Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Witness to Bush Serving
Author Message
MaumeeRocket Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,058
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #1
 
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/index.html' target='_blank'>Guardsman</a>
I guess we won't be hearing too much of this in the media anymore. What else do you libs have?
02-13-2004 05:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #2
 
Proves nothing. One man's account of events 30 years ago proves nothing considering that the medical exam records aren't available, and seeing how Bush was not paid for Guard duty for two years, between 1971 and '73.

One another note, I meant to respond to Marine (USMC) who said the Guard of today is better than the Guard of the 70s. While this may be true, we all know that the Guard was a rag-tag outfit back then, which often garnered harsh criticisms from active duty Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen who went to Vietnam to get shot at. The only reason Bush got in the Guard was familial connections.

I've said this a thousand times and only Kev has responded to it. Why do you neo-cons defend Bush when you criticize Dems for the same behavior? If Bush just happened to be a Democrat, a Green, or an Independent, you all would be decrying his service (or lack thereof) in the Guard. You all know this. Since you all don't respond to this allegation (which I have made several times), I conclude that you all worship GW Bush. Why you all idolize this man I don't know. He's so far detached from average everyday Americans like ourselves that it is just plain silly. He is a rich, frat-boy, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, had bad grades, refused to fight in Vietnam to defend us from the Viet Cong, was a coke abuser, an alchoholic, failed businessman, and an ineffectual governor who won the office on his Daddy's coattails. What is even more astounding is the fact that Bush has guttted traditional GOP ideological planks and replaced these with his own sense of drunken and drug addicted poppycock.

I'm not saying Kerrry is any better, so don't misunderstand this as a ploy to back the Dems' frontrunner. Kerry is probably much like Bush in many aspects (he's detached too).
02-13-2004 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ccs178 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,912
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: 39402

CrappiesCrappiesDonators
Post: #3
 
My father served in the US Army from 1958 - 1976. He served 3 tours in Viet Nam. Not one pay receipt from the 18 years he served exists. A year ago I requested copies of his military records. The stack of papers the government sent to me is no thicker than an issue of People magazine. It amazed me than someone could serve in the active military for 18 years and so little info be available. So, when Bush's records have gaps in them, trust me...it ain't anything unusual and it ain't a conspiracy.
02-13-2004 06:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
Well thanks for clarifying things a little, ccss orwhatever you call yourself.

But here's something that does seem out-of-the-ordiinary!

<a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-12-bush-records_x.htm' target='_blank'>Bush--arrested, served in Guard without waiver!</a>
02-13-2004 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MaumeeRocket Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,058
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #5
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:Proves nothing. One man's account of events 30 years ago proves nothing considering that the medical exam records aren't available, and seeing how Bush was not paid for Guard duty for two years, between 1971 and '73.
Incorrect, were made available to the media tonight.
02-13-2004 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
 
Can you provide a link, Rocket?
02-13-2004 11:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #7
 
Nevermind, I found it.

<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_66' target='_blank'>News link that speaks on records released by the White House.</a>

There are still some unanswered questions, i.e. why is it the only person who remembers Bush on duty during his Guard stint is a Republican close to Bush and his Administration?

Still, more questions:
Why did Bush wait until now to release these? Bush caught flack four years ago for the same criticisms of his military record. This has been brought up since 1994 and we now get to see the records?
Acc. to this article (linked above), Bush was paid for 25 days between 72-73. Aren't there more duty days during a year's time? Why was Bush paid for only 25 days? Did he not perform any duties during this period? If so, why not?
Why was Bush allowed to a.) get in the Guard during the Vietnam years in the first place? and b.) Why did the Guard allow him to leave his post and why was he allowed to get out of the Guard before his obligation was up? What makes Bush so special?

And on an unrelated note, how could Bush get accepted to an MBA program with such horrible grades during his undergrad years?

It remains to be seen if any of these questions will be answer. It also remains to be seen if any of the neo-cons who regularly post here will answer my questions to them on why they defend Bush with such conviction!

I can understand staying loyal to the GOP, but I cannot understand staying loyal to someone like Bush who's rewriting their ideological platforms! I cannot understand neo-cons' defense of Bush when these same neo-cons denigrate others who have done the same, or similar things that Bush has done, i.e. lying.
02-14-2004 12:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ccs178 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,912
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 26
I Root For: Southern Miss
Location: 39402

CrappiesCrappiesDonators
Post: #8
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:Nevermind, I found it.

<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_66' target='_blank'>News link that speaks on records released by the White House.</a>

There are still some unanswered questions, i.e. why is it the only person who remembers Bush on duty during his Guard stint is a Republican close to Bush and his Administration?

Did you read it? If so, how did you come up with anything that said he was close to Bush or the Administration? I could not find anything in that article that said the witness knows Bush at all, other than training with him in Alabama in the early 1970s. It seems you are trying to inject your own conspiracy theories.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Still, more questions:
Why did Bush wait until now to release these? Bush caught flack four years ago for the same criticisms of his military record. This has been brought up since 1994 and we now get to see the records?


Probably because the Democrats didn't push the issue. Gore's military career isn't exactly stellar either. Any light they tried to put on Bush could have easily come back on Gore. Also, they don't want the press to focus on Kerry's anti-war crusade.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Acc. to this article (linked above), Bush was paid for 25 days between 72-73. Aren't there more duty days during a year's time? Why was Bush paid for only 25 days? Did he not perform any duties during this period? If so, why not?

Read this article:
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_26' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...tary_records_26</a>

Yahoo News Wrote:"This paperwork doesn't say where he was or what type of training he conducted," said Lt. Col. Scott Gorske, a military fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "What it does say is the days that he did train and that he got paid."

He said National Guard members are not necessarily required to attend a drill each month, but rather to train a certain amount of time over a 12-month period. That is why Bush could have met his yearly service requirements even if there were some months in which he did not attend a drill, Gorske said.

Not difficult to understand.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Why was Bush allowed to a.) get in the Guard during the Vietnam years in the first place? and b.) Why did the Guard allow him to leave his post and why was he allowed to get out of the Guard before his obligation was up? What makes Bush so special?

Why do you assume that he was special? Was Bush the only American in the National Guard during the Viet Nam years? Was Bush the only member of the National Guard allowed to leave his post? Is Bush the only person in the 200+ years of the existence of the National Guard to be honorably discharged early?

KlutzDio I Wrote:And on an unrelated note, how could Bush get accepted to an MBA program with such horrible grades during his undergrad years?

Because he is a member of the Bush family? Not unusual. His family was rich with lots of political clout. Are you really that naive?

KlutzDio I Wrote:if any of these questions will be answer. It also remains to be seen if any of the neo-cons who regularly post here will answer my questions to them on why they defend Bush with such conviction!

I can understand staying loyal to the GOP, but I cannot understand staying loyal to someone like Bush who's rewriting their ideological platforms! I cannot understand neo-cons' defense of Bush when these same neo-cons denigrate others who have done the same, or similar things that Bush has done, i.e. lying.

His military service is a non-issue. Why not make Bush defend his actions between 2000 and 2004? Wouldn't that make more sense?
02-14-2004 12:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #9
 
ccs178 Wrote:
KlutzDio I Wrote:Nevermind, I found it.

<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_66' target='_blank'>News link that speaks on records released by the White House.</a>

There are still some unanswered questions, i.e. why is it the only person who remembers Bush on duty during his Guard stint is a Republican close to Bush and his Administration?

Did you read it? If so, how did you come up with anything that said he was close to Bush or the Administration? I could not find anything in that article that said the witness knows Bush at all, other than training with him in Alabama in the early 1970s. It seems you are trying to inject your own conspiracy theories.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Still, more questions:
Why did Bush wait until now to release these? Bush caught flack four years ago for the same criticisms of his military record. This has been brought up since 1994 and we now get to see the records?

Probably because the Democrats didn't push the issue. Gore's military career isn't exactly stellar either. Any light they tried to put on Bush could have easily come back on Gore. Also, they don't want the press to focus on Kerry's anti-war crusade.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Acc. to this article (linked above), Bush was paid for 25 days between 72-73. Aren't there more duty days during a year's time? Why was Bush paid for only 25 days? Did he not perform any duties during this period? If so, why not?

Read this article:
<a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_26' target='_blank'>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...tary_records_26</a>

Yahoo News Wrote:"This paperwork doesn't say where he was or what type of training he conducted," said Lt. Col. Scott Gorske, a military fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "What it does say is the days that he did train and that he got paid."

He said National Guard members are not necessarily required to attend a drill each month, but rather to train a certain amount of time over a 12-month period. That is why Bush could have met his yearly service requirements even if there were some months in which he did not attend a drill, Gorske said.

Not difficult to understand.

KlutzDio I Wrote:Why was Bush allowed to a.) get in the Guard during the Vietnam years in the first place? and b.) Why did the Guard allow him to leave his post and why was he allowed to get out of the Guard before his obligation was up? What makes Bush so special?

Why do you assume that he was special? Was Bush the only American in the National Guard during the Viet Nam years? Was Bush the only member of the National Guard allowed to leave his post? Is Bush the only person in the 200+ years of the existence of the National Guard to be honorably discharged early?

KlutzDio I Wrote:And on an unrelated note, how could Bush get accepted to an MBA program with such horrible grades during his undergrad years?

Because he is a member of the Bush family? Not unusual. His family was rich with lots of political clout. Are you really that naive?

KlutzDio I Wrote:if any of these questions will be answer. It also remains to be seen if any of the neo-cons who regularly post here will answer my questions to them on why they defend Bush with such conviction!

I can understand staying loyal to the GOP, but I cannot understand staying loyal to someone like Bush who's rewriting their ideological platforms! I cannot understand neo-cons' defense of Bush when these same neo-cons denigrate others who have done the same, or similar things that Bush has done, i.e. lying.

His military service is a non-issue. Why not make Bush defend his actions between 2000 and 2004? Wouldn't that make more sense?
From the link I posted earlier, ccs.

"Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer. "

I was wrong in the post just above yours. I misread this, thinking that Calhoun was closed to the Admin. Acc. to the quote above, a Republican close to Bush supplied the man's name to the AP. So that is even more dubious!

I'll respond to your other comments at a later time. Nonetheless, thanks for your time responding and thinking it through.
02-14-2004 02:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #10
 
This apparently was in the Washington Times. Please note that this story contains facts, not assertions. I am sure that anyone, including Kerry and any news organization that wanted to, could locate the author, or other surviving members of the Guard, especially ones associated with Bush to verify. If one wants to continue to perpetuate the democrat talking points, perhaps they should call the author to make sure that "Bush did not get to him" or were bought off by Republicans, or maybe a Bush relative is Mayor of Herndon. WCR




Washington Times
February 11, 2004
Pg. 20

'Bush And I Were Lieutenants'


George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.

It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace
Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.

The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2 years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.

Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.

Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.

As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:

First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly - the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of
reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical.
Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.

Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen - then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr.
Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.

In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

Col. William Campenni (retired), U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard, Herndon, Va.
02-15-2004 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #11
 
Rick,

The following line is false:

"It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. "

Kerry doesn't consider it an issue. Those who do are voting Americans like myself. We impeached a guy for lying to us while he slept around in the White House. Now Bush has repeatedly lied and been awfully shady on things he's done, i.e. getting arrested, not serving in Vietnam, etc. Given that, Bush deserves some serious investigation! Maybe not impeachment, but certainly we American voters need to know what our President was up to before he was president because the Repugnicans have always made that an issue for any Dem or Indy running!
Michael Moore and McAuliffe have provided the cacophony, while Kerry has remained mum on this.

What is contained in this story is someone's account. We have no idea if this guy's story is true or not, but it does explain things about how the ANG might have worked back then for priviledged rich college boys who didn't want to get shot at. In the meantime, our gov. sent the nation's poor and undesireables over there in droves to get shot at, killed, maimed, etc. That was called the draft, something well-to-do Americans have avoided successfully since the Civil War.

This op-ed column, furthermore, does not answer the question: why didn't Bush want to join the real Air Force, Navy, Marines or Army. Only Bush can answer that question, and he won't because he was chickensh*t. I don't blame him for that, I certainly would not have gone to Vietnam had I been of military age during the conflict. I would have done whatever to get out of that, but I would not lie to anyone about my fear of bullets and VC!
Bush should realize that it would win him alot of votes if he simply admitted he was chickensh*t and his Daddy helped him get in the Guard. We'd see him as human then, rather than the monkey-boy that he is while he avoids speaking honestly on these topics.

I notice you didn't answer my allegations toward you and the other neo-cons about why you don't criticize Bush, but often criticize Dems and Independents for the same kind of ambition-driven behavior.

Judging from the President attempting ot hide his past--his coke use, alcoholism, being arrested for DUI, pranks while in college, etc.--I think he's a worthless individual for not coming clean on all of this. If he were to, oh-my-freaking-gawd, the Repoobs would be overjoyed becaue the President will have admitted that he is indeed a human-being, much like other Americans. He loses credibility because he continues to avoid this. He doesn't address it because he knows he has 2004 in the bag. If he were facing a real fight come Nov. his handlers would have made him come clean!

CCS, I will still get back to your lengthy post.
02-15-2004 10:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


rickheel Offline
The Old Bastard
*

Posts: 8,468
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Heels
Location:

Donators
Post: #12
 
I dont bother to answer because I think it is all BS anyway. One side does it, the other fusses. What Bush did back then has no bearing on what he does today. Same with Kerry. But as long as someone wants to fuss about what the other does, I will continue to post what I find. As far as arguing about it, I wont change your mind, and you wont change mine.
02-16-2004 09:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
T-Monay820 Offline
Get Rotor-vated!
*

Posts: 5,397
Joined: Apr 2002
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Duke, VPI
Location: Norfolk, VA
Post: #13
 
Playing the Vietnam card
Kathleen Parker

Political fads come and go, but who of a certain age would have imagined that military service in Vietnam someday would become the plum presidential resume item?

Baby boomers and their parents remember too well when Vietnam was synonymous with shame. In our inside-out world, those who fought bravely were greeted with boos and hisses, while those who protested became heroes.

It was a tragic, messy time, and today's political manipulation of those sad hours invites only new shame.

For months we've been hearing of Sen. John Kerry's heroism and more recently of President George Bush's "lesser" record. Forgive my bluntness, but this all reeks of shawizzle and is disrespectful to veterans still struggling with the lingering pain of that undeclared war.

I've heard from dozens of Vietnam vets who are outraged by Kerry's playing of the Vietnam card given his own equivocal position on the war. With great passion, these veterans hold Kerry personally responsible for emboldening the enemy and endangering American lives by his antiwar displays back home.

Until now I've kept my own counsel because, like many of the Vietnam generation, I struggle with my own conscience and ambivalence.

I have the greatest respect for veterans and admire John Kerry's war service. He was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for wounds he modestly says put him out of commission for two days, but which permitted him to seek an early return home. Good for him. Glad he made it.

Once home, Kerry joined the antiwar movement, testified before Congress, made a great public display of throwing away some medals (not his own, which are showcased in his office), testified before Congress, and built a political future on his antiwar profile.

Fine. Such were the times. Lots of veterans turned against the war.

I also admire my Marine brother, who like Kerry earned a Purple Heart, came home on a gurney, spent a month in Philadelphia's Naval Hospital, but who unlike Kerry never talks about his stint in Vietnam.

At the same time, I don't disrespect those who protested, were conscientious objectors or served in some branch of the service that minimized their chances of seeing combat. I certainly don't disrespect Bush for seeking National Guard duty and learning to be a fighter pilot, hardly a sissy exercise.

Yet because he didn't see combat, some critics have denigrated his service. And because some portions of his records are unclear about attendance during a commonplace transfer to Alabama for a civilian job, he's being accused of no less than AWOL and desertion.

In a letter Wednesday to The Washington Times (http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-...424r.htm), retired Col. William Campenni, who served with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, expressed his frustration with Bush critics, who "do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place."

"Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities," he wrote. "Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life."

In defense of Bush's record, the White House has produced military pay receipts. Outside entities, including The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a project of the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, have investigated records and found nothing to substantiate claims of desertion. (http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131)

Kerry wisely has taken the high road during this obvious witch-hunt, saying he has no interest in Bush's record. Of course as long as he has people like Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe cluster-bombing the media with AWOL charges, the high road is a pretty easy leap. There's no way to go but up when the source for "desertion" is movie producer Michael Moore.

Given that military service neither qualifies nor disqualifies one for political office - and given the fact of Bush's honorable discharge - it's time to dismount this *******. Vietnam is over. To judge people now on the basis of what they said or did then is to forget how emotionally riven we were. And how young and naive we were.

By that standard, it is possible to forgive Kerry's 1970 Harvard Crimson interview in which he said he wanted to eliminate CIA activity and turn our troops over to the United Nations. He's changed his tune. Presumably he's wiser. So are we all.

What's more important now is what would a man do as president? We know what Bush would do. Kerry voted for the war on Iraq but against funding to finish the job, thus making life more difficult for our service men and women still on the front lines.

Which Kerry would be president, the hero who advances assertively against the threat of danger? Or the antiwar demonstrator who turns protest into political currency?

That's the only question that counts.
02-16-2004 03:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #14
 
If you're willing to believe that he showed up for duty in Alabama, yet no one there remembers this future president of the United States... ...then let's take a look at this excerpt from the Texas Military Code.:
Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147,
02-16-2004 03:49 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #15
 
ccs178,

I've had a chance to read the link you provided <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20040211/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_26' target='_blank'>This Link</a> and it does a poor job of helping your defense of the president's service record in the TANG and Alabammy Guard. You should read all of it because it brings up even more questions.

Like JBR has said, so many people served in the Guard during Vietnam and only one person remembers the current leader of the "Free" world?
[Free is in quotation marks because hardly anything is free. It costs money to live here, to be an American. It costs each and every individual, with some exceptions, boo-coodles of dolares in taxes and insurance payments]

You wrote: "Why do you assume that he was special? Was Bush the only American in the National Guard during the Viet Nam years? Was Bush the only member of the National Guard allowed to leave his post? Is Bush the only person in the 200+ years of the existence of the National Guard to be honorably discharged early?"
No,Lloyd Bentson's son was in the Guard, as was John Connally's (former gov. of TX) son. Both of these men have received harsh and denigrating criticisms from the Republicans for these politicians using their names and positions to secure their kids' spot in the Guard while poor Americans were dying in Vietnam! Where are those Republican critics of priviledge now?
Colin Powell wrote in his 1995 autobiography how disdainful he is about rich fockers getting to stay home whenever there's a fight, while the poor does the hard job of "defending" us from the likes of the VietCong. Powell uses people like Bush, Bentson and Connally as examples of people who are treated with special priviledges and rights. As Daniel Shore says, we pride ourselves on at least the illusion of egalitarian society, however poorly we maintain that illusion.
I think Bush left his post because he wasn't doing anything and Nixon began pulling troops out by '73. There was no longer any reason for Bush to hide in the Guard. Ditto on the last question you wrote, quoted above.

"Because he is a member of the Bush family? Not unusual. His family was rich with lots of political clout. Are you really that naive?"

No, I am not naive. I realize exactly why Bush has had the things in life that he's had. I realize why rich families protect their worthless offspring. My point was, why do people like you defend Bush while criticizing others for doing the same thing? The fact that you and other neo-cons are so inconsistent in this regard underscores exactly what the Repugnicans are like. They are no different from the Democrats and you know that if Bush were a Democrat,Repugnicans would be lambasting his service record. This is politics as usual, so don't cry foul when your man is victim of it!

"His military service is a non-issue. Why not make Bush defend his actions between 2000 and 2004? Wouldn't that make more sense? "

First, his service record is an issue because it involves the president and his lies to the American public.

Bush will be made to defend his actions and policies during his first term (and second). Sadly, the press if focusing on this right now because this kind of crap sells. When past presidents were caught in lies, like Bush has been, the press siezes upon it because, in theory, elected leaders are not supposed to lie to the people. Actually, we all know they lie, but they aren't supposed to get caught lying.
This is an issue, furthermore, because Bush is a war president. He's a war president who cowardly avoided the draft years. So, why do you defend people who send our kids to fight a useless war when those people refused to fight a useless war 30+ years ago?

What all this means is the RNC picked a poor poster-boy for running the military-industrial complex. The head-cheeses at the RNC should have done more research on Bush and his service record, more research on the Prez's propensity to get arrested, and his problem coming forward and saying "I lied. Let's move on." Had the RNC have any sense whatsoever, they would have propped up McCain in 2000, but they didn't like him because he's not a yes-man!

I reiterate: Bush should come forward and just say that he lied and he did so to protect his arse. Should he do this, I'll have much more respect from him. Men are made when they admit their mistakes. When they continually avoid responsibility, they are less than human!
02-16-2004 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wryword Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 974
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #16
 
You all are making a mountain out of a molehill. Here's what I think happened, and I would be willing to make a bet that it is pretty close to the truth.

George the Dumber got himself TDY to the Alabama Guard for no better reason than to get his feet wet retail politics. George the Dumb didn't have to say anything, it just happened. There was no expectation at all that George the Dumber do any real, actual Guard work, and his superiors there understood that. He was not a deserter because he had a least tacit consent from his CO to be basically out and about in the wilds of Alabama.

Shocked are we? Well, is it worse than a young AlphaGore traipsing about the safer parts of Vietnam, under guard, while supposedly being a soldier and a journalist?

Kerry saw the Elephant. He is the only one since George the Dumb who can make that claim.

Anyway, let's also recall George the Dumber's work habits while gov. of Texas. He spent a lot of time playing computer games, then turning in with his "pilly". Does anybody really think he was breaking a leg with the Guard--anywhere?

I think the truth of the matter is that an accomodation was made for a Fortunate Son, a Senator's Son (CCR for you young'uns). Its wrong, it sucks, but hell they've been doing this since the War Between the States. And if you will gig Boy George for it, be damned sure to gig AlphaGore too.
02-16-2004 08:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


USMC Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,428
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsCrappies
Post: #17
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:One another note, I meant to respond to Marine (USMC) I've said this a thousand times and only Kev has responded to it. Why do you neo-cons defend Bush when you criticize Dems for the same behavior? If Bush just happened to be a Democrat, a Green, or an Independent, you all would be decrying his service (or lack thereof) in the Guard.
agree on the national guard comment dio. Now, never once have you heard me complain about a Lib serving in the NG. Do I think that Bush should have been active and joined the regular Army, yes, I do. However, attacking his service record is ridiculous. The only lib I have attacked is Clinton, who ran to Canada like a little punk crybaby. I made the comment that only someone who has served in the military should be able to serve as commander in chief. That's it.
02-18-2004 11:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #18
 
USMC Wrote:
KlutzDio I Wrote:One another note, I meant to respond to Marine (USMC) I've said this a thousand times and only Kev has responded to it. Why do you neo-cons defend Bush when you criticize Dems for the same behavior? If Bush just happened to be a Democrat, a Green, or an Independent, you all would be decrying his service (or lack thereof) in the Guard.
agree on the national guard comment dio. Now, never once have you heard me complain about a Lib serving in the NG. Do I think that Bush should have been active and joined the regular Army, yes, I do. However, attacking his service record is ridiculous. The only lib I have attacked is Clinton, who ran to Canada like a little punk crybaby. I made the comment that only someone who has served in the military should be able to serve as commander in chief. That's it.
"I made the comment that only someone who has served in the military should be able to serve as commander in chief. That's it."

Then that cancels GW out! He sent people to war, he sent Marines to die, for nothing! He should be ashamed. But, he's always been the corporate America's yes-man. That's why he got so much money in 2000 and so much money the past year. He sits in the oval office and says yes to any proposal(s) from the oligarchs.

While you may not have said anything about it, many others are saying things about it. And you add "attacking his service record is ridiculous." But the neo-cons do that to Dems and Indies. Are the Repugnicans absolved of all wrong-doing simply because of their party affiliation? Sometimes it seems so!

On another note, if there was, say a law, that required anyone running for president to have served at some point in the military, then that would make our government a timocracy. But, looking at American politics the past 30 or so years of my life, our representative style of government is an absolute failure. Plato was right!
02-18-2004 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USMC Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,428
Joined: Aug 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsCrappies
Post: #19
 
KlutzDio I Wrote:
USMC Wrote:
KlutzDio I Wrote:One another note, I meant to respond to Marine (USMC) I've said this a thousand times and only Kev has responded to it. Why do you neo-cons defend Bush when you criticize Dems for the same behavior? If Bush just happened to be a Democrat, a Green, or an Independent, you all would be decrying his service (or lack thereof) in the Guard.
agree on the national guard comment dio. Now, never once have you heard me complain about a Lib serving in the NG. Do I think that Bush should have been active and joined the regular Army, yes, I do. However, attacking his service record is ridiculous. The only lib I have attacked is Clinton, who ran to Canada like a little punk crybaby. I made the comment that only someone who has served in the military should be able to serve as commander in chief. That's it.
"I made the comment that only someone who has served in the military should be able to serve as commander in chief. That's it."

Then that cancels GW out! He sent people to war, he sent Marines to die, for nothing! He should be ashamed. But, he's always been the corporate America's yes-man. That's why he got so much money in 2000 and so much money the past year. He sits in the oval office and says yes to any proposal(s) from the oligarchs.

While you may not have said anything about it, many others are saying things about it. And you add "attacking his service record is ridiculous." But the neo-cons do that to Dems and Indies. Are the Repugnicans absolved of all wrong-doing simply because of their party affiliation? Sometimes it seems so!

On another note, if there was, say a law, that required anyone running for president to have served at some point in the military, then that would make our government a timocracy. But, looking at American politics the past 30 or so years of my life, our representative style of government is an absolute failure. Plato was right!
agreed, plato was right. However, I have never attacked a Dem's service record. Again, I only attacked clinton, who had NO service record. As for Bush sending my brothers to die, it wasn't for nothing, lol, but let's please not go down that road again.
02-18-2004 03:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
KlutzDio I Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,120
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation: 0
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #20
 
Point taken, Marine.

The war wasn't for nothing. Your marine brethren did not die arbitrarily. They died so Haliburton could get rich! :wave:
02-18-2004 06:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.