| Author | Message | ||
     Jurgnz Citizen Username: Jurgnz Post Number: 7 Registered: 1-2004 |
DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, is making it clear. Bush's service in the National Guard is going to be a big issue in the campaign. Odd, isn't it. Democrats were insistent that Clinton's draft-dodging and associated lies were just simply not an issue. Now that it's a Republican in the White House the rules change. What a year this is going to be. I admire John Kerry's record of service, but wasn't Bush given an "Honerable Discharge?" | ||
| Grateful Straw Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1908 Registered: 10-2001  |
Yeah, It's funny. The same Democratic base that hated the Vietnam Vet 20 years ago now wants to elect one. The same Democratic base that cried Clinton's draft dodging wasn't a big deal, now wants Bush's National Guard record made a central issue in the race. The Democratic party can be a sickening experience. Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2179 Registered: 12-2001  |
Clinton obtained a legal deferment. Bush obtained a rich boy's country club deferment. Legally, neither is a draft dodger. Morally, both are, but Bush is worse because he presents the image of having performed meaningful service. | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 64 Registered: 9-2003 |
tjohn. You sound like an idiot. Bush was in the National gaurd. The issue is he was working on a Senate campaign in Alabamma and missed a couple months of service which he made up after the race was over(which the national gaurd allows). It is disrespctful to everyone who has served in the national gaurd to comapre Bush and Clinton. Clinton was a draft dodger. Did Bush enlist for infantry, NO but most american would do what they could to avoid the front lines | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2180 Registered: 12-2001 |
Must have been a different Armed Forces. During my four year enlistment, I would not been allowed to take an indefinite leave of absence to assist in some political campaign. If Clinton is a draft dodger, so is Bush. Bush took deliberate steps to avoid being sent to Vietnam. So did Clinton. Was that rational on their part? Certainly. Was it the moral equivalent of dodging the draft? Yes. | ||
| eliz Citizen Username: Eliz Post Number: 699 Registered: 5-2001  |
The same Repubican base that cried Clinton's draft dodging was a big deal, now wants Bush's National Guard record made a non-issue in the race. It's all the same bullcrap no matter what party. | ||
| JJC Citizen Username: Mercury Post Number: 199 Registered: 12-2002 |
The thing you have with Bush is that he sent US troops to fight in Iraq based on "faulty intellegence". Bush did use his family connections to avoid front-line service and appears to have been AWOL from the Natl Guard during his 'tour of duty'. This is why it is an issue in this case. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4515 Registered: 5-2001 |
I think that Bush is bringing this on himself by dressing up in his little pilot suit and being flown onto a carrier to proclaim “Mission Accomplished”. This has always struck me as bush league, pun intended. One way or another, whether he was excused from meetings or was AWOL and protected by his Daddy, he served very little time during his Guard commitment. During the same period a number of friends and acquaintances of both my wife and myself were in the National Guard and lived in fear of missing a meeting since that was grounds for being activated and being on the first available transport to Vietnam. The commitment was one night a week, one weekend a month and two weeks at camp during the summer. Apparently Bush was protected from that fate. I don’t think Clinton ever hid the fact that he used every possible deferment he could find to avoid being drafted. Was this honorable? In today’s light probably not, but many of us middle class, college educated men took a similar approach. Interestingly, on the subject of changing times, the GOP is already reving up attacks on Kerry and his involvement with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War as unpatriotic, so like most things in life there are two sides to the story. . | ||
| Jerseyfabulous Citizen Username: Jerseyfabulous Post Number: 65 Registered: 9-2003 |
tjohn, were you in the national gaurd? Thousands of American went to graduate schools, etc to get deferrments to Vietnam. Are they draft dodgers as well. By your definition yes. I work within the system to try to pay less taxes. Am I a tax cheat? | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2181 Registered: 12-2001 |
It is rational to avoid something unpleasant whether it be military service in a war or taxes. However, avoiding a war while others less fortunate serve is hardly on the same moral plain as avoiding taxes. However, I fault the political lesdership of the time for creating all sorts of deferments and not those who availed of them. And no, I was not in the National Guard. | ||
| Grateful Straw Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1909 Registered: 10-2001 |
The National Guard is for wimps!, right TJohn? Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2182 Registered: 12-2001 |
Not at all. There was a time when I might have joined the guard but there weren't any units around that did what I wanted to do. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1903 Registered: 5-2001  |
What's this nonsense about being excused to work on a political campaign? I wonder how many servicemen and women were permitted leave to work on, say, Eugene McCarthy's or George McGovern's campaigns? Clinton played by the rules. You may not LIKE the rules, but there they were. Go to grad school, don't go to Vietnam. Going into the Guard was probably a tougher experience, what with shooting at college kids and all, at least if you showed up, but not everybody got that chance. Bush did, so did Dan Quayle. Am I seeing a pattern here? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 1971 Registered: 1-2003  |
tom, that is so cynical of you to say Bush might invade for the sake of winning the election. And it is so scary that it might happen. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 464 Registered: 12-2001 |
Bush certainly didn't mind when Max Cleland's patriotism was attacked. McCain objected. I think going to Vietnam, like Kerry and Gore did, is admirable. You can't deny that it is a classy way of handling the situation. Remember the "what did you do during the war, daddy?" concept? Service is something to be proud of. I understand that Bush was put at the top of the waiting list (this is not really disputed) to get into the NG. That is not a classy way of handling things. That is what a person with an aristocratic outlook accepts because it seems due him. As for Clinton, he was a Rhodes scholar. That is not the easiest distinction to earn, and the point is, he earned it through hard work and brains. Love him or hate him, he didn't have an uncle doing him favors. I don't think Bill Clinton is a physically brave guy. He's a sensualist, and was a poor athlete. But he got his deferment the honest way. One thing I wonder about is, didn't Bush say he did not support the Vietnam war? In view of our current foreign wars, I wonder what it was about the Vietnam war he didn't support? I can't find the quote about not supporting it, but I'd love to hear him explain now. | ||
| Grateful Straw Citizen Username: Strawberry Post Number: 1910 Registered: 10-2001 |
Tjohn, Kill commies? Look for awhile at the China Cat Sunflower proud-walking jingle in the midnight sun Copper-dome Bodhi drip a silver kimono like a crazy-quilt stargown through a dream night wind. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 465 Registered: 12-2001 |
Other members of the Texas Air National Guard at the time included the aide to the speaker of the Texas House and at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys professional football team; Bush's 147th Fighter Group was known as the "Champagne Unit" because it also included the sons of future Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Texas Governor John Connally. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2184 Registered: 12-2001 |
Straw, Nope, they stayed in East Germany, we stayed in West Germany. Food and beer were better in W. Germany. | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 914 Registered: 5-2001  |
I think the differences between Bush's "service" and Clinton's "service" are going to go largely unrecognized by the public. There are so many other issues to knock W down with, I don't see the point of making military service one of the biggies. (Incidentally, I have it on good account that Clinton isn't running this particular time out.) | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 397 Registered: 6-2003 |
True American patriots resisted the war in Vietnam because it was an immoral and dishonest enterprise, as shameful to the United States as the Holocaust was to Germany. Others, less well informed but no less patriotic, served in the war from a sense of duty to their country, and slowly came to realize that they had been betrayed. And then there are people like George A.W.O.L. Bush. Beneath contempt, really. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 523 Registered: 8-2003  |
his military record is only relevant in that it is consistent with the Bush attitude that prevails to this day: "sacrifice is for suckers." | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 63 Registered: 9-2003 |
Some of us thought that Clinton's draft dodging was a positive attribute, a reason to vote for him. | ||
| drewdix Citizen Username: Drewdix Post Number: 466 Registered: 7-2001 |
I thinikm the focus on military records is a great one for the Dems; I had no idea it would be such an issue. But I'm not great at this game. W wasn't excused from the guard, he was transferred to an Alabama base (from TX) so he could have proximity to the campaign he wanted to work for. But the CO at the time has no recollection of Bush ever performing any duty during that time, although W of course states it differently tune. Never heard about the "make up" time story. The repubs are really grasping by reaching back to expose Clinton's record. Don't think he's running this year. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2193 Registered: 12-2001 |
I hope the more senior Democrats don't make too big a deal out of this. I think it does demonstrate that Bush lives by his motto, "Sacrifice is for sucker", but as Notehead noted, there are bigger and more current reasons to vote for ABB. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 841 Registered: 8-2003 |
For the record, the republicans didn't bring up any of this military record business. Michael Moore did in a speech for General Clark where he called Bush a 'deserter", and Peter Jennings asked Clark about it in a debate and Clark muffed the answer. It's been going around ever since. The only other military record business that has come up is Clark saying "I'm a general, he was only a lieutenant" in reference to Kerry. I mean, aside from Kerry mentioning ad nauseum that he served in Viet Nam. | ||
| Jurgnz Citizen Username: Jurgnz Post Number: 9 Registered: 1-2004 |
Here's the text of a speech made by John Kerry on the floor of the Senate on 02/27/1992. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004646 In this speech he says that he's "saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign." This speech was delivered after Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and 1992 candidate for the Democratic nomination, criticized Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam. Now ... 14 years later ... it's Kerry who's the candidate, and it's Kerry who's criticizing another candidate's service during Vietnam. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe might better ask John Kerry which way he wants it. | ||
| harpo Citizen Username: Harpo Post Number: 1116 Registered: 6-2001 |
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/articles/2004/02/05/bushs_guard_se rvice_what_the_record_shows/ Today's Boston Globe recycles the independent investigation it conducted into Bush's military service in 2000. It points out that before the Globe report in May 2000, "Bush's official biography reported erroneously that he flew fighter-interceptor jets for the Houston Guard unit from 1968 to 1973. In a 1999 interview with a military publication, Bush said that among the values he learned as a pilot included 'the responsibility to show up and do your job.'" The Globe then goes on to document with government records a "highly unusual" term of service that was noteworthy for Bush's not showing up at all. PS: It was nicknamed "the Champagne Squadron." I've posted this link before, but it's fun posting it again: A short humorous film ridiculing Bush's flyboy landing on the flight deck by constrasting it with his actual military record. It's very well done. http://www.bushflash.com/topgun.html | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2002 Registered: 1-2003 |
Wow, despite all his shirking, he moved up in the ranks faster than anyone in US military history. I suppose there are many possible explanations for that! Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 470 Registered: 12-2001 |
Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." That, according to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 50 Registered: 8-2003 |
References to Clinton are irrelevant for two reasons: he’s not running this time (as is obvious to all Democrats) and he had nothing to hide in the first place. Clinton never made a secret of the fact that he opposed the war in Vietnam and sought legal means to avoid military service. By the time the 1992 campaign got underway, voters had discounted it, at least as a personal issue. Oh sure, there were plenty of military veterans and political hawks who were unhappy with Clinton’s background, but there was no element of scandal or cover-up, nor of political waffling. Bush, on the other hand, has all appearances of trying to run from his past. I suspect the AWOL claims are not founded; he was, indeed, honorably discharged. But it seems fairly likely to me that he joined the National Guard to avoid active military duty. Here’s what John Kerry said about it in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday night, "I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard. Those are choices people make." That’s got a lot more sting than Wesley Clark’s heavy-handed remarks. I suspect Bush and his people are really quite concerned about this. That’s why they’re trying to drag Clinton back into it somehow. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 190 Registered: 6-2002 |
Regarding POTUS and the military, the only thing that matters is that they respect each other. President Bush respects the armed forces and the people that I know who are members of the armed forces respect him and belief that he cares about them. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2016 Registered: 1-2003 |
So cutting the military's benefits has nothing to do with respect for them? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 334 Registered: 9-2003  |
The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty. But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts. How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition? Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds. Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans. Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 787 Registered: 5-2001  |
ba ha ha. That is hysterical. Nice drama, cowboy. So, protesting a war, gives "aid and comfort to an enemy"? Oh....OK. Most people call that "Freedom of Speech" | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2846 Registered: 10-1999  |
Okay, I'll bite. How did John Kerry give "aid and comfort" to the enemy? Or, is that another way of saying that he expressed his disagreement with our government's policies? [Edited to add: Curse you, Mayhewdrive, for getting your post in before me!] | ||
| kathy Citizen Username: Kathy Post Number: 738 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cowboy, Why would opposition to the war, based on first-hand knowledge and experience, constitute "abandonment of his brothers"? It looks to me like he was acting in his comrades' interest by trying to bring them home sooner from a war that was accomplishing very little besides getting them killed. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2081 Registered: 1-2003 |
It's possible to support the soldiers and oppose the war at the same time. I'd say many of us do that. Unfortunately, many were disrespectful to military people who came back from Vietnam. We're not going to repeat that mistake. I think most people would take an early discharge if they could get it. It's kind of like taking a legal tax deduction even if you favor higher taxes for everyone. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 112 Registered: 2-2003 |
I work around alot of vets. Let me tell you, many of them, especially combat vets, are anti-war, having witnessed and participated in a lot of the atrocities that you pseudo patriotic conservatives only see on your DVD sets showing the Thin Red Line and the like. Many Vietnam vets are bitter, not only becuse of the hostile reception that they received when they returned to the states but also they realized that the policies that they were fighting for were bankrupt. To sit there and try to denigrate John Kerry because he received a Purple Heart and was able to terminate his service (as is the rule in the military) is mean spirited. To try to denigrate him because he was lobbying for the end of a war that was killing his fellow veterans, often aged 17 to 18 years of age is just plain sick. And finally, he got a Purple Heart. What the hell were you and your relatives doing during the Vietnam War or any war? Did you or your relatives go into battle? | ||
| Dave Citizen Username: Dave Post Number: 6369 Registered: 4-1998  |
Shocking seeing that Bush himself mentioned the Vietnam war was a huge mistake. oops... i forgot ... never address a troll post | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2848 Registered: 10-1999 |
Back on topic: Apparently, the White House released some documents today, pay records or what-not, which may add to the confusion instead of clearing up the whole issue of the President's tenure in the Guard. And then they sent the poor White House Press Secretary out to fumble around against some very pointed questioning: Press Briefing by Scott McClellan - Feb. 10, 2004 | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 492 Registered: 12-2001 |
You should really check this out. Very interesting forensic approach to what can be known. Obviously this guy dislikes Bush, but his methods are interesting. http://www.calpundit.com/ | ||
| Diversity Man Citizen Username: Deadwhitemale Post Number: 624 Registered: 5-2001 |
Excellent post, Cowboy. JFK didn't throw away his medals in protest, (he corrects the media 32 years later), he only threw away his ribbons, and someone else's medals. Seeing him next to Max Cleland makes one wonder about John Forbes's wounds. How about a release of Kerry's medical records? DWM | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1943 Registered: 5-2001 |
good link, themp -- bears watching in the next few days. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 390 Registered: 9-2003  |
I read something in Time about Kerry's connection to other Viet Nam veterans in government. Sounded pretty non-partisan, and like he was respect by them (whether Republican or Democrat). I only care about the military record when the candidate makes something of it, which I think Bush has. I'm interested in Clark and in Kerry because of it, and at one point in the past McCain interested me on that score. Being of an age, I had no problem with Clinton's strategies for avoiding the draft, nor would I of someone who went Canada. I do have an issue sabre rattling Hawks who could've served, but didn't cuz they had something better to do (Cheney, e.g.) | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 439 Registered: 6-2003 |
Cowboy-An insane post doesn't deserve a sane reply. Kerry's a traitor because he served his country honestly and after seeing first hand what was going on, he voiced his opposition?. This is not a traitor but a true patriot. Dumbya on the other hand..... | ||
| mfpark Citizen Username: Mfpark Post Number: 198 Registered: 9-2001 |
Cowboy: Those veterans are responding gladly when Kerry calls. They did not feel abandoned or betrayed, but agree with his stance then and now. They have not been dragooned into appearing with him. I don't see them rushing to stand with Bush. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4618 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cowboy, I doubt that you are old enough to have been of military age in the late 1960s and early 1979s when Vietnam was at its height. Just a guess, but am I right? As the war went on and on and on and on and more and more kids came home in bodybags the country, not just young people, began to question the value of the war and its cost. Some of these people had seen and participated in the war up close and personal and came to oppose it becuase there was no plan and no goals. I have no problem with people joining the guard. While relatively safe for most it was a substantial time commitment, usually 90 days a year. Bush apparently, by his own records, served maybe 90 days in six years, but that is for another thread. A lot of young men used legal means to avoid service though educational and other deferments. Was this morally correct or not? I really don't know, but a lot of us lost friends in Vietnam, in fact most of us did. Many of us didn't want to join them. Other guys I know joined the Navy or the Air Force as enlisted men to avoid combat. This didn't always work out that way. A fraternity brother who enlisted in the Air Force ended up driving armored bulldozers clearing landing strips while hearing the bullets ping and dodging mortar fire. Another guy I know who went Navy ROTC, thinking he would end up as a deck officer on a destroyer ended up, like Kerry, in the Riverine force because he could handle a small boat. As is often the case Bush has brought a lot of this on himself by his dress up on the carrier and his mission accomplished speech. I think that upsets a lot of combat vetereans. "The times they were a changing" for the record I was 4-F because of severe myopia and felt both guilty and lucky. Eye chart, what eye chart? | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 209 Registered: 6-2002 |
I heard this on the radio yesterday, Sean Hannity's show. See this link: http://www.1stcavmedic.com/tet_offensive_of_1968.htm Here is the an important paragraph: The Wall Street Journal published an interview with Bui Tin who served on the General Staff of the North Vietnam Army and received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. During the interview Mr. Tin was asked if the American antiwar movement was important to Hanoi's victory. Mr. Tin responded "It was essential to our strategy", referring to the war being fought on two fronts, the Vietnam battlefield and back home in America through the antiwar movement on college campuses and in the city streets. He further stated the North Vietnamese leadership listened to the American evening news broadcasts "to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement." Visits to Hanoi made by persons such as Jane Fonda, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and various church ministers "gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses." Mr. Tin surmised, "America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win." Mr. Tin further advised that General Vo Nguyen Giap (Commanding General of the North Vietnam Army) had advised him the 1968 Tet Offensive had been a defeat. Kerry was a leader in protesting the war and the North Vietnam Generals credit the antiwar movement as a key to their success. Also check out this link: http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/ I have said before, my opinion, is that the only thing that matters between POTUS and the Military is that they each respect each other. I would say it is pretty clear that the Military does/would not respect Kerry. Kerry was also pretty tight with Jane Fonda during the antiwar movement, if that matters to anyone. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4622 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bui Tin is correct. Basically, our politicians were very careful about attacking into North Vietnam, remembering the Chinese intervention in Korea, and the military was never able to wage total war. By the late 1960s the war had stagnated and the only result was a lot of dead Vietnamese, both North and South and Americans. There wasn't a strategy for winning. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2857 Registered: 10-1999 |
The link given by Sylad is a website run by a guy named Ted Sampley. Four years ago, that same Ted Sampley was attacking John McCain, of all people. See, for example: http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcainmdl.htm And Mr. Sampley has conducted his attack on McCain in places such as the newsgroup alt.war.vietnam. For example, in 1998: Link: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=723eb456d585d368& rnum=81 So, it appears that as the latest target of Mr. Sampley, Senator Kerry is in excellent company. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 210 Registered: 6-2002 |
Kerry's gets kudos from the NVA for his support of the antiwar movement, and you call that excellent company. The info I provide was from a WSJ article, if you want more proof as to how the antiwar movement aided the NVA read any book by General Giap who planned the military strategy in Vietnam. The American Antiwar movement was central to their strategy and Kerry was central to the Antiwar movement. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 410 Registered: 6-2003 |
The Bui Tin quote is irrelevant. The Vietnamese were an enemy of the United States mainly in the sense that they were resisting a foreign invasion of their country. Fortunately, the majority of Americans finally came to realize that the U.S. had no business being in Vietnam, and they forced their government to withdraw. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2096 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sylad it's funny how we can look at the facts and agree and draw different conclusions. I'm glad that the grass roots resistance led to our pulling out of Vietnam. You seem to be saying if we hadn't had that resistance, we would have won. Correct me if I'm wrong. Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2858 Registered: 10-1999 |
Sylad, it's interesting that the supporters of President Bush have brought the old "if you're against our government, you're aiding the enemy" argument back to American politics. On second thought, it's not interesting. It's sad, tragic and disgraceful. Yet another reason to hope that the 2004 election brings about the retirement of President Bush. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 211 Registered: 6-2002 |
Montagnard...tell that to a Vietnam vet. I doubt that they would think his statement is irrelevant. I doubt the current members of our military would say his statement is irrelevant either. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2237 Registered: 12-2001 |
Americans have traditionally grown tired of long wars that show no sign of ending. This was true when we crushed the Filipino struggle for independence in 1898. This was starting to be true in Korea. This was true in Vietnam. To claim that those Americans who have grown tired of an optional war without end are somehow aiding our enemy is complete missing the point. I say shame on any of our leaders too stupid or lazy to read our history and understand that we have limited tolerance for endless war. Our limited tolerance for war unending is a fact of life that all of our politicians should consider before jumping into an optional war. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 212 Registered: 6-2002 |
I am saying that the NVA used the antiwar movement to their advantage. This thread is about "do you care about the President's Military record" Kerry fought in the war and I give him all the credit and praise for that, but to see the NVA state that the antiwar movement aided them and that Kerry was central to the Antiwar movement further enforces my statement that what I think matters most between POTUS and the Military is respect. I stated that the Military respects President Bush and visa versa. I do not believe that they would respect Kerry, they would respect the office of the President and his role as CIC, but I do not think they would respect him as a person. My posts have nothing to do with the choice to go to war in Vietman or if we should or should not have pulled out, my posts are about what matters between POTUS and the Military. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 51 Registered: 8-2003 |
This lopsided retelling of the Vietnam war has omitted two essential elements: that the regime we supported in South Vietnam was corrupt; and that our government, especially the military, repeatedly lied to the American public about the basis for the war and its progress. As the U.S. got seriously involved in combat operations in the early 1960s, there was overwhelming public support for routing the communist insurgents in Vietnam. Within a few years, however, it became apparent to open-minded observers that we were actually participating in a civil war, one that had stemmed from European colonialism rather than the global Cold War. It was also clear that the government of South Vietnam was no more democratic than its counterpart in the north. To me the lesson of Vietnam is that we should cherish our first Amendment freedoms, and engage in critical analysis and candid debate whenever our government wants to take us to war. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4624 Registered: 5-2001 |
It also leaves out that after Tet we failed, because of political restrictions, to take advantage of the situation to win the war. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Eventually, the American people, admitedly egged on by the media, got tired of the war, the regime we supported and the casualties. Am I the only one who sees similarities with Iraq? | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2238 Registered: 12-2001 |
Sylad, I think the military will be fine with Kerry. They had a problem with Clinton for a number of reasons such as his position on gays in the military, his Vietnam protesting record without having served and his allegedly contemptuous attitude towards the military. Kerry doesn't have this baggage. | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 213 Registered: 6-2002 |
TJ...thanks for bringing this back to the topic. Let's agree to disagree. | ||
| bottomline Citizen Username: Bottomline Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2003 |
Bobk, I reject the notion that “we” could have ever “won” the war in Vietnam. We bombed Hanoi from 30,000 feet, but we never seriously considered sending ground troops into North Vietnam, occupying the country and taking over the government. Somehow, we hoped our surrogates in South Vietnam would get the job done. The Vietnamese communists, however, had far more will to prevail than our puppet regime. The root of America’s problem in Vietnam was fuzzy thinking -- lack of clear and achievable objectives. That was the cause of the political restrictions and media scrutiny, not the other way around. Returning to the original question posed by this thread, I suspect Terry McAuliffe’s political goal here is to attack Bush’s personal credibility, not his patriotism or dedication to the military. I don’t see that the candidate’s military records will change many votes. Bush has established himself as Commander-in-Chief, thus superceding his service in the National Guard. Kerry is a decorated combat veteran who later opposed the war he fought in. It seems doubtful that many Democrats will flock to Bush on this basis, or Republicans to Kerry. | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 338 Registered: 9-2003 |
So yesterday the White House releases payroll records from Bush's service in the National Guard. John Kerry's campaign can now easily be summed up in one sentence: "I was in Vietnam and you weren't." Of course, this won't matter to the DNC and liberals like Terry McAuliffe. Remember: military service didn't matter when Clinton was in office, but it does now. Hypocrites. | ||
| Duncan Citizen Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 1520 Registered: 12-2001  |
Cowboy.. This isn't a Kerry issue. He has said as much. What is happening is one of the things that poisons the system. The head of the DNC can stir up all this trouble while the candidate can seem to be above the fray. Same tactics will be used by your guys, dont fear. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" Wayne Gretzky | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2240 Registered: 12-2001 |
Nice try Cowboy. It looks to me like Bush struggled to fulfill the obligations of National Guard service which are less demanding than active duty. As pointed out by Richard Cohen in the Calpundit, at that time, it was possible to avoid spending any time serving while in the guard but still be credited with having met your obligation. Of course, he had other serious demands on his time like helping Daddy's buddy in 'bama get elected. | ||
| wharfrat Citizen Username: Wharfrat Post Number: 964 Registered: 6-2001 |
The military and political will to fight the North Vietnamese on their home turf was weak because the military and gov't. policy makers feared we would draw mainland China into the war. Interestingly, faulty intelligence estimates incorrectly concluded that the PRC and RNV were part of a worldwide communist monolith, when in fact the two countries were never allied, and were in fact millenial enemies. Neil Sheehan's book, "The Bright Shining Lie" provides excellent material explaining how and why the intelligence community was just plain wrong on this. Part of his explanation is disturbingly similar to the reasons why faulty intelligence and predetermined political will resulted in the Iraqi invasion. | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 341 Registered: 9-2003 |
Duncan and tjohn, Let's review. On Sunday Kerry says "The issue here is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? On Tuesday, after the records are released, Kerry says "It's not an issue that I've chosen to create." I don't know who actually created this issue, maybe that slug Michael Moore, but we do know who pushed it for all it was worth for the last week. Now he's saying "Hey, don't look at me! I didn't start this thing." Logic only a liberal could love. And speaking of Michael Moore. What are Michael Moore and Madonna going to do? Now that Wesley Clark, the man who first thought that this country was blessed to have George Bush as it's president, and then sought to unseat him, is leaving the scene today. I still want to know why Bill Clinton fired him. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2242 Registered: 12-2001 |
Cowboy, You're so lost. Clark is withdrawing from the race. Who cares why Clinton fired him. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4625 Registered: 5-2001 |
I posted this in another thread, but will repeat it here. Friends and coworkers who served in the National Guard during Vietnam had a pretty big obligation and were really worried about messing it up. Miss a couple of meetings and you were called to active duty and a week later you were in a line company in Vietnam. The Guard committment requires one evening a week (paid as a full day), one weekend a month and two weeks of active duty, usually called "summer camp". That is 90 days a year. Bush didn't spend that kind of time on his guard duties, especially during his Alabama year. The rules, if any, for Bush were different than for my friends Brendan and Jerry.  Bottomline, I think that is what I said. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1950 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bush got special treatment to get into the Guard in the first place, and there's no reason to believe that his honorable discharge and pay stubs weren't more of the same. His performance reviews say he wasn't there, and so do his commanding officers. If Bush could come up with reasonable documentary evidence he was there -- didn't somebody take attendance? -- this whole thing would go away. But it's been a long time, since he first ran for governor, that this issue has been around and there's been nothing yet. | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 348 Registered: 9-2003 |
I guess I just have to say it again. Remember: military service didn't matter when Clinton was in office, but it does now. Hypocrites. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 789 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cowboy, Funny how the opposite is true....Lying (about sex) was a huge deal when Clinton was in office. Now, lying (about starting a war) doesn't seem to matter. Hypocrites. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 2860 Registered: 10-1999 |
Mindgame time: Imagine that President Bush was a decorated war veteran. Imagine further that his Democratic opponent, whose father had been a Congressman, was having trouble establishing that he met his obligations to serve during the Viet Nam War in a National Guard unit nicknamed the "Champagne Squadron". How would the debate proceed? What would Rush or Sean or Bill O'R have to say about this? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 894 Registered: 8-2003 |
Lying about the war? Let's leave Clinton out of this. Nice piece by Safire on the terror link to Saddam in the New York Times today. I suggest we all read it. | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 350 Registered: 9-2003 |
Mayhewdrive, next thing I expect to hear from you will be something like this: “What's wrong with lobbyists? They’re just the people hired to protect you from the people you elected.” | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 2105 Registered: 1-2003 |
Lobbyists are like religion. We can't make a law to outlaw religion or lobbyists but a lot of bad has been done in the name of God and by lobbyists. What can you do? Take away the right to lobby? Tom Reingold the prissy-pants There is nothing | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1952 Registered: 5-2001 |
well you tell me, Cowboy, is it important or not? I don't have any beef with Bush doing Guard duty. A perfectly legal option, not unlike getting married or going to college or being 4-F. As I said above, if some kind of evidence that he did what he was supposed to do were provided, then this would all go away. The question is whether he did it or not. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 412 Registered: 6-2003 |
I have spoken to many Vietnam veterans who could see quite clearly that their government had sent them to fight in a dishonorable foreign war. The victory in Vietnam, in the final analysis, was the American people finally getting control of their government and forcing them out. Fortunately, the armed forces are under civil control in this country, no matter how much some closet fascists might wish it otherwise. | ||
| chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 113 Registered: 2-2003 |
Sylad and Cowboy, you all keep complaining the the military does not respect Kerry and that Vietnam vets don't respect him. Well, I work with vets. I don't get that feeling at all. What real vietnam combat vets disrespect is non-combatants like yourselves, who have never fought, don't want to help any body who fought ( alot of the combat vets have serious mental illnesses, PTSD, etc. These are the guys that you sneered at in various posts because they can't work and are -gasp, poor!) and only look at military service as a political tool to silence people that you don't want to hear from. Again I ask the question: Did you offer to serve your country via the military? Did anybody in your family do so? | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 216 Registered: 6-2002 |
Choc--First off, I did not serve, never claimed that I did. Second, members of my family have and I have many friends that are serving today. They do not respect Kerry, they respect President Bush. Granted this is a tiny % of the military. I have not sneered(as you say) any active or vet, I have stated my opinion regarding POTUS and the military and my opinion regarding Kerry's antiwar activities. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 897 Registered: 8-2003 |
Really...vets sneer at people who never fought? Do they sneer at people who served that were in non-combat positions? Do they sneer at people who did serve, then labeled those same vets as baby-killers when they returned to the states? Do they sneer at a bunch of college kids that loathed the military and spit on them when they got back home? Do they sneer at people who are for cutting military funding? or against pay raises? PS -- I'm 43, voted for every republican I could find that wanted to jsck up the military when I entered reality, and have 2 in my family overseas in Iraq right now. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 416 Registered: 6-2003 |
Sent to die needlessly by a liar and a coward. Stop kidding yourself. | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 354 Registered: 9-2003 |
"if some kind of evidence that he did what he was supposed to do were provided, then this would all go away." He receievd an Honorable Discharge, or doesn't that mean anything to you tom? choc-"Did you offer to serve your country via the military? Did anybody in your family do so?" My answers, Yes and Yes! I will go out on a limb and say that our military will vote overwhelmingly for Bush and against Kerry, or whomever is annointed by the Dems. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1954 Registered: 5-2001 |
No, it proves nothing. And how about that drug test? | ||
| anon Citizen Username: Anon Post Number: 964 Registered: 6-2002 |
I wasn't sure whether the Iraq War would be an issue in this year's Presdential election campaign. Now it turns out that the Vietnam War will be an issue! Amazing! | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2258 Registered: 12-2001 |
I don't know if this National Guard business is going to cost Bush a lot of votes, but it sure is entertaining. Now there is this story in which a National Guard officer recalls that Bush's Guard files were doctored. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-11-bush-guard-usat_x.htm It looks to me like Dubya is photo op versus substance to a degree that would make the even the most corrupt politician squirm. | ||
| chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 115 Registered: 2-2003 |
No, my friends, I am talking about combat vets. Not somebody who served during peace time ( thank God for them) I am talking about vets that were in firefights that lasted all of 5 minutes , but to them, it lasted a life time. I am talking about vets who were in the Gulf, Iraq (even now) and spent their days unloading dead and rotting bodies off of trucks. I am talking about those that were 17 and 18 years old who were forced to walk in front of heavy equipement to sweep for mines for the simple reason that their lives were less important than the eqiupment. I'm talking about people can talk about running for their lives , shooting anybody that got in their way, man woman or child and not blink an eye. I'm talking about those guys that Cowboy is sneering at, some of whom can't work, some of whom are now on SSI or welfare, some of whom have broken marriages, some whom have families that can't stand them because they are so messed up. I'm talking about some of the most patriotic people in this country, who not only talked the talk but walked the walk. I'm talking about some of the most anti-war} people in this country, I'm talking about hard guys who broke down in tears when they found out that their 18 year old sons were being shipped off to Iraq. These people deserve better than to be used as political footballs by people who could give a sh-t. You care about vets...well start thinking about them rather than the political party du jour. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 960 Registered: 5-2001 |
There is a good review of the new records in Slate http://slate.msn.com/id/2095256/ Here is the crux of it: the documents do narrow the period of Bush's apparent absence from Guard duty from one year to six months. They also establish that, if you use the most generous measure available, Bush squeaked by with enough service "points" to justify his honorable discharge. His early discharge in October 1973 to attend Harvard Business School still seems undeserved, given his poor attendance record, his apparent failure to meet the minimum-training requirement, and his suspension from flying (for failing to show up for a physical) during much of his time in what was, after all, the Air National Guard. Taken together, though, these documents indicate that it's probably unfair to state, even metaphorically, that Bush went AWOL. Bush's Guard service merits a D, not an F. | ||
| Cowboy Citizen Username: Cowboy Post Number: 360 Registered: 9-2003 |
chocoholic, "I'm talking about those guys that Cowboy is sneering at..." You ought to see a shrink! Your prejudice is taking you into a tailspin.... Whee! Whee! Whee! Stop trying to put words into my mouth, or attempt to convey my thoughts about those who have served in our military. I have tremendous respect for anyone who has served this country in uniform, even if their uniform never got dirty. And ashear, since when do you get off grading people on their military service? Let us all know what you give Clinton, Dean, Edwards? How about Ted Kennedy? Now can you say "Honorable Discharge." | ||
| chocoholic Citizen Username: Shrink Post Number: 116 Registered: 2-2003 |
Cowboy, you have posted that all of those are poor are poor because of their own choices, and that you shouldn't be responsible for them. I assume you are also talking about the vets that are poor, who fought for your right to sit there on your fat behind and type inanities into a computer. Don't try to insult me because you don't like what I have to say. I understand that the truth hurts. I also understand that hypocrites like yourself really don't like to take a long hard look at the man in the mirror. Sorry about that, bub...but keep looking and maybe you'll come to your senses. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1 Registered: 2-2004 |
How come Bush can show up at the dentist and pick up his paychecks in Alabama, but he couldn't find the time to take a mandatory physical? Bush has not, and probably will not, satisfactorily explain why he didn't take his mandatory physical and thus maintain his clearance to fly. He clearly shirked his responsibilities without consequence. This pattern of behaviour repeated well into his business career where he had conducted the kind of shady business deals that would make Clinton blush. But hey the only people who got hurt were the suckers who invested in his company who lacked his inside information and of course the suckers foolish enough to be born into regular families who couldn't pull strings to get him into the National Guard first, then keep him out of trouble when he couldn't even meet those basic responsibilities. I understand, and agree with, the right's insistence upon the importance of character, however this guy never had any and never will. He's led a consequence free life thus far, and he runs the country like a spoiled rich kid with credit card and a serious case of ADD. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 500 Registered: 12-2001 |
from www.calpundit.com THE PLOT THICKENS....George Bush's story about his National Guard service in Alabama during 1972 is that he missed a lot of drills but later made them up. And both his ARF retirement record and his pay records confirm that he got credited with duty on October 28-29 and November 11-14, periods when he was in Alabama. What's more, the presidential dental records released last night show that he was in Alabama a short time later, on January 6, 1973. The problem is that William Turnipseed, the retired general who commanded the unit that Bush had transferred to, the 187th Air National Guard Tactical squadron at Dannelly Air National Guard base, says he doesn't remember ever seeing Bush. Well, maybe he just forgot? He was probably a busy guy, after all. But Bob Mintz, who was part of the 187th during that period, says that Bush's transfer was the subject of considerable scuttlebutt at the time and they were all eager to get a look at him. According to a story in the Memphis Flyer today, they never did: Recalls Memphian Mintz, now 63: “I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was somebody with political influence. I was a young bachelor then. I was looking for somebody to prowl around with.” But, says Mintz, that “somebody” -- better known to the world now as the president of the United States -- never showed up at Dannelly in 1972. Nor in 1973, nor at any time that Mintz, a FedEx pilot now and an Eastern Airlines pilot then, when he was a reserve first lieutenant at Dannelly, can remember. “And I was looking for him,” repeated Mintz, who said that he assumed that Bush “changed his mind and went somewhere else” to do his substitute drill. “There’s no way we wouldn’t have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him,” insists Mintz, who has pored over documents relating to the matter now making their way around the Internet. ....Though some accounts reckon the total personnel component of the 187th as consisting of several hundred, the actual flying squadron – that to which Bush was reassigned – number only “25 to 30 pilots,” Mintz said. “There’s no doubt. I would have heard of him, seen him, whatever.” Another member of the 187th, Paul Bishop, says the same thing: "I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush." So if Bush wasn't at Dannelly Air Base, where was he? And what was he getting paid for? | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2270 Registered: 12-2001 |
Sylad, I have noticed something interesting about the Clinton years. During that period of time, our military was honed into a lean, mean fighting machine that Bush was able to use with great effect in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also notice that critics of the air war against Serbia were whining to no end about overextending the military. However, I here no such chorus today even though our military is well and truly extended to the maximum. I think your topic about the relationship of the military to the President is of academic interest, but not a practical issue. Moreover, if Clinton hadn't rolled into Washington with his plan to jam gay rights down the throats of the Armed Forces, his relationship with them would have been better from the start. I think the problem with Clinton was not that the military was initially anti-Clinton but that Clinton, perhaps rightfully, was perceived as anti-Armed Forces. | ||
| bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4648 Registered: 5-2001 |
Chris Matthews interviewed a retired Lt. Colonel in the Texas Guar. In 1998 he served as the primary aid to the commanding general and heard a telephone conversation between the general and aids to then Governor Bush about cleansing Bush's record of any embarrasing tidbits. Ten days later he saw parts of Bush's record in a waste basket. I don't know? Personally I think Bush probably did the absolute minimum requirements to avoid a dishonorable discharge. I don't think he was particularly concerned with being called to active duty and sent to 'Nam because he had the political juice behind him to avoid that fate. Still I get a picture of someone who was a shirker and someone who wasted the small fortune the governmenet spent to train him as a fighter pilot once the initial thrill of flying wore off and he realized fly 15 year old obsolete planes could be down right dangerous even if not being shot at. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2272 Registered: 12-2001 |
remf | ||
| Sylad Citizen Username: Sylad Post Number: 222 Registered: 6-2002 |
TJ--If as you suggest Clinton was anti-armedforces, if that is/was true, I would say that would not be an environment of mutual respect. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 962 Registered: 5-2001 |
Cowboy, need to work on reading comprehension. That grade was a quote from the article, not my opinion. My opinion is that Bush got out of serving in Nam by joining the Air National Guard and then skipped a physical so he could not fly for most of the time he was in the AIR National Guard. Whether he would have gotten that Honorable Discharge without the political juice he had behind him seems very much an open quesiton. Clinton, who unlike Bush openly opposed the war, got a Rhodes scholorship which he successfully completed. Clintion: Convictions matched actions, finished what he started. Grade: A Bush: Did not oppose war but lacked guts to fight, did lame ass job on gig that keept him out. Grade: D | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2273 Registered: 12-2001 |
I think Bush skipped the physical because the man with the latex glove does unspeakable things to recruits. Another example of his wimpiness. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1961 Registered: 5-2001 |
The month that the physical was skipped was the same month that the Guard instituted mandatory drug tests. | ||
| Reflective Citizen Username: Reflective Post Number: 311 Registered: 3-2003 |
Between TJ and Tom, this thread has slipped into insult city. Tom, fyi, mandatory drug tests weren't instituted until the 80's, best I remember. So you are conveying an untruth. And Tj, re remf, well, it takes one to know one! | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2274 Registered: 12-2001 |
Well, I was in a squadron HQ troop, but had the Russians crossed the Czech/East German border, I don't think any of us would have been feeling particularly rear echelon. | ||
| tjohn Citizen Username: Tjohn Post Number: 2275 Registered: 12-2001 |
Tell you what Reflective. You know what it takes to know a remf? A grunt. That's what I was. It was my good fortune to not be invited to any wars. | ||
| themp Citizen Username: Themp Post Number: 504 Registered: 12-2001 |
"A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war." The precise numbers are 21% who say he lied and 31% who say he deliberately exaggerated. Big ups to anyone who maintained their skepticism in the face of ridicule and incredulous bullying ("Don't you get it?!"). Back then, so many wanted everyone to be a believer. | ||
| 1-2many Citizen Username: Wbg69 Post Number: 843 Registered: 6-2002 |
the issue to me is not so much the service - but lying about it and covering up the prior lies in the 90's and today, releasing contradictory records (he was paid for being in Houson on 1/6/73 - but was also, somehow, in Montgomery AL getting a dental exam on 1/6/73), and first promising and then refusing (!) to open his entire military file as everyone else does. as the W Admin said when passing the Patriot Act - "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". apparently, the released records black out answers to questions re: prior arrests. as in, having them would have kept him out of this cushy post, but he DID have them, and the implication is he lied and said he didn't. and now, today, in 2004 (as well as in the 90's) he is covering up those lies. these actions TODAY matter a lot. esp. for a guy who sold himself as a bastion of responsibility, and accountability. he could possibly clear this up right away by simply releasing all his records, just like everyone else does. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 1962 Registered: 5-2001 |
two sources on the mandatory drug test issue: http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2000/6/17/220615 http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index_np.html | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 910 Registered: 8-2003 |
The blacked out portions pertaining to arrests were revealed in their entirety by the WH. Speeding tickets, accidents, and pranks and rowdiness at Yale. | ||
| ashear Citizen Username: Ashear Post Number: 967 Registered: 5-2001 |
That's what they say they are. I guess we are supposed to take it on faith rather than seeing the original. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 913 Registered: 8-2003 |
I read that McClellan produced un-redacted reports -- the same reports that had been blacked out. What did you read? Or was your last charge faith-based? |
