Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
For All of You "Bush AWOL" People
Author Message
joebordenrebel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,968
Joined: Oct 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #21
 
Doesn't the fact that he got an honorable discharge indicate that he served honorably?

No. Radio talk show host Don Imus told listeners about getting in trouble, including punching a sergeant, while in the Marines. His superiors told him they'd give him an honorable discharge on one condition - that he promise not to re-enlist. Sometimes, Imus points out, honorable discharges are given just to get rid of people. John Allen Mohammed, currently on trial for sniper shootings around Washington, was disciplined numerous times while in the National Guard, including several days in prison for assault. He, too, received an honorable discharge.

Secondly, Guard Commanders in the '70s were given wide latitude on discharges. Honestly, who is going to give a dishonorable to the son of a prominent Republican politician who has just been eelcted chairman of the Republican National Committee?

Third, that discharge paper includes evidence that according to the letter of the law, Bush is in fact guilty of desertion.

What about the one witness who has come forward - John B. "Bill" Calhoun - testifying to George's service?

Calhoun has said he saw Bush 8-10 times between May and October of 1972. (Or was it four to six times?) But as the Washington Post has pointed out, "Calhoun remembers seeing Bush at Dannelly at times in mid-1972 when the White House acknowledges Bush was not pulling Guard duty in Alabama yet; his first drills were in October, according to the White House. White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Friday was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancy..."

Dozens of other pilots have been interviewed and have no recollection of Bush, even those who were aware he was supposed to show up, and were on the lookout for him. From TIME Magazine:


"Paul Bishop, a retired Air Force colonel who says he never missed a weekend drill in 27 years with the 187th, told TIME the physical layout of the unit's hangar made it 'virtually impossible' for Bush to have met with Calhoun and for none of the unit's 800 other reservists to have seen him."

They've shown he went to the dentist in January of 1973 in Alabama.

And this proves exactly what with regards to performing military duty?

They've released all the files.

If those are truly all the files in existence, either a dog somewhere has a curious taste for microfiche, or the records have been tampered with - and that's a felony. No evidence of the Flight Inquiry Board that would have been convened when he was suspended from flying. No DD214 or NGB 22. No attendance sheets, flight logs, or unit rosters. And still zero evidence of any actual duty between May 1972 and April 1973.

They released pay stubs showing he was paid during that period.

Ever get paid for work you didn't actually do? (Richard Cohen did.) And let's consider one thing. Those pay stubs show Bush on duty the weekend of May 1-3, 1973, at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Yet that very same weekend, on May 2, his two superior officers at Ellington signed a report saying they could not complete his annual evaluation because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report." Kind of odd that they would sign their names to that evaluation on the very same day when Bush supposedly was reporting to them. Did Bush take pay for duty that he did not in fact perform?

It was 30 years ago - what does it matter today?

What matters today is that Bush, and his minions, continue to lie about it. Bush himself wrote in his autobiography that he "continued to fly with my unit for the next several years" - probably the biggest falsehood ever included in a presidential biography. If Bush continues to lie about this, how can we trust that he's telling the truth about anything else?
02-16-2004 03:47 PM
Visit this user's website 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: #22
 
While I understand that Billy Clinnon is not a candidate, there are at least two reasons why he is germane to this discussion. The first and obvious reason is that Hillary the Hun (his words, not mine) is certainly going to make a run for presidency. This means two things: First, she will likely try to sabotage a potentially successful Bolshevik candidate this year; and (2) if she does get the prize, Billy Clinnon will be her wet willie. Beyond this, nobody can really believe that Billy Boy isn't full into the game this year, albeit behind the scenes. Since he is Gawd to the Bolsheviks, yes, he is relevant.

On a broader scale, this thing about whose military stick is bigger sets up an illogical idea: If the notion is that Kerry, the war protestor, is a better pick for "national security" because he was in the ******, and he was, there is no reason to suppose that this would be true. I'd say the man has cancelled any idea of superior insight into "national security" when he threw somebody else's medals away while hanging with Hanoi Jane. So what I am trying to do, though not well, is point out that this whole debate is a sham and falsehood: Bush the Dumber is no war hero, neither is any Demo. So why are we having this debate? In any event, I think if we are going to have this debate, the "war" records of the movers and shakers of the parties are relevant, even if they are not "on point" Beware the men who are not in the limelight yet carry influence
02-16-2004 09:14 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: #23
 
Wryword Wrote:While I understand that Billy Clinnon is not a candidate, there are at least two reasons why he is germane to this discussion. The first and obvious reason is that Hillary the Hun (his words, not mine) is certainly going to make a run for presidency. This means two things: First, she will likely try to sabotage a potentially successful Bolshevik candidate this year; and (2) if she does get the prize, Billy Clinnon will be her wet willie. Beyond this, nobody can really believe that Billy Boy isn't full into the game this year, albeit behind the scenes. Since he is Gawd to the Bolsheviks, yes, he is relevant.

On a broader scale, this thing about whose military stick is bigger sets up an illogical idea: If the notion is that Kerry, the war protestor, is a better pick for "national security" because he was in the ******, and he was, there is no reason to suppose that this would be true. I'd say the man has cancelled any idea of superior insight into "national security" when he threw somebody else's medals away while hanging with Hanoi Jane. So what I am trying to do, though not well, is point out that this whole debate is a sham and falsehood: Bush the Dumber is no war hero, neither is any Demo. So why are we having this debate? In any event, I think if we are going to have this debate, the "war" records of the movers and shakers of the parties are relevant, even if they are not "on point" Beware the men who are not in the limelight yet carry influence
Wry, I see your confusion on this topic in your most recent post.

Bill Clinton, I reiterate, was impeached for lying to Congress, the American people and the media. Bush has done the same thing, that is lie to all three of those bodies just mentioned. That is why this is pertinent for deep, thoughtful investigation. I, too, think it's sad that it has become more pertinent during an election year, but such is the nature of politics. Actually, this whole brouhaha over Bush's military involvement, or lack thereof, should have been dealt with in 1994 when he was first elected to the governor's office in TX. But those crazy Texans don't have a lick of sense!

Since that time, Bush wrote (or had a ghostwriter do it) an autobiography in which he laments on his duties in the Guard. The truth of the matter is that he didn't do anything in the Guard: meaning he lied (or he told the ghostwriter to lie). Nonetheless, it's his name on the book (really, do any of you think for a moment Bush can actually write the word c-a-t?).

The issue is honesty and while we all know that lying and politics go hand in hand like criminals and Florida State football, in theory, elected leaders of this nation are not supposed to lie, or at least, not supposed to get caught lying. Like I've said a 100 times now, Bush should come clean and say "let's move on." He'd win supporters that way, especially the ones on the Right that he's alienated with his reckless policies!

How do you know Hillary will seek the presidency? Do you know her personally and she's told you this?

Let's say for argument's sake, she does plan on seeking the White House someday. Even if she does, do you think she has a snow ball's chance in hell of making it? Judging from your opinions on this, I'd say you are terrified of her possibilities, which is completely irrational! Don't you realize that somebody would off her the moment any possible Hillary campaign gathered momentum.

Any reference to Hillary and her seeking the White House is assinine simply because she's as unelectable as John Kerry. The neo-cons rule this world now and no Democrat, including Jesus H. Christ, has a prayer of ever getting back into the driver's seat of national politics!
02-18-2004 01:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Road Warrior Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 417
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 3
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #24
 
Quote:Bill Clinton, I reiterate, was impeached for lying to Congress, the American people and the media.

Almost.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in three situations: to Kenneth Starr's grand jury, in an affidavit in a civil case (Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton), and in an affidavit to Congress. He was further impeached for obstruction of justice for trying to get Monica to lie under oath. These are all felonies committed by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. These are facts. He broke the law. That is a fact.

Now, some people might think that Bush was misleading about WMD in Iraq. That is an opinion. I personally think he reached a conclusion based on best available intelligence; a conclusion also reached by the former administration and some of this President's most vocal critics. That is my opinion.

As for whether or not he fulfilled his obligation to the National Guard. His honorable discharge and pay records tell me everything I need to know about it. He was there and he did what was expected of him. Case closed. The only people lying in this situation are the ones saying he was AWOL or a deserter. The facts clearly show us otherwise.
02-18-2004 07:55 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: #25
 
Road Warrior Wrote:
Quote:Bill Clinton, I reiterate, was impeached for lying to Congress, the American people and the media.

Almost.

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath in three situations: to Kenneth Starr's grand jury, in an affidavit in a civil case (Paula Jones v. Bill Clinton), and in an affidavit to Congress. He was further impeached for obstruction of justice for trying to get Monica to lie under oath. These are all felonies committed by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. These are facts. He broke the law. That is a fact.

Now, some people might think that Bush was misleading about WMD in Iraq. That is an opinion. I personally think he reached a conclusion based on best available intelligence; a conclusion also reached by the former administration and some of this President's most vocal critics. That is my opinion.

As for whether or not he fulfilled his obligation to the National Guard. His honorable discharge and pay records tell me everything I need to know about it. He was there and he did what was expected of him. Case closed. The only people lying in this situation are the ones saying he was AWOL or a deserter. The facts clearly show us otherwise.
Road, thanks for the clarification on exactly how and to whom Clinton lied. You are absolutely correct.

Concerning Bush, he entered the National Guard after having been arrested twice while a student at Yale. It is possible he lied the applications back when he "joined" (more like impressed into) the Guard. When the White House released these documents, questions pertaining to arrest/police records were blacked out, along with a bunch of other stuff. If Bush did lie on these applications, then he committed a felony. If he did not lie, then why were these files blacked out? What is the president's handlers trying to hide.
All in all, Bush probably did not even fill these forms out, as the whole affair was arranged by Poppy Bush, who probably had some underlings do it all.

All that said, you have not answered the other pressing allegation. Why do you defend Bush for his cowardice, while criticizing others for the same behavior (i.e. John Kerry, Bill Clinton)? Why do you criticize elitism in our society, when Bush is clearly one of the best examples of it?

Like Wry said in a previous post. Bush didn't join the Guard, his father rather, along with some other movers and shakers, simply arranged this deal for him so he wouldn't have to serve in the military and possibly get shipped to Vietnam. This is a completely egregious example of priviledge, along with Bush's admittance to Yale as an undergrad and his later admittance to an MBA program. Bush was a C-student as an undergrad. Not many MBA programs take C-students. Most don't take even B-students, unless it's Ole Miss. Their MBA program specializes in administrating cows and stuff, Civil War relics and exploiting races other than WASPs.
02-18-2004 01:51 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.