The argument from silence is the weakest form of argument, philosophers agree. Not for the Washington Post! Because President Bush's military records are incomplete, he must have been shirking his military duties. Their commitment to accuracy is manifest in this passage:
"In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted." Enlisted servicemen enlist. Bush, as a first lieutenant, was an officer, and thus he was commissioned, not enlisted. That's a huge difference, but to the Post, potayto, potahto.
An even better quotation: "In recent days, a one-year gap in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service during the height of the Vietnam War has been raised by Democrats." And it is our duty, as an establishment media organ, to amplify this charge. With all their resources, the best they can do is find a man with the wonderful name of Turnipseed who doesn't think he saw Bush around the drill center, but then again he (Turnipseed) doesn't recall being there much at that time.
Also, the "height of the Vietnam War," in terms of American involvement, was 1968-69. By 1973, our combat troops were almost completely withdrawn. Did the factcheckers fall asleep?
All you left-wing muckraking journalists out there, here's how to make a name for yourself: just figure out what Bush was doing during the time in question, and show that he could not have possibly spent one weekend a month fulfilling his duties. Then you'll have proven your case. (Of course, if the unit commander excused him, then you don't have a case at all.)
If you want to be intellectually honest, you might consider the possibility that his paperwork was messed up. But that's only if you want to be intellectually honest.
These stories about Bush's "service" during the Vietnam era first surfaced in 2000, in the Philadelphia Enquirer and the New York Times. Since then a great many "leftys" have investigated "what Bush was doing during the time in question." The results of their investigating are found in many places on the web, if you care to look for it. During the 2000 campaign the heads of the RNC promised they would find people who could verify that Bush was performing his duties; none came forward. This story is also covered in Kevin Phillips's new book on the Bush dynasty.
Bottom line: Bush was AWOL and got a pass because of his family connections. This is a fact. Deal with it.
dear sirs,
it does matter what bush did durin vietnam as he tries to come on like he is a vet of war.what a bunch of crap.old dad got him into the nation guard ahead of many others more qualified.just check out his entrance test 25% score my dog could do better! it all has to do with telling the truth and bush has not come clean about his time in the NG.he can at any time request the NG to realese his records as sen. mcain did during questions his own party slimmed him with during
his pres. run claiming he was not a stable man.
bush got a pass unlike kerry & clark.it does matter a grest deal.lies,lies,and mores lies
your in truth,
michael rosa
p.s. the catholic church could use a lesson in
honesty
And you, Michael, could use a lesson in the proper use of capitalization.
Maha, I notice you didn't see fit to link to any of the lefty sites. That would have been nice so we could examine them. Kevin Phillips has made a career as a pseudo-Republican who attacks prominent Republicans. He's not a reliable source.
"Absent Without Leave" isn't even the correct term because you don't get leave in the reserves or National Guard. You say Bush "got a pass" for not showing up for duty. From whom? Who granted the absence?
Michael, please keep talking. Tell every undecided voter about your theories. Tell them at grocery store, or loudly during a movie. Be sure to type as many things as possible all over the Internet. And for goodness' sake, don't get anyone to correct your grammar, spelling, or syntax!
Be a force for TRUTH!
AWOL BUSH.com a Veteran run site has quite a lot of
"Lefty" but true Bushj. info along with a Reward for anyone who can Prove Bushjr. DID SERVE.. Mother Jones also did a story, a very detailed story regarding AWOL Bushjr.
Someone has obviously posted a link to Catholic Light from one of the nut-job sites. Please: everyone go to awolbush.com and see for yourself.
Eric,
Would you care to fisk the site lest some of your more impressionable readers might buy into it?
Yes, I'm sure the paperwork is just missing, including those for his Purple Heart and other commendations -- or is it the Iron Cross they give to Reichers? Oh, there's one of those nasty nazi comparisons again. Now, if we had time, I'd tell you about my heroics in that and other of our nations grand conflicts but since they lost my paperwork also, I'll just have to live on unsung. What a joke -- and this genius wants to talk about intellectual honesty. Also, of course, this does not even address the major part of this scandal which is the gross and blatant favoritism shown to this wretched mediocrity. You just wonder where on that black wall the name of the guy who took his place might be, but whoever it is, they are almost certainly of a far different economic level than our little tin soldier with the stuffed crotch is from.
Eric,
I think you're right about CL being linked to from a fringe site. Sheesh.
Catholics for Dean mayhaps?
If you can't tell how unserious the site is from the layout alone, I'm not sure how I could help.
So, alto, I'm glad to see you're outraged about someone possibly missing some training weekends. I'm sure you're even more outraged about Bill Clinton flat-out lying about going into ROTC, and then skipping out on that commitment? Right?
Eric,
I'm not so sure. Despite the fact that that particular site could use the help of an excellent web designer such as yourself, I think the left is serious about this. I've heard the charge of AWOL, and even desertion, bantied about by lefty politicos on Fox News today. Just because the left is serious about something doesn't mean that they aren't being as loony as Kucinich on a good day, but it does mean that some of weak mind might see it as credible.
You're probably right, Coward. Thing is, though, all we have is paperwork and testimony. The paperwork does not show that Bush showed up (there is no record of him having drilled at either Guard unit) but then again, it doesn't show that he was absent (there is no record of him being disciplined or even reprimanded.) The only other evidence is from people's memories, which aren't reliable or even clear.
No, Eric, why would I be? First, you totally ignore the real charge -- that of favoritism which is the real crime here, and which motif characterizes this meatheads entire life as well as that of the classless class he belongs to. Then, of course, you've got the unfortunate fact that Gomer Wetleg was in favor of the war, not opposed to it like Clinton and all other well functioning intellects at the time. And, not showing up for some ROTC classes which I know from personal experience were totally useless is not even remotely on a par with joining the military and then not showing up for duty. And, by the way, who the hell said I was outraged? I'm just saying he was AWOL or worse. I really don't give a rat's ass personally except for the phony hypocrisy and favoritism and the fact that if Clinton's military associations were such a big deal to you INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST creatures then GeeDumbasses should be far, far greater for the reasons above which I am sure you have already ferreted off to that unused portion of your brain where your lack of integrity has left a useful vacuum.
First, you totally ignore the real charge -- that of favoritism which is the real crime here, and which motif characterizes this meatheads entire life as well as that of the classless class he belongs to.
Any lack of positive evidence can be attributed, on faith, to favoratism. If positive evidence were presented that he did attend said sessions, you would say they were falsified due to favoritism. After all, his daddy ran the CIA. Next you'll be saying that the woman Larry Flynt said Bush drove to an abortion clinic was silenced, mafia-style, by a Bush enforcer. Truly, the left is doing its best to emulate the fringiest of the Clinton-haters this election season. Let the good times roll!
Lack of positive evidence? Have you even bothered to look into this at all? This "Champagne" unit which he got into was a much coveted place. There were many people long ahead of him in line for a slot there and yet GW with his 25% score is pushed to the line in front of them all -- and that's just the beginning of the story but I'll let you do your own research on that. Then this dip, having taken up about a million US taxpayer dollars for his training which is the reputed cost for this type of expertise -- decides his little lark is getting a bit tedious and skips a medical evaluation knowing it will get him grounded and then plain skips out on the entire rest of his commitment. Another thing -- when you're cheating for some well connected rich brat, as the people administering his entrance test were probably doing, you fudge as little as possible and this is probably the reason for his on-the-line 25% score. Most likely he got about 19 and they moved it up only as much as they had to to get him to 25. Riiiight, it's guesswork on my part, but it's just another little piece that's rawther too, too convenient.
alto,
You still haven't provided positive evidence that Bush was AWOL. Please attend another Dennis Kucinich meditation and visualization session and then come back and try again.
This page is linked on a left leaning blog. A very good one in fact. If by fringe you mean not moderate and not right leaning, then I guess it is a fringe site. However, if by fringe you mean LaRouche supporting, hardcore atheistic, conspiracy theorizing, lie spewing socialism - then, no, it is not fringe.
The charge is that Bush did not meet his required drills. What difference does it make if the correct term is AWOL or dereliction of duty or something else? Also, what difference does it make if the correct term is commissioned or enlisted? What matters is - was Bush given a pass on shirking his responsibilities to the Guard or was he not? There is ample evidence to suggest that he was absent and never reprimanded, and zero evidence to contradict the charge.
Formerly,
The evidence is out there as has been pointed out endlessly enough. But, you don't seem to be following the argument -- I'm saying that in addition to an abundance of evidence which should cause the press to look into the AWOL situation (that evidence is presented in a growing number of venues -- as I said "do your own research")with just one tenth the diligence, nay rabidity, with which they looked into everything Clinton, there is the irrefutable evidence of the most blatant and corrupt FAVORITISM. That is what should really be the main focus, and on that point there is no argument -- except from people who have the equally corrupt capacity for ignoring that evidence. And, by the way, try saving the cute, little Kucinich references for someone stupid enough to enjoy them...like damn near everyone in the degraded GOP.
If President Bush wanted to put these stories about him being AWOL to rest once and for all, all he would need to do is agree to release his military records. For some reason he is afraid to do so. Any idea why?
Here is an interesting link on what Kerry was doing during the Viet Nam era
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jf_kerry.htm
Check it out!
So I'm curious why the Kerrymanderers think the Bush-AWOL charge will stick now when it didn't stick in 2000. Because I guarantee a "chest full of medals" is going to turn into characterizations that John Kerry is the little brother of Jane Fonda.
It's not a good time to be unamerican.
/endbombdrop
JS,
I suppose because in 2000 Bush was running against Al "If you don't get me out of combat, Dad, I'm off to Canada" Gore and 911 hadn't happened yet. Pot calling kettle black and all. Now that national security is once again of top concern, the Kerryites are hoping those medals Kerry got forty years ago will make up for his having voted against every major military technology that we used, and are using, in Iraq. Kerry really is a flaming leftist, no matter how centrist he pretends to be. One only need look at his 18 year voting record to see that.
Perhaps you should go back and read what the Pope had to say about "every major military technology that we used, and are using, in Iraq."
That Pope, what a flaming leftist!
John,
I'll let Eric answer what you said (if he so chooses, and he should IMO so choose), since he is much more knowledgable about all things military than I. I will say that Kerry is a flaming leftist in much more that National Security issues. He supports abortion, even so far as to vote against the Partial Birth Abortion ban. He supports gay marriage (he says he doesn't, but since he calls any attempt to resist its institution by our judicial overlords, including the Defense of Marriage act, gay-bashing, I must conclude that he supports it) and wants to institute a massive tax increase not to balance the budget, but to create more social programs. And worst of all, he wants to oppoint judges from the "the Constitution says what we want it to say, not what it actually says" school of thought. I must admit that I am not comfortable with some of what is in the Patriot act, but judges reading whatever they like into the constitution is 1000 times more dangerous to our Democracy than the Patriot act in a worse case scenario. Judicial activism has already claimed tens of millions of innocent lives by unleashing the abortion holocaust.
Yes, I'd say Kerry is a flaming liberal.
Martin Heldt used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain copies of President Bush's military records showing that Lt. George W. Bush was assigned to the 111 FIS, TexANG from Dec 1969 until Oct 1973, see http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm.
During that period, Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr. reported "Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit [111 FIS] during the period of report" 1 May 1972 through 30 April 1973. On 1 May 1973, Bush was ordered to attend "Annual Active Duty Training" which he did over the period 29 May 1973 through 30 July 1973 and earned much of a year's worth of points. That fact suggests Bush was allowed to "make up" lost time for the period reported on by Harris.
Bush's records do not show that he completed any ANG duties during the period reported on by Harris therefore Bush was absent without leave or AWOL. Whether Bush should have been court-martialed or allowed to "make up" lost time for being AWOL is another matter but he was AWOL.
A sampling of recent articles:
Bush's War Stories Don't Fly
From Deserter to Commander in Chief
Piecing Together Bush's Final Two Years of Guard Duty
All the Bushies would have to do to disprove these charges, which have been out there since 2000, is find some guys Bush served with during the time he was allegedly AWOL who will testify they remember him.
If such people existed, they would have been found by now.
Somebody wrote, "It's not a good time to be unamerican."
As a tenth-generation American and eyewitness to the collapse of the World Trade Center, I would like to invite you to call me "unamerican" for supporting "anybody but Bush" in the upcoming election.
Say it to my face. I dare you. And I'm an old lady.
I wrote "it's not a good time to be unamerican" and I was referring to Kerry's testimony before congress and anti-war activities. Sure, Kerry is now an elder statesman and his testimony occurred 3 decades ago. But - liberals don't believe Americans have enemies, except for the within - many would rather see Halliburton bankrupt than see bin Laden in solitary confinement.
Maha - why would you personalize a general comment? You're not a baby boomer, are you?
How old are you guys, anyway?
1. Bush's records won't show any drill attendance (as I said in a previous post on the subject.) A service record book, if that's what they called it 32 years ago, is a permanent record of administrative actions. It's not for recording routine activities like drill attendance.
2. There is no evidence that Bush showed up to scheduled drills. There is no evidence that he failed to make them up. Lack of evidence is not the same thing as a conclusion.
3. Maha, I have no idea if you are pro- or anti-American. But merely living here doesn't make you pro-American any more than watching the mass murder of your countrymen does.
BTW Maha - I saw your Paul Krugman article and graphic. I'm assuming you didn't mean him being Da Man like, bringing you down, oppressing minorities, right? You meant "Da Man" in the last century sense of great guy, upright, honest, etc. Correct?
Thanks for linking to us, Maha!
If I may be so bold, this is in response to coward's assertions about Kerry. The constitution actually allows for judicial activism by making the judicial branch part of the oversight and balances process. Similarly, the legislative branch is part of that process by making judicial review and confirmation part of their perview.
When the legislature makes something part of the constitution, the judiciary is bound to it unless it is overturned by a constitutional challenge brought before the USSC or lower appeals court (assuming that decision is not later overturned by a higher court.) Should the legislature and the executive branch be successful in making gay marriage unconstitutional by pushing through a constitutional amendment, there would surely be a challenge in the courts. To this point, there has only been one other amendment aimed at curtailing freedom, and that was repealed. Ergo it stands to reason that the USSC should find that a gay marriage ban would also be unconstitutional even if it was written into an amendment. This is what Kerry acknowledges when he speaks of "equal protection." And I say this as a Dean supporter. I have other problems with Kerry, but none problematic enough to sway me toward Bush should Kerry win the nomination.
Sorry for the interruption. Please, continue with the AWOL president discusion.
Has it occurred to anyone that if Bush could produce records from the period in question (when he was allegedly AWOL) he would have done so?
If you believe that the mysterious gap is because his paperwork was messed up, then i have a bridge i'd like to sell you.
Head, I've been a reservist for 13 years, and I have no official record that I've shown up at all. Attendance is kept with the unit's records, not with the records of individual servicemen. The only time attendance makes it into the records is if there's action taken against someone for not showing up. Such was not the case with Bush.
Is that supposed to mean that Bush's records are unavailable? That they are private and confidential to the DoJ? They aren't. They are readily available under the freedom of information act, and I happen to know for a fact that the DoJ has been bombarded by requests to provide that information.
So even if Bush doesn't personally have copies of his attendance and pay records, they are available - if they exist.
And, speaking of Kerry and Catholic Dark:
Archbishop Raymond Burke would refuse communion to Kerry
the following excerpt from Bartcop.com:
"If Sen. John Kerry were to stand in Archbishop Raymond L. Burke's communion line Sunday,
Burke would bless him without giving him communion. Kerry, a Catholic, has voted to support
abortion rights, contrary to Catholic Church long-held teaching opposing abortion.
"I would have to admonish him not to present himself for communion," said Burke. "I might give him
a blessing or something," he said. 'If his archbishop has told him he should not present himself for
communion, he shouldn't. I agree with Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston.'"
But if he had blown up Baghdad for no reason, the Church would accept him with open arms. And, if he was under eight, with open fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, in the previous post, the last line was my own and not the venerable and moral Mr. Cop's who, himself, would never say such a thing.
alto,
First of all, Bush didn't blow up Baghdad. You know that. Secondly, Bush isn't Catholic. Thirdly, Kerry is supporting vigorously what is, according to the teachings of the Church (and right reason), child murder. His taking communion is giving scandal to the faithful and he should be refused communion.
What I find humorous is all these military-hating leftists (like Michael Moore, et al.) getting all worked up about Bush's military service. They couldn't give a rat's behind about the military. It's all about getting at Bush, and anything will do.
Next we'll be reading about the classes he skipped at Yale, and much furor about how that means he's unfit to give commencement addresses.
Like he isn't unfit to give commencement addresses for a thousand other reasons?
And, Fr. Rob, saying that Michael Moore is a military hater is bearing false witness. Perhaps you should avoid the wafer until you have atoned for that sin.
I am personally opposed to abortion, but I recognize that it is the law of the land that abortion is legal for reasons of government non-interference. If Kerry has not himself had an abortion, paid for an abortion, counsled that someone should have an abortion or performed an abortion on someone, he has commited no sin other than upholding the constitution. If that is a sin, then there must be a special circle in hell resered for we patriots.
But back to the president's military record. How long can this guy refuse to offer up basic proof til the charge sticks anyway?
Shouldn't that be Currently Known as too Cowardly?
Didn't blow up Baghdad -- well, there's a cowardly, little resort to literalism. No, he just killed a few tens of thousands unnecessarily and they weren't violent and righteous Xtians anydamnwaze, so what's to quibble about. And the non sequiturs -- what's Bush's religion got to do with anything? As for the scandalized faithful -- well, every poll shows they're a minority in their own scandalous medievalism. And, speaking of right reason, doesn't Johansen know that nobody claims to give a damn about GW's military sevice. It's the double standards and hypocrisy practiced by wing nuts in this regard that's the issue. Let's give him the Bubba treatment, bubba -- it's only fair. As for Bush's unfitness -- it extends far beyond his ability to give a commencement address anywhere except at the Enron Academy of Corporate Corruption and does not derive from his lack of classes at Yale, but from the fact that he is, in the most general way, a frigging, all encompassing moron.
Supporting Roe V Wade isn't upholding the constitution; it is upholding a perversion of the constitution imposed on it by an activist court. No one who took part in writing or ratifying the constitution or any of its amendment ever intended what they wrote or ratified to take all rights away from the unborn. Upholding the constitution would be to appoint justices that would remove that grave injustice from the constitution. Kerry promises he will do just the opposite. Working to maintain an environment that facilitates and even encourages the slaughter of the unborn is a vice. Therefore he is giving scandal to his fellow Catholics - that is teaching them that vice is virtue. They are scandalized whether or not they find it offensive.
Well, then let those so scandalized agonize over the carnage of dying adults such as those in Baghdad whilst you agonize selectively and abstractly over dead embryos. If the most criminally activist court in our history hadn't taken on itself the right to appoint a president, we wouldn't have this murder.
alto,
First, Bush v Gore merely counteracted the Florida supreme court rewriting Florida election law in midstream. Second, even if the Supreme Court hadn't done that, Bush would still have one the recount according to the major media investigations conducted afterwards. Thirdly, even if he did not, his slate of electors had already been certified by the Fl. Secretary of State. Thus there would be two slates of electors for Fl. Guess who gets to decide which one is valid: That's right, the house of representatives. Which the Republicans have had control of for the last ten years. So Bush would have been president anyway, much to your dislike.
As to the matter of those who died in the war vs. those who die in abortion. Far more unborn children who have a right to live and whom John Kerry says have no rights die every year than will have died total on both sided if we occupy Iraq for ten years. The two simply can't be compared.
And this is all assuming that Mr. Bush was actually lying about the intelligence. If he believed that Iraq posed a real threat, and that invasion was the only effective way to eliminate that threat, he was not guilty of murder. He was doing his job.
And the corrolary is that if he was lying, then it was murder. He could participate in the investigations and prove that he was not lying, but instead, he chooses to block inquiries at every step.
Let's see - who is more likely to impede an investigation - the guilty or the innocent? Hmmm?
I think you're probably right about Gomer actually believing his own lies, Formerly. That's typical of pathological liars and sociopaths like this pack of chickenhawk thugs. If you find that exculpatory, then that's in keeping with the kind of moral vulgarity expressed in your statement that it's all ok because Kerry, as a pro-choicer, is guilty of worse.
Hi, Humbleo--
Some questions:
1. In your way of thinking, how would W. prove that he was not lying? That is, what would constitute sufficient proof that he didn't know the true state of WMD programs in Iraq?
I ask because I really can't figure out a way for someone to "prove a negative": e.g., to prove that he didn't know something at some time in the past. But I'd be interested to know what you consider satisfactory evidence.
2. Does the investigative commission appointed today change your assertion that he "chooses to block inquiries at every step"?
--
Hey, now that we have 'Humbleo' and 'alto', is there another Marx Brother waiting in the wings?
Fair questions. In order for Bush to prove he wasn't lying, he could show the CIA and National security briefings in their entirety to a bi-partisan panel of respected civil servants who have been approved by the congress. He could also let the panel investigate the Pentagon's office of special plans. He could allow the commission to interview various CIA analysts with the assurance of confidentiality re: which analyst testifies to what.
Although I admit, you do have a point. Because at this point, even if those things were all done, there would still be some doubt that the evidence and the committee's conclusions were honest, especially if it came out that the committee found no evidence of wrong doing. But that is only because in the court of public opinion, it is already clear from their own statements that they were fudging the evidence.
A court found OJ Simpson not-guilty. Did you believe it?
The answer to your second question is sort of in my answer to the first. The committee itself is not bad. However, their mandate is a little more shakey.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/06/drugs/index_np.html Interesting article at the preceding URL speculating that Bush may have dropped out of the Guard when he did because at almost this very time a random drug testing policy was instituted. Well, why should a spoiled rich ass have to give up his party drugs just because a bunch of poor, dumb working class guys were giving up arms, legs and stuff like that, man? Also makes the interesting point, regarding evidence, that if Bush had made up for the lost meetings of '72 by means of service in the summer of '73 as they claim, there would be an Officer Effectiveness Rating for that year in his records -- which, of course, there is not, although we all know that those records were merely lost -- along with his IQ tests and "How to Fail at Business Until They Make You President" guidebook.
Yes lets all back Kerry who is pro abortion and how sweet that his wife was considering having an abortion 30 years ago. She did not have it because she miscarried.
Lets not back Prez Bush because he is prolife and voted to get rid of the gastly late trimaster abortion where they delivery the baby all but the head they destroy the brain the poor baby while the baby is alive.
Like let me see who am I as a Catholic going to choose.