February 22, 2004
Why I won't just "Move On" about the National Guard issue
Recently a visitor to “different strings suggested in comments that I “move on” in regards to Bush’s military record and I know others who are questioning the President’s record are often told the same thing. So, should we “move on”? No. Moving on is the last thing we need to do when it comes to Bush’s National Guard service.
The president, his administration and their supporters have made a habit of accusing anyone who disagrees with their policies - and in particular with their war - of being “unpatriotic,” yet when Bush had an opportunity to show his own patriotism when the US was at war in Vietnam (which was also an unpopular war fought on the basis of reasoning VERY similar to that used to justify the Iraqi war - the idea that changing one government in a region could lead to changes in many - if not all - of the other governments), he neither volunteered to serve in the active duty army nor choose to face the same risk of being drafted that most other men of his generation faced. Instead, he made use of his father’s connection in order to get a slot in the Texas Air National Guard, and then failed to fulfill his commitment.
Even if you want to argue that his actions in regards to his guard duty were "youthful indiscretions" rather than an actual indication of his dishonourable character, his promise during his interview with Tim Russert to release ALL records related to his service went unfulfilled - only portions of his record were released, and some of those were redacted.
This incident speaks volumes about the what I see as the true nature of President Bush. During his term, he has announced the creation of or support for a number of programs and then failed to include funding for them in the budget. Hell, he did that with the war in Afghanistan - ousting the Taliban, but then failing to include any money for rebuilding the country. It also demonstrates his attitude that the American people don't really have a right to know what out government - which is supposed to be BY the people and FOR the people - is up to, or what he has done and is doing as our leader. And it shows his tendency to use his family connections for any advantage he can.
So, no, I won't move on. Bush needs to be seen for the kind of person he really is, and this speaks volumes about why he is unfit to lead this nation.
Posted by at February 22, 2004 08:20 PMListen I think that hitting the President is great, I want to see the lying smirk-faced liar out of power, but I wouldn’t mind hitting him on some other lies, I mean we have so many to choose from…
Posted by: martin at February 22, 2004 09:25 PMAs a republican I hope that the Kerry campaign in particular tries to ride this issue for the next nine months. In fact, I hope every time they mention that Bush was AWOL that they hold up Kerry’s medals. The facts don’t bear it out. But feel free to ride it into the ground.
I’m pretty young and my history of the Vietnam war is a little sketchy, but wasn’t the Vietnam war just about over at that time? Didn’t we pullout alot of troops that same year, 1972? and wasn’t a ceasefire signed in 1973? PBS, The American Experience says, “1973: Last American troops leave Vietnam.”
Posted by: Eric Simonson at February 22, 2004 10:56 PMGive me proof.You say all of this stuff and you give no proof.Are you the one who said his teeth might have been there but, he was not? Where is the reality in that? Does your reality depend on what you think is right and not what is real. Do you think that because you say it, think it and believe it then it must be real. Thats not realistic. Just because you believe it or just because you don’t does not make it the truth or a lie. The truth is a living thing, it can be covered but it can’t be changed. It will live on not matter what you believe, think or say.
Posted by: fran trombley at February 22, 2004 10:59 PMEric, I thing Bush should have fulfilled the full commitment he signed up for. Does it matter the wars over? No. He didn’t sign up on the terms that he would be free when the war was over. He signed up to serve a certain amount of time, and he seemed to be unwilling to honor that committment.
Given the kind of committments and sacrifices he has required on other people’s parts, it should be an issue whether he honored his own committments, whether he sacrificed his personal safety, comfort, and pleasures when he was called upon to do so.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 22, 2004 11:13 PMWhere’s the proof? He served his full term of duty.
“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.”
More of Col. Campinni explaining
Posted by: Eric Simonson at February 23, 2004 01:26 AMMy Opinion? First, it’s well known that Bush belonged to a squadron where rich Texan’s sons ended up to avoid Vietnam. Had he really wanted to go there, he could have just enlisted in the regular armed forces.
Yes, flying a plane is dangerous. Now try flying that plane while people are firing Anti-aircraft fire and Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) at you. Oh, did I mention the MIGs doing their best to shoot up and blow up your plane while you’re still in it? I don’t want to hear anything about buzzing some spy plane coming from Cuba at three in the morning, and acting like that was some big deal in the scheme of things.
Bush scored very low on his tests, but got to the top of a big waiting list. it’s not that big of a secret around here, in Texas what happened. What happened was that the son of a Congressman from Houston (Now who do you think that was?) got his son a cushy assignment stateside, instead of risking him overseas. Is that odd? No. Many other Senators’ and Reps’ sons avoided combat. Bush, at least, didn’t claim a bum knee, or some crap like that. He did serve in some area, to his credit.
His very minimal credit. We got a confusing mass of eyewitnesses, which are unreliable, especially 30 years after the fact. Col. William Campenni is obviously going to play up the virtues of being in the Texas Air National Guard, seeing as how he was there right alongside Bush, and not overseas! Additionally, some guy turns up over in Alabama, says he saw Bush do his duty. Republicans are going to say, there’s your proof right there. Democrats might counter, that if your routine, day after day, was showing up and reading military magazines, how good will your memory be as to who came around, and who stayed? If Bush wasn’t the most important person you dealt with all day, and he spent a decent amount of time there in the begin, coming around consistently, and then stopped coming around would he necessarily remember, years later, that the Bush Kid stopped showing up?
Of course, this can go back and forth forever, as long as it’s the word of one group against the word of another. So what do we need? The Hard evidence, and complete documentation for his service, especially the specific periods in doubt. Otherwise, this can go on forever.
Re: The link I don’t quite agree with the way this guy forgives Bush, but I think he’s dead on as far as Kerry goes.
Brownstein on the issue- LA Times.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 23, 2004 03:36 AMAs a conservative, I just lvoe the fact the Dems are still charging on about the entire AWOL non-issue trying to make it an issue with the American people. Back in 199-whatever, I along with several other people didn’t really care too much about where Bill stuck his Willie, up until to the point where he lied about it under oath. IMHO, the Dems have blown the military vote again by insinuating that Guard service was a “dodge” out of the war.
Thinking that GWB is guilty of some sort of “High Crime” means we need to play this out upon the thousands of men who left service early due to a variety of reasons (starting college, having a family, getting a haircut, whatever….). Who wants to start that committee?
Posted by: Brian at February 23, 2004 07:14 AMGeorge Bush is a LIAR, who cares what we critisize him for, we can talk about WMD, we can talk about AWOL, we can talk about his jobs projection, we can talk about Iraq and 9/11, we can talk about anything we want to.
We people who are going to critisize Bush, we should be fair and call out every lie we hear and not stick to just one.
Posted by: martin at February 23, 2004 07:16 PMBush publicly admits he was paid for eight ((8) days service. He admits he was trained for out-of -date airplanes, so he did not have to fly them. Who planned this deceipt? Certainly not the incompetants who released such details.
His father, Bush I, pretended to be a “foolish guy” who somehow had headed the CIA. They both believe the American People are fools. But as Lincoln said, “they could not be fooled all the time”; and they cannot be fooled for more than four (4) years at a time.
Posted by: Michael Paiewonsky at February 25, 2004 06:54 PMBeating a dead horse is unproductive. You’ve got an agenda to prove and the evidence is shaky, yet you persist.
The National Guard during the time Pres. Bush served, was to protect the homeland, if attacked. My father was one who enlisted. They were advised they could go overseas, but they didn’t expect to, since the structure of the Armed Forces was such that the four branches fought anywhere, the NG protected the homeland. However, even up until the war in Iraq, NG soldiers didn’t really expect to be called up to active duty. Witness the anticipated extreme drop in the rate of re-enlistment by the Guard, once tour’s expire. It is due to the fact that even current members didn’t expect to see active duty, and don’t want to again. Don’t use revisionist history to prove your point. The lack of context in your argument proves only your ignorance.
As for the argument that he was AWOL, let anyone of you produce ALL your paystubs for an entire year, for your “primary’ job, not even your ‘secondary’ responsibility, 39 years ago. If you can’t, you too are considered to have been ‘AWOL’ and disregarded.
Posted by: Rootboy at March 4, 2004 12:36 PMHEY GUYS, AT LEAST GEORGE W. SERVED IN THE GUARD.
WHAT ABOUT YOUR GREAT PRESIDENT CLINTON WHO RAN TO CANADA. DID YOU FORGET HIM…SEEMS YOU DID.
