posted on February 6, 2004 01:56:00 PM new
The Democratic primaries aren't over yet, but it's already boiled down to a two-man race: John F. Kerry vs. George W. Bush. And the campaign has already generated one red-hot issue: Did National Guardsman George Bush fail to show up for duty?
The question was first raised in 2000 by the Boston Globe. But Al Gore never pursued it, and neither did the networks, who treated Bush with a wet kiss. But the issue has suddenly resurfaced – with former Sen. Max Cleland, a Kerry supporter, accusing Bush of being "AWOL."
So what's the answer? Was he AWOL or not? The truth is, we don't know for sure. But there's lots of evidence he was. And the White House can't produce any evidence he wasn't.
Here's what we know: In 1968, as a Congressman's son, young George Bush was able to get a rare slot in the Texas Air National Guard, and thus escape service in Vietnam. He was accepted for pilot training, even though he scored only 25 percent on the aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade.
In May 1972, Bush was permitted to transfer to the Alabama National Guard in order to work on the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. Now stop right there. We taxpayers pay to train him as a fighter pilot and he's assigned to work in a Senate campaign? How many Guardsmen in Iraq today would like that cushy assignment? And how many do you think would get it?
While politicking in Alabama, Bush was required to attend drills with two different units. There is no record he ever showed up. Retired Gen. William Turnipseed, commander of the Air National Guard of Montgomery at the time, said again this week he is "dead certain" Bush was a no-show.
In August 1972, Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to show up for his annual physical. The White House says it's because he couldn't get back to Texas to see his doctor, even though there were plenty of flight doctors in Alabama. 1972 also happens to be the year the Pentagon imposed random drug testing for the first time. Did Bush duck the exam because he knew he would flunk?
In November 1972, after the Senate campaign, Bush returned to Texas and, in theory, back to his Texas Guard unit. But there's no record he ever showed up there, either. At Ellington Air Force base in Texas, his two superior officers were unable to complete his annual evaluation for service between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973, because "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."
In George Bush's Guard service, in other words, the 12 months from May 1972 to May 1973 are a black hole. No record of his showing up for duty, period. Where was he?
Americans deserve to know, and not just for political reasons. According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a person who is AWOL for more than 30 days is guilty of desertion, with a maximum punishment of death. There is no statute of limitations.
The White House, of course, bristles at allegations that Bush shirked his National Guard duties, which Republican Chair Marc Racicot calls a "new low" in politics. But there's one way to put the issue to rest once and for all. Let President Bush name one guardsman he met during the seven months he served in Alabama. Just one. If he can, the issue's dead. If he can't, it's a good sign he's lying.
Don't hold your breath. In 2000, a group of former Alabama guardsmen offered a $3,500 reward to anyone who could remember serving with Lt. George Bush. Nobody came forward.
One final point. Is it, as Racicot charges, dirty pool for Cleland to raise this issue? Not at all. I remind you that Max Cleland is a decorated Vietnam hero who left both legs and one arm behind on the battlefield. He lost his Senate seat when President Bush went to Georgia and accused him of being unpatriotic because, while he sponsored his own homeland security bill, he dared oppose Bush's version of the same legislation.
Fair is fair. If it was OK for George Bush to question triple-amputee Max Cleland's patriotism, it's OK for Max Cleland to question George Bush's military service.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:04:11 PM new
Reamond, within the last couple of days, I read somewhere (I'll try to find a link) that Bush failed to show up for service to avoid being drug tested. It's an interesting theory. Do you know, off-hand, if the military (or National Guard) was testing its members for drug use in the late sixties/early seventies?
posted on February 6, 2004 02:15:24 PM new
Read above- Bush failed to show for medical exam when drug testing started.
I think daddy got drug abusing Jr out of Texas and into Alabama where knew him or NO WOULD SEE HIM INCLUDING HIS NATIONAL GUARD CONRADES.
Imagine not reporting for duty for ayear while a war was going. It was bad enough that he got a nearly impossible Guard slot that guaranteed him he wouldn't set foot in Vietnam.
At least Clinton was honest about his position about the war.
Bush is a sleezy liar about his "service" to his country.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:20:49 PM new
Looking at some of the things I have heard here and there and putting them together make for some interesting possibilities with this.
Bush scored at the very lowest level you can and still take pilot training.
Then was he assigned a transport or cargo plane to learn? No he was asigned to fly the F-104 Starfighter at the end of it's service life.
It is the fastest low altitude fighter that has ever flown and very unforgiving of the slightest error and demands very quick thinking to handle. It is so fast it ejects the piolet downward because they could not get the seat to lift fast enought to clear the tail.
Not only the US but the Germans when they flew this plane had a horrible accident rate becuase of the demands of this hot-rod airplane. It had short stubby wings that were so sharp on the leading edge they covered them with foam protectors to keep the ground crew from injuring themselves. I know of one incident in North Carolina where an F-104 doing ground hugging flight dipping into a clearing at speed cut the top off a pine tree that stood alone in the middle of the clearing. Figure how fast it had to be going and how sharp the wing to do that!
The plane at altitude was also fast but very dangerous for several modes of instability such as being impossible to recover in anyway from a flat spin. The famed Chuck Yeager once took one of these outside it's flight envelope by lofting it ballistically and rode it down from in excess of 100,000 feet in a flat spin and bailed out never able to recover. Nobody has ever tried to land one with damaged or partial gear down conditions and walked away from the wreck alive.
It is a very dangerous aircraft and if I had a flight line of them and a marginal pilot as I understand Bush was I think I'd be real happy and let it slide if he didn't want to continue to rack a bunch of hours up. Might keep another crash off my outfit's record.
I can just see him in one of his deer-frozen-in-the-headlight reactions to something at Mach2.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:21:56 PM new
Ah, sorry, I missed this paragraph:
"In August 1972, Bush was suspended from flying because he failed to show up for his annual physical. The White House says it's because he couldn't get back to Texas to see his doctor, even though there were plenty of flight doctors in Alabama. 1972 also happens to be the year the Pentagon imposed random drug testing for the first time. Did Bush duck the exam because he knew he would flunk? "
Well, then, it appears this is a more widely-held belief than I thought. Good! There'll be no way to prove it now, of course, but sometimes raising the specter is enough to get people thinking.
I agree that Bush is a sleazy liar, and I extend that assessment far beyond his sham of a "military career"...
posted on February 6, 2004 02:25:31 PM new
A Jeep probably accellerated faster than Bush could think.
It is discusting that anyone would support a president that was a deserter during time of war, especially while he is sending soldiers to their death based on a fabrication.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:36:04 PM new
George Bush has an Honorable Discharge you idiots. You don't get one if you are AWOL or a deserter. You lefties are not scoring any points by putting down the National Guard.
And how many of you geniuses have a degree from Yale?
------------------------------
posted on February 6, 2004 02:49:02 PM new
How many medicre students can get into Yale that didn't have a wealthy and powerful father as an alumni ? Answer-- NONE !!
It would be impossible for Bush to get an honorable discharge and go AWOL for a year during a war ? Sure he could get one. He got the Honorable Discharge the same way he got into the National Guard and didn't show up for service for a year.
Could you or I get away with it ? Nope.
This has nothing to do with "putting down" the National Guard. It has everything to do with Bush being a liar and deserter.
Why don't you address the issues of where he was when he was supposed to be reporting for duty and how he got into the Guayd in the first place.
Bush is worse than a draft dodger. He is a draft dodger with an Honorable Discharge.
The only person "putting down" the National Guard is Bush with his Honorable Disacharge.
posted on February 6, 2004 02:56:07 PM new
Some of these people really don't believe there is such a thing as privilage and undo influence.
They never grew up past the starry eyed hall monitor that thought the principal was God. Heck some of them still sit and chant "I believe." when they watch Peter pan and thing they saved Tinkerbell again. In fact the whole political process depends on them.
posted on February 6, 2004 03:06:28 PM new
That is one thing I always admired about Bill Clinton. He was a man who became President of the US based purely on his own merit. There was no wealth, privelege, or power behind Clinton.
Instead of a Constitutional Amendment for marriage, we should seek an amendment to allow for unlimited terms as president and get Clinton back where he belongs - the Oval Office.
posted on February 6, 2004 03:13:52 PM new
Reamond, obviously you haven't been in the military. If Bush deserted or was AWOL, there would have been a BIG problem and there would have been disciplinary action. And there's no way in hell that he would get an Honorable Discharge.
In the military, there is what's called the chain of command. If there was favoritism from the top, about 10 commanders would had to have been in on it. Very unlikely. You people are full of sh!t.
posted on February 6, 2004 03:17:09 PM new
Well, this is a surprise! Read what's on the official White House Website about our 42nd President:
"During the administration of William Jefferson Clinton, the U.S. enjoyed more peace and economic well being than at any time in its history. He was the first Democratic president since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win a second term. He could point to the lowest unemployment rate in modern times, the lowest inflation in 30 years, the highest home ownership in the country's history, dropping crime rates in many places, and reduced welfare roles. He proposed the first balanced budget in decades and achieved a budget surplus."
posted on February 6, 2004 03:24:04 PM newYou people are full of sh!t.
LOL now you're catching on ebayauctionguy... there is no talking to those morons... It has been disproven time and again that the President was not a military deserter, but as usual they perfer to eat sh*t...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
heh, who really cares in a world were queers can be married...
Bush was supposedly in Alabama between May 1972 and November 1972, but the commanding officer of the Alabama unit says he doesn't remember Bush ever showing up. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," he said. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."
In August 1972 Bush was suspended from flying because he never showed up for his required annual physical.
posted on February 6, 2004 03:53:40 PM new
EAG, political influence has been wielded in the U.S. Military probably since its inception. When JFK couldn't pass the Army physical, his influential father got him a desk job in the ONI. Unlike George Bush, Jr., Kennedy wanted to serve, despite his shaky health, and ultimately (with Joseph P.'s help) got out from behind that Naval Intelligence desk and went on to command PT-109.
JFK had the humility, years later, when people touted his personal rescue of most of that boat's crew as "heroism", to acknowledge in shame that his vessel had been the only one ever cut in two by an enemy ship.
George Bush, Jr., on the other hand, used his father's political influence to keep him out of war, and then abused his cushy slot in the National Guard by arrogantly -- as only a spoiled, protected, morally-bankrupt child could -- neglecting the simple weekend service he'd been given to perform.
posted on February 6, 2004 04:00:32 PM newReamond, obviously you haven't been in the military. If Bush deserted or was AWOL, there would have been a BIG problem and there would have been disciplinary action. And there's no way in hell that he would get an Honorable Discharge
When I was in the military you actually had to be there.
Your naivette about Bush and his priveleges are unbelievable. Bush's desertion was overlooked the same way his grades were overlooked when he got into Yale.
It's good to see that 12 and ebay can only call name and refuse to address the facts about Bush'd military "service".
Bush is a gad damm deserter and got away with it because of the power and influence of his family.
Bush lacks honor, integrity, and honesty. If he were a poor boy he would have been shot ot in prison for the duration.
At least when Clinton got into Yale he did it on his own wits and intellegence.
posted on February 6, 2004 04:55:20 PM new
Somehow I flash on a scene after the election if Bush is defeated and he is contemplating it in a funerial mood. I can see him thinking and believing - "Well I did my best but the nation was not worthy of me."
posted on February 6, 2004 05:50:17 PM new
People really don't care.
You could make a good case the Nazis lost the battles and won the war. The US has adopted the attitude and philosophies of the Germans and imported their technology while abandoning their own morals. They accepted every scientist and designer they could lay their hands on and no crime committed was too horrid if the practical thing to do was bring them here and put them to work. You don't hear of rocket designers suddenly being stripped of their citizenship and deported for being a Nazi. They covered their butts even if they had jew skin lamp shades in the parlor as long as they had an exotic technical skill. Operation paperclip they called it.
So ideologically - who won?
So who wages preemptive war now like German storming Poland?
posted on February 6, 2004 06:11:13 PM new
But... but... but... there's more to it than that! There are ties and shady deals and all kinds of stuff!
And, you're right, hardly anyone cares. What does it matter if Prescott Bush committed treason and what does it matter that George Bush, Sr. maintained close ties with several Nazis?
I guess we'll get the answers to those questions down the road, when it'll be too late to ask them...
