Vindicating George W.

[Tiger Al 0]

Excellent post, TexasTiger!

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

... While the war was still being fought, he got out of the last 8 months of his enlistment to go to business school.  Why was this even necessary?  Many students are in the Guard.  Many professionals with full-time jobs are in the Guard.  Why would he even have to ask to get out to go to school?  And should one do so when you have made a "commitment" to serve?  ...

While the war was being fought and he was still in Viet Nam, Al Gore did exactly what Bush did -- requested an early out of his "commitment" to attend divinity school at Vanderbilt. Like Bush, his request was accepted. Unlike Bush, Gore never graduated. He promptly flunked out soon after starting school. So, in essence Al Gore abandoned his comrades-in-arms in a war zone because he grew weary of reporting for Stars & Stripes and returned home after spending nearly 4.5 long months in Viet Nam. Of course, none of this was due to Al Gore's father being a prominent Senator from Tennessee. Nooooo.

Why is this relevent? Al Gore came as close as you can be to being elected President. Just trying to show you that special treatment & requests to leave early weren't all limited to 'Repug' congressmen's children. Many were also made by 'Dumbmocrat' congressmen's children, I'm sure.

One piece of documented proof of Bush's service that I have never seen credibly refuted anywhere is his receipt of an Honorable Discharge. If he had been AWOL, he couldn't have received this. If he had fraudulently obtained his Honorable Discharge, then it's due to one of two possiblities -- either Bush forged the document himself or his whole AF chain of command participated in a criminal conspiracy. So, all of you AWOL insisters, ... which is it? forgery? or criminal conspiracy?

[Tiger Al 0]

One of the obvious questions raised by Bush's missing year is why he was never brought up on any disciplinary charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and why he was given an honorable discharge. (It's unlikely Bush could have run for president if he'd been tainted with anything less than an honorable discharge from the military.)

But the issue is not that black and white. "An honorable discharge usually means the person has not committed any misconduct," says retired JAG officer Lattin. "He may have failed to honor his obligation, but he hasn't committed a criminal act. And that's an important distinction."

It's important, because based on Lattin's interpretation of the military law, a guardsman on non-active duty who fails to show up for his monthly drill sessions, as Bush did, is not subject to the UCMJ. The UCMJ, Lattin says, applies only to active-duty servicemen. And while guardsmen who report for weekend duty are covered for those 48 hours by the UCMJ's unique codes (regarding desertion, being AWOL, etc.), a non-active guardsman who refuses to report for duty in the first place cannot be covered by the UCMJ. Instead, an absent-without-leave guardsman is subject to the state's military codes of justice, which mirror the UCMJ.

But even then, says Lattin, cases of guardsmen who fail to attend drill sessions are rarely dealt with under the military's criminal code, but rather administratively, which is less burdensome. Administrative options include transferring the solider to active duty, or separating him from his unit while beginning dismissal procedures that would likely -- although not always -- result in a less than, or other than, honorable discharge. Also in Bush's case, he could have been permanently stripped of his flight privileges.

So why was no administrative action taken against Bush during his missing year or more? "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal official," says Fidell, the military law expert. "Observers of the Guard at that time have said it did seem to be an entity in which connections might be helpful."

Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political in the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very day. One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not. If George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."

Lattin stresses that the Bush episode, and the Guard's failure to take any administrative actions against him, have to be viewed in context of the early '70s. With the Vietnam War beginning to wind down and the U.S. military battling endemic low morale, the Pentagon showed little interest in chasing after absent-without-leave guardsmen. "It was too hard and there were too many of them," says Lattin. "There was a 'who cares' attitude. Commanders didn't want to deal with them. And they knew they'd stir up a hornet's nest, especially if one of the [missing guardsmen] was named George Bush."

LINK

[AUloggerhead 2,507]

Al, I'm still waiting for that one piece of documented proof to refute his Honorable Discharge. Speculation by a retired JAG officer is not documented proof.

[rexbo 104]

While the war was still being fought, he got out of the last 8 months of his enlistment to go to business school.

Bush was not enlisted, he was a commisioned officer.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni (retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971). "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

[rexbo 104]

Dubya’s Wing Men

Some of the hyper-libs are saying that Bush's service in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron was the equivalent of draft dodging. They're also saying — and the too willing media are buying — the idea that Senator Kerry's combat experience would have to make him a better wartime president than Bush. Both points are false. The real issue is what did each of them learn in the Vietnam days, and how those lessons shape their present-day thinking.

The media — by focusing only on Kerry's Vietnam service and Bush's lack of combat time — is blowing a smokescreen to cover a far more important issue than who served where and when. In the 2004 election, we're not choosing someone to pick up a gun and go at the enemy himself. We're choosing someone who can lead the nation in time of war.

Kerry is a puzzle: once a warrior, now distrustful of his nation's power and position in the world. He had a soda-straw-wide view of a war that Americans still don't agree should have been fought. He came back from it to condemn the war and those who fought it even though some were still being beaten and tortured in North Vietnamese prison camps. He abandoned them for the company of Hanoi Jane to propel himself into politics.

The distrust and doubt Kerry learned in Vietnam now colors everything he sees. When John Kerry looks at terrorism he sees a threat we can deal with without going to war. In the Middle East he sees only a Vietnam-like quagmire. Kerry doesn't believe America can win this war, and lacks the confidence in America to lead it through the conflict.

President Bush is no combat hero, but he served bravely and well in the Vietnam era. His service gave him confidence in his nation and its motives that John Kerry lacks. What Bush has and Kerry doesn't is the critical difference in character between a president who can lead a nation through a war, and one who cannot.

[TexasTiger 14,070]

Why is this relevent? Al Gore came as close as you can be to being elected President. Just trying to show you that special treatment & requests to leave early weren't all limited to 'Repug' congressmen's children. Many were also made by 'Dumbmocrat' congressmen's children, I'm sure.

You're right. Abuse of privilege is not necessarily limited to one party. But note that Gore did also enter as an enlisted man and requested service in Viet Nam and I've never seen any evidence that he failed to show up for duty or pee in a cup.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Why is this relevent? Al Gore came as close as you can be to being elected President. Just trying to show you that special treatment & requests to leave early weren't all limited to 'Repug' congressmen's children. Many were also made by 'Dumbmocrat' congressmen's children, I'm sure.

You're right. Abuse of privilege is not necessarily limited to one party. But note that Gore did also enter as an enlisted man and requested service in Viet Nam and I've never seen any evidence that he failed to show up for duty or pee in a cup.

this has gotten to the comical stage.

the difference between bush & gore is now the fact that gore peed and bush didn't.

peegate

[eibua12 81]

This has become comical:

There was a war in Vietnam I thought it was a conflict

I didn't inhale either

I didn't have sex with her or the other women

I didn't lie to my wife]

and many more

and Clinton was elected twice.........

The economy a president inherits is based on the fisical policy of the previous president at least for the first 2 years maybe longer.

Hmm the economy is in the crapper because all those MBAs couldn't run doc com companies and corporate corruption and greed took over displacing workers.

Can't we learn from the past go look at what happened when the railroads started, the auto industry started, the telephone/telegraph industry started... I see a trend

Also those MBAs have sent how many jobs overseas?

Why hasn't there been a job recovery?

Hmmm just a thought the greed has trickled down the workers who got a overpriced jobs during the run up (I remember with a P/E ration of 1500 and they weren't even turning a profit geeez) and are too lazy to go out and actually take a job for less money and maybe do something that is beneath them.

I have said if I were displaced from the workplace I would do what needed to be done until I found a new job.

How does that relate you say well if I went and got a job beneath me and at least had some disposable income then I would spend that, which in turn creates demand, and inturn creates a recovery but we are too proud so that hasn't happened so we asked the Govt to do it for us with tax cuts and fisical policy but are mad because it isn't working fast enough for me to find another 6 figure job.

How is Bush supposed to create jobs can someone answer that for me... with out goverment spending (oops back in debt) and tax cuts ( more debt) and with out all that tax rev coming because the econ is not humming (more debt).

I am bored with all this bashing of people now one is perfect (maybe Kerry is) let's stick to what he can do as a leader and depending with whom you talk Bush has either done a very bad job or a very good job can anyone explain to me how the democrats will improve on this...

anyone

I can read our for the massess media I want the home grown ideas from the people.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, I'm still waiting for that one piece of documented proof to refute his Honorable Discharge. Speculation by a retired JAG officer is not documented proof.

This would be like pointing to Dexter Manley's Oklahoma State diploma as proof that he CAN read and write. It's as unlikely that Bush's superiors would've given a congressman and ambassador's son a dishonorable discharge as it was for OSU's coach to kick him off the team.

Of course, although Dexter did testify before Congress that HE was a fraud, it's highly unlikely that Bush will ever raise himself to that level of honesty.

[TitanTiger 21,068]

This is an argument from silence, Al. And it leaks like a sieve.

[Grumps 3,706]

Al, I'm still waiting for that one piece of documented proof to refute his Honorable Discharge.  Speculation by a retired JAG officer is not documented proof.

This would be like pointing to Dexter Manley's Oklahoma State diploma as proof that he CAN read and write. It's as unlikely that Bush's superiors would've given a congressman and ambassador's son a dishonorable discharge as it was for OSU's coach to kick him off the team.

Of course, although Dexter did testify before Congress that HE was a fraud, it's highly unlikely that Bush will ever raise himself to that level of honesty.

Excellent point Loggerhead!!

It amazes me that all of these liberals can be so sure that Bush did something illegal regarding his Nat'l Guard service even though the US government seems to have been completely satisfied.

As I said earlier, the thing that most confuses me is that this issue is so important to them. There are MANY arguments you could make to me about why Bush shouldn't be re-elected and I might listen a little. But I'll never give a rat's a$$ about whether Bush got a flight physical in 1972. If the Government says he fulfilled his obligation, then that's okay with me.

[CCTAU 3,465]

That's why its a beautiful thing. Most people don't care. And the more the demons cry about it, the sicker all the people in the middle get of hearing it. Which is a plus for Bush.