was "so eager to join the fight in Vietnam that he bravely volunteered to join a National Guard unit." You, however, are very badly mistaken if you mean to suggest that the National Guard then or now lacked brave soldiers and airmen who participated in intense combat at the risk of their lives. An F-102 is essentially a jet engine with stubby little fins for wings and a cockpit pasted onto it. Managing to fly one without augering it into the dirt is no small accomplishment. Only a few years before Bush's service, the United States had been on the brink of thermonuclear war with the Soviets, a war in which we expected that Russian bombers would hit American cities unless intercepted and shot down by units like the Texas Air National Guard. During and for years after Bush's service, Soviet bombers indeed tested America's air defenses methodically and regularly; I've got fighter-pilot friends whose scrapbooks are filled with Kodak snapshots of Russian bombers five feet off their own wingtips, with both aircraft flying along the edges of (or sometimes just inside) American airspace. But Bill Hobbs' point, which he's stated quite clearly, is that joining the Texas Air National Guard when George W. Bush did that was not at all guaranteed, or even likely, to keep someone out of air combat in Vietnam. If keeping one's butt safe and sound was a high priority, someone with George W. Bush's college degree (not to mention familial connections) could certainly have found a dozen better ways to do that. (I'd much rather have run the risk of being a behind-the-lines newspaper reporter a la PFC Al Gore, for instance, than any kind of fighter pilot.) As is very vividly evidenced by the fact that his unit was in combat in Vietnam when he joined the Guard, there not only were no guarantees he wouldn't see combat, but rather, there were fairly decent odds that he would. Air National Guard pilots are flying combat missions in Iraq even as we speak, PeterB. Your post is frankly an insult to them and to their predecessors which can only be forgiven if one assumes it's the product of (a) irrational hatred of the President that is politically based, and (b) substantial ignorance about this subject matter. Posted by: Beldar at January 23, 2004 10:38 PMDon't forget also that Wes Clark called Michael Moore a "fantastic leader." That's from the Washington Post, baby. I can't imagine what would have moved Clark to lay such praise on an America-hater like Moore, but the fact is that a candidate who is not only endorsed by such a commie sack of smegma but who returns the compliment DESERVES to be tainted by association. Posted by: Toby Petzold at January 23, 2004 10:43 PMDesertman, with all due respect, if memory serves me after 35 yrs, I believe that "AWOL" stands for "Absent Without Leave" (i.e., no "official" in the term) as opposed to "AWL", which stands for "Absent With Leave". In any event, some of the confusion, or the obfuscation, re Bush 43 being AWOL (bad) as opposed to AWL (OK), arises because the term AWOL is used precisely in the Military & loosely or metaphorically elsewhere, e.g., in the phrase "Democrats who accuse President Bush 43 of shirking his Military duty are AWOL in the fact area." But, more important, those who accuse Bush 43 of literally/legally being AWOL, or, now, a deserter, including, especially including, good civil libertarians who'd generally be among the first to tell us that someone is innocent 'til proven guilty, have the burden of proof with respect to this charge, since as noted, being AWOL or a deserter, is an offense under the UCMJ & can get a perp some jail time. Neither Bush 43 nor anyone else has to prove that he was AWL; it's the other way around. And lots of circular quoting of others who are engaging in the imprecise use of a term, in some cases innocently, in some cases not, does not amount to evidence. Can you spell evidence, boys & girls? Also, some obfuscaters (usually trying to gloss over the complete absence of any form of Military Service on the part of their guy) would have it that, if not technically arising to the offense of AWOL or desertion, Bush 43's failure to attend some drills during his military service makes him a "slacker" re military service. Cute. There are, it seems to me, some who could be described as slackers re Military Service and there are those for whom the all-purpose military term, "Class A" must be used when it comes to such "slackery". Like would-be President, Howard Dean, who claimed physical disability & then spent a year in fun-time physical activity, or former President, Bill Clinton, who kept pretending he'd serve 'til his obligation to serve ran out. I would note that, in the 1960s, a number of us contractual six-year reservists when transferring from one unit to another or from the National Guard to the Reserves were not immediately assigned to a new unit. So a lot of us wound up with no legal obligation to go to some drills and some of us wound up with no legal obligation to go a lot of drills. We all were, however, still members of the Active Reserve, subject to immediate call up for Active Duty until our six year obligation was over, no slackery there. Speaking for myself, then, while I would not agree with a Medal of Honor winner who thought Bush 43 or me a slacker, I might understand why he felt that way. But it is to laugh when a Dean or Clinton apologist attempts to equate Dean's or Clinton's Class A mendacity with the actions of those of us who, like Bush 43, did not evade or avoid military service. Posted by: TomCom at January 23, 2004 11:01 PMBeldar Good for you. Shame on people like PeterB who argue beside the point, especially with sarcasm. We called this argument "ad ignorantiam" in college. Posted by: TomCom at January 23, 2004 11:12 PMTo Desertman (& anyone else who's interested) The following are the UCMJ Sections re Desertion & AWOL, the former being a point of no return AWOL, shall we say: 885. ART. 85. DESERTION 866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE I think it was Gen Shelton that said Gen Clark was fired due to integrity and character issues. It looks like he was correct. If a man was in the military for 34 years, who day in and day out observed the same structured enviroment is now a slave to the gossip mill can't hold his tongue, well it REALLY makes you wonder. Clark MAY see Bush as the Commander in Chief a grave threat to his own Gravitas. So he feels the end justifies the means and is in the process of trying to pull Bush down to him. Sorry General it is not going to work. Posted by: Ordi at January 24, 2004 12:03 AMBut it is to laugh when a Dean or Clinton apologist attempts to equate Dean's or Clinton's Class A mendacity with the actions of those of us who, like Bush 43, did not evade or avoid military service Looks like have your own strawmen, TomCom. Sorry to disappoint you, but I don't come at this thing as a Clinton or Dean "apologist", as you would seem to prefer it. And invoke the Soviet menace and the likeliness that Bush would see combat in Vietnam all you want as you go about your own apologizing. I'm not buying it. Pretending Bush didn't benefit from his privileged background truly dishonors those who fought in the war he avoided. Just a few items I was able to locate in about one minute: http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/news/dquarterly/summer01/true_patriots.htm http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/vietnam902.asp http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/vietnam1002.asp http://www.calguard.ca.gov/CAAG-MS/current_stories/mihalakis/ For that matter, units of the Texas Air National Guard were already flying combat missions in Vietnam when young GW Bush signed up. His wing never deployed, but that wasn't his choice. He "avoided combat" as much as any other member of the reserves, guard, or regular military that were simply never called to go to Vietnam. Posted by: Jeepster at January 24, 2004 05:20 AMDiggs, without verifying, I think the law is that retired officers are not subject to the UCMJ. However, I think that if Gen Clark were really judged to be in violation of the particular punitive article of the UCMJ you mention -- i.e. if for example Clark had called Bush a deserter himself rather than being "neutral" about what Moore said -- he might be prosecutable for it, once ordered back to active duty. If I'm right, such a recall would end up being a matter for the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army to decide. Since they work directly for the SecDef and the President, it would become, like so many things in the world of the law, a matter more political than legal. Since I firmly believe that these folks have much more political savvy in their little finger than Clark has in his head, I reckon that they would not do anything along these lines, no matter how egregious Clark's remarks might become. I think Clark has become unhinged from whatever political bearings he may once have had and will fall by the wayside soon, and I imagine that the current Administration feels the same. If not -- bring him on, oh you Dems in search of a hero. Posted by: Paul H. at January 24, 2004 06:43 AMPeterB, Flying a combat jet is an inherently dangerous act, which places it light years beyond the simple avoidance of combat in a soft position. Bush, unlike "Snow Bunny" Dean or "Daddy got me a safe PR Slot" Quayle (to keep things non-partisan) actually took risks to serve his country, which is why the majority of current and past military men and women respect him more than, say, Bill "I loathe the military" Clinton. Posted by: Ernest Brown at January 24, 2004 08:55 AMSorry PeterB, you are scoring no points today. A complete shutout. Posted by: Lee at January 24, 2004 09:13 AMMy husband and I were both active duty, but we don't disparage the guard or reserves. My husband was in during during the Vietnam era but his unit was deployed to Germany rather than Vietnam and he ended up spending 4 years there. So, PeterB, where did you serve? Posted by: SwampWoman at January 24, 2004 09:46 AMWhere are Mr. Bush's fellow servicemen? I would like to see their comments here. His peers could provide the most significant input on the matter. So far, I have seen little evidence that very many people serving at the time even knew him. I may have simply missed their commentary. There are enough readers here that some one of you must know one of these people. Please have them post here. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 24, 2004 11:18 AMPeterB Since you never mentioned slackery, I was obviously not addressing you in that part of my note. I was addressing a class of real, unthinking Bush haters, tho, not strawpersons. Stay PC; stay focused. Of course, you have still failed to address my point about your fallacious arguing beside the point, which others also have called you on to no avail. ***************** Semi Pundit, Maybe Bush's fellow servicemen are not bloggers. Most of my friends are not. But that's why we have statutes of limitation in law: it's not easy to get witnesses 35 years later about anything. In any event, repeat after me: Bush doesn't have the burden of proving that he was AWL. You have the burden of proving that he was AWOL, or a deserter. Got it? If not, call your local ACLU unit & report for sensitivity training & don't go AWOL from such meetings! TomCom SemiPundit: Bush's fellow pilots praised his flying ability and one of his superior officers is on record saying he was one of their best pilots. Scroll through my archive of posts and you'll find it. You have "seen little evidence that very many people serving at the time even knew him" because you are willfully blind to the evidence. Bush volunteered for a unit part of which was in active combat in Vietnam at the time he joined. He trained to fly a combat aircraft. He put in more time than he was required to put in. He was discharged honorably. Which part of that don't you understand? Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 24, 2004 12:17 PMSemiPundit: Proving you are willfully blind, the FactCheck.org piece that I LINKED TO FROM THIS POST has the relevant quotes from folks who served with Bush. Because you are too darn lazy to click the link, I'll copy it into this comment for you: The Globe quoted Bush’s flight instructor, retired Col. Maurice H. Udell, as saying "I would rank him in the top 5 percent of pilots I knew.” The Globe also said: Those who trained and flew with Bush . . . said he was among the best pilots in the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called "weekend warriors." Got it? Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 24, 2004 12:19 PMPeterB: "They also serve, who only stand and wait". PeterB: I am a Vietnam Era vet who also avoided combat, although I ended up being medically discharged "physically unable to perform duties due to service connected injury." Are you going to rip on me too? Which service did you serve in? I assume I am not the only vet who didn't get shot at or those who did (I know more than a few) who don't feel dishonored by Bush. Why do you assume that you can decide for us that we should? I have heard it quoted that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel (although from the context in which Dr. Samuel Johnson spoke it is clear he meant a "phony" patriotism), but it appears you have found one past that. Posted by: JorgXMcKie at January 24, 2004 04:36 PMLate to the party but want to throw in a couple of things. During my two years in SEA, 67-69, there was a detachment of (I remember)six F-102s stationed at Bangkok's Don Muang RTAFB with two of them on 15 minute alert 7/24. They were there in case the NVAF tried some crazy stunt and provide some force protection for Bangkok's international airport. To my knowledge, they never fired a shot in anger but still qualified as in-country. As I recall, those six F-102s were Air Guard units on six month rotations. This could well have included the TANG. Also a couple of Air Guard F-100 squadrons were activated, Iowa and New Mexico, as I recall. They lost a few guys to combat. The Air Guard is currently providing about 33 per cent of the combat support missions to Iraq. Others have pointed out the loose approach to the Active Reserve time after Active Duty. I only attended a couple of drills after active duty but they knew where to find me if they needed me. Finally, one corollary claim to the AWOL/deserter lie is that Bush didn't show up and stopped flying because he wanted to avoid drug testing. See, since Clinton didn't inhale, Bush is obviously a cocaine addict. To my knowledge, drug testing did not come in until early Reagan. I flew on combat missions up to Aug 69 and never peed in a bottle. After watching the gyrations and hoohah the FAA went through to implement drug testing after the ATC strike, I'd be surprised if aircrew testing was began before late Carter. Anyone remember when this started? Posted by: Billy Hank at January 25, 2004 12:43 AMTomCom and Mr. Hobbs, I read through the FactCheck material and sadly did not find any direct quotes from any servicemen other than the flight instructor, who only commented on his compentence to fly, not on his attendance. Additionally, was the flight instructor connected with him at the beginning, the end, or throughout his term of service? The nearest thing to a quote from his peers was (from the Globe): "Those who trained and flew with Bush..." Since the Globe article gave no specific names, may we assume that they had them? Also, the other two people quoted were only able to state what he had told them. By the way, I took the opportunity to follow a link to Mr. Clinton's letter, as referenced by Ernest Brown, above. I had honestly never read the letter before, and was surprised to find no statement saying "I loathe the military.." Perhaps more people should read the entire letter themselves. The sentence is open to some interpretation and seeks to draw attention to and to characterize a serious problem faced by young people at the time. What puzzles me is, if he was comfortably sequestered from the war, then why did he write the letter in the first place? He could have just kept it to himself and moved on. Posted by: SemiPundit at January 25, 2004 04:37 AMI cannot speak for the other services, but the Navy did not employ urinalysis (on a large scale) until 1981, when a crash on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz killed 14 sailors and injured about 40 more. While the crash had nothing to do with drugs, it was discovered that about 20% of the flight deck crew had used drugs (mostly marijuana) within two weeks of the incident, which was way too high for safety. The navy began urinalysis shortly afterward. Posted by: timekeeper at January 25, 2004 06:41 AMA thought about the effect General clark's silence with respect to michael moore's charges: Words mean things. General clark has allowed an accusation of "desertion" to stand against George Bush with no attempt to refute it, and no apparent desire to see whether it can be refuted. To me this means General clark does not consider "desertion" a serious matter. It's not serious if a candidate for President committed the act, and it must not be serious if any other soldier commits the act. Soldiers are certainly told what "desertion" is, and how serious it is. They have no excuse to believe the charge is a matter of semantics or interpretation, or that a waggle of the finger at a deserter is appropriate punishment. They also have no excuse for believing that a person who has actually committed the offense will be given an honorable discharge under any circumstances. (So what's General clark's excuse?) When a civilian hears that a soldier has been sentenced to a lengthy prison term for desertion, or executed in the case of desertion during war time, how will they reconcile such harsh punishment with an offense General clark thinks is so minor? Posted by: Karl Lembke at January 25, 2004 01:42 PMSemi - George W. Bush successfully completed flight training and was certified to fly the F102 in combat. Hello. You can't do that w/out showing up. Perhaps you should check the Bush-haters' websites and learn that not even they are accusing him of being "AWOL" or a "deserter" during his flight-training years. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 25, 2004 05:46 PMThe truth is that the F-102A Delta Dagger had left Vietnam, entirely, six months before Bush had finished training in it, as all the F-102As were being in the process of being transferred to ANG units, as they had since the year 1960. On top of that, no plane could be less useful to the Vietnamese conflict than an Interceptor. The 1954 Interceptor, designed as a counter to the Tupelov-4 Soviet bomber unveiled at the 1948 Berlin air show, was ideally suited for defense in Western Europe. If the Soviets sent their bombers to Europe, they could fly up, as fast as possible (the first delta-wing plane) and use its missile-only weapons array to take them down. The Vietnamese, historians note, lacked a heavy bomber program. Certain neocons have produced witnesses who claim that the Vietnamese had a plan for a straw bomber, aimed at Texas itself. Posted by: jsn at January 25, 2004 07:44 PMI think some of you have forgotten the Cold War. Just a fact check, which no one here bothered to correct. Clark did not call Michael Moore a "great American Leader." It was George McGovern to whom he was referring. The New Republic blog, where you might have seen it -- here - posted a correction. The actual quote from the NH debate was And I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and of people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton. I find a touch of irony in the fact that all of a sudden Clinton-haters are willing to believe he fired Wesley Clark over "character issues." Perhaps it was merely a disagreement over policy. It seems to be the case with Bush Treasury secretaries. SemiPundit Same old trick: rather than prove your argument, you demand that others refute it. And a new trick: if someone like our moderator does come forth with facts which do, indeed, refute you, you just deny that his facts are facts! And you note that Clinton did not say in the infamous exchange of letters that he "loathed the Army", which none of us claimed, & QED.... OK, you don't understand lawschool Evidence 101 or the ACLU's McCarthyite Smears 101. Let's make it simple & pretend that you're in a HS debate. Your coach would tell you that you must prove each point you make & not with half facts or facts which are subject to various interpretations or conclusions. (I'd hate to have you on my jury since you don't seem to understand the meaning of "the whole truth".) He/she'd kindly tell you that you're gonna be in a serious debate now, relying on the authority of the UCMJ, & it's not enough for you to say nyhna, nyhna, nayhna, Bush missed meetings & he's a dirty old deserter (or was AWOL); ya gotta come to grips with the fact that your opponents or the debating judges will be aware that since Pres B was honorably discharged by the Armed Services, there's a strong presumption that he must've been legally excused from such meetings or allowed to make them up. It's called the fallacy of incomplete enumeration (of alternatives, that is). Got it? Or how about: Everything I Learned, I Learned In Kindergarten: Scene: Little Semipundit comes home from Kindergarten & sits drinking his milk & eating his cookies with his Ma (or Pa, lest I be Un-PC). Semi: Mommie, mommie guess what, guess what...little Georgie Bush played hookie today & he's not gonna get promoted to the 1st Grade. Ma: Semi dear, really, how do you know Georgie played hookie? Semi: He wasn't there! Wasn't in class, silly! Ma: But, Semi dear Georgie might have been excused or maybe his mother will write a note explaining that he had a valid reason to stay home & the teacher will excuse him; you can't just accuse people of playing hookie, a serious offense, without facts, dear. Semi: Oh yeah? Well, silly, I know that teacher promoted Dickie Cheney, last year when Dickie's parents gave her some of that Halliburton Big Oil Money. So you, you, Mommie, must show me that Georgie Bush was not playing hookie, since everybody knows his folks could buy teacher's promotion certificate! They did it in New Hampshire, they did it in South Carolina, they did it in EOWIEEEEEEE. Ma: Semi dear, calm down; stop sounding like Howie Dean. Remember, the person who makes such harsh accusations always has the burden of proving them. What facts do you have to prove that stuff? Semi: My classmate Pauline Kael said to me in class today that she didn't know anyone who thought that Georgie Bush had not played hookie. Ma: Moveon, Semi dear. I have never seen so much whistling past the graveyard all collected into on place. If you really don't want people to know that Bush walked out on his sworn duty in the Guard, you would be better off just avoiding the whole topic. But since you bring it up. It is a fact that Bush did not complete the last 2 years of his six year tour of duty. The documentation that proves that is a matter of public record. The evidence is quite clear that he was NOT where he was ordered to be and that he had been removed from flight status. What we don't know is why. And why matters, because the why tells us whether he was AWOL, or a deserter. Why could provide an explaination for his absense that absolves him of guilt. (unlikely, but possible). Without some explanation, given what we know for a fact - That he signed up for 6 years but only flew for 4, and only stayed for 5 years 4 months - The most reasonable explanation is the most damning one. That he was taken off of flight status for substance abuse, and dischared honorably only because of his family connections. If there IS a non-damning explanation, Bush should open his service record (like McCain did) and show us. For a definitive rundown of the facts. See the Straight Dope. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html and for a pointer to the relevant documentation. Try Tom Paine. http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/3671 Read 'em and weep. Posted by: Bones at January 25, 2004 11:29 PMTomCom, Ouch! My aim was to evaluate the material presented as evidence. I just went back to the FactCheck.org piece and read it again. I recomment that you do so, too. I wanted to make three points relative to what I saw there. The Globe article spoke not of particular persons, but of "Those who trained and flew with Bush..". That tells me that somewhere there are documented statements by real people. Building on your analogy, would you rather go to court with that broad statement or with direct comments from individuals? Second, Joe Holcombe said, "It was pretty well-known that he was in the Guard while we worked on the campaign." Would you put him on a witness stand with that? Third, Emily Martin said, "He told us that he was having to do his Guard duty in Alabama while he worked on the campaign." Would you put her on a stand to relate what someone else had told her. I have stated elsewhere on this site that I don't really care much whether he was AWOL or even finished his commitment. For me the core issue is the preferential treatment he and all the other rich kids (including Gore, Cheney, and just about everybody in the administration) received. I often think of a poor kid named Robbie from Pennsylvania who went to the same college as I did. He flunked out, was immediately sent to Vietnam, and lasted a month. In my mind he is still that kid with a big smile. Billy Hank and timekeeper: When I reached Germany as a new Army 2LT in 1977 (Carter admin) random urinalysis was ongoing. I remember it vividly as one of the things the company XO briefed us new LTS up on. However, for USAREUR at that time (77 -80), the results could only be used for referral to mandatory drug and alcohol counseling, not for UCMJ. Can't speak for other services but I would suspect they followed the same guidance, since these were DOD and not just Dept of the Army programs (if I recall the titles of the proponent regs correctly). Use of random and directed urinalysis for punitive action under UCMJ and/or mandatory administrative discharge came later, in the early 80's, which is probably why the early 80's (Reagan admin) sticks in your mind, Billy, as the "beginning" of the program. There was a big scandal about centralized urine testing lab procedures in 83-84, which I think had led to a lot of people with otherwise good service records getting admin discharges, after urinalysis tests had showed them with what proved to be possible "false positives". The reason I remember this so well is because I was a company commander 83-84, and considered myself lucky, in that I hadn't court-martialed, given an Article 15, or discharged anyone, based on urinalysis results alone. (Also our base had had an excellent local screening person, who protected us from some of the more egregious failures by the far-distant labs to which the "positive" samples were mailed for confirmation). Posted by: Paul H. at January 26, 2004 03:57 AMNice try, Bones, but here are the facts: Bush signed up for a unit part of which was seeing combat at that very time that he signed up. He trained to fly the F102 which was being used in combat. By the time he completed flight training - having been one of the best pilots in his group - the military was no longer deploying F102s to Vietnam, so his unit was not sent to Vietnam. His service record shows he put in MORE time than he was required, and there is ample evidence that drills he missed were made up later, as is allowed for the in part-time Guard. He was honorably discharged. Yes, early. Why not? He had already put in more time than he was required, and F102 pilots were no longer needed for the war, in which America was winding down its participation. Your evidence is a link to TomPaine.com, one of the most leftist sites out there? Big deal. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 26, 2004 06:41 AMThe irony of Clark's agnosticism on this ludicrous charge is his own insistence on the strict military meaning of "relieved of command" when applied to his own situation. When it's someone else's service record, though, he's all of a sudden a lot more eager to let unfounded garbage hang out there. Posted by: Crank at January 26, 2004 07:45 AMJust a little more informed commentary (retired AF reservist). If President Bush did a school tour (pilot training) for one calendar year, then he completed his annual two-week active duty requirement for two fiscal years. (Fiscal year begins October 1; all government agencies operate by this calendar.) The rest of the time spent in school can be counted (with the proper paperwork), as drill time. This is SOP for the Guard and Reserve forces when a formal training is lengthy. Posted by: Juliette at January 26, 2004 11:29 AMLet's get real on some institutional issues here. The National Guard is not, can not and will not be run like the Army. A part-time militia must be run with more consideration for the other activities of the recruits than a full-time professional military. Since we don't want to pay full time salaries for part time warriors we have to allow the part timers some flexibility as regards the rest of their lives when they aren't called up. In addition the part time soldiers are led by part time officers, who have every incentive to exercize reasonable discretion when helping those under their command fit their full time lives into their part time service. And finally many state legislators and other part time politicians are also part time warriors, which is good for their political career, good for the military and good for the country, but which can lead to perfectly understandable conflicts. In all these cases the needs of part time warriors must be considered, or we wouldn't have any. I'm afraid the 'Bush was AWOL' meme is Just Another Wildly Improbable Conspiracy Theory. Fun perhaps, but not profitable, unless you have a Partisan Axe To Grind. Yours, Bill Hobbs needs a bit of a factcheck. Bones is correct; the F-102 wasn't being used in Vietnam by the time Bush began training in it. In fact, the F-102 was being retired and even units in Europe were being closed down. By the time, Bush qualified in a F-102, the aircraft had been retired. Second, Bush specifically noted on his ANG applicant paperwork that he did not desire overseas assignments. Third, it was well known that Bush's Texas ANG unit had exactly zero chance of being deployed during Vietnam--unless, of course, NVA units started coming ashore on South Padre Island. This is one of the reasons getting into the Texas ANG was so desirable; so much so that Bush's family had to pull many significant poltical strings to vault little George to the head of the waiting line. Posted by: Jadegold at January 26, 2004 02:34 PMSecond, Bush specifically noted on his ANG applicant paperwork that he did not desire overseas assignments. Prove this. Produce evidence of this. Start with proving that applications to the Texas Air National Guard had space for such a requirement. If all you can do is wave vaguely in the direction of others' claims, then you should admit it's fiction. Posted by: Robert Crawford at January 26, 2004 03:17 PMIf the question is whether Bush sought enrollment in the TANG and flight training to possibly go to Vietnam, the answer is clear enough, in his own words. He said, in a close paraphrase, 'Rather than shoot off a shotgun and rupture my eardrum [gaining a 4F status], or go to Canada, I decided to better myself [learn how to be a pilot].' That is, he himself put the TANG in the same vein as other ways available to people to avoid serving in Vietnam. As to his intentions, those were fairly clear as well, in the second version told by his people as to why he failed to have his flight physical and for that reason was grounded. The first version had it that he didn't have access to his physician down there to take the physical. That didn't 'fly,' because nobody has their personal physician give them a service flight physical, and there was no claim of a lack of flight surgeons available to give that physical. The second version was that Bush 'didn't intend to fly anymore,' and thus didn't see the need to take a physical required for that duty. Although the ANG had invested a lot of money in his training, HE decided he wasn't going to fly anymore. Posted by: sofla at January 26, 2004 05:06 PMProve this. Produce evidence of this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm "Four months before enlisting, Bush reported at Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts to take the Air Force Officers Qualification Test. While scoring 25 percent for pilot aptitude – "about as low as you could get and be accepted," according to Martin – and 50 percent for navigator aptitude in his initial testing, he scored 95 percent on questions designed to reflect "officer quality," compared with a current-day average of 88 percent. Among the questions Bush had to answer on his application forms was whether he wanted to go overseas. Bush checked the box that said: "do not volunteer." Would you care to apologize, Mr. Crawford? Posted by: Jadegold at January 26, 2004 05:17 PMRobert Crawford With all due respect, you're falling into one of the traps that all these "Bush the AWOL" guys keep setting, this one being the "lost in sidebars" trap. The only issue here, their issue, is whether Pres B 43 was AWOL or, acc. to Wes Clark, a deserter. And they gotta prove those serious assertions. And it's not the smoking gun or the holy grail of Bush Bashing if they simply keep babbling "gee we kinda think he missed some meetings, QED...." when there is a real & obvious alternative explanation for such alleged absences: he was absent with leave. And they who make the charge have the burden of proving that he was AWOL rather than we having to prove that he was AWL. And, if Pres B 43 did in fact check negative re his desire for combat duty, this is not evidence that he was AWOL/a deserter. Furgedaboudit. In this regard, Semipundit now says he's really just concerned about some sort of favoritism. I'm shocked, shocked to find that favoritism exists in the Military. OK, Semipundit, end of sarcasm, I apologize. Truism: the Army as well as all civilian organizations, profit or not-for-profit, are rife with favoritism. That was the start of Joe McCarthy's downfall; he tried to get favorable treatment for his boys in the Army. There was a funny commercial about the stock price of corporation X falling out of bed when CEO Pa announces that his airhead son will run the corp. while he takes a leave of absence; this strikes a chord in all of us who were never the beneficiaries of favoritism. So add me to those deploring such favoritism. But favoritism doesn't prove the charges of AWOL or desertion. So back to the issue. Or not. As to your question of who I'd prefer testifying or what evidence I wish I had if this were in court, I'd suggest to you that if this were a court case, I'd not have to worry about those questions since I'd be moving for dismissal on the grounds that the "Bush was AWOL/a deserter" people had failed to present a prima facie case. In non legalese, they gotta put up or shut up! A legal cliché: the "Bush was AWOL/a deserter" people would rather have my case than their own. Posted by: TomCom at January 26, 2004 10:40 PM After several attempts to reread and comprehend what TomCom is trying to say, I'm still a bit unclear as to what his thesis might be. It seems Tom is conceding Bush was the recipent of some favoritism in the Texas ANG. But it seems Tom is also content to allow charges of "AWOL" or "desertion" linger in the air like a bad odor because Bush won't release a full accounting of his military records. That's fine with us partisans, too. It's similar to the Harken Oil scandal several years back. As conservative columnist Christopher Caldwell wrote about the scandal, he correctly noted it wouldn't lead to Bush being charged with insider trading or any other crime, but: "What kills the President is that every time Harken comes up, Democrats get to retell the story of how he made his money. And this, basically, is the story of the spectacular unfairness with which moneymaking opportunities are lavished on the politically connected. It is the story of a man who has been rewarded for repeated failures by having money shot at him through a fire hose. It is the story of a man who talks with a straight face about having "earned" a fortune of tens of millions of dollars, without having ever done an honest day’s work in his life." So, while Tom revels in the fact that Bush can hide his military records--he does so at his political peril. It's probably no secret Bush intends to run on his national security/military qualifications; yet, were he to face a Kerry or a Clark who have both made their full and complete military records open to the public....well, once again George is going to come off looking like wannabe. Posted by: Jadegold at January 27, 2004 08:16 AMGWB has a fine military record to run on. He's the commander-in-chief who conquered Afghanistan in a month and Iraq in three weeks. And Syria in six. Oh, wait. I'm getting ahead of things a bit. Heh heh heh. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 27, 2004 04:40 PMI find it quite comical for anyone to call a war hero, such as Wesley Clark weak because he didn't make a direct comment on Micheal Moore's remarks. Clark has a Silver star, a Purple Heart, which he received from injuries in a real War, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom because he confronted ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. How many medals does Bush have? Does he have any? It is still being argued if he even served honorably. It is unquestionable that Clark served his country honorably for 3 decades. You guys are so funny. All this hot air circling around while avoiding the facts that he was absent for almost two years, that he disobeyed orders to report for a flight physical, and that he received his honorable discharge in the mail while attending Harvard. Republicans make such noise about being patriots and supporting the Armed Forces. But when inconvenient facts of desertion and draft-dodging by the Republican leadership, it's supporting "consultants," (the AEI is full of them), and it's on-air hot-air mouthpieces, it seems conservatives wear blinders. A small list of military avoiders: Hastert, DeLay, Frist, Santorum, Lott, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Gingrich, George Will, Chris Matthews, Bill Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill Kristol. A little looking reveals a very long list of very prominent conservatives. You guys are so funny. Posted by: Al Hedstrom at January 28, 2004 12:07 PMI've been answering Jade's, shall we be kind, evocation vs. evidence on D. Sensing's 'blog, but I'll repeat some of it in answer to his post here claiming that he doesn't understand my rather clear & rather basic point that he must prove his outrageous claims, & responding specifically, to his blather that "it seems Tom is also content to allow charges of "AWOL" or "desertion" linger in the air like a bad odor" The only odor of which I'm aware is the odor of Jade's mendacity, as Burl Ives might say. And Jade's "charges" are lingering despite the lack of any evidence to sustain 'em 'cause he repeats 'em 'til the mind reels. My Sensing answers (edited to make me sound better!) to Jade & another "Whatever happened Bush is guilty" guy: ******** Here's how life works in the world of certification: Normal people accept them at face value unless someone comes up with evidence that they're invalid. Can you spell e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, boys & girls? End of Story. So, as you sneer, a certificate showing that one has gotten an Honorable Discharge is, indeed, the "End of Story" re AWOL or Desertion as such terms are used in Articles 85 & 86 of the UCMJ., until one proves some irregularity in the grant of the certificate. It's not the other way around. And you need e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, not just repeated whining that you just know that Bush must've pulled strings to get the Honorable 'cause he's such a reprehensible person as one correspondent in this link put it. And quoting other people who are, metaphorically speaking, also AWOL on the e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e does not = QED. You shouldn't have to listen to some jerk at your school reunion asking you if you slept with your teacher to get your diploma. Want me to go on? [I could've noted that Howard Dean's Medical Diploma & State License prove that he's a doctor until one produces some e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e that he paid some bureaucrats under the table to grant him such Diploma or License. It's not the other way around. Howard doesn't have to produce his life's records to verify that he got these documents fair & square. John Kerry doesn't have to prove that he didn't indiscriminately kill women & babies when he got his Silver Star. His critics have to produce some e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e. NB: I'm not confusing him w/ former Sen. Bob K.] (2) nkl Um, put me down as against favoritism. And do you think that candidates should release all records, like Dean's medicals? In the '60s, the military filled its active duty requirements easily under the draft. But since it needed a reserve, it offered slots therein in lieu of active duty. (It also had draft exemptions [favoritism?]for students & ghetto teachers.) So you'd have it that those of us who served in the reserves/NG like Bush were "draft dodgers" like Clinton & Dean (& some GOP stalwarts). BS. Re combat, some volunteered for the draft [i.e. served on active duty for 2, 3, or 4 yrs.] in exchange for serving where they'd most likely avoid combat. Are you trying to establish a moral equivalency: no volunteer for combat = Clinton['s gaming the system]? Try again. (3) Jade: Repeat after me: There is no evidence that Bush was AWOL or a deserter. And it does you no credit to use a half truth "absent from required meetings". Everyone in the NG/Reserves was at some time in his career "absent from required meetings", most AWL [absent with leave]. FYI, a Securities rule re disclosure not only forbids an outright untrue statement, it completes the circle by forbidding one to "omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances in which they were made, not misleading". The SEC regulators knew that they were dealing with fakers like you. BTW, the dog didn't eat Bush's evidence, it ate yours. Repeat after me: You must produce evidence of Bush's bad, not the other way around. You're a bore. (4) Jade I'm sorry, your exact quote was "absent from required duties", an even vaguer characterization. My point still stands. My analogy [to nkl] is not "somewhat faulty" In fact I was at a reunion recently where a guy from my yr., in his cups, rudely said to me "I don't remember you (me) from our yr." I was never in any class with him, so by some Berkleyan reasoning that I did not exist independently of his senses, he concluded that I didn't exist as a member of that yr.! I said "gotta go", which I now say to you who are so impervious to reason. (5) jade I don't remember "5 senior officers" saying that Bush was AWOL. And you don't say that Bush's C.O. said that he was AWOL. It's always what you guys don't say. Your ramblings are highly evocative of how the Hate Bushers would have things; Bush's Honorable Discharge Certificate & my HS Diploma & Honorable Discharge Certificate reflect the way it was. Boring. Scene: Committee Hearing: Mr. McCarthy: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Point of order. Chairman: (sigh) Mr. McCarthy, Mr. McCarthy, What is it now?. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand, in my hand, a list of 57 times when Mr. Bush was absent from meetings. Mr. Chairman, this can only be because he was an AWOLer, & we have here a conspiracy so deep.... Mr. Welch: Mr. McCarthy, have you, sir, at long last, no shred of decency.... *** Al H Chris Matthews a conservative? Tu quoque arguments are fun, but the issue here is not who was the biggest draft dodger of them all. (There's plenty of candidates in both parties for that dishonor. Tho I'm not sure that everyone on your list would fit that characterization; many avoided the draft for valid reasons & some of the guys you name may've also. Again, evidence rather than evocation would seem appropriate.) The issue here is whether Pres Bush 43 was a draft dodger, AWOLer, or Deserter as alleged. Stay focused. Posted by: TomCom at January 28, 2004 09:27 PMJames You say "any discharge, except dishonorable, can become honorable in time. In other words, I [sic] a person goes AWOL and receives and [sic] "Other than Honorable Discharge [sic]," they [sic] can appeal after a certain amount of years and have it upgraded to honorable... It would be easy for the grandson of a U.S. Senator to get away with going AWOL. Lets [sic] not forget who runs the military." Since you assert your expertise re upgrading of military discharges, some non-military types might be bamboozled, & say gee, this is one of those conflicts between experts & we really can't form an opinion, can we? Um, do you have any e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e of your expert what-ifs & conspiracy theory? Gee, if not, we fact worshipers are just kinda left where we all began with the prima facie evidence of the Honorable Discharge, aren't we? BTW would your supposed later upgrade be dated on the day of (or a day close to) his original discharge in the '60s? Otherwise wouldn't an Honorable Discharge for B 43 dated, say, 1980 be a red flag? TomCom PS In view of your military expertise, would you tell Al H. that many of us reservists/NGers got our honorable discharges in the mail after our respective obligations were up? PPS I take it you're never gonna vote for Howard Dean & didn't vote for Bill Clinton since you're so strong on military guys. Posted by: TomCom at January 28, 2004 10:04 PMTomCom The only reason that you "fact worshippers" are still defending Bush is because not to would contradict you whole notion of politics. According to the former U.N. inspector, the Bush administration was told several times, with documented evidence that Iraq had no WMDs. Yet they were invaded. Were you and your "fact worshipping" cohorts asking for more evidence? Or were you one of those disillusioned Bushites who wanted war no matter what? In terms of the military, I wouldn't expect that someone who hasn't served would know all of the policies associated with the military. However, if you are a true "fact worshipper" you will take the initiative to find out if what I said was true. No military experience is necessary for that. Nor is it necessary to see through the smoke screen that Bush has put up. Posted by: james at January 29, 2004 09:51 AMTomCom The only reason that you "fact worshippers" are still defending Bush is because not to would contradict you whole notion of politics. According to the former U.N. inspector, the Bush administration was told several times, with documented evidence that Iraq had no WMDs. Yet they were invaded. Were you and your "fact worshipping" cohorts asking for more evidence? Or were you one of those disillusioned Bushites who wanted war no matter what? In terms of the military, I wouldn't expect that someone who hasn't served would know all of the policies associated with the military. However, if you are a true "fact worshipper" you will take the initiative to find out if what I said was true. No military experience is necessary for that. Nor is it necessary to see through the smoke screen that Bush has put up. Posted by: james at January 29, 2004 09:52 AMJames You'd rather argue WMD than present any Stay focused. TomCom Tom: Once again, your analogies are somewhat backwards. McCarthy got into trouble by claiming he had a list of 258 'communists' in the US Government. As we now know, McCarthy had no such list. Similarly, Bush is claiming a year and a half of service where nobody seems to remember him and his superiors only noted his absence. Compounding this, Bush, himself, doesn't seem to remember what he was doing during this time--only whatever it was, he did it. Further, Bush's accounts have 'evolved'--in his own autobiography, he claimed he was flying; a difficult thing when the documentation shows he was suspended from flight status. Posted by: JadeGold at January 29, 2004 06:16 PMJade You're analogy impaired. You guys are the ones presenting the 57 missed meetings w/o e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back up such claim. Got it? And yet oh once more.... Boring. Posted by: tomCom at January 29, 2004 08:09 PM Jade You're analogy impaired. You guys are the ones presenting the 57 missed meetings as proof of AWOL or Desertion w/o e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back up such claim. Got it? And yet oh once more ye assault us with non e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e .... Boring. Posted by: tomCom at January 29, 2004 08:12 PM Jade You're analogy impaired. You guys are the ones presenting the 57 missed meetings as proof of AWOL or Desertion w/o e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back up such claim. Got it? And yet oh once more ye assault us with non e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e .... Boring. Posted by: tomCom at January 29, 2004 08:12 PM Jade You're analogy impaired. You guys are the ones presenting the 57 missed meetings as proof of AWOL-ness or Desertion w/o e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e to back up such claim. Got it? And yet oh once more ye assault us with non e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e .... Boring. Tom: The evidence is that Bush's superiors noted he did not show up as required. It is incumbent on Bush to provide some evidence these officers were wrong or mistaken. Posted by: JadeGold at January 30, 2004 08:03 AMTom, TomCom - Here's your e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e: TomPaine.com article by Marty Heldt. BTW, the FactCheck.org "investigation" has been debunked as shoddy and lazy work. Posted by: Al Hedstrom at January 30, 2004 02:23 PMHow did Cheney get four deferments? Posted by: richard at January 31, 2004 07:44 AMRichard: Cheney actually obtained five deferments. In 1989, Cheney was asked why he didn't perform military service and his response was: "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service." Fundamentally, this is a more honest response than Bush's behavior. After all, Cheney doesn't prance around it flight suits or pretend he's personally leading the troops onto beachhead. And it was legal whereas Bush's behavior certainly was not.
Cheney said that? That is far more upsetting than Clark's "non-response" to Michael Moore's comment. Richard asks, "Why doesn't Bush just squash the rumor by proving it wrong? Perhaps because he knows that his record was...um... amended to reflect more favorably on him and that an investigation would reveal that.
By the way, I'd like to see the Bush defenders on these boards defend his "failure to accomplish" his flight physical, resulting in his suspension from flying. This is well-documented, and the people who are demanding e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e should take some time to r-e-a-d this and other documents released under the Freedom of Information Act: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif Bush has claimed that he couldn't get to his personal doctor to get a physical, but this is a fairly transparent lie. A much more plausible explanation is that someone got tired of him disobeying orders and decided to make an issue of him disobeying this one. Posted by: js at February 1, 2004 02:46 PMAl H OK. I've read the "tompaine" & "varieties" notes you sent me to. Once again, if you mean to conflate such regurgitation of unproven alleged Bush absences into the serious offenses of absences w/o leave or desertion, you are a poster boy for the fallacy of equivocation. Oh, they do show some possibility of the son of a well-connected person having received favorable treatment. Who knew? TomCom To Al H & others As to the effect of Bush's refusal to be baited by all this effort which so far has producing nothing but innuendo, I've said that I do agree that if a candidate won't release all his records, such as Gore re his grades, or Dean re his meds, the public may believe what it wants about such refusal, even not voting for said candidate if it believes that the worst things in the whole world may be in the held-back records. I take it that none of you who keep harping on this Bush refusal are gonna vote for him. And him counting on it. I'll repost my last note on Sensing's blog. Tom You are right. Actually it's an age-old trick used by astrologers & fortune tellers: prove they're wrong when they make a claim or they win; they don't have to back their claim up. Unfortunately, simpletons & the inattentive fall for this & always will. So, I kept it up to counter any "repeat-the-Big-lie" factor. (OK, let's be nice & unemotional; let's not accuse these guys of lying when we don't have the factual basis to do so; let's just point out the obvious: at this point they're poster boys for the fallacy of equivocation (alleged Bush absences are conflated to absences w/o leave or desertion). And since they'll never stop & I've made my point ad nauseam, I now must stop & rely on the judgment of those who are following this thread. TomCom Posted by: TomCom at February 2, 2004 10:05 AMAs I have said before, if this is such a straightforward matter it would have been settled long ago. Just look at how it is still being kicked back and forth here. If you like Vietnam (and post Vietnam) as an issue here, you're gonna love the political Bush-Kerry knife fight coming this summer and fall. Posted by: SemiPundit at February 2, 2004 10:54 AMI've followed this closely for some time, and I have to agree with FactCheck.org that there is no evidence that Bush was AWOL. Most "evidence" is simply pointing to a lack of records of attendence--not any kind of evidence at all. But those who equate Bush as some patriot duty-lovin' Texan really have put on some blinders regarding the light treatment Bush received while doing his duty. And those that swallow the line about other pilots of Bush's unit going to Vietnam seem to almost willingly overlook the fact that the plane Bush was learning to fly was not. There was no chance of Bush seeing Vietnam flying the plane he was (which was probably the point). It's clear that Bush was a skater at that time in his life, doing the minimum to get by until he figured out what he was going to do in his life. We all go through the same thing--it doesn't take away from his accomplishments now. Posted by: Fred at February 5, 2004 03:40 PMI've followed this closely for some time, and I have to agree with FactCheck.org that there is no evidence that Bush was AWOL. Most "evidence" is simply pointing to a lack of records of attendence--not any kind of evidence at all. But those who equate Bush as some patriot duty-lovin' Texan really have put on some blinders regarding the light treatment Bush received while doing his duty. And those that swallow the line about other pilots of Bush's unit going to Vietnam seem to almost willingly overlook the fact that the plane Bush was learning to fly was not. There was no chance of Bush seeing Vietnam flying the plane he was (which was probably the point). It's clear that Bush was a skater at that time in his life, doing the minimum to get by until he figured out what he was going to do in his life. We all go through the same thing--it doesn't take away from his accomplishments now. Posted by: Fred at February 5, 2004 03:41 PMMerriam Webster defines deserter in part: 2 a : to leave in the lurch b : to abandon (military service) without leave It is easy to see that in layman's terms the word "deserter" can have a broader meaning than the specific legal meaning. As Micheal Moore is not a lawyer it is reasonable to assume he meant deserter in the more general sense. Given this reasonable doubt, the apparent fact that Bush's commanding officer has no memory or him showing up for a year is reasonable evidence of "desertion" in the layman's sense of the word. What really happened- the record shows that bush was transfered to a discipline AFR unit for failure to show up to ANG duty, and he completed his service by doing a lot of make-up hours in the summer of '73. As he completed the time, his CO would have the discretion of giving him an honorable D. Posted by: Stuart at February 11, 2004 04:12 PMHere is link to a document signed by bush detailing how he will be assigned to ORS for "unsatisfactory participation" (I.e. if he is AWOL) http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif Here is a link to the document showing that bush was actually assigned to the disciplinary ORS unit from oct-73 to nov-74. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif Case closed. P.S. The only reason he was HD was because of his connections. Posted by: stuart at February 11, 2004 04:28 PM its really good, really nice.. Posted by: marc at June 7, 2004 03:56 AMAs far as the right versus wrong (or even the gray areas), we should let www.factcheck.org be the final authority. They seem to do fantastic, in depth, research on all of the presidential candidates claims and counterclaims. Posted by: Greg Quinn at August 19, 2004 11:52 AMPost 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!
|
|||||||||||
