Thank God it's over.

It ain't over.

Let's look at what's developed thus far. The American public is now very aware that Bush used family connections to avoid VietNam and to jump past a waiting list of thousands to get into the Guard. The American public also now knows that Bush was, at best, lackadaiscal about honoring his commitment to the Guard.

One could also say Bush lied about having released his records in 2000.

I suspect a good number of folks on active duty are wondering why Bush--after having barely accumulated enough flight hours to get his wings--all of a sudden refuses to take a flight physical, resulting in the suspension of his flight status.

All in all, what cannot be disputed is the fact Bush's NG service wasn't too impressive.

Questions still remain and are in dispute. Was Bush AWOL or a deserter? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, the picture is not a pretty one.

As I've noted all along, this is not really a story of Bush being AWOL or a deserter. In is part of a much larger pattern of Bush's life and character; where he receives unearned and unmerited opportunities and he eventually fails or squanders them.

It ain't over.

Let's look at what's developed thus far. The American public is now very aware that Bush used family connections to avoid VietNam and to jump past a waiting list of thousands to get into the Guard. The American public also now knows that Bush was, at best, lackadaiscal about honoring his commitment to the Guard.

One could also say Bush lied about having released his records in 2000.

I suspect a good number of folks on active duty are wondering why Bush--after having barely accumulated enough flight hours to get his wings--all of a sudden refuses to take a flight physical, resulting in the suspension of his flight status.

All in all, what cannot be disputed is the fact Bush's NG service wasn't too impressive.

Questions still remain and are in dispute. Was Bush AWOL or a deserter? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, the picture is not a pretty one.

As I've noted all along, this is not really a story of Bush being AWOL or a deserter. In is part of a much larger pattern of Bush's life and character; where he receives unearned and unmerited opportunities and he eventually fails or squanders them.

It ain't over.

Let's look at what's developed thus far. The American public is now very aware that Bush used family connections to avoid VietNam and to jump past a waiting list of thousands to get into the Guard. The American public also now knows that Bush was, at best, lackadaiscal about honoring his commitment to the Guard.

One could also say Bush lied about having released his records in 2000.

I suspect a good number of folks on active duty are wondering why Bush--after having barely accumulated enough flight hours to get his wings--all of a sudden refuses to take a flight physical, resulting in the suspension of his flight status.

All in all, what cannot be disputed is the fact Bush's NG service wasn't too impressive.

Questions still remain and are in dispute. Was Bush AWOL or a deserter? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, the picture is not a pretty one.

As I've noted all along, this is not really a story of Bush being AWOL or a deserter. In is part of a much larger pattern of Bush's life and character; where he receives unearned and unmerited opportunities and he eventually fails or squanders them.

JadeGold: Please provide proof that Bush "REFUSED" to take a flight physical. Emphasis on REFUSED. As in, proof he affirmatively refused an order to take a physical.

If all you have is he didn't get a physical, that's not proof that he REFUSED to get one, it merely suggests he was not on base the day they gave physicals. As one former Guard member advised me in an email and comment on my blog, physicals are scheduled monthly in a Guard member's birth month (or enlistment month - I forget which) but many Guard members miss them because they are, of course, part-time soldiers with full-time jobs and their job has them out of town that day or otherwise unable to attend. They can get their physical later.

And Bush did - a former Guard doctor has recently come forward to say he gave Bush his physical.

JadeG, you are welcome to debate here but you have to PROVE your assertions here, or I'll ban you from the comments. And if you continue to tell lies I'll ban you.

This statement in your comment above is a lie:

The American public is now very aware that Bush used family connections to avoid VietNam and to jump past a waiting list of thousands to get into the Guard.

That is a lie.

And it has been debunked thoroughly.

Here's the key information:

The Dallas Morning News looked into Bush's military record and reported that while Bush's unit in Texas indeed had a waiting list for many spots, few applicants were willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets. Bush indicated a willingness to train full-time to fly the F-102, making him one of the few applicants able to fill one of the unit's open slots for pilots.

Links to source materials are on my blog:
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003272.html

It ain't over.

Kevin at CalPundit is putting together a theory that has Bush master minding the Viet Nam war, piloting an F102 to Russia, and helping the cops planting evidence on OJ. It's interesting that once a conspiracy get enough traction it develops a life of its own. No amount of “Snopes” can cure it. Any innuendo will feed it and any evidence against it is evidence that it exists. It has gone beyond rationale discussion. His comment section is full of “keep up the good work”, “this will bring Bush down”, etc.

As you’ve shown most people with experience in NG record keeping recognize what happened. People who understand the dynamics of the ANG in 1972 recognize that they were down staffing and Bush was scheduled for release – why waste resources on him. No amount of logic will turn their hope to find a smoking gun. No amount of reason will convince them.

It’s time to add Kevin the Atrios and Kos folder – (Liberals to read for amusement) rather than the Micheal Totten, Oxblog folder – (Liberals to read for substance).

I’m an atheist but this makes me pray to God that I will never go this far off the deep end. It not healthly.

The Kerry "intern" story has finally made the Washington Post now that she's denied it.

Doctor recalls Bush physical

"All in all, what cannot be disputed is the fact Bush's NG service wasn't too impressive."

I'm not sure what exactly that proves, JG. Does this mean that our Presidents should come exclusively from the ranks of people who finished at the top of their class, were awarded the Medal of Honor, and found a cure for cancer in their free time?

Looks like some goalpost moving - the Bush/AWOL thing isn't working, so just complain that he may have been less than outstanding as a member of the ANG. Maybe just merely excellent or, more horrifying, average.

Bush's ANG service was acceptable. He probably got help getting in, but volunteered to fly a difficult jet and did very well at it. He did his duty and when he had fulfilled his commitment, he was honorably discharged. There are politicians who did more and there are politicians who did less.

What is important in the upcoming election is how he leads. His superiors in the ANG said he was a good leader. President Bush has proven in office that he is a very good leader. He surrounds himself with excellent people and allows them to do their job. He has risen to the tremendous challenge that the islamo-fascists pose and is doing what is required for lasting peace. President Bush deserves our thanks and votes this fall.

Matt S - I don't think Gore would have done as well. He might have, but I didn't see any ability in him to rise up and do what's politically difficult or unpopular in 2000, and I still don't. And given Kerry or Bush - I know already how I'm going to vote.

Rick V - these folks are actually in denial. They don't want to know how the military works, they don't want to know how the Reserve handles excusals of drill weekends, they already KNOW how it all works. That they know it all wrong is irrelevant.

Dave T - in CalPundit's case, those suckers are at about 90% of the speed of light and accelerating. They hit anything, and a whole lot of guys are gonna get busted egos...

J.

I'm not sure what exactly that proves, JG. Does this mean that our Presidents should come exclusively from the ranks of people who finished at the top of their class, were awarded the Medal of Honor, and found a cure for cancer in their free time?

Of course not.

All that's required is to serve to the best of one's ability--whether that service is peeling spuds, mopping decks, or whatever. It means putting in the time required.

It means not walking away from your commitment.

JG,
He didn't "walk away" from his commitment. He finished his required drill time ahead of schedule asked for and recieved an early out.
Given the fact that active duty pilot billets were being cut back in droves at the time, that made it easier for the guard to let numbers of their own ranks go early. Walked away? Hardly. He served ALL of his required time.

Corey:

Not exactly. We have documentation showing that Bush was ordered to take a flight physical. Bush ignored the order and, as a result, lost his flight status.

I know an awful lot of Navy aviators; you have to literally pry them away from flying billets. And they'll crawl through broken glass to maintain their flight status. Yet, Bush refuses to take a flight physical--knowing the response will likely mean he's grounded?

Further, there's no evidence Bush showed up for reserve duty in AL. Even Bush can't tell us what he did in AL.

The troubling aspect of this whole issue has been that Bush's story has constantly changed. Tell me, if someone tells you several different versions about something during a certain period of time--doesn't that suggest to you something's not on the up and up?

"We have documentation showing that Bush was ordered to take a flight physical. Bush ignored the order and, as a result, lost his flight status."

He "ignored the order?" Show it then. Prove to me and everyone else here that he willfully ignored a lawful and direct order. Now apparently you're trying to start an insubordination rumor, since the AWOL accusation is going flaccid.

"Further, there's no evidence Bush showed up for reserve duty in AL. Even Bush can't tell us what he did in AL."

Did the pay stubs not answer that question for you? After the DD-214 (or the Guard equivalent) was produced, all of the sudden pay stubs were needed. Those were produced, and now apparently those don't count for anything. How about all those folks coming out of the woodwork saying he was there? By the way, I don't believe Bush ever was unable to tell us what he was doing in AL. And, to be fair, can you remember back 32 years to the day (or week) and recall what you were doing?

"The troubling aspect of this whole issue has been that Bush's story has constantly changed"

No, actually your expectations of what Bush should produce to disprove the negative of this "AWOL" rumor has been changing about as often as the goalposts have been moved by the Dem/Lib accusors.

By the way, I thought I'd seen elsewhere on this site where you were threatened with banishment if you were caught fibbing again.

Just a little more on missing the flight physical:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_probe/

Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.

Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.

"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.

"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty." What is AWOL?

He "ignored the order?" Show it then.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

Did the pay stubs not answer that question for you? After the DD-214 (or the Guard equivalent) was produced, all of the sudden pay stubs were needed.

The National Guard is rife with stories about guardsmen getting paid and not showing up for drill.

No, actually your expectations of what Bush should produce to disprove the negative of this "AWOL" rumor has been changing about as often as the goalposts have been moved by the Dem/Lib accusors.

Bush's autobiography (A Charge To Keep) in 1999 claimed Bush was flying "with my unit" up until the time he went off to grad school. This cannot be true since Bush's flight status was suspended.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush claimed he was transferred to a unit that didn't have the "right airplanes." Again, the truth of the matter is Bush was ineligible to fly *any* military aircraft.

In the 2000 campaign, Bush's campaign spokesman, Dan Bartlett said Bush "did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston." [Boston Globe 5/23/00]. This is not truthful. Flight physicals can only be administered by certified AF flight surgeons, not personal physicians. Such flight surgeons are available at AF bases.

In June 2000, Bush campaign officials told the London Times Bush did not technically need to take his flight physical. "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam," according to campaign spokesman Don Bartlett. Again, not true. It is not up an Air National Guard pilot to decide whether or not he “intends” to fly.

In the same article, Bush campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett told the newspaper that Bush was aware back then that he would be suspended for missing his medical exam, but had no choice because he had applied for a transfer from Houston to Alabama and his paperwork hadn't caught up with him. "It was just a question of following the bureaucratic procedure of the time," Bartlett said. "He knew the suspension would have to take place." Not true. The Guard actually gave Bush a three month period in which to complete his flight physical.

Wow, a Boston Globe article with an anti-Bush slant and a General Officer being taken out of context...that's your documentation? Where have we heard that before? Oh yeah, Brig Gen Turnipseed!

"The National Guard is rife with stories about guardsmen getting paid and not showing up for drill."

It is huh? Even if you were able to dredge up a case or two, why should that automatically be attributed to Bush?

"Again, the truth of the matter is Bush was ineligible to fly *any* military aircraft."

Of course; he wasn't qulified to fly the aircraft that were at the AL unit, so why on Earth would he take a flight physical?

"Again, not true. It is not up an Air National Guard pilot to decide whether or not he “intends” to fly."

Unless of course, he's not qualified for that particular airframe. Then, it's a moot point.

So, could you address my question? You said he "ignored the order" and I asked if you were accusing him of insubordination. Because, if that wasn't your intent, you should be more careful of tossing charges like that around so loosely.

Corey: In the military, when you are directed to do something (or specifically not to do it) and you 'fail to comply'--you have ignored the order.

If you read the document I cited, it specifically says the reason Bush was suspended from flight status was "failure to accomplish" his flight physical.

Thus, he ignored the order. You may choose another term like 'blew it off,' 'took a hike,' 'derelict in his duty,' 'willfully disobedient' or the like if you object to the word 'ignore.' The result is the same.

Again, I'll quote two GENs on the subject:

Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.

Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.

"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.

You said he "ignored the order" and I asked if you were accusing him of insubordination. Because, if that wasn't your intent, you should be more careful of tossing charges like that around so loosely.

Corey, I'm not an aviator nor have I been CO of an air wing or squadron. But let's see what the CO of a reserve unit says:

http://www.usndemvet.com/blog/archives/001376.html

The wing-nuts/freepers have their own spin on this too, it never happened. Let's for a minute concede that. A far more serious (for an officer) and more overlooked offense is the failure by 1st Lt Bush to obey a direct order to get a flight physical and which would return him to flying status. As an ex-military pilot (and CO of a reserve unit) I can assure you that the powers-that-be do not take disobedience of direct order with too much good grace, nor are they too happy about "rated aviators" who not only let their flight status lapse, but refuse to obey an order to become current again. Fact. No wiggle room. None. You obey or you don't, if you don't you pay. If one of my enlisted troops had been so flagrant about violating a direct order, I would have at least had him/her at an Article 15 hearing (Captains Mast), if it had been an officer, I would have had their nuts. Period.

It's pretty much the same in any other military unit. Part of a CO's responsibility is to ensure the readiness and capability of that unit. Allowing that unit's capability to be degraded because personnel or equipment readiness had lapsed would surely ensure someone would be doing a 'rug dance' in some superior's office.

It seems the drug testing started in 1972 and 1973 for pilots in the military. Is this the reason that Bush missed his medical exam. I can think of no other reason. Alcohol along would not have been a problem because alcohol isn't in the system 24 hours later where as hard drugs can last upto 30 days. That is the reason a parole officer can tell if a parolee has done drugs upto 29 days after the parolee does drugs. It takes only one pee test to check it.

JG,
Your reputation as being slippery is indeed well earned. I asked you a direct question about whether or not you were accusing him of insubordination. You danced around that as skillfully as Michael Flatley.

JG, in the military, if one willfully disobeys an order (or blows it off....your words, not mine) that individual is guilty of insubordination. Again, are you accusing him of insubordination? It sounds to me like you are. If so, this will signal a MAJOR movement of the goalposts, now that the AWOL rumor is dying it's proper death.

I really hope you noted my sarcasm in the opening of the second paragraph. I know full well what it's like in the military having been in it now for 12+ years, counting Active and Reserve time.

JG, in the military, if one willfully disobeys an order (or blows it off....your words, not mine) that individual is guilty of insubordination. Again, are you accusing him of insubordination? It sounds to me like you are

Corey: That question has been answered in my previous two posts. According to the two flag officers (in the Boston Globe article), Bush's failure to take the flight physical should have resulted in an investigation culminating in disciplinary action.

But since you have military experience, you should know that. Right?

Note my sarcasm, Corey. Since we both have active duty and reserve experience, we both know sometimes things don't exactly go "by the book"--even in the military. Technically, one shouldn't go to the head of a waiting list of thousands because of who your father is. Technically, one shouldn't receive a direct commission if one brings no particular or needed qualifications or skills. Technically, one doesn't get flight training with laughably low scores.

Oh Lord, Jade G has reappeared.

Boring. Time to move on.

TomCom

The Kerry story should remind everyone of who the true masters of slimy politics are. I suspect it will only get much, much worse.

As far as I'm concerned, the Bush NG stuff was always mostly irrelevant. The man is what he is. After four years, he is no mystery. Personally, I accept his version of his National Guard service for what it is: He didn't want to serve in the infantry in Viet Nam; he applied to the National Guard and was accepted the same day; when he was sworn in, his to-be commanding officer had the ceremony photographed; he was commissioned directly; he served with the sons of John Connally and Lloyd Bentson in a unit chock full of the offspring of Texas politicians, rich Texans and Dallas Cowboys; he got high ratings as a pilot; as the war wound down in '72, he wanted to work on the Blount Senatorial campaign in Alabama; he requested a transfer, which was initially denied, but later approved in September '72; he failed to accomplish his physical and was suspended from flying as a consequence in May '72; he appeared intermittently in late '72 and early '73 and therefore had to do the equivalent of cramming in May through July of '73 in order to meet his obligations; he did so. He was released early, at a time when many were getting early releases under similar circumstances. He was honorably discharged.

During his service, no Viet Cong or North Vietnamese were observed in the Gulf of Mexico or were able to infiltrate across the Mexican border into Texas.

It's not a typical Viet Nam story for people of our generation, but it's not far off. Those were very bizarre times. Maybe even in Texas.

What is relevant, once again, is the crony capitalism, the growing inequality in America, the vanishing of the American dream for poor kids like I once was, the intellectual corruption of our political discourse, the anachronistic, High Noon foreign policy, the faith-based, anti-rational approach to almost every policy issue. Those things matter to me.

I regret this Bush NG stuff ever came up. What's the point? To prove that he is a child of privilege? Surely, we can take judicial notice of that fact. Or do we need a link to "prove" it?

Now comes the sewage from Karl Rove's slime machine. As Andy Griffith said in "A Face in the Crowd": "There's something on everybody." All those millions of dollars that Mr. Rove has got are being used to find, or failing that, to invent persuasively, something on Mr. Bush's opponent, whomever that may be.

The center cannot hold, and the worst are full of a terrible intensity.

Malloy,
It came up because the leader and chairman of the DNC stated outright that Bush was AWOL (a crime). And, right on cue, the press took that lie and ran with it.

Anyone asked McAuliffe to apologize, yet?

He was AWOL; there's little question of that fact.

Grant Lattin (USMC-Ret and a former JAG officer) noted that sometimes honorable discharges are given for less than satisfactory service. Even John Muhammad (the DC-area sniper) has an honorable discharge despite punching out an NCO and going AWOL more than once.

But I agree with Malloy; this entire issue isn't about taking away Bush's honorable discharge or making him enlist or anything.

It's part of a larger pattern. Bush always received unearned and unmerited opportunities. He then proceeded to screw up or otherwise fail at these chances. Then he walks away while his daddy's friends clean up or shower him with money.

Oh Lord, Jade G keeps the nonsense up.

Now it's Bush must've been AWOL 'cause he, Jade G. says so. Despite no evidence from him & all evidence to the contrary.

So there.

TomCom

I found today's Wall St. Jour review debunking the History Channel's LBJ-killed-JFK invention, "The Guilty Men", quite in point with the Bush 43 was AWOL invention.

The essence of the review/debunking:

"And indeed, after 'The Guilty Men' first aired, the network seemed to defend the program with a statement saying it was 'presenting a point of view that has been meticulously researched.'

"It's a comment to bear in mind as one takes in the documentary's intricate
network of plots and dark connections. The narrative consists mainly of
pronouncements from alleged witnesses and sources offering clarifications on the order of 'I know beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson murdered Kennedy,' all of it seasoned with input from a collection of intense-looking characters
introduced as 'assassination experts.'

"Not to mention Madeleine Brown,
self-described as a mistress to Lyndon Johnson--the man, she says, who arranged
Kennedy's murder, and who, she declares, was just a wonderful person. She still
has the hotel room key he pressed on her--also a son who is, she confides, Lyndon's. In tones heavy with significance, she reports that the night before the assassination, Johnson had sought her out at a large party, to whisper that those Kennedys would never laugh at him again.

"Ms. Brown was but one of many similar exemplars of the film's meticulous
research."

Sounds strangely similar to the same "meticulous research" presented over & over again in these threads to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that the strawberries were missing, er, that Bush 43 was AWOL.

Heh!

TomCom

Now it's Bush must've been AWOL 'cause he, Jade G. says so. Despite no evidence from him & all evidence to the contrary.

To the contrary. Not because I say so.

Because his evaluating officers say they never observed him.

Because Bush clearly lied several times concerning his activities during the perod in question. Moreover, Bush's story has changed numerous times.

Because Bush can't produce a credible witness who will place him where he said he was.

Because Bush can't seem to remember whta he was doing during the time in question.

Because others in that unit have questioned whether he was present. Even Bush supporters have noted AL National Guard questioning his lack of attendance.

No, Tom Com, it's not because I say a thing. It's because the preponderance of evidence says so.

Bush has been AWOL in diplomacy.

Bush was AWOL in understanding that chaos in the Middle East is an American security issue.

Bush is AWOL in thinking that half trillion dollar deficits don't matter.

Bush is AWOL in thinking that government's primary function is to line the pockets of the well-connected.

Bush is beyond AWOL in approaching policy issues that should be science-based on a theological, faith-based, irrational basis.

One can go on. I don't expect to convert you flat-earth creationists anyway. But the news this year is that for the first time in a very long time, the Democrats are actually going to fight back, even if we can't quite bring ourselves to fight fire with fire. The Republicans will have to go even lower than they have in past campaigns, although it is hard to see how that it is possible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4291-2000Nov2¬Found=true

--------quote---------
Two high-profile surrogates for Vice President Gore, in an 11th-hour attempt to exploit a dormant issue, yesterday castigated George W. Bush over allegations that he did not fulfill some of his National Guard duties in the 1970s.
[snip]

Bush had been notified that he needed to take his annual flying physical by his 26th birthday in July 1972, but the move to Alabama made that unnecessary. He had been trained to fly F-102 fighter-interceptors, and none of the units in Alabama had those planes. He could have taken the physical to preserve his pilot's status but chose not to do so. "Because he wasn't flying," Bartlett said.

On Aug. 1, 1972, Bush's commander in Houston, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, ordered him grounded for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Some critics say this should have triggered a formal board of inquiry, but Hodges said in an interview that this was unnecessary because Bush accepted the penalty and knew "he couldn't fly again until he takes a physical."

"It happens all the time," Hodges said of the grounding. "That is normal when a Guardsman is out of state or out of the country."
--------endquote-------

I'm not sure I'd use Hodges to back up your argument, Mr. Sullivan.

Major General Bobby W Hodges: ".If [Bush] had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out, but I don't recall him coming back at all." (July 28 Boston Globe).

Again, Bush had three months in which to take his ordered flight physical. It's not up to Bush to decide whether or not he intended to fly again.

Malloy, My Boy

Brush up on your Yeats.

You lace your sophomoric comment alleging Bush-is-a-frat-boy-beneficiary-of favoritism with a misreference to the poet. You've missed the poet's central point! Yeats wasn't just saying something like "only Lord Curzon was a horrible person, & so vote for Lloyd George". He was saying that the whole bunch of 'em left lots to be desired.

So have fun with your irrelevant shot at Bush, but don't take Yeats' name in vain by misunderstanding what he, Yeats actually would say today: Gore, Kerry, & Dean fit your description to a "T". (What? Did I, Malloy, vote for Gore a frat boy beneficiary of favoritism? Would I vote for Kerry & Dean, frat boy beneficiaries of favoritism? Who I vote for is my business!)

I say your shot at Bush is irrelevant since the topic of this thread is that "there never was any proof that Bush was AWOL & now there's mucho proof that he wasn't", but for some the topic is apparently "Hey AWOL, SCHAWOL, whatever: it all shows that Bush 43 is a slacker & a liar & thus untrustworthy." (See, e.g., Henninger's column on p. A14 of today's Wall St. Jour.)

And now you have a Howard-Dean Primal Scream, with a Howard-Dean laundry list (Bush was AWOL on A, Bush was AWOL on B, Bush was AWOL on C, Yeaggh.) What ever would Yeats think?

TomCom

There's really little doubt Bush was AWOL.

It's almost funny, though, watching Bush supporters try to portray Kerry (Silver and Bronze Stars, 3 PHs) as the child of privilege and a slacker.

I suspect Bush supporters must have to fortify themselves with a belt or three to write of Bush's heroic NG service while denigrating Kerry's fun 'n' sun vacation on the Mekong.

http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ArticleID=3&ID=5508

Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him late in that year and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain.

It's an issue of character folks. Forget what did or didn't happen in 1972-73. Lets look at 2003-04. We went to war to stop the evil tyrant in Iraq who was threatening the safety of America and his neighbors. To stop him from developing his horrible WMD. According to Bush and his underlings we knew he had WMD we knew where they were. There was no doubt. Well now it appears that "we" were wrong. And what does GWB have to say. Well it was Clinton's fault because after all he thought the same thing. It was our terrible intel communities fault. It was everyones fault except for the guy who sits behind the "buck stops here" desk in DC. Typical of the character of our commander in chief. Don't take responsiblity for your decisions because hell daddy will somehow find a way to get you out of the jam. It's the same problem whether you are talking about blowing off your flight physical in 1972 because you have other priorities (wow sounds like his VP Dick) or trying to push the blame for your decisions off on other presidents or the CIA. It's an issue of character. Nothing more nothing less!

Though leaves are many, the root is one;
Through all the lying days of my youth
I swayed my leaves and flowers in the sun;
Now I may wither into the truth.

I'm trying, anyway.

Maybe you should, too, Tom Com.

Exactly, Mr. McDaniel.

I think conservatives want to try to frame this issue as one where liberals want to arrest Bush for being AWOL.

That certainly isn't the case.

What it all amounts to is character and credibility. Throughout his life, despite being handed tremendous opportunities, Bush has repeatedly failed or fouled up. These failures are then portrayed as successes.

There's really little doubt Bush was AWOL.

That's not even a clever troll. You can do better.

Good article from the Montgomery Independent (18 Feb 2004):

http://www.al.com/news/independent/index.ssf?/base/columnists/1077146101315230.xml

Basically, it talks to a number of reservists in the infamous AL unit who say they never saw Bush.

It also notes quite a few Blount campaign workers who remember Bush working on that particular campaign.

The inevitable question: how is it that all these campaign workers remember Bush, despite only seeing him for a few months over 30 years ago--while nobody in his NG unit recalls ever meeting him?

That's a good question. And it's one you have to answer, since you maintain that it means something.

Sorry, Malloy, me boy, you're still AWOL on Yeats as justifying Bush Hating & Kerry/Gore/Dean loving.

BTW, do you not understand the meaning of the words of Yeats you've quoted? (I'm traveling & don't have a copy of Yeats with me.) Seems to me that they mean that the youthful frat-boy beneficiaries-of-favoritism roots of Bush/Kerry/Dean/Gore can be safely overlooked as long as those yoots (unlike Yeats) got some smarts in their later years.

So, I guess that we can say that I've "wither[ed] into the truth" that Bush 43 is not AWOL on leadership Post 9/11. "All changed, changed utterly", Yeats would have it, from frat boy. (Nor - to return to our Host's point on this thread, i.e., the "truth" as to Bush 43 & NG AWOL - nor is there any proof that Bush 43 was AWOL from the NG; in fact, as our Host makes clear, there is now proof that he was not AWOL then.)

TomCom

Sorry, Malloy, me boy, you're still AWOL on Yeats as justifying Bush Hating & Kerry/Gore/Dean loving.

BTW, do you not understand the meaning of the words of Yeats you've quoted? (I'm traveling & don't have a copy of Yeats with me.) Seems to me that they mean that the youthful frat-boy beneficiaries-of-favoritism roots of Bush/Kerry/Dean/Gore can be safely overlooked as long as those yoots (unlike Yeats) got some smarts in their later years.

So, I guess that we can say that I've "wither[ed] into the truth" that Bush 43 is not AWOL on leadership Post 9/11. "All changed, changed utterly", Yeats would have it, from frat boy. (Nor - to return to our Host's point on this thread, i.e., the "truth" as to Bush 43 & NG AWOL - nor is there any proof that Bush 43 was AWOL from the NG; in fact, as our Host makes clear, there is now proof that he was not AWOL then.)

TomCom

I feel quite sure this is pointless, but where, exactly, did I use Yeats to "justify Bush-hating and Kerry/Gore/Dean-loving", Tom Com? I not only didn't, I never intended or attempted to do so. You're finding things that aren't there because you presume they must be.

One of the many problems that conservative posters on this site exhibit is an unwillingness to read carefully.

BTW, while I agree with the overall sentiment that events of 30-odd years ago don't matter much, I'm curious regarding the "favoritism" shown Kerry by his posting to the SWIFT patrols as equivalent to that shown to President Bush with his NG posting and subsequent treatment. Not many young men at the time viewed it that way, I guarantee you. I thought it was conservatives who are usually sensitive to unjustified moral equivalence. You want to bring up the Kerry and VVATW, fair game. Favoritism equivalent to that contemporaneously extended (for now, we'll ignore the subsequent lives of the two men) to President Bush is a bit far-fetched.

Maybe you, like your buddy, Mr. Drudge, should content yourself with the search for hot sheets. Or like your ideological compatriot, Ms. Coulter, accuse half the country of disloyalty and treason. Her most recent column about Max Cleland was simply unforgivable, basically accusing him of claiming heroism for being clumsy or worse because he lost three limbs in picking up a live grenade another grunt had dropped, mistakenly thinking it wasn't. Four days before the incident, he was in the operation that got him the Silver Star, after volunteering to participate in the successful effort to break through to Khe Sanh and lift the siege. His gallantry under fire was notable. That, of course, is no part of what Ms. Coulter has to say.

It's fair to ask the Democrats to disavow the likes of Michael Moore when he utters ridiculous stuff. Will President Busch disavow people like Mr. Drudge and Ms. Coulter?

Sorry, President Bush, not Busch. Typo, no disrespect intended.

Sorry, President Bush, not Busch. Typo, no disrespect intended.

Regarding Ann Coulter, this is the text of Cleland's citation:

"Awarded: Silver Star; Date Action: 4 April 1968; Theater: Republic of Vietnam

"Action: For gallantry in action while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an armed hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. Captain Cleland distinguished himself by exceptionally valorous action on 4 April 1968, while serving as communications officer of the 2nd Battalion, 12th Calvary during an enemy attack near Khe Sanh, Republic of Vietnam.

"When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment which had been damaged by enemy fire. His gallant action is in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.

"Authority: By direction of the President, under the provisions of the Act of Congress, approved 9 July 1968."

Four days after the incident the citation describes, he lost both legs and an arm in the grenade incident.

I wouldn't be surprised if his subsequent injuries had something to do with his decoration. I suppose that is just one more example of the favoritism that was extended to the Democrats who fought in Viet Nam.

Ann Coulter is filth, personified.

And the junior Senator from Georgia, Chambliss, isn't much better, to question such a man's patriotism over a partisan disagreement over whether the homeland security workers should be unionized or not. Disagreeing on that issue is totally fair game; linking your opponent to the nation's deadly enemies based on that disagreement is not.

I don't even expect fair play anymore from the right, but is common decency to much to ask for?

"too" much to ask for, I mean. Damn, I can't type.

Malloy, me boy, "I'm old and gray and nodding by the fire" as I read your rants. You're right, it's not about Yeats, it's about pretentiousness & missing the point of your Yeats' quotes.

(Anybody who's tired of Yeats, pls accept my apology & feel free to stop reading.)

And 'twas you, me bucko, who brought forth the Yeats' lines, (a)when whining that the world was crumbling with Bush in control &(b) when showing how you'd matured, the ones contrasting Yeats' old age with his youth, which latter lines, at least to those of us who are not comparison impaired, naturally segue into a comparison to Bush/Dean/Kerry now vs. & their privileged frat boy upbringing, which fairly obvious comparison escapes you.

Now you're after Ann Coulter, Drudge, & Chambliss. What've they to do with Bush never being AWOL? (What've they got to do with your misunderstanding Yeats?)

And, like some mad romantic, you live in dreamland where "unfair" Republicans attack "fair play" Democrats while "fair play" Democrats never attack "unfair" Republicans. You are AWOL from reality. Here's an Irish (OK, Irish American)quote: "Politics ain't beanbag." On either side.

But, oh, once more, you've strayed from the thread of this Blog: Bush was never AWOL. But this was the real point of the bogus AWOL charge; an excuse for your Howard Dean Primal Scream, laundry list of "Bush was AWOL on.............yeaggh!

And Coulter, Drudge, & Chambliss are AWOL on ......yeaggh.

TomCom

How telling. I urge anyone who cares, but most won't, to reread carefully the texts of our exchanges. I'll live with my words quite comfortably, my fellow American. Let the reader decide who's irrational.

And for that matter, who's misunderstanding Yeats, my favorite poet.

I wish that, like Woody Allen in "Fanny Hall" with respect to Marshall McLuhan, we could be in line for "The Sorrow and the Pity" somewhere and have Mr. Yeats suddenly appear before us. Alas, life refuses to imitate art to that extent.

"Annie Hall". Memory fails as you age, but values remain.

"Annie Hall". Memory fails as you age, but values remain.

Posted by: Malloy at February 25, 2004 02:36 AM
--------------------

Much more than "Memory" that fails
Malloy & JadeGold!

I thank God I don't have those "values"!!

Why would Democrats care if Bush was AWOL or was a man of good character? They didn't seem to care that Clinton was a draft dodger -- not to mention countless character flaws.