NEWS: Light on Bush's Guard Records?

POLITICS: Light on Bush's Guard Records?

Today the Pentagon released payroll records from George W. Bush's service with the Alabama National guard, the branch he transferred to in order to aid the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. The records show that Bush did not drill with the National Guard July-September 1972.

In spite of this, the terms of Bush's record still seem uncertain:

In an attempt to explain gaps in Bush's record, Republicans say that Bush served prior months and was honorably discharged from service.

Honestly, I'm kind of sick of this subject. The bottom line is that Kerry's millitary record reads better than Bush's, even with all the shit Republicans have tried heaping on it, even if only because Kerry's record is actually well documented. Until evidence comes forward that conclusively proves that Bush either broke the law or fulfilled his obligation to the gaurd before being honorably discharged, his record is questionable, but not damning.

Yeah, cause Kerry was in the Vietnam war and he got three purple hearts.
THREE!
THREE!
THREE PURPLE HEARTS!

hehehehehe...I love jibjab.

Bush did nothing in the National Guard? That settles it! I was willing to accept his broken campaign promises. And I was all for him when he decided to invade Iraq. But now he's been proven not to have been in the National Guard! That settles it! He's lost my vote!

Bush is an idiot. The war in Iraq was a SNAFU beyond belife. But this issue is the biggest load of shit in the world. So he did not serve. Whatever. Many Democrats and others did not serve and avoided the draft. Does this mean that they are shams? Maybe. But it affects nothing.

As a campaign point Kerry would do well not to constantly bring up his own service in contrast to Bush, but in contrast to MOST elected officials in general. Between him and John McCain, they are the exceptions. And the issue is larger than this campaign and this election. Using it as a tool to leverage against Bush is trivial and tedious. If the main reason to avoid voting for someone was their service reacord then few people would be in office.

Now if a politician killed a bear with his bare hands... Now THAT'S something we should all know about.

note thats bare B A R E hands

royaljack you make a good point, lots of politicians dodged serving in nam.
but most of them arent campaigning as war senetors or war congressmen.

if this can come out in clear terms ie bush was dishonorably discharged from the guard, it will show a major hypocrasy on his part.

I don't believe Bush's honorable discharge is in question, but rather the quality and character of his service.

Please reread:
"Now if a politician killed a bear with his bare hands..."

Spelling correct in both places.

FYI: senators? It's "senators". Also hypocrasy? It's hypocrisy.

Damning a politician for hypocrisy is no big deal. In the big picture if Bush did not go to Iraq under false pretenses most people would not be as big of a push to kick him out of office as there is. Most people who want Bush out of office seem to be damning him for things most other politicians are guilty of anyway. If you want that goober out of office, point to the things he's done that has made life worse for others and are unique to Bush Jr. And if one has a problem finding those flaws, they are not trying hard enough.

this really has nothing to do with hypocrisy. it has to do with out and out lying. it is my strong belief that bush did NOT serve in the air nat'l guard for two years when he was supposed to be doing so. then, he didn't have any trouble hiding that fact because he was a rich daddy's boy. you can point to many, many things he's done while in office that are grounds for getting the fuck rid of him in november, but what's important is that this is not a new trend. he's been a lying sack of shit since he first fell out of barbara's fucking pussy.

oh, how i hate that man. if i saw him on the street, without the SS to back him up, i would punch the shit out of him. maybe it would wipe that arrogant smirk off of his hick fucking face.

sorry, i got a little carried away... suffice to say: once a liar, always a liar...

sorry about my spelling royaljack,
and i was quiting the simpsons (jebadiah springfield ) because you seemed to be as well

Note: i almost spelled spelling as spalling

when do you people realize that saying that "all politicians act like this" gives them the go-ahead to do so!??? these people are elected to serve your interest. if you stopped treating them like untouchable gods, then maybe they wouldn't be able to act like that! demand some accountability! there are politicians out there who don't act like this, they just get no press because the public expects them to be rich, lying assholes. in fact, they answer to you, whether they like it or not.

The problem is that in the case of George W. Bush he's done things that go way above and beyond normal/acceptable political behavior. You can convince the public he needs to get out of office by pointing out his amazingly bad decisions. You can't do the same with the political behavior that he and others normally engage in.

If a murder was arrested while jaywalking and there is a very good case against him being a murderer, wasting time on the jaywalking offense will lead nowhere.

Nobody is treating them like they are untouchable. But it's not like you can clear the slate and start from scratch. For now you have to work in the system that exists to get rid of him. The issues of general political corruption are not going to magically disappear in one election.

RJ, I give you Congressman Davy Crockett

At least Walt Disney said he did

Yep..I think it should be a commercial for tv, but then I probably miss it.

We should all notice it because the Bush administration has done the exact same thing after we found out Iraq didn't have any WMD

Actually LeRoi, little secret here.

They did have WMD.

Note the Sarin warhead that went off a couple of months ago.

We are dealing with a country that has hundreds of thousands of ammo dumps. And they are cached all around the country.

Sadly with regard to Iraq's WMD's. There were either going to be 5,000 or so US casualties from the things when we invaded. Or we were going to have to spend a long time digging them up.

Royaljack, The War was not a SNAFU. The invasion went off really, really well.

It is the occupation that has become a pain. Not sure if it is up to SNAFU levels yet. Fighting an insurgency is a really difficult thing. On top of that we have jihadists coming across the border into Iraq who want to do nothing more than spread terror and chaos.

I have some respect for the members of the former regime who view themselves as trying to return themselves to power. I have nothing but contempt for the jihadists. Iraq will be a difficult thing for America to deal with for the next 5 to 10 years. But no more so than Japan was following World War Two. Iraq has the means to pull themselves up. But they have a lot of challenges to overcome.

I for one think it will be worth it when Sadam stands trial, in a court of his own people.

Think about that sometime.

[Edited on Jul 25, 2004 by gaiseric]

Hi all, Noob here, please be gentle. lol

First off, let me attempt to summarize thus far. So far as I see, this discussion has gone as such: "Bush sucks!" "he is a good man" "he is a liar" "nuh-uh" ect ect. All in all, I have heard this arguement hundreds of times before. This is how I see things pertaining to this subject:

1) We KNOW WMD were in Iraq as we sold them to Iraq. The only problem being is there is not an adequate accounting of what has happened with them. We have in fact found a very limmited number of ordinance. What is scary as hell about that is the only reason we have found it is that the insurgents left it as a roadside bomb, meaning they have controll over at least some of the wmd that we have been looking for.

2) Kerry was in Vietnam as a captain of a swift boat. In that time, he earned numerous medals, (a couple of which his CO even thought were questionable ie purple heart #1) That is not to say Kerry's service in Nam was dishonorable. What he did after his discharge however, I see as something else altogether. He promptly came home and proceeded to piss on that honor, and the honor of all those he served with. (see Winter Soldier Trials, where many of the "testimonials" have been since proven complete fabrications)

3) Bush, instead of serving in Vietnam, served in the Air National Guard. Where in 1972 he was transfered to Alabama. There is a span of two months where it is not entirely clear if Mr. Bush underwent training at his base. In the year of 1972 Bush DID complete all training hours required him by the Guard. Bush served in an election campaing during the two months in question for one Senator Blount. What does that mean?? While Bush may not have underwent training during the two months in question, he made the training hours up either earlier or later. This would have required permission from the Base Commanding Officer, and that is the information we really need to have.

4) All of this he said she said crap that goes on between the parties makes me sick. A couple months ago All Kerry was talking about was the state of the economy, and now that the economy is looking pretty damn buff at the moment, focus is again shifting to this erronious subject. The fact is Bush has been a Leading President. He has made some pretty tough decisions, and has stood by them. Some have proven to be not entirely the correct course, but hell I would love to have the Crystal Ball that would allow me to be right 100% of the time, wouldn't you??

Sorry, I know this is a long rant, just giving my thoughts for food.

Stark,

Not a rant at all.

Welcome to Current Events. Mind the waters, they can be a tad nasty at times.

[Edited on Jul 25, 2004 by starkmadd]

In response to starkmadd's four points.

1.Yes, we have found one shell with sarin gas that appearently dates form the 80s, maybe early 90s. Personally, unless we can find more then this I don't really see it as justification to invade a country. Also a shell of that age does not seem to support the administrations contention that Iraq was actively manufacturing WMDs. This is just one 20 year old shell.

2.I for one see no real problem with protesting a war you have just returned from. Who would know better whether or not it should be protested against? He clearly came out of that experience with a clear conviction that the war was a mistake and spoke his mind about it. I guess I'm not sure where you are seeing dishonor in that.

3.My real problem with the whole Bush's service in the National Guard thing (which does seem awfully over mentioned at this point) is the attitude it seems to indicate. Mainly one of entitlement. It just screams of someone who thinks that they are rich, their father is in the government, they shouldn't have to go fight in Vietnam. And hey, if they need to get some special latitude to go work on a political campaign, or leave early to go to school, if you can pull the strings, why not.

4. The economy is looking better, I'm not sure I would go all the way to buff. This is still an issue though since Bush is still in danger of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net decline in jobs. And it's not like he the Great Depression to hide behind. And you know what bothers me about the "He has made some pretty tough decisions, and has stood by them" thing? It just sounds like a really positive way of saying that he can't admit when he makes mistakes. This has always seemed like an administration that cannot admit when something has gone not according to plan, or when mistakes were made. It doesn't seem to matter what happens, they just try and spin it into a positive. I know this is a politicians primary tactic in general, it just seems like this bunch has made it more a habit then the others.

I am not saying he was completely wrong to criticize that war. However, he was ver wrong in his tactics of criticization. First let us remember he was in Nam for about four months. He maintains he whitnessed numerous war crimes committed by his own people. Yet he refuses, either on the record or off, to elaborate as to times, places, or individuals. In other words, he puts a black mark on the service of many many otherwise honorable men, without offering any kind of proof. That sir is very dishonorable. By making such broad accusations, without giving any substantial evidence to back himself up, he can accuse hundreds without having to go through the hassel of defending his position. First who knows that they are accused?? If they come forward and defend themselves without being directly fingered as a culprit in these crimes, they look like they have something to hide. In truth it is a brilliant and devious tactic. It is dishonest as hell, and in that Dishonorable.

As for the economy, I think buff is a pretty accurate description. Home ownership is far and away at it's highest point in history at approximately 65%. Jobs are being recreated now at astounding rates. As a result unemployment is dropping. Working in sales, I see a direct difference in recent months. Consumers are starting to buy more again. So yes, the future of our economy is looking boss, buff, altogether pretty damned bright.

Almost an afterthought here. WMD. Yes, it has only been one shell. But does it not bother you that the only one we have found was left by the insurgents?? That shows that THEY know where some is! And the age of the shell is in fact irrelevent. Saddam was oredered to destroy ALL of that ordinance, not just the crap he was currently making. Their is truly no adequate accounting by the previous Iraqi government for the disposal of a large portion of that stockpile. That is where we need to worry. The borders of Iraq have proven very pourous, and that means some of that ordinance may have found it's way out of the country. It is very likely in fact that at least some has. Let us also not forget that WMD was only one of the reasons we are in Iraq in the first place. There have been many links to the former Government and Al-qaida. Even the 9-11 commision chair has acknowledged that. (note: I am not saying Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks)

Actually I'm not that worried about since when they set up the shell in the IED they don't appear to have known that it was anything other then a normal explosive shell. Otherwise, the thinking goes, they would have done something other then try to use it as a car bomb.

Also although you slipped in the phrase "not just the crap he was currently making" that's part of the problem, we have no proof or even any actual evidence that has held up that he was making anything! All we gots is a twenty year old shell, and alot of defector accounts that no one seems to believe anymore, since none of them have proved true yet.

As for our other reasons for invading Iraq. The commision found that low level Al-Qaida people spoke to low level Iraq people about broadcasting some anti-Saudi propaganda and speeches, once. It didn't even go through. So that's why we invaded? Are we going to invade Quatar next? Cause Al-Jazeera actually DOES broadcast Al-Quada propaganda! If you are reffering to some other links, lemme know, cause that's all the 9/11 commision found.

I didn't say the commision said there was a link between Iraq and the attacks on 9-11. I did say that the commision's Chair, Thomas Kean, has ackowledged links between Al-qaida, and Saddam's government. In fact he has stated that it is obvious of the two groups links. However he has not gone so far as to state collaboration of the two groups in attacks. That is because there is no hard evidence of that collaboration. Not only that but the commision's purpose was to investigate 9-11, not the war in Iraq.

There is one link between the two that is sinister, and very deadly,

Ansar Al-Islam

Now that particular group, it is very well known as having been linked with both the former Iraqi Government, and Al-qaida. Led by Al-Zarkawi, they have been leading the deadly charge of ambush, suicide bombing, killing of innocent Iraqi citizens, kidnappings, beheadings, and many many more incidents. Al-Zarkawi is the highest ranking Al-qaida opporative in the region, that is a fact. Al-Islam has been present in Iraq since its creation in 2001, fact. Is that no link at all?? It should at least raise an eyebrow no?

As for the one shell, yeah, we got lucky as hell they didn't know how to render the two agents aerosol and mix them. Maybe they didn't know exactly what they had, but they do now. And that being so, if they have more of it, which all they really have to do is go back to where they found the first one, they will make a more concerted effort to use the cirin to a much more effective degree. Mark those words. I hope to hell they are not right.