Bush AWOL issue
- Thread starter LordOpie
- Start date
I figure he made up any of his missing time with the presidential carrier landing.
He wasn't AWOL (as someone, N8?, pointed out). And I agree (with someone, though I don't remember who), everything he has done more recently is much more pertinent than something he did (or did not do) 30 years ago (which wasn't a crime, even if he didn't show up for some drills).
It's a non-issue. I would think more important would be steroid usage in high school america (or at least, that's what I got out of the state of the union).
For me the issue no longer has anything to do with the actual service requirements of the day. What bothers me most is the fact the those born to wealth and priveldge could get a way with it. In my eyes George Bush fulfilled his obligation to the draft with the absolute minimum of risk, his family connections protected him from harm.
What about the thousands of kids (with no means or connections) who were drafted and did their duty without question??? 6 weeks of basic training and stint at the front lines? These kids were forced to offer their lives in service to their country. At the time what was George Bush forced to sacrifice???
And then, 30 years later - George Bush places our nation in a position which forces many thousands into the same situation he so skillfully avoided. It may be old news but it's still a disgrace.
What about the thousands of kids (with no means or connections) who were drafted and did their duty without question??? 6 weeks of basic training and stint at the front lines? These kids were forced to offer their lives in service to their country. At the time what was George Bush forced to sacrifice???
And then, 30 years later - George Bush places our nation in a position which forces many thousands into the same situation he so skillfully avoided. It may be old news but it's still a disgrace.
Well, at least Pres. Bush joined the military during Viet Nam and didn't shirk it like Bill Clinton.
I think it has been pretty well documented (lately) that he in fact showed up to drill and fulfilled his obligation.
I say its a non-issue at this point.
I think it has been pretty well documented (lately) that he in fact showed up to drill and fulfilled his obligation.
I say its a non-issue at this point.
Yes - but the current issue is George Bush.
I do. Clinton was odious and was impeached for lying. Bush is odious and should be inpeached for lying.
He could also be odourous....
You do know that you are assuming guilt. RIght?
It is still up for debate if he truely lied with intent to decieve, or was played by the intelegence given, the nations cry for revenge, etc.
Being wrong isn't the same as lying.
Not taken verbatem:
Mr CLinton, did you have sexual relations with Ms Lewinski?
1) Under oath: No.
2) Under oath again: Depends on your definition of ______
3) Admits he had relations with Ms Lew.
Now there is part of me that says it was his personal business. If I asked him on the street and he said, NO fine. If you are asked in a court of law....you fess up. Just my take. (but this is way off topic unless I relate this back to Bush)
IF Bush lied to the public....does it carry the same crime as lieing in a court of law?
If so I am in trouble. 
Clinton was impeached but never left office........
To little to late?
I don't think it will come down to it unless he is re-elected. These matters take time. He may lose the impeachment trial and like Clinton will be censured.
Thats my guess.
It is illegal to wage war for fake reasons.Originally posted by RhinofromWA
IF Bush lied to the public....does it carry the same crime as lieing in a court of law?
Good points as always Rhino.
Vietnam War Illuminates, Shadows Kerry's Campaign
The La Times | Tue Feb 17, 2004 | John M. Glionna
WASHINGTON Amid the solemn atmosphere of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the place known simply as The Wall, Dewey Brown reaches up to touch one name among tens of thousands engraved in the polished black granite.
The La Times | Tue Feb 17, 2004 | John M. Glionna
WASHINGTON Amid the solemn atmosphere of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the place known simply as The Wall, Dewey Brown reaches up to touch one name among tens of thousands engraved in the polished black granite.
And who did that? You are assuming and you know what happens when we assume.......Originally posted by ummbikes
It is illegal to wage war for fake reasons.
Wage war for fake reason? Another assumption.
Rhino, there are countless, credible examples that the Bush administration was rather, creative, in it's use of intel.Originally posted by RhinofromWA
And who did that? You are assuming and you know what happens when we assume.......
Wage war for fake reason? Another assumption.
Not an assumption my dear friend, it is a fact.
Hey watch who your calling "fact".....oh wait. Never mind.Originally posted by ummbikes
Rhino, there are countless, credible examples that the Bush administration was rather, creative, in it's use of intel.
Not an assumption my dear friend, it is a fact.
Be careful what is considered fact. It is meary an aggreed upon assumption by some people as of now. Countless and credible....I know you don't want to post internet quotes (no, I don't want you to waste the time
) right now. Much of what I have seen and heard are a bunch of Monday night quarterbacks sifting for errors and finding info to "prove" an out right lie was given.Now going from, finding info "maybe" made available to the president that he ignored and instead lying, is an assumption. Being wrong in what they beleived, is unfortunate, but is not lieing. That is the state of what many have described Bush's great lie as I see it. I might be blind to the truth, but I can see blood lust clouding others judgement.
"Fact" in this day and age is used to loosely.
Rhino
Personally I don't think it's worth pursuing. So many people avoided the war (Clinton was brought up, Dean is there too), and I don't hold it against them. Yes, Bush used his influence and priviledge to do it without having to resort to blatant illegalities, but everyone was using whatever means they had at their disposal to avoid the draft, so why should I penalize Bush for being blessed with better means?
The only time it becomes a problem for me is when Bush claims to have done military service, i.e. carrier landings, etc. At that point it chaffs my ass that he would try to exploit military service that we all know was nothing but a cop-out. Avoid the war, fine. Just don't try to claim you did otherwise.
The only time it becomes a problem for me is when Bush claims to have done military service, i.e. carrier landings, etc. At that point it chaffs my ass that he would try to exploit military service that we all know was nothing but a cop-out. Avoid the war, fine. Just don't try to claim you did otherwise.
What a load of BS. To suggest the US lost in Vietnam because of Kerry is ludicrous. But of course, it is also partisan.
As for Bush, let the AWOL thing go, it's not relevant to his administration. Judge him on what has happened under his presidency (that he could control).
IMO, GW's Nat/Grd record is a non-issue. In the context of the post you are replying to, there is a world of difference to sending troops to Viet Nam and sending them to Kosovo. While both were cases where our presidents sent in troops, Viet Nam was a war carried out mostly by drafted troops. Kosovo, Iraq, or any recent conflict is fought by volunteer troops. This is the difference that counts here. In a volunteer army, the prospective recruit knows going in, they may be placed in harm's way. And this may happen on the capricious decision process of a single person, namely the president. Drafted troops knew this also, but they did not volunteer.
And regarding the animosity the one vet in the article has for Kerry. Seems to me his hatred is misplaced. The man should be pissed at the idiot politicians who put him and his buds in harm's way in a war we had no business executing in the first place.
I don't particularily like John Kerry, but I think his anti-war stance was ballsy. And if anything he did shortened the war by one day, it was the right thing to do.
I'd say that the AWOL issue has been proven to be false. Even the media has dropped it. Its interesting that they haven't dug into the Kerry/Intern tryst with the same vigor.
It's because it WAS FROM THE DRUDGE REPORT! He makes things up.
And, you get laughed at if you say your source was the drudge report. People laugh at you. Makes you be a little leary in quoting it (but, I note your courage -- you will not be dissuaded by such a little thing like ridicule....)
List one news item Drudge "made up."
Dem need to be careful with all this Bush AWOL hub-bub.
There is an active push to open the Sec of the Navy's files on canidate Kerry. The following lays out the one retired Navy man's concerns:
There is an active push to open the Sec of the Navy's files on canidate Kerry. The following lays out the one retired Navy man's concerns:
ARE YOU QUESTIONING HIS PATRIOTISM?!?!?!?!?!?
or his judgment? and stop with this "he threw his medals over the wall" crap. They weren't his medals! he still has his collecting dust somewhere, only to be trotted out in the first debate w/ dubya.
know a guy who watched many a purple heart given out for folks running from fire, dive in a foxhole, only to bump their head on the way in.
injury received during combat
audie murphy rocked.
or his judgment? and stop with this "he threw his medals over the wall" crap. They weren't his medals! he still has his collecting dust somewhere, only to be trotted out in the first debate w/ dubya.
know a guy who watched many a purple heart given out for folks running from fire, dive in a foxhole, only to bump their head on the way in.
injury received during combat
audie murphy rocked.
My uncle was a Sherman tank commander in WWII. He got two Purple Hearts during the Liberation of France and the Battle of the Bulge. The first was for getting hit in the head by a tree branch in the Ardennes Forest. The other for slicing open his thumb on a can of C-rations on D-Day+3.Originally posted by $tinkle
know a guy who watched many a purple heart given out for folks running from fire, dive in a foxhole, only to bump their head on the way in.
injury received during combat
audie murphy rocked.
I worked with an Air Force Major who got a Bronze Star in Afganistan for overseeing some enlisted guys who built an outhouse. Lame, especially when you consider he and his team spent less than 48 hours on the ground in country then returned to their base near Saudi.
Good question.
If you think that giving less than 100% support to the US policy in Vietnam was giving aid and comfort to the enemy then the answer has to be yes.
If you think that protesting against a war that he considered to be unjust is not giving aid & comfort and that freedom of speech is important then he did nothing to be ashamed of and history has shown that he was probably correct (IMO).
He may also have helped save the lives of some young US servicemen who might otherwise have died had the conflict continued longer than it did.
I don't see it as anything he needs to be ashamed of.
So now you're undermining your own arguments?
Oh, I forgot, it was a quote, not your own argument.
I should know better.
and until this morning, i never questioned max clelend's hero status or war record, until this fell into my lap from a friend we'll call "ann"
kerry really chaps my hide when he tries to get street credit for service with numerous accomodations in vietnam & lumping himself in with the likes of cleland, who only now appears to be just a victim of his own judgment, not enemy combat.
i'm not anti-military, just anti-propaganda
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dressed in his combat fatigues and ribbons, [Kerry] told Congress that U.S. soldiers had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . randomly shot at civilians . . . in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan." He later acknowledged that he did not witness the crimes himself but had heard about them from others. . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if those things were true what was so wrong about him testifying so to congress? Does the US government want its troops to do such things? Should the US congress not be told what is happening, and who released the information to the Vietnamese, Kerry, congress or the press corps?
i don't believe that hearsay should result in burden of proof being shifted to those still in country who were still spilling blood. if he wanted to truly take a compelling argument to congress, he should have left 3rd person anecdotal evidence out, like any other good hearing allows.
i find it troubling that kerry is a hero & a patriot for testifying in the manner he did, but our president's (& your PM's) actions are called into question for a just & noble cause.
reckon we'll have to let history vet/mete this out.
More importantly, if anyone believed him, why didn't they ask the next logical question... WHY are these guys doing such horrible things?!
I saw a movie, Full Metal Jacket-type, and they were doing horrible things. The movie was in the early 80s? My father easily explained that Vietnam was an insanely different situation than anyone had been in before and I shouldn't judge them without knowing more.
The leaders at the time were at fault... not people like Kerry. Tho Jane Fonda is still an evil woman.
I would say a lot depends on how reliable the source was. After all most of we hear about events around the globe we do not witness yet we make judgements regarding the value of the source.
If Kerry heard direct from people he tusted who claimed to have witnessed these thigns first-hand that is fairly reliable. If he hear rumour it is utterly unreliable.
We may be getting a story here from a source that is trying to discredit Kerry and hence will make things sound as bad as possible...
From what I have read of Vietnam I think it is well within the realms of possibility that such things happened. If they did, congress needed to know.
BUSH'S GUARD 'ACCUSER' ADMITS FAULTY MEMORY
The New York Post | 15 Feb 04 | DEBORAH ORIN
February 15, 2004 -- Serious doubts have been raised about the stories of two key Alabama National Guard figures who questioned whether President Bush showed up for weekend duty there in the early 1970s. Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease.
And The Boston Globe, which took the lead in challenging Bush's Guard service, reported serious doubts about the account given by one of Bush's prime accusers.
Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say he remembered Bush well, and that in fact it was Turnipseed, then a colonel, who introduced Bush to him.
"Col. Turnipseed brought [Bush] in when he first came to me. I just know that he saw him there," Calhoun told The Post. Turnipseed said he regards Calhoun as trustworthy and believes he'd remember it correctly.
Calhoun's ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembers her husband talking about Bush back in the 1970s when he switched from the Texas Air National Guard to Alabama, where he was working on a political campaign for family friend, Winton "Red" Blount.
Another Alabama Guardsman, Joe LeFevers, told The Birmingham News earlier this week that he remembers seeing Bush on the Alabama base.
Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett had claimed he heard Bush aides talking about having his Guard records scrubbed and saw it happen.
But the Globe reported Thursday that Burkett's corroborating witness, former Chief Warrant Officer George O. Conn, disputes virtually every point in Burkett's account.
The New York Post | 15 Feb 04 | DEBORAH ORIN
February 15, 2004 -- Serious doubts have been raised about the stories of two key Alabama National Guard figures who questioned whether President Bush showed up for weekend duty there in the early 1970s. Retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, the 187th's Tactical Reconnaissance Group's former commander, recanted his statement that he couldn't remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he's in the beginning stages of Alzheimer's disease.
And The Boston Globe, which took the lead in challenging Bush's Guard service, reported serious doubts about the account given by one of Bush's prime accusers.
Turnipseed reversed gear after retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun went public to say he remembered Bush well, and that in fact it was Turnipseed, then a colonel, who introduced Bush to him.
"Col. Turnipseed brought [Bush] in when he first came to me. I just know that he saw him there," Calhoun told The Post. Turnipseed said he regards Calhoun as trustworthy and believes he'd remember it correctly.
Calhoun's ex-wife, Patsy Burks, said she remembers her husband talking about Bush back in the 1970s when he switched from the Texas Air National Guard to Alabama, where he was working on a political campaign for family friend, Winton "Red" Blount.
Another Alabama Guardsman, Joe LeFevers, told The Birmingham News earlier this week that he remembers seeing Bush on the Alabama base.
Retired Lt. Col. Bill Burkett had claimed he heard Bush aides talking about having his Guard records scrubbed and saw it happen.
But the Globe reported Thursday that Burkett's corroborating witness, former Chief Warrant Officer George O. Conn, disputes virtually every point in Burkett's account.