 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« The Tax-And-Spenders Attack TABOR | Main | Football Economics » February 2, 2004Democrats Go CrazyHave the Democrats gone insane? Consider this from Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAulliffe: "I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL. George Bush never served in our military in our country. He didn't show up when he should have showed up."Apparently Mr. McAulliffe doesn't think members of the National Guard are in the "military." Try telling that to the thousands of Guard who are serving in Iraq right now. According to the New York Times, McAulliffe is planning to make the Bush AWOL lie a centerpiece of the Democratic Party's campaign for the presidency - especially if the party nominates John Kerry. Meanwhile, it isn't liberal commentatrix Cokie Roberts is also pushing the slander that Bush was "AWOL" from his duties in the Texas Air National Guard. Roberts cites approvingly a Boston Globe story about the charge, but fails to mention that the NYT debunked the Globe story a year later. For all the facts on the Bush AWOL issue, be sure to check out my Was Bush AWOL? category. Prepare yourself with the facts which, in summary, are these: George W. Bush volunteered for service in a military unit a part of which was at that very time involved in combat in Vietnam. He learned how to fly a combat aircraft, was a highly regarded pilot, served more days of service than his Texas Air National Guard contract required, and was honorably discharged. UPDATE: Good comments here from Lee at Right-Thinking. Posted in Was Bush AWOL?
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
All the more reason to think McAulliffe is a Carl Rove plant. The guy is doing his fly the Democracratic Party down in flame. Posted by: BigFire at February 2, 2004 09:46 AMGeorge W. Bush volunteered for service in a military unit a part of which was at that very time involved in combat in Vietnam. Bush, by his own admission, volunteered for the National Guard because he didn't want to go to Vietnam: "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."In any event, I don't think GWB was AWOL, but I think you're playing loose and fast with the facts to try to portray him as some sort of super-soldier. I think Eric Alterman put it best: Dare we call the president of the United States a "deserter?" Well, technically, no, of course. If he eventually got the papers, he's retroactively innocent of that charge. But what would have happened if, say, during late 1972, some by-the-books Alabama MP had happened upon Bush in a bar and was unaware that this son of a congressman would eventually be able to work out a deal with the higher-ups. He would be in Alabama without permission while his unit was training in Texas. Might that have been enough to throw Bush into the brig?Posted by: Chris Wage at February 2, 2004 10:11 AM Sorry Chris, but if you think that Eric Alterman said it best that says more about you than the President. Listen, I understand how difficult it must be for those entirely ignorant of the Military, and not just the Military but the Military back during Viet Nam, but is it that hard to check out what the people who actively served - and AREN'T running for office - have to say on the issue? Check out The Rev. Donald Sensing's blog, or any of the Milblogs and they'll tell you three things: 1) Alterman's ignorance of military procedure and the UCMJ are eclipsed only by his general disdain for those who serve, or have served, in the military. Unless they also happen to be a Viet Nam war protestor named John Kerry or a Former NATO general named Weasley Clark (not a mistake). 2) No one is making Dubya out to be a super soldier. What he was, was a young man during an unpopular war who joined the TANG in an effort to serve honourably and avoid going to war. A far cry from say, fleeing the country to England where you lead anti-war protests against your country while writing letters to family friends seeking a series of questionable deferments from service. 3) You're either a deserter or you're not, there's no "technically" about it. That's like saying, "Dare we call Eric Alterman a crack smoking, dead cat buggering, tin foil hat wearing serial liar? Well, technically, no. I mean no one has ever actually seen him wearing the tin foil hat." The FACTS are that GWB served more than his required number of days of active duty service, he completed his contract with the Guard and was honourably discharged. The Guard allows for you missing training as long as you make up the duty. This isn't a rare occurrence, in fact it happens a lot. Bush wasn't AWOL and he was never a deserter. Those who make either claim are either willfully ignorant of the truth or purposely lying to further their own agenda. Posted by: Robert Modean at February 2, 2004 01:29 PMPlease clarify something here. Can training be missed fairly casually (like "I just don't feel like going", then made up on some sort of "going to extra meetings" basis, or does the individual need to give advance notice and make arrangements ahead of time? How long can one be absent and for what kind of reasons? SemiPundit, in the Guard you have a contractual obligation to meet X number of days of active duty and be fit for service while on active duty. You're probably familiar with the old adds proclaiming it was, "one weekend a month and two weeks a year", normally for three, four or six years. That works out to between 30 and 45 days of active duty each year (not including going to boot or school). Reasons for missing? Pretty varied but nothing on the order of "nah, I just don't wanna." Each commander is provided the latitude to make exceptions to obligatory drill or to offer an alternative drill date (referred to as 'split training'). Circumstances vary from illness, to family emergency, to an unforeseen obligation at a job, or volunteering time to a charity or service organization, even a campaign (gee, that sounds familiar) - pretty much anything that your CO approves is OK. In fact my cousin joined the Missouri Air National Guard to get the college benefits and she hardly went to any of her drill as scheduled, drill dates tended to conflict with her sororities rush functions, so she just made it all up later. Posted by: Robert Modean at February 2, 2004 04:31 PMThe Bush AWOL debate has not been conclusively settled. There are far too many conflicting accounts and shady documents involved. Linking to factcheck.org because they said Bush wasn't AWOL ignores all the other sources out there that either say he is or say that there is a large gray area. For a more balanced view of where the debate is right now, I suggest the Daily Howler: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh020204.shtml Posted by: Bolo at February 2, 2004 08:45 PMExcuse me... "..either say he was..." He's not AWOL right now :). Posted by: Bolo at February 2, 2004 08:46 PMBush's "AWOL" status is consistent with the Bush presidency: a compendium of doublespeak, dissemblances and outright mendacities. Just like his father, he was "out-of-the -loop." Maybe the miscreants at Enron and Halliburton and Harken energy can shed some benighted light on the matter. Posted by: Marcus Rogers at February 3, 2004 02:13 AMIt now comes out that the guy who "doesn't remember" Bush showing up wasn't showing up much himself. Posted by: HH at February 3, 2004 08:50 AMThe point HH is evading, of course, is that Bush has yet to come up with anyone who will attest to having seen him perform his required duties during the disputed period. Think about it; for a year and a half--nobody remembers you. There's no paperwork that shows you did anything or were involved in any sort of activity. Nobody remembers supervising George W. Nobody remembers George W. as their supervisor. Nobody remembers going to the O-Club with George W. Worse still, is the fact that Bush--himself--can't remember what he was doing. I suspect even self-proclaimed 'military experts' like Mr. Modean find the fact that Bush's 'military service' was less than stellar despite all the preferential treatment disturbing. Posted by: JadeGold at February 3, 2004 11:25 AMThe FACTS are that GWB served more than his required number of days of active duty service, he completed his contract with the Guard and was honourably discharged. Nope. Two of these three assertions are not facts. They are speculation. And frankly, the speculation is not supported by any existng evidence. Posted by: JadeGold at February 3, 2004 11:29 AMModean: "Reasons for missing? Pretty varied but nothing on the order of "nah, I just don't wanna." Each commander is provided the latitude to make exceptions to obligatory drill or to offer an alternative drill date (referred to as 'split training'). " Praytell, where is the request from George W. requesting permission to miss his duties? Where is his supervisor's permission? OTOH, we do have documentation which has two of Bush's supervisors saying he was "not observed" for a period of a year. NG or the reserves is a bit less rigid than active duty--but not to the extent you can just miss a year with no explanation or prior approval. Further, my experience WRT pilot and aviator units is that their standards are pretty much those of active duty units. So when Bush unilaterally decided to disobey a direct, lawful order directing him to undergo a flight physical--I'm surprised Bush didn't wind up with some bad paper in his personnel jacket. Posted by: JadeGold at February 3, 2004 11:39 AMJadeGold: OTOH, we do have documentation which has two of Bush's supervisors saying he was "not observed" for a period of a year. NG or the reserves is a bit less rigid than active duty--but not to the extent you can just miss a year with no explanation or prior approval. Further, my experience WRT pilot and aviator units is that their standards are pretty much those of active duty units. So when Bush unilaterally decided to disobey a direct, lawful order directing him to undergo a flight physical--I'm surprised Bush didn't wind up with some bad paper in his personnel jacket."
As for the request - well let's see...will this do? That links to a document that specifies GWB's intent to seek a non-paying appointment to the 9921st Air Reserve unit in Montgomery, Alabama while working on a senate campaign for Red Blount. Now an interesting thing here, that request was denied because he had an active duty obligation and that restricts his transfer to RR units only, so then he requested and got permission to train with the 187th Tac Recon Gp., as noted HERE and HERE. Now we also know that GWB received an Honorable Discharge, and an Honorable Discharge means you completed your service and performed honorably, meeting or exceeding the standards of performance and conduct. It cannot be awarded anyone who was AWOL prior to being discharged - that's a fact of military life. With regards to Dubya's exceeding his service requirements, well let's do a little math now, shall we? Having perused GWB's chronological listing of service I count he pulled 607 days of active duty. The first year of service, which would include boot camp and flight school, he pulled 226 days of duty. After that first year GWB required only another 190 days of active duty over 5 years to complete his service obligation. He put in 381 days and was Honorably Discharged after 5 years 4 months and 5 days to attend Harvard Business School - that is a fact, not an assertion, and it is supported by the available evidence that GWB served more than his required number of days of active duty service. As for the physical? Puhleeze. I had to sit for mine three times in one year because they kept losing the damn paperwork. People miss them all the time, and then later they either get excused from them or they make them up. Hardly the case for an Article 90. Actually JadeGold, I'm tired of providing proof for what has been proven already by countless others. Why don't you produce a few facts, like anything that supports the claim that GWB was guilty of an Article 90 or 92? Or anything supporting his being guilty of an Article 86? I won't hold my breath, you can't produce what isn't there. So I reiterate, anyone who continues to spout off that GWB was AWOL or a Deserter is either a partisan who is impervious to the truth and not worth my time, or willfully ignorant and not desiring to be educated as to the facts. Posted by: Robert Modean at February 3, 2004 02:20 PMDamn, none of my links carried thru. Try these then: Links to a document that specifies GWB's intent to seek a non-paying appointment to the 9921st Air Reserve unit in Montgomery, Alabama. (note this first request was turned down because of W's active status). Links to Documents that show GWB requesting permission to train with the 187th Tac Recon Gp. (a RR group), and one that shows he got approval. Link to GWB's DD-214, note status at tope of page (hint:HONORABLE) Link to document that references to GWB's Honorable Discharge: Link to document that provides chronological listing of GWB's service: Bush was AWOL, period. Look it up. Further, anyone who believes service in the Texas National Guard in the late 1960s was anything like serving in the Guard or Reserves today... needs a reality check. We had a draft then. Everybody knew you can avoid it by joining the Guard (with *very few* exceptions). Therefore, you are either too young to know or too lazy to find out. Why any real vet would defend Bush (Guard) or Cheney (5 deferments), boggles. pk..... six years U.S. Navy 68-74 PK I'm curious. Did you vote for WJC? Just wondering. If you did, what do you think of his military service record? Jane M: President Clinton's military record doesn't matter. He was plainly opposed to the war and received a deferment--as did tens of thousands of young men in his era. But there is something nefarious about supporting a war but thinking others should serve--as long as it's not you. Surely you're bright enough to understand the difference. Mr. Modean: I have some comments in the latest AWOL thread that pertain to yours. Basically, you're committing a logical fallacy by claiming since Bush was never charged with a violation of the UCMJ, he must not have been guilty of said violation. Technically-speaking, that's correct. But it is also correct, technically-speaking, that one doesn't jump to the head of a waiting list of thousands to get into the NG. Technically-speaking, one doesn't get a direct commission unless one is an MD or a JD. Technically-speaking, one doesn't get into flight school with abysmally low pilot aptitude scores. You also rely on a very dubious piece of paper (doesn't have Bush's name or dates on it) to compile his point total. Further, you misrepresent reserve duty somewhat by suggesting one has the option of deciding when and where it is convenient for one to serve. Posted by: JadeGold at February 3, 2004 07:00 PMYa' know what PK? You sound like one of the Nam vets I work with. You ask how any vet could defend a guardsman? I ask why wouldn't they? Heck, I did my six (Army 85-91) and the guardsmen I knew were all OK guys. Hell, it's not like they were deserters or chickenshit black bandana pussies like those Anti-War jerkoffs. Posted by: Robert Modean at February 3, 2004 11:12 PMJadeGold, I don't know where to begin but let's just say I'm not the one with an ideological axe to grind here but it seems to me you are. I voted for Gore, who also served honorably depsite what some folks say about his being a reporter during Viet Nam (and yes, I have on occasion been one of those guys). See, what's pissing me off is that you, and a slew of people like you who know jack about the military, are yammering away like about a whole lot of nothing. 1 - no logical fallacy commited, you made the allegation I said the burden of proof is on you to suport the accusation because you cannot get an honorable discharge if you've comitted an Article 90 or 92 infraction. BTW, again with "Technically-speaking, that's correct"? that actually means - I'm right but you don't want to admit it because it destroys your strawman argument. Again, substantiate the claim or withdraw it. Failure to do either means that there's no reason to discuss this further. 2 - I never discussed line jumping to get into the TANG, that's your strawman. Personally I think it's crappy but then you never ASKED me JadeGold, you just assumed. 3 - Re: direct commissions. Yes, they normally go to doctor/lawyer types, but about 11% go to regular folks. That's 1 in 10, not as uncommon as you might think. Now while GWB had an abysmally low pilot aptitude score (25%), he scored much better on the navigator portion (50%), and was outstanding on the officer quality portion - 95% when the average score for officers was an 88%. That's probably what tipped the scale, see the military can teach you damn near anything but how to be an officer and someone scoring that high is going to get a commission if they aren't a total screw up, and Dubya wasn't a total screw-up. 4 - the dubious peice of paper was obtained by a FOIA filing and is perfectly valid AFAIK, got something that proves otherwise let's see it or accept it and move on. 5 - I never misrepresented reserve duty by suggesting anyone has the option of deciding when or where to serve, that's another one of your strawmen. I said that because of his active status he was ineligable to serve in a unit that didn't hold ready reserve status. Anyone can ask to be transferred to another unit, it's the brass' desicion to make if you get the slot. Look, I said it before: instead of demanding more and more proof, why not substantiate your accusations with something more than a retired officer who can't remember if he was even on base 30 years ago? Learn to use GOOGLE. Start sourcing your accusations. Provide something beyond the standard crap spewed by the lefty wingnuts and we'll talk - maybe you'll even convince me I'm wrong. But keep setting up strawmen, misquoting, misconstruing, answering things by saying "technically speaking" and talking authoritatively about things you don't understand and we have nothing to talk about. Please do not feed the JadeGold troll. Posted by: HH at February 3, 2004 11:38 PMI'd like to reference PK's post. I'm a real vet..currently serving as an F-16 pilot in the AF. My dad is a real vet...2 tours flying in Vietnam in F-4s. My twin brother is a vet...currently flying right now over Afghanistan in an MC-130, six months after returning from Jordan and flying in OIF. My G'dad flew P-47s in WWII and F-86s in Korea. We all support Bush. The DNC (read: McAuliffe) has suddenly become an expert on what constitues military service (BTW, I highly object to him calling it "our" military, as if he has any loyalty or sense of ownership of the US military). During a verified draft dodger's campaign, service didn't matter. Now military service is all the rage in the Democratic Party. Get a grip. Although some in the Democratic Party served (Sens Inouye, Cleland, Kerry et al), for 35 years a large majority of the Democratic Party has derided, mocked, betrayed, and scorned the Military. Those people that spit on my Dad when he came back from Vietnam, those people that called them babykillers, those people that currently call Bush a Nazi and, by extension, me a Nazi Stormtrooper, don't vote for Republicans. They vote for Democrats. Why? Because they share the same disdain and contempt for the values the military holds dear: Patriotism, loyalty, love of country, sacrifice, integrity. John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. Then he came back and allied himself with an enemy sympathizer, the notorious Jane Fonda. WTFO? Nice way to stab all your "brothers" in the back. I'll wrap it up. PK, what did you do in the Navy? Did you deploy to Vietnam? Did you serve on a ship overseas? Were you ever in any real danger? If you're going to split hairs on what "military service" means, I'll ask you the tough questions. I'd wager GW was in more danger flying an F-102 (bitch of a plane to fly, like all the century series fighters) over Texas than you were sitting on a boat in SE Asia. I'm a real Vet, a current warfighter, and I support George W. Bush. Ivan Posted by: Ivan at February 5, 2004 07:37 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!
|
|||||||||||
