Bush Haters Slander My Dead Comrades
Tue January 27th, 2004 20:41 MSTEvery time a Bush hater attacks his military service record, they are slandering my dead comrades, people who died in military aviation serving their country. They are slandering me, my brother and my friends, and slandering the men and women currently in the National Guard and Reserves. There is always the implication that somehow Bush’s service was “the easy way out”. WRONG! The easy way out was to avoid service, as most of my current friends did, rather than piloting a flying coffin, the F-102! And most people of my generation did avoid service, which was also not dishonorable. Bush could have totally avoided military service also had he desired.
They say that Bush “took the easy way out” by “using his connections” to fly in the Texas Air National Guard. My childhood best friend, John Robert Kelley also took this “easy way out.” They had his memorial service in Albuquerque in July 1972 after he died in a training accident, flying a fighter jet in the New Mexico Air National Guard (the “Tacos”). Yep, that was the easy way out! John loved life. He was a fun guy, always with a prank or two, athletic and very intelligent. The last time I saw him, he was scheming how to get me a ride in his jet. Oh, and John didn’t use any connections to get into the ANG, because it wasn’t necessary. Every time I hear Bush slandered, I sadly remember this loss, and wonder at the lack of respect for the military so common on the left.
I took a similar route. I joined the Naval Air Reserve in 1966 (2 year active duty commitment, just like a draftee, and 3 year active reserve requirement) I was going to join the army, but the allure of airplanes changed my mind (to the relief of my parents). I didn’t need any connections either. My friend Joe and I just drove to the Naval Air Station, walked in to the recruiting office, and enlisted!
When you join the military, you roll the dice. What you end up doing, whether you end up in danger, whether you end up in discomfort, or whether you end up in some paradise is largely a matter of luck. Of course, during the Vietnam years, the odds were decent that you would end up over there. The only thing joining the Naval Air Reserve guaranteed was that you would be involved with Naval Aviation, and that in normal times, you would have two years of active duty, but you could be instantly called up over a period of six years. National Guard folks had no more guarantee that we did.
Joe ended up in the Tonkin Gulf, fueling aircraft on the dangerous and hot deck of an aircraft carrier. He got double hazardous duty pay. He is a Vietnam Veteran. I ended up flying in a P-3 Orion. The P-3 is a combat aircraft, with lots of sensors and lots of weapons. Its primary mission is submarine hunting and surface surveillance, although it was used in the Afghan war (35 years after my time) as combat air support for the SEALs. It was used in Vietnam (Operation Market Time) for surface interdiction.
With a little luck, and my already existing electronics skills, I was able to land a job as an aircrew member – radio operator and on-board technician. I only got regular hazardous duty pay, so I guess I too took the easy way out. I am a Vietnam Veteran. By the way, flying jobs were all voluntary in those days (except perhaps in the Army).
But the message the Democrats are sending is that Joe and I and John took “the easy way out.”
Tell that to the families of my squadron mates who were killed in training crashes.
Tell that to the survivors of the person to first take me up in a P-3, a fine petty officer with a wife and several kids.
Tell that to the Air National Guard members and Naval Air Reservists who were sent to fight in Vietnam.
Tell that to the Guard and Reserve members during the cold war who were on 24 hour call to defend their country anywhere in the world.
Tell that to the National Guard and Reserve folks in Iraq.
Tell that to me (Naval Air Reserve) or my brother (National Guard).
Tell that to John Kelley’s family!
Of course, we also hear the Bush “went AWOL” or, to hear Michael Moore put it, was a “deserter.” These are slanderous lies, as anyone who has been in the military and knows the rules understands. If Bush had gone AWOL, he would have been prosecuted. He clearly wasn’t a deserter. Check here for all the evidence you need! Bush served honorably, flew more hours than was required, and was a good pilot according to his commander.
They say Bush didn’t serve his entire “required time” and that makes him somehow AWOL or a deserter. I didn’t serve my full 3 years of Reserve duty either, because I wasn’t required to and there weren’t any P-3’s around where I lived (I now regret this, btw). I simply asked to be let off early because I had 2 jobs and was going to college, they had me fill out a form, and that was it.
Part of the slander against Bush is that not all records exist for a period of his service. Once again, my experience parallels his. I ordered my military records recently, and there is NO evidence that I ever served in my second reserve squadron. When I joined the squadron, they couldn’t find my records, and I never, ever got paid for service in that unit. I guess I’m AWOL too!
Finally, many who criticize Bush hold up John Kerry as a contrast. See here for information about Kerry’s immediate post-war activities.
Here a National Guard pilot, Larry Murphy, PA National Guard is taking the “easy way out” in Afghanistan. That’s a Vietnam era aircraft he is flying! Do you suppose the Bush Haters have the courage to do this?
Well said, John. Keep up the fine and important work.
They Believe It Because They Hate Him
There are a lot of things I don’t much like about GWB, but the leftist lies about his military service aren’t one of them. John…
John,
Well said. I recall an article that mentioned that at the time Bush joined the Air Guard, the F-102 was flying missions in Viet Nam. Had that bird not been withdrawn from service there, the odds that he may have served there were certainly higher than they turned out. As you mention, this was a crap shoot. And did anybody ever consider the possibility that Bush junior became a pilot because daddy flew in WWII? I’m an active duty soldier, and my son tells me he wants to be a soldier too. This dismays me because I have served since 1973 (and vividly remeber the vile things said about soldiers who were only doing their duty), and while the American people, at present, respect the military, the media revile us privately and will turn on us in a nanosecond if they could get away with it. I prefer my kids do something else.
r/
Jim
The truth about it
Via Bill Quick, John Moore lays it out nice and simple for the Lyin’ Left: Every time a Bush hater…
Rivrdog here. Major, USAFR, Retired. I too have a Reserve commission, just like GWB. I flew in the ‘Nam conflict, 142 missions (20 over the North) as a Navigator in B-52’s.
I’ve met my share of asswipes like Michael Moore, and I have one observation: they ALL disparage GWB’s military service. That’s because they ALL disparage the idea that men and women in the military are making a positive contribution to our society.
Let me turn it around for you Mr. Moore. Having taken Cinematography and Film Production in college, I’m here to tell you that any asswipe such as yourself can strut BEHIND the camera. It’s what happens in FRONT of the camera that’s important. You are no more an artist than the technician that loads the exposed film into the processor. Anyone can do YOUR job. If you want to gain MY respect, try acting. When I see your name at the top of the credits in a dramatic film, I might change my mind.
By the way, Mr. Moore, here’s a flash for you: in the late 70’s, there was a huge fire at the DOD military records storage center in St. Louis. Everyone who was in the military at or near that time knows that, because most military members lost records in that fire. YOU didn’t know that because you don’t talk WITH people who served, you talk AT them.
Thanks for the ranting room, I needed that.
No Cowards in the Texas Air National Guard.
John Moore at Useful Fools has an excellent piece that gives useful factual background on what the Texas Air National Guard was up to in the early 1970’s. He doesn’t take kindly to the recent attempt by the extreme left to paint President Bush as havin…
Almost all the elements essential to conditioning the context of Bush’s service record are far beyond the grasp of the morons who pot-shoot him over it. They know nothing of what they’re talking about. Now, I have no respect for him whatever as a president, but I know an injustice when I see it.
It’s been a long time since I researched the details, but I recall a crucial turn in Bush’s training that took place some considerable time before LBJ terminated ROLLING THUNDER. (Could be his fighter lead-in, but I don’t recall, exactly.) The important implication is that Bush had absolutely no way of knowing that he would not end up in a combat zone, even in an F-102.
I would also point out that there were two combat deployments of F-102’s to SEA, and there was at least one shot down in air-to-air combat. Go ask at rec.aviation.military.
Some commie weezils (who know just about enough about military aviation to get themselves in trouble) try making the case that the F-102 was “obsolete” during the Vietnam era, that (somehow) Bush knew this, and that he used it as a safe harbor, knowing that he would never get anywhere near combat with it. People who know their history also know that there were all kinds of strange tricks of timing shot-through the whole thing, and that there was no way to know anything like that at the time. And none of this addresses the byzantine personnel tangles — like, in a time when they were pulling right-seaters out of KC-135’s and running them through 50 hours in F-105’s before their first trip up to Pack Six, hard-chargers trying to get qualified out of a desk in the Pentagon could not buy a combat billet.
Here’s what, though: anyone who thinks that pushing up the throttle in an F-102 was “the easy way out” is also manifestly unqualified to remark on anything about any of it, in any way. In peacetime, at home, that was what most people would consider an utterly horrifying thing to do. People with an interest in military aviation can tend to lose sight of that, taking it as granted: part of the deal. But you if you dropped the average person on the street in that cockpit into that moment, most of ‘em would stroke-out on the spot like bad Christmas tree bulbs.
It is utterly laughable for that rotten slob, Moore, to even open his mouth about any of it.
They’re slandering my wife, too. She was an aircraft mechanic in the Air Guard and worked on F-15s. Her unit was on alert during Gulf War I but wasn’t called up because they had the older model F-15s. She also volunteered to go fight oil-well fires in Kuwait, but they they decided they didn’t need her for that.
To be honest, I enjoy mentioning this at every opportunity, because I think it’s very cool. Just the thought of her in cammies working on an F-15 gives me a stiffy.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with the fact that GWB served in the ANG. The problem that I have is why did he join in the first place? As the son of a serving US Senator there was no way in hell he was going to be sent to Vietnam, the only people sent to Vietnam were draftees and those who volunteered.
Howdy John!
(For the benefit of you website readers, I’m the “Joe” who John enlisted on the same day with.)
I certainly agree with you, man, that once a person enlists in the service — regardless of the branch — there’s no guarantee on what you’ll be doing.
In my case, after getting into the Naval Air Reserve I trained for nearly a year to be an air traffic controlman (looking for a way to put my police dispatcher talents to use for the Navy). One month before my 2-year active duty tour was to commence, I got informed unceremoniously that I could never be an ATC because my eyesight wasn’t good enough. (To which I futily responded, “But sir, my corrected eyesight is 20/10, as good as any pilot’s!”)
A week after going active duty (now with no marketable skills) I’m freezing my ass off in Treasure Island Naval Receiving Station looking for anyplace warmer where I can wear my nifty new bell bottoms. I fill out a form on which I request sea duty/carrier duty, and damn if I didn’t get it! But once I reported to the Ticonderoga (CVA-14) I still didn’t have any marketable skills. A yeoman asked me where I’d like to work. I said, “Well, this is an aircraft carrier, and I’m an Airman. Put me on the flight deck where the planes are.” Next thing I know, I’m a blueshirt aircraft handler working at fever pitch cheek to jowel with a swirl of extremely lethal combat aircraft and related flight deck equipment. Nothing at all like I expected, when years earlier as a kid I was watching those A-4 Skyhawks fly past at air shows!
It was very dangerous work; six sailors on my ship died during the one WestPac cruise I was on. One of those six guys died in my arms after he fell 40 feet from #3 Elevator onto the deck of a Subic Bay pier “camel”, landing in a bloody pile about 6 feet behind where I was standing.
Still, to this day I don’t think of myself as a “real” Vietnam Veteran. As dangerous as flight deck duties are, I never had to deal with the awful stresses that aviators, ground soldiers and river patrol sailors faced 24/7 in and above Vietnam. On my carrier, there was no armed combatant lurking around the next corner, someone intent on finding me and killing me. Nobody ever shot at me when I was in the Navy. The fear of being hunted, getting ambushed, getting shot down, being someone’s prey, that was something I never experienced until I got back home and re-joined the police department! For me personally, combat-wise and politically, the Vietnam War didn’t begin until after I got home and had to deal with simultaneous race riots and anti-war riots.
In any event, I’m not a Bush Hater by any means, but I personally think he is turning the country in the wrong direction in a number of respects. So, since this website subject is sort of a combination military/political forum for us vets, may I make a few political points.
I don’t agree with Bush’s moves in education at all, where his unfunded mandate Leave No Child Behind strikes me as a program actually aimed at systematically weakening public schools to the point where our nation’s entire education system fails and MUST be privatized. “Leave No Public School Undamaged” is what this program should really be called.
A lot of his moves with respect to our nation’s environment scare the living shit out of me. We have just one environment; ruin it by over-exploitation and America is toast, forever.
I definitely do not agree with the “need” to invade Iraq last April. Saddam Hussein was, and I’m sure still is, a pathological killer. But Iraq did not participate in the New York/Washington air attacks on 9/11. And last April, Iraq was not massing troops along its border in preparation for invading a neighboring state (like it did before invading Kuwait — and I supported the Gulf War 100%). Hussein was no friend of Bin Laden’s, and was not supporting Bin Laden’s activities. Iraq was not “sabre rattling” with threats to attack United States soil.
But we attacked them anyway. Now in Iraq, I see us losing troops in a “Vietnam In The Desert” style conflict. We attacked THEM, and we are occupying that country now, but we can’t withdraw without our departure creating a power vacuum that begs a civil war that plunges the country into a much different and possibly far more dangerous brand of politics than anything Hussein could have imagined. The people of Iraq don’t want us staying there, and I’m afraid we will be evicted violently. Perhaps not evicted soon, but eventually.
Remember how the Red Army invaded Afganistan with overwhelming military superiority, fantastic air power and mechanized infantry advantages? 10 years later the Soviet Army was fleeing for its life.
I hope I’m wrong, but I suspect the same bloody fate is about to happen to us. We attacked a nation that was not directly threatening us, a country that was not massing an attack on a neighbor. The entire Arab world knows this, and it distrusts America’s motives now. They all want us to leave despite our often-stated “good intentions”.
I would agree that President Bush has nothing to be ashamed of for NOT serving in Vietnam when he was of an age to during that war. Again, I didn’t really pull duty in Vietnam, either, even though technically I’m considered a Vietnam Vet and he’s not.
But I do wish that he had been faced earlier in life with some kind of life-or-death interpersonal crisis. Not flying a combat plane, but actually facing another armed, angry person, and trying to work things out without resorting to the quick and easy solution of violence. I say this because in the public statements he was making in the months before we invaded Iraq, he just seemed, I don’t know, way too eager to send other folks into combat…and against people who had not attacked us first and weren’t attacking another country at the time.
The longer we occupy Iraq, the more confident the Iraqi people will become in their ability to kill us and chase us out. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen never needed to be sent in there, not in my view. I don’t hate Bush for sending them there, but I still don’t see his logic for ordering it, either. The whole thing doesn’t make sense unless the exercise is just a smokescreen to grab Iraq’s oil fields. But although we have those fields surrounded right now by our best soldiers, we’re not gonna get to keep ‘em I’m pretty sure about that.
[UP
Lots of people have that problem. I saw a site where everyone who served in the NG were called draft dodgers! I wanted to point out what the slander was.
My guess… Bush’s father had been a fighter pilot. His son probably wanted to do the same thing, so he joined up. Did he do it to serve his country? I don’t know, only he can tell you that. Certainly he picked a dangerous occupation, as my post points out. Young people have all sorts of motives.
Then there’s the question of why Kerry joined the Navy? Outside of Aviation or SEALs, being a Navy officer was one of the safest military positions during the war. He claims to have volunteered for Swift boat duty, but his reason seems to have been that they were nifty, or maybe because they were something a second lieutenant would command. Who knows? I know he served well, and then betrayed the country, funded by Jane Fonda, when he returned.
I know that I joined the Naval Air Reserves out of several motivations. One was to serve my country (I believed in the war, and still do), another was to take time off some college and get some adventure. I joined the Reserves because I didn’t anticipate a military career (in fact, I really knew nothing about the military, even though my father had been a Navy officer in WW-II. Otherwise I would have joined as an officer and been a RIO or WSO or whatever on a higher performance aircraft than a P-3).
Prior to discovering the Air Reserve, I had done all the paperwork and the physical for the army, but the chance to work with and fly in combat aircraft seemed better. So I volunteered for two years active plus 4 years of reserve time.
Due to classic paperwork screwup, I went to regular boot camp, not the 2 week reserve boot camp. Within 3 months out of boot camp, I was flying as an aircrewman in a combat aircraft (P-3), but not in combat. I was able to do that so quickly because I was already a ham radio operator, had a commercial radio license and experience sufficient to run any radio or TV station, and knew how to fix electronics. So even though I was an E2 without schooling, I talked people into taking me on flights and teaching me the radio operator duties and general aircrew quals (like dealing with parachutes), and then took a check ride and qualified 3 months from when I got to my squadron. Then I started the formal air crew qualifications and earned my wings. I was the lowest ranked person in my entire SERE school (Warner Springs, CA) class, which felt a bit weird.
I think that people have all sorts of motives. Bush certainly didn’t have to join up and fly fighters. And its hard to blame him for being the son of a Senator - you don’t get to pick your parents. I know that during the early parts of his service, he flew a lot more than was required. Later on, he flew a lot less.
My point, people join for all sorts of reasons. A lot of folks were drafted. But every officer (with the exception of medical personnel) was a volunteer.
Texas National Guard
I was up early and took a quick cruise around the ‘net. When I took a look at Sarah’s site, she had linked to this by John Moore:Useful Fools: Bush Haters Slander My Dead Comrades. For anyone interested, take a…
>The longer we occupy Iraq, the more confident
>the Iraqi people will become in their ability to
>kill us and chase us out.
If you think the Iraqi people are the ones killing us and trying to chase us out, please read this essay by an Iraqi: HERE.
It’s why we need to stay.
Naturally, I pasted the wrong URL. The post I meant is HERE.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but George Herbert Walker Bush was not a US Senator. He was a Congressman: Served only one or two terms and lost an attempt at the Senate. GWB’s grandfather was a Senator (from Connecticut, during WW2 - Boy, that sure kept his kid out of combat, didn’t it?).
Pardon my ignorance. My point was the children of the elite, for the most part were not drafted and sent to Vietnam.
Do not think for one moment think that I would slander the men and women who serve us in the NG and Reserve. They have served all of us well; I respect them a great deal.
John, I agree we don’t know what GWB’s motivation was for joining the ANG. What young guy does not want to follow in his father’s footsteps?
The real problem is that GWB has left himself open to the accusation that he received special treatment. I don’t think the claim of bureaucratic incompetence will be enough to satisfy most people, especially now during this time of conflict.
I am amazed that John Kerry seems to have a folloowing of Viet Nam vets. Don’t they know his past or don’t they care? OR ARE THEY REAL VETS? I have heard some of the protesters in his vets against the war organization were not vets at all.
I graduated from high school in 1967 and still the thought of the way you all were treated by fellow Americans makes me cry. I feel it was the beginning of the destruction of our country as we knew it, and it upsets me greatly to see patriotic Americans, who committed no sin except to want to serve their country as their fathers did to be spit on and treated in inexcusable ways. Any Viet Nam vet who can still hold up their head in this country gets my honor and respect. Please do everything you can to see Kerry is discredited.
I suspect a lot of them are real vets. There are millions of Vietnam Vets. With that many people, and a war that controversial, it doesn’t shock me that a bunch of them support Kerry.
On the other hand, the atrocity disclosures that he based his notorious Senate testimony on were largely made by phony vets. Some years after the testimony, a reporter did a followup, checked the records of these people, and found that in many cases they were not veterans or had not been to Vietnam. I many other cases, they could not possibly have been at the atrocities they claimed to have witnessed. Of course, the whole exercise was paid for by Jane Fonda, so one would not expect it to be on the up-and-up.
Jane Fonda has apologized (sincerely? I doubt it) to the vets for what she did. I do not expect Kerry to ever apologize for slandering everyone who fought in Vietnam.
Some ass named “Rivrdog” wrote this, and it’s pretty funny:
“Let me turn it around for you Mr. Moore. Having taken Cinematography and Film Production in college, I’m here to tell you that any asswipe such as yourself can strut BEHIND the camera. It’s what happens in FRONT of the camera that’s important. You are no more an artist than the technician that loads the exposed film into the processor. Anyone can do YOUR job. If you want to gain MY respect, try acting. When I see your name at the top of the credits in a dramatic film, I might change my mind.”
Wow, Rivrdog, you tell ‘em! Michael Moore’s only made four or five full-length motion pictures and produced two television shows, but YOU, you’re qualified to tell him that he’s an asswipe, since you’ve had college classes in cinematography and film production. Maybe he should have consulted with you before he became a successful filmmaker. After all, you’re the dude who knows what he’s talking about, right? I mean, you’ve had college classes in cinematography and film production.
Finding this site and seeing the stupid comments to this post has made my day.
Michael Moore is an asswipe. That he has actually produced commercial product just means that he is a skilled and successful asswipe.
One doesn’t need to be a cinematographer to recognize an asswipe. One merely use one’s nose.
Michael Moore produces clever and vicious propaganda. He is the Leni Riefenstahl of the left. He is a typical hypocritical arrogant Hollywood rich guy who makes his money attacking the non-asswipes in our country.
Bush didn’t show up - that’s why they call him AWOL.
Also, he stopped flying rather than take a medical exam that would have included a drug test.
You guys never give up. Look at my personal experience above. I also never showed up after awhile. I was not AWOL. Furthermore there is no record of the times I did show up, so how do you conclude Bush did not? And why wasn’t he prosecuted for AWOL? And why did he, in previous years, fly far more hours than he was required to?
And then we have this bit about the medical exam. Naturally, you have not provided the slightest bit of proof, have you?
So I did a little googling. The US military started drug testing on April 4, 1974. George Bush finished Bush’s National Guard service was 1968-1973.
But then, I don’t expect the truth from most Bush haters!
Whats happening? Can’t download Vetnam Veterans Against Kerry. Is it being blocked?
John Moore, I have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous posts I’ve read in a long time. Being a vet doesn’t give you the right to not face the facts and face up to being a good citizen and being a good human being. You can do none of these things, by definition, if you refuse to question your commander-in-chief just because he’s your commander-in-chief. Wake up. All your rhetoric about your comrades dying is comlpetely unnecessary. People committed to the truth, like me, appreciate that young men and women served their country, regardless of how illegal/immoral/inhumane a war might have been.
Bush was flying in the ‘Champaign Unit’ - on ancient planes destined to be decommissioned. I think you just really have to be way up somebody’s ass to ever think that Clinton or Bush would have served in in a warzone. I mean, seriously folks, let’s all stop apologising for whoever is in our party. Kerry served - he actually went - and so he gets props for that. Bush didn’t. Clinton didn’t. And there are a million other ‘didnts’, but your apologising is making me sick. Stop wasting my time. Whether one went AWOL and another never technically went in - who cares? What matters is if you didn’t go in *and* you sent troops to die while you were President. In that case, both Clinton and Bush suck - but nobody died when Clinton used troops.
It seems to me we have two factions in the U.S. today - warmongers and those who hate everything that warmongers stand for. If you equate warmongering with patriotism then you need to ‘get some enlightenment’. Patriotism is demanding that your country be everything it is supposed to be. Patriotism is *not* being a blind automoton, regurgitating government propaganda, and denouncing anyone who disagrees with the government. Do some reading. The founding fathers knew what they were talking about with respect to liberty and freedom from government tyranny. Start thinking for yourself and being honest about what happens in wars, and what purposes war serves, and in particular, who they serve.
You are such a lying sack of crap.
No one is attacking Bush because he served in the air national guard.
They are attacking him, because that yellow-stained coward cut out on his fellow airmen in the guard, and his country, to get drunk, take drugs, and work on a political campaign instead of serving his country.
Honoring that scumbag is a DISSERVICE to all those who served with distinction on the air national guard both during and after Vietnam.
And attacking John Kerry is showing nothing but dishonor for all of HIS fallen comrades in the war. After all, unlike Bush he actually fought for his country, and put his ass on the line.
After doing so, however, he became embittered about the war, and fought like hell for his belief that it was wrong, and tried to end it.
That’s honorable.
Bush is a coward. And no amoount of lying and straw man bullshit argumentation is going to alter that fact.
You make me sick.
Hesiod, you lame asshole, the only lying sack of shit is YOU!!
When’s the last time YOU flew an F-102?
Kerry finessed three minor shrapnel scratches into an early-out from the hot area, leaving HIS comrades in arms behind - after all, HE was an OFFICER, and destined for BETTER THINGS!
Kerry didn’t “become embittered” about ANYthing - he saw a political opportunity in “opposing the war”, and he took it. The high-profile bullshit called Winter Soldier was his ticket to political fame and fortune.
As for cowardice by Bush - you have no proof to present, as there ISN’T any.
All you have is a lot of hot air - no substance at all.
Yes, well Hesiod (above) does run a website that is mainly a “G.W. Bush is a moron” site. “Yellow-stain” being his favored descriptive of Bush. It is important to Hesiod that the Prez be presented as terrible as one can imagine. Ditto the Bush admins high rankers. Hesiod is an ideologue, a radical booster of another political party, probably very young, educated, quite intelligent, possibly Marxist. You can judge for yourself at his blog over at:
http://counterspin.blogspot.com/
He’s full of beans, of course: “No one is attacking Bush because he served in the air national guard”. Indeed?, lots of that attacking all over the Net, including comments at his own blog. More beans here by “JB” and “Peter”. Even John Moore gets a bit ‘beany’ now and then.
I spent 26 odd years on active duty, ANG, more active duty, ANG, etc., etc. Know about fighters, fighter-interceptors, and the history of the Guard/Reserve Forces. Yeh, whoopee!
Over 17 years in fighter units, our guys (pilots/rios/wsos) left for job transfers - all kinds of reasons, off and on. Some had ‘commitments’, some not. Some tried to fit into some other ANG unit, some did, some gave up. Not so unusual at all. Guard units had maybe one flying training slot a year (or none, or two). Bush was probably on active duty for about a year for pilot training. Plus (maybe) N. Texas Interceptor School (5 months?) Majority of Guard pilots were prior active duty, like me.
I’ve read investigative descriptions of what G.W. did after leaving the Ellington Guard. He interviewed in (Georgia?, Alabama?). Didn’t work out. No one could be ‘courts martialed’ for this (I recall hearing about a DOD legal ruling, explaining similar matters).
I do recall that at the Ellington unit, G.W. Bush volunteered for SE Asia. There was a F-102 need there for volunteer Guard pilots, and lots of them went (90 day rotation?). Bush was short of the minimum hours necessary to qualify. Turned down. Not much doubt he was trying/following in his father’s boots. No one would have much noticed any of this if he hadn’t landed on that carrier, wearing his USAF wings. Big firestorm of political BS about that, remember? His wings - earned, (ie, he might have thought, screw the commander in chief stuff, it’s really flight gear, boots, crash helmet, wings, and my first carrier landing!, [even if I’m a passenger] - just like the old days). Amen, B-way
Leonard,
When he landed on that carrier, it was clear to me, as a former military aviator, that he was having a good time of it, and that it felt good to be back in the groove. I think most former military aviators, given the chance, would have done the same thing.
All the bull-puckey about this being just a publicity stunt and that he didn’t have “the right” to do so, etc, was nonsense, as the response of the carrier crew showed. They had just come back from a war, and they treated him as a commander-in-chief and former aviator who wanted to be with them, not some showboating politician.
If Kerry had done the same thing, the older of the crew would have turned their backs on him because of his treachery when he got back from Vietnam.
Listen to you pussies bitch.
Why not let Bush release his service records if he has nothing to hide?
Why shouldn’t the onus be on our big-talkin’ CIC to prove that he was not absent without leave?
Why are Kerry and the Dems automatically implicated by raising the issue?
If there’s no issue, there’s no issue, and it seems easily provable.
You’re all rabid, foaming at the mouth, because all of you are so scared about will happen to your precious Praz-dent when his own cowardice is exposed.
My best advice to you:
Get used to the idea of President Kerry.
And feel happy that we’ll choose to wait for the election instead of impeaching the ass of the fool who currently lives in the White House.
http://www.dailynewsbrief.com/news/archives/000246.php
Last night on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, John Kerry seemed to equate President Bush’s National Guard service with going to Canada, being a conscientious objector, and even going to jail. Over a hundred National Guardsmen were killed in Vietnam,…
Nice job Patriot! Bringing your ‘A’ Game from the DU eh? Tell me - why don’t you use a real e-mail addy if you have nothing to hide, hmm punk?
I know why - you don’t want your mamma finding out what you do on the ‘puter at nite. Well don’t worry, I already told her, and then I gave her $2 for that damn fine blow job and sent her home.
God am I sick of listening to you limp dicked inbred gultess pukes bitch about Dubya and the guard. “He was AWOL!” “He was a deserter!” “Bush lied! People Died!”, Jebus save me, FUCK YOU already.
Here’s a puzzler, 200 pages of documents were released, news papers poored through the paper and found exactly zip, nada, not a damn thing. So obviously the BFEE managed to purge the records and the corporate media kept the story quiet until John “Fuckin Jackass” Kerry dredged it up with Terry McAwful’s help.
Here’s some free advice Patriot - an ironic moniker since you hate America you treasonous bastard pile of shit - get used to saying, “But, but, but no one I know VOTED FOR BUSH!” and then crying into your haloperidol cocktail when Dubya kicks John “Fuckin’ Asshole” Kerry’s but in november.
Oh really, Mr. McAuliffe
You may have heard Terry McAuliffe’s comment; “George Bush never served in our military in our country” from last Sunday. I want him to tell that to this guy, Every time a Bush hater attacks his military service record, they…
My suggestion would be for someone from this list, someone who served and who has the perspective that headlined this thread, to show up at a Kerry event in a major media market and call him on his bullshit. Clark, too (as if he’s relevant at this point).
Some moron said:
“Bush was flying in the ‘Champaign Unit’ - on ancient planes destined to be decommissioned. I think you just really have to be way up somebody’s ass to ever think that Clinton or Bush would have served in in a warzone.”
Really, if you think about it, all planes are destined to be decommissioned. In fact, the F-102 was decommed in 1976. 5 years after Bush left the ANG. And in fact when Bush signed up, his Unit was currently in Vietnam flying the same plane you are talking about. But hey, why let facts stand in the way.
And the person mentioning apologizing for people in your own party. Good, I am sure you also felt Clinton deserved his Impeachment for lying to a grand jury and lying to the American people right? What, no, really now.
That Honorable Discharge
George Walker Bush got an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard on October 1, 1973. Some Bush-haters are saying that it doesn’t prove Bush wasn’t “AWOL” because it states that Bush had “a six year service obligation…and has…
That Honorable Discharge
George Walker Bush got an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard on October 1, 1973. Some Bush-haters are saying that it doesn’t prove Bush wasn’t “AWOL” because it states that Bush had “a six year service obligation…and has…
“Hesiod” (whoever you are) — the day when you master a single-seat jet fighter is the day you’ll be qualified to call anyone who ever did that a “coward”.
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You’re ignorant. That, in itself, is no big deal. Nobody knows everything and everyone is ignorant of something. The thing that makes you despicable is that you don’t let your ignorance get in your way, Judy-boy.
Hesiod has been reported to me as a known MoveOn.org troll. He should be ignored. He’s like a temporary spot in your vision - blink and it’s gone, and he’s of no more significance.
I is great to see all the Guardies here. I have a son in the Air Guard. I was on AD and he asked me for advice. I told him go Guard. Anyway, I was sitting here look at all the drug stuff, and I rememeber that when I first cam on AD they had just started testing for drugs.. Thanks for the link. I shall use it well. To all the trolls here… Bahawwww.. get use to a reelected President Bush…
Wow!! I didn’t notice the AF wings on him on the carrier.. Going to have go look at the pic again. I was an enlisted avator… Master wings..
You wrote, “If Bush had gone AWOL, he would have been prosecuted.” I suggest you read what you wrote and think about it. You really don’t know about influence and corruption? Just because he got away with it doesn’t mean he wasn’t AWOL.
By the way, Bush lied about why we were attacked on 9/11. visit my web site for details: Representative Press
Friday Blog Roundup (2/6/04)- Get set….BLOG!
1. “Hitler’s WMDs”. Belmont Club takes on the claims that somehow we are not justified in liberating people from a fascist dictator if they turn out not to have the WMDs we reasonably thought they did. Don’t miss this one. Belmont Club. 2. “Reparations…
I have to disagree Tom but only on Semantics.
First we support Israel because it is the only true democracy in the region. It is a shining example of what freedom and democracy can do. With little to no Natural resources, Israel is successful.
We were in SA for only one reason, to keep Saddam from getting his hands on that Oil. The only way to get our troops out of SA was to take care of Saddam. Well guess what we have taken care fo Saddam. Now that we are out of SA, I guess that means ALQ will leave us alone right? Of course not, we still support the only free state in the Middle East and now are making Iraq a free state.
So in a sense, Bush did not lie. We are a defender of Freedom. In our country women are not stoned for going out in Public alone, and it burns them up to see so many Women in power in America. Women with more power and brains than they will ever have, unless they bring us down.
>you limp dicked inbred gultess pukes bitch about Dubya
Huh. I guess if you use the word puke as an insulting noun, it must prove your patriotism….
In any case, good for Bush for his service as an officer and a pilot (It’s a pitty about him getting grounded though…)
There were and are real risks in joining the Guard. And at the time Bush was serving, if you didn’t perform your service — for example if you didn’t show up for duty for several months — there was a good chance of being put on active duty and shipped to Vietnam. Well, at least that’s what happened to other people who failed to report…
By the way, for all y’all who feel certain that Bush did show up for service in Alabama, there seems to be some verterans offering reward for you to collect if you can find any proof that he did. Good luck!
It’s also a pity that Bush doesn’t put this silly controversy to rest right now and simply release his full service record. Any produly serving veteran would be happy to do so… right?
Mr Kerry, lead Anti Vietnam war protester of the 1970s, bashes Mr. Bush for his National Guard service. Tell that to the many Guard and Reserve troops presently deployed worldwide. Guard and AF Reserve units have long been mainstay forces as part of the Air Force team. There were at least two air guard F-100 squadrons in Vietnam when I was there. I am also aware of the fact that many of the strategic airlift C-141 and C-5 squadrons were manned by reservists. Mr. Kerry again shows his true colors!
Peter comments “…but nobody died when Clinton used troops” and forgets or doesn’t know about our involvement in Somalia. You know… Blackhawk Down? It’s not just a movie stupid. I still burn when I think about how Clinton wasted the lives of our soldiers-19 alone in the Blackhawk down incident. Hell, at least the Pakistani president sent some armored personnel carriers and tanks to protect his soldiers in Somalia. At least Bush hasn’t sent our sons and daughters into harm’s way unprotected over a matter of “style” like Clinton.
A comment about the relavance of Kerry’s military experience: his service, while appreciated, was over 30 years ago against an entirely different kind of enemy. He participated in tactical, small-unit engagements with weapons systems that are now practically antiques. He led a fast attack boat with a crew of 5 or 6. Bush’s on-the-job experience since 9/11 trumps whatever Kerry thinks he’s got. Bush led this nation and its allies on a strategic, political and spiritual level through the Afgan and Iraq conflicts as well as the overall war on terrorism. Do you really want to start over with a guy like Kerry who wants to tell war stories about chasing down and greasing a wounded Viet Cong B40 rocket gunner? He wants us to believe that this qualifies him to be Commander-in-Chief… that his ancient experiences give him the right stuff to handle the current war on terrorism. That’s like having brain surgery performed on you by a doc who last held a scalpel 30 years ago. I want the guy who’s still practicing medicine. Bush has the relevant experience in our current state of affairs. He didn’t ask for 9/11 but he is the right man to lead the nation forward.
“By the way, for all y’all who feel certain that Bush did show up for service in Alabama, there seems to be some verterans offering reward for you to collect if you can find any proof that he did. Good luck!”
Nice try linking to www.archive.org. People update things you know. By the way, the true link doesn’t exist.
Consider this analogy concerning Kerry’s attacks on Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism: Fortress America has suffered a devastating and heinous attack against the noncombatants within. Bush, the new and inexperienced commander of Fortress America, finds the inner strength to comfort the survivors and inspire those that he has sworn to protect to rise up and remain resolute against the attackers. He calls upon neighboring allied fortresses to join him in the effort to seek out and destroy the attackers. Few, if any, answer the call. Bush, resolved and undeterred, marshals his forces. He boldly attacks the enemy where it lives, dealing them a series of blows from which they will not soon recover. Now he stands on the wall… experienced… standing guard… weapon at the ready… watchful for the safety of his people… ready to attack rather than be attacked. Where is John Kerry? He’s inside Fortress America, enjoying the safety its walls provide–the walls he hasn’t been outside of for over 30 years. What is John Kerry doing? He’s telling everyone what a great war hero he is… gathering others like himself who haven’t faced the enemy in decades (if at all)… Kerry and his ilk, these “useful fools”, then proceed to sling excrement at the back of those standing guard on the wall… primarily George Bush. What does Bush do? He keeps watch, ignoring the undeserved filth running down his back. My money and my respect are on the man on the wall… not the shit slingers.
An important point here that many are ignoring, or seem to be unaware of, is that National Guard personnel were essentially not sent to Vietnam. There are claims that since National Guard personnel are now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush faced the same likelihood of being sent to Vietnam by being in the Texas National Guard. That simply is not true at all. The current military operations involve a considerable number of NG and Reservists, but Vietnam did NOT. See
http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607,7-126-2360_3003_3009-27629–,00.html
“Vietnam marked the first major conflict in which U.S. armed forces were involved without including any significant call-up of the National Guard.” Joining the National Guard during Vietnam essentially meant that you weren’t going to be sent to Vietnam. Yes, F-102s were used in Vietnam - but an ANG F-102 pilot had very little chance of being sent there.
During the Vietnam war, there were only four Air National Guard units deployed to Vietnam (see http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Statistics/PC_VietnamMob.asp ) - ones from Iowa, New York, Colorado, and New Mexico. By comparison, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, over 40 Air National Guard units were deployed to the middle east (http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Statistics/MobilizedUnitsPersianGulf.asp ). With the Iraq and Afghanistan, the number is even larger. So, please don’t try to use the fact that a great number of National Guardsmen and Reservists ARE being sent into conflict today as proof that Bush faced the same likelihood of seeing combat. It is simply flat-out wrong.
The reality is, joining the ANG during Vietnam gave a pretty good chance that you would never see combat. No, of course it wasn’t as safe as dodging the draft altogether. But, not many politicians’ sons wanted to take that option, knowing draft dodging was not a good trait for a future politician.
Someone posted this:
“Consider this analogy concerning Kerry’s attacks on Bush’s handling of the war on terrorism: Fortress America has suffered a devastating and heinous attack against the noncombatants within. Bush, the new and inexperienced commander of Fortress America, finds the inner strength to comfort the survivors and inspire those that he has sworn to protect to rise up and remain resolute against the attackers. He calls upon neighboring allied fortresses to join him in the effort to seek out and destroy the attackers. Few, if any, answer the call. Bush, resolved and undeterred, marshals his forces. He boldly attacks the enemy where it lives, dealing them a series of blows from which they will not soon recover. Now he stands on the wall… experienced… standing guard… weapon at the ready… watchful for the safety of his people… ready to attack rather than be attacked. Where is John Kerry? He’s inside Fortress America, enjoying the safety its walls provide–the walls he hasn’t been outside of for over 30 years. What is John Kerry doing? He’s telling everyone what a great war hero he is… gathering others like himself who haven’t faced the enemy in decades (if at all)… Kerry and his ilk, these “useful fools”, then proceed to sling excrement at the back of those standing guard on the wall… primarily George Bush. What does Bush do? He keeps watch, ignoring the undeserved filth running down his back. My money and my respect are on the man on the wall… not the shit slingers.”
This is a riot! To make it more realistic, you should instead say “Bush gathers his forces to target a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on our Fortress, while allowing the true attacker to go free”. How many of you BUsh supporters are aware that the country that gave nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, AND into which Bin Laden has fled, AND which is prohibiting US forces from entering to search for him, has been given almost $1 billion in aid by Bush since taking office? That country would be Pakistan - the country that periodically threatens to nuke its neighbor (India), and sells nuclear technology to the highest bidder, but just gets a pat on the back from Bush. If Bush is really just trying to protect us, why are we sending Americans off to fight in a country that had NO WMDs, and NO ties with Al Quaeda, while giving aid to the country that HAS sold nuclear technology, and is preventing us from searching for Bin Laden?
When you come up with an answer, please email me to let me know.
Sorry about the bad link.
Here’s a reprint of a Salon article:
And here’s an image of the original reward notice that the veterans posted. (Looks like the reward expired, unclaimed)
It doesn’t matter how brave you are in other aspects of your life. If you can’t face the fact that this man did not bother to show up for Guard duty during a war, then you are almost as big a coward as he is.
Once again, service in the Guard is slandered. Once again, my best friend was a coward for choosing the easy way out (I guess it’s cowardly to die in New Mexico when you could have died in Viet Nam).
Once again, you are telling every service person who didn’t go to ‘Nam that they didn’t do enough. Furthermore, Bush fulfilled all of his requirements, as has been proven by such rabid conservative magazines as George! See here for several references.
It’s pathetic that the original “Bush was AWOL” charge is down to “nobody can remember seeing him in Alabama.” See here for what the Alabama base commander had to say about this a few days ago.
And if you read the comments here by people who actually flew in combat aircraft (including myself), and who had lots of experience in the guard (mine was in the Reserves after active duty), you would learn two things: Bush was indeed in a dangerous occupation, more dangerous than many who went to Vietnam (an awful lot of Vietnam billets were logistical and support, and many of those were in very safe areas), and as dangerous as Swift Boat duty was at the time that Kerry volunteered (at that time, they were doing coastal patrol, not going up the rivers, but that changed while he was in school). If you did a little more research, you would know that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, because the TANG did indeed send fighters there, but Bush wasn’t qualified at the time.
Finally, many of the people you are calling cowards in your last statement are Vietnam Veterans (myself included) or people who in other ways put their lives in Uncle Sam’s hands. What did *you* do during the war? Or were you in diapers?
Then there’s the implication that Bush was already planning a role in politics and picked his service that way. Bush’s conduct after he got out of the guard was that of a frat boy, not a future politician. He didn’t become a serious person until he faced up to his alcoholism and was transformed (a religious experience in his case) into who he is today.
The person who was planning on politics all along was Kerry. He joined the surface Navy, then did what was called a “ticket stamping” tour in Vietnam, and then got back and proceeded to be on both sides of everything, providing aid to our enemy’s propaganda effort, falsely testifying under oath before the Senate, a testimony that demeaned all American servicemen, and pretended to throw away the very same medals that he now proudly displays in his office.
If you’d like to find out how real veterans feel about Kerrry, just take a look at the comments following this article.
Finally, some of us take accusations of cowardice rather seriously. Your accusations are absurd, insulting, and absolutely characteristic of the level to which Bush-haters will stoop. Oh, and the fact that they are based on incorrect interpretation of incomplete facts is, well, also typical.
Since John Moore did not say who his post was in regard to, I’ll assume it’s in regard to me, since mine was the latest post.
“Once again, service in the Guard is slandered. Once again, my best friend was a coward for choosing the easy way out (I guess it’s cowardly to die in New Mexico when you could have died in Viet Nam).”
Please show me exactly where I called ANYONE a coward for joining the National Guard. It’s amusing how you resort immediately to making such baseless accusations. Nowhere did I make that claim. I stated the simple facts - from the Air Force’s own webpage - that only FOUR Air National Guard units were deployed to Vietnam during the war. If you want to claim the Air Force is wrong, contact them, and tell THEM that they are “accusing your buddy of being a coward” for claiming that only 4 ANG units were deployed to Vietnam.
Sure, people flying planes in the ANG within the US have died. Convenience store clerks have died within the US - does that mean that working at a convenience store is equivalent to serving in armed conflict? If not, then why do you equate flying a plane within the US to serving in combat itself? The two are not the same thing. Stating that simple fact is not calling a person who serves in the Guard a “coward”, just as I am not calling convenient store clerks cowards. If facts bother you so much that you need to resort to baseless attacks, perhaps you should not be making posts on the web where other people might confront your claims with those facts.
“Once again, you are telling every service person who didn’t go to ‘Nam that they didn’t do enough. ”
Again - WHERE am I saying that? Please show me. I stated the factual information off of the USAF’s webpages about ANG deployments. Is the USAF also telling service people who didn’t go to Nam that they didn’t do enough, by putting the number of ANG deployments during the war on the web? Please yell at them some if you feel they are. Practically every male (and many female) members of my family (immediate and extended) was in the military during Vietnam - and none were sent into combat. Am I somehow calling them cowards? If I am, please show me where I stated that.
“Furthermore, Bush fulfilled all of his requirements, as has been proven by such rabid conservative magazines as George! See here for several references.”
Huh? What George magazine said (from your link) was: It’s time to set the record straight . . . . Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.
They said he accumulated the days of service necessary - but that he may have served irregularly after spring 1972 - that was the claim that was put out in 2000. Essentially, George acknowledged that that claim may be true.
“It’s amusing that the original “Bush was AWOL” charge is down to “nobody can remember seeing him in Alabama.” ”
Uh, that’s what the initial claim was back in 2000. So, you find it amusing that it has deteriorated back to the same claim? The claim was that if nobody can remember seeing him there, then perhaps he was AWOL. If he were there, shouldn’t somebody remember seeing him?
“And if you read the comments here by people who actually flew in combat aircraft (including myself), and who had lots of experience in the guard (mine was in the Reserves after active duty), you would learn two things: Bush was indeed in a dangerous occupation, more dangerous than many who went to Vietnam (an awful lot of Vietnam billets were logistical and support, and many of those were in very safe areas), and as dangerous as Swift Boat duty was at the time that Kerry volunteered (at that time, they were doing coastal patrol, not going up the rivers, but that changed while he was in school).”
I’m sorry, but THAT is insulting. Please check the death rates of those who served on Swift Boat duty in Vietnam to the death rates for pilots who remained in the US. Again, I am not calling US-based pilots “cowards” - just pointing out the baseless claim that it was MORE dangerous than serving in Vietnam. It’s utterly absurd, and flat-out insulting to the people who DIED serving in Vietnam. Perhaps you believe Kerry received those multiple Purple Hearts as a reward for playing a good game of poker while lounging relaxedly in the sun on his boat? Simply insulting and absurd.
“If you did a little more research, you would know that Bush volunteered to go to Vietnam, because the TANG did indeed send fighters there, but Bush wasn’t qualified at the time.”
Not according to the USAF’s webpages. They may have sent fighter planes - but according to their pages, they did not send any Guard units. If you think they are wrong, please take it up with them, rather than making baseless accusations that I am “insulting everyone who served in the Guard but was not sent to Nam” by just pointing out what the USAF says on their webpage.
[Rest deleted as redundant - seen and answered in other posts on this blog - attacks on Bush’s current actions irrelevant to this thread. JM]
You are just digging yourself in deeper. Keep it up. Kerry won’t get ‘Nam vet votes. Your sort of rhetoric and that of McCauliff will ensure he doesn’t get any guard votes either. We know what you are implying, and it is that there is something not quite right about “just” serving in the Guard. You don’t have to say it, all you have to do is keep dragging out statistics showing how ’safe’ it was.
The clear implication of your post is that Bush had no risk of going to ‘Nam because TANG didn’t deploy there as a unit. But that is either a disingenuous statement or due to your lack of understanding of how the guard works (which given the number of web sites where ANG members have been talking about this, is sad). TANG sent airplanes. Strangely enough, those airplanes actually had pilots flying them - TANG pilots. When Bush joined, he could have been one of them. The timeline shows that he didn’t have enough hours in the aircraft to go, even though he flew more than the hours required to fulfill his guard obligations. Since by then the aircraft was being phased out, accumulating more time in it would have been pretty useless either to him or to the ANG (which would have been paying for it). Since he was not career military, he stopped flying it.
Now nobody is going to say that combat is the same as flying a dangerous aircraft. It is not. But serving in that dangerous aircraft is certainly not dishonorable, as you seem to imply. And it sure as hell isn’t the same as being a convenience store clerk (like I say, you are just digging yourself in deeper when you say crap like that). So when you start making those comparisons, you are indeed saying that those who didn’t serve in combat didn’t do enough. Otherwise, why bother to bring it up at all.
There were 8,000,000 people who served in the armed forces during the Vietnam war. 2,500,000 went to ‘Nam. A much smaller number served in combat.
So since I am apparently unable to understand why you are posting this stuff, perhaps you could enlighten me. Of what interest is it that Bush served irregularly in 1972? Why are we talking about this?
And you don’t seem to be very good at reading either. Otherwise you wouldn’t not have answered my post about swift boats the way you did.
And then you try to change the subject. Sorry, but I’m going to delete that part of your comment as irrelevant to the this thread. All it does is show your bias against Bush, and your willingness to misinterpret facts to your benefit.
“Why not let Bush release his service records if he has nothing to hide?”
Um they did. I’m going to say it now. The folks who hate Bush or for that matter just about any Republican, are never going to change, they will always hate him for some reason or another. If they can’t find a reason they will make one up (just look at Hesoid any time for proof of this). I’ll tell you something too..I hated Bush at first too during the California energy crisis for not lifting a finger to help us. Then I read into it and found out a lot of the problems were caused by Gray Davis and his own pandering and selling out to everyone in sight who would endorse him.
POLITICS: FOURTEEN QUESTIONS FOR KEVIN DRUM
I usually respect Kevin Drum, but he’s really gone off the rails on the Bush National Guard story (See here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here…
“You are just digging yourself in deeper. Keep it up. Kerry won’t get ‘Nam vet votes. ”
That’s odd, considering he has massive support from the VFW. But, they’re probably all just losers were sent to Vietnam, instead of taking the tough job of flying planes back home in the US, right? That seems to be the clear implication, that any honorable veteran wouldn’t support him. Please explain then the huge support he has received from the VFW, or explain why you consider them all dishonorable.
“Your sort of rhetoric and that of McCauliff will ensure he doesn’t get any guard votes either. We know what you are implying, and it is that there is something not quite right about “just” serving in the Guard.”
READ WHAT I WROTE. What I said is that it’s completely invalid to compare serving in the guard TODAY to serving in the guard during Vietnam - as many here are doing. Vietnam saw very little use of Guard forces - particularly the ANG. Every conflict since has seen far more use of the guard, and some of the conflicts before Vietnam saw considerably more. Colin Powell himself, prior to being appointed by Bush, said the exact same thing that I and others have been saying - that during the Vietnam war, many people joined the Guard - especially the Air National Guard - since it was a safe bet that you wouldn’t be sent into combat, and wouldn’t face the stigma of being a “draft dodger”.
Colin Powell wrote: “I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed… managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units … Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.”
So - is Powell a “Bush hater”, as you classify everyone else who makes these comments? He made the exact same assessment as those you are labelling “Bush haters”, “anti-Americans”
Look at the USAF statistics - only FOUR ANG units were sent to Vietnam during the entire war. To claim that National Guard units were frequently sent into combat during Vietnam, based on the fact that NOW they are, is utterly wrong.
Yes, some National Guardsmen died during training. A friend of mine died while we were in college - does that mean that going to college rather than to Vietnam was just as dangerous and heroic? After all, you’re claiming that since your friend died while training in New Mexico, that that must mean that joining the Guard was just as dangerous, and just as honorable. So, I should be able to make the same claim based on my friend dying in college, right?
Serving in the Guard today - and in fact in any other time other than during Vietnam - is FAR different from serving in the guard during the Vietnam war was. That’s particularly true of the ANG. That’s not me making any accusations - that’s the simple facts. Fourty ANG units deployed to the middle east during the first Gulf War - FOUR deployed to Vietnam during the entire, much longer and bigger war.
“You don’t have to say it, all you have to do is keep dragging out statistics showing how ’safe’ it was.”
I’m dragging out statistics to point out the complete falseness of the claim that being in the Guard meant a person was very likely to be sent to Vietnam, as people here are claiming. In the Army National Guard that was somewhat more true - but not the Air National Guard. Again - only four units deployed during the entire war - all before 1970 - so how can anyone claim he was likely to be sent? The majority of those who were given appointments to Bush’s TANG unit the same year he was were also sons of politicians - are you claiming that was just coincidence? They, and their parents knew it was a safe bet that they wouldn’t be sent into combat. The figures support that clearly. Once again - four ANG units sent to Vietnam in 1968 and 1969 combined, and none after that. So - how can you claim that Bush was likely to be sent to Vietnam?
It’s entertaining how you can just delete any part of someone’s post that you can’t defend. Makes it an easy debate, doesn’t it? Of course, I have no doubt that this paragraph will quickly be gone. Fortunately, Bush will have to answer questions like that in his campaign.
And the most absurd thing of all - claiming that Kerry’s service was possibly safer than Bush’s service in the TANG? Explain why five of his crewmates died during their service? How many of Bush’s fellows in the TANG were killed by hostile fire? Some swift boat service was relatively safe - until the swift boat service was changed from coastal patrol to patrolling the Mekong Delta waterways. Then they became a VERY dangerous job. They essentially patrolled the river to draw out enemy fire, playing a sitting duck, and then engaging the enemy. Explain to me how that was safer than flying a plane in Texas. The man who ordered the swift boat policy estimated later, after the war, that the men serving on the swift boats had roughly a 75% chance of dying each year. It’s absolutely absurd and disrespectful that you would claim that Kerry and other swift boat soldiers had a safe job, or somehow served less honorably than a guy flying a plane back in Texas.
If you don’t want to deal with that, just delete that paragraph so you can avoid responding entirely.
For a little background on swift boat service, and Kerry’s in particular, read this:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061603.shtml
Or delete the link, since it doesn’t support your view that swift boat servicemen weren’t as valorous as guys flying planes back in Texas.
“Now nobody is going to say that combat is the same as flying a dangerous aircraft. It is not. But serving in that dangerous aircraft is certainly not dishonorable, as you seem to imply.”
No, that is not what I am implying. I am arguing against the claims that have been made here that Bush somehow served more honorably, or was in more danger than JOhn Kerry. Further, I am arguing against the claim that he was highly likely to go to Vietnam based on the level of National Guard deployment in recent wars.
Colin Powell has stated that he felt many people, particularly sons of politicians or other wealthy individuals, were given priority in National Guard duty as a way of avoiding combat, without appearing dishonorable. Is Powell a liberal Bush hater? Does Powell have no idea what he was talking about?
“And it sure as hell isn’t the same as being a convenience store clerk (like I say, you are just digging yourself in deeper when you say crap like that). ”
I did not say it is the same - yet again, try debating what I have ACTUALLY said, rather than contorting my words into something else that is easier to argue against. You made the claim that serving in the National Guard within the US during Vietnam was just as dangerous and valorous as being sent into combat. You based that on the fact that your friend died while doing that. That is not valid logic. An identical use of the same logic (since my friend died while doing this….) is my statement above that since my friend died while going to college, going to college was therefore just as dangerous and valorous as going to Nam. I am not claiming that they are the same - I am making that analogy to point out the flaw in the logic. Going to college, or working in a convenience store, is/was obviously NOT as dangerous, nor as valorous as going to Nam. The fact that people died while working as store clerks or going to college does not make it so. Just as your friend dying while training within the US does not make being a stateside Guardsman as dangerous as going to Nam, as you seem to be claiming. And before you go into attack mode again, I am not stating the Guardsmen or cowards, or anything of the sort - just pointing out the flaw in your logic at claiming that they were in as much danger.
“So when you start making those comparisons, you are indeed saying that those who didn’t serve in combat didn’t do enough. Otherwise, why bother to bring it up at all.”
I bring it up to point out the completely false claims here.
“There were 8,000,000 people who served in the armed forces during the Vietnam war. 2,500,000 went to ‘Nam. A much smaller number served in combat.”
And when you look at the ANG people, the percentage that served in combat is far far far smaller than the percentage of total armed forces who served in combat. That clearly indicates that those in the ANG were far less likely to be sent to combat.
“So since I am apparently unable to understand why you are posting this stuff, perhaps you could enlighten me. Of what interest is it that Bush served irregularly in 1972? Why are we talking about this?”
The ONLY reason I posted anything here was to point out the errors in the claims above:
1. That ANG people during Vietnam were just as likely to go to combat as any other military person (the numbers clearly show they weren’t). The guard, especially the ANG, was NOT used the same during Vietnam as it has been used since.
2. To point out the complete absurdity of the claim that Kerry was in no danger, or less danger than Bush. The man in charge of the swift boat campaign in the Mekong Delta estimated, after the war, that those serving on the boats had a 75% chance of being killed EACH year. What was the death rate for those flying in the TANG? 1% over the entire war?
“And then you try to change the subject. Sorry, but I’m going to delete that part of your comment as irrelevant to the this thread. All it does is show your bias against Bush, and your willingness to misinterpret facts to your benefit.”
How convenient that you can delete anything you can’t argue. No need to explain why he has cut veterans benefits and military pay - it’s irrelevent. You can claim repeatedly that all military people love Bush, but the reality is that many don’t (probably about 70% of all of the military people I know DON’T support him anymore - most did in 2000, most don’t anymore). I stated a reason why many military and former military no longer support him, to argue against the claims here that military people all love Bush and hate Kerry - when you can’t deal with those facts, you can simply delete them. How wonderful for you - you can avoid any facts that don’t support your view.
Massive support of VFW? Is that why they had to ask the delegates to withhold their personal opinions when he spoke to the VFW convention?
Kerry will of course get some ‘Nam vet votes. Veterans are hardly a monoculture. But in a politically significant sense, no, he won’t.
I read what you wrote. And I know how it will play to the guard folks. This is not a university debating club. And by the way, you might want to read what we have been writing too, unless your distortion of my arguments is intentional.
As to your comments about my friend dying in New Mexico… your comparison of your friend dying in college to my friend who died serving his country is outrageous (not to mention an instance of specious logic). It is one thing to play debating tricks. It is another to dishonor the dead as part of your rhetoric. And make no mistake; that is what your comment does, whether you have the sensitivity to understand that or not.
Now I understand that since you are not old enough to have experienced any of this for your self, and that you apparently haven’t served in the military, and as far as I can tell, have spent your entire life in academia, so that you may not understand how hurtful some of your remarks are, and how ignorant others are.
You don’t learn about the military by just googling up a few disconnected facts. As a scientist, you should know better than to use partial evidence. Your comments here would certainly not pass peer review.
And yes, as webmaster, I can delete things. But I didn’t delete anything I couldn’t argue. I deleted stuff that was (a) off topic, (b) covered elsewhere and hence redundant. You wanted to throw some points about vet benefits and military pay, which have absolutely nothing to do with whether Bush honorably served his country, but transparently serve your Bush-bashing agenda. It *has* been covered elsewhere on this blog (read what vets have to say about it) and it *is* irrelevant to this thread.
If I really wanted to avoid debate, I could have deleted every critical post on this thread (and on the more interesting thread here).
So far, yours has been the only one I have deleted anything from. I am sure you will go away from this feeling superior… obviously I must have deleted them because I couldn’t answer.
I am not going to bother to answer the rest. Those who have adequate reading comprehension can look at this thread, see how you are exaggerating my statements, and make up their minds for themselves. I will suggest that your take it as homework to determine how your points #1 and #2 are based on a misreading of this board.
While you are polishing your Porsches, just remember that a hell of a lot of folks sacrificed for their country and you, and Bush is one of us.
Since there is obviously no way to convince you, there is no point in continuing this nonsense. I have a living to make.
“Massive support of VFW? Is that why they had to ask the delegates to withhold their personal opinions when he spoke to the VFW convention? ”
That is almost always the policy when politicians speak at VFW conventions.
What about these VFW members who are supporting Kerry:
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040201-064456-7368r.htm
At the VFW in South Carolina.
http://www.vfwdc.org/NLS/Testimony/2003/2004/0122.htm
Is the DC VFW just confused, since they seem to think that some veterans do support Kerry. Did I imagine all of those Kerry supporters from the VFW here in New Hampshire.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Sanders_020504,00.html
At least some veterans are aware of what’s going on:
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1103
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=980
“Kerry will of course get some ‘Nam vet votes. Veterans are hardly a monoculture. But in a politically significant sense, no, he won’t.”
Then why are so many sources - media, VFWs, etc., talking about veterans being a big reason for his success? They are all confused too?
“As to your comments about my friend dying in New Mexico… your comparison of your friend dying in college to my friend who died serving his country is outrageous (not to mention an instance of specious logic). It is one thing to play debating tricks. It is another to dishonor the dead as part of your rhetoric. ”
Once again, I thought I explained this quite clearly - I am not equating my friend dying in college to your friend dying while training in the Guard. I am stating that your use of his death as an argument that being a stateside Guardsmen DURING THE VIETNAM WAR was not safer than being drafted, is based on faulty logic (i.e. essentially the argument “since my friend died, it was therefore just as dangerous”). I am pointing out that flaw in logic, by using the same argument (”since my friend died doing this, it was therefore just as dangerous”) with the hypothetical argument that going to college must have been just as dangerous as being drafted, since my friend died going to college. It’s clearly not the case - but it’s using the same logic as your argument that joining the Guard DURING THE VIETNAM WAR was not safer than getting drafted. If you truly think joining the guard was not safer, and the sons of wealthy/political parents (”fortunate sons”) did not get special consideration, please direct your comments to COlin Powell, who has made the same argument as I am.
Again, I am not calling Bush a coward, or ANY member of the Guard - just stating that being in the Guard DURING THE VIETNAM WAR, especially the ANG, was a lot safer than getting drafted and sent into combat. Hell, if I were in Bush’s shoes, I probably would have done the exact same thing. I am not criticizing him for joining the TANG. Just stating that I do not think it’s accurate to portray him as a war hero as some seem to want to do. And more importantly, I think it is ridiculous for him to portray himself as a “military president”, as he wants to do - someone who knows what it’s like to be in combat, and someone who supports the military. People here have made that claim about him, which is why I brought up the issue of him NOT supporting the military, by cutting combat pay, cutting veterans’ benefits, and cutting a scheduled cost of living pay increase - the information you deleted. I felt it was on-topic because of others portraying him as someone who supported the military. I mentioned those as examples of why I feel he does not.
“Now I understand that since you are not old enough to have experienced any of this for your self, and that you apparently haven’t served in the military, and as far as I can tell, have spent your entire life in academia, so that you may not understand how hurtful some of your remarks are, and how ignorant others are.”
I assume you did not mean to say “how ignorant others are”? Or did you mean to say that everyone other than me is ignorant?
And no, I have not spent my entire life in academia. I came back to academia about 8 years ago to pursue my phd, and after 9/11 focused my endeavours on alternative energy research, to get our country off of petroleum dependence. And no, I was not old enough to worry about being drafted during the war.
“You don’t learn about the military by just googling up a few disconnected facts. As a scientist, you should know better than to use partial evidence. Your comments here would certainly not pass peer review.”
I know far more about the military than just googling some facts. Again, almost my entire family other than myself is, or was in the military. I was brought up on military bases. For the first 20 years of my life my main goal in life was to be a fighter pilot - I dropped out of the AFROTC I was in as an undergrad when learning I wouldn’t be able to be a pilot due to not having 20/20 vision (nowadays, at least in the Navy and for some AF planes, you are allowed to fly if you have laser eye surgery to get 20/20 vision - but that wasn’t an option back then).
“And yes, as webmaster, I can delete things. But I didn’t delete anything I couldn’t argue. I deleted stuff that was (a) off topic, (b) covered elsewhere and hence redundant. ”
When others make the claim that Bush has the experience and is primarily concerned with protecting the US (and that is considered on-topic), why is it off-topic for me to bring up the fact that he has given almost $1 billion in aid to the country that is forbidding us to cross its borders to search for bin Laden, and that gave nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea? If the other people’s comments were on topic, why are not my comments that were directly aimed at theirs off topic?
“You wanted to throw some points about vet benefits and military pay, which have absolutely nothing to do with whether Bush honorably served his country, but transparently serve your Bush-bashing agenda. ”
My agenda is not Bush bashing. I supported him until about mid-2002, essentially when he shifted his focus from Al Quaeda to Iraq (although I did vote for McCain in 2000 in the primary, not Bush). My agenda is about truth. Bush is being passed off as someone veterans should support. I don’t see why. I don’t think that his service in the ANG, or possible AWOL is a big issue. The reason I don’t think veterans should support him is how he treats veterans and active military. Perhaps if he HAD served in combat he would treat them better - regardless, I think the main issue is not his possibly going AWOL, but what he does to the military NOW.
Another point, you made the claim earlier:
“Then there’s the implication that Bush was already planning a role in politics and picked his service that way. Bush’s conduct after he got out of the guard was that of a frat boy, not a future politician. He didn’t become a serious person until he faced up to his alcoholism and was transformed (a religious experience in his case) into who he is today.”
That’s completely erroneous. The reason he left the TANG in 1972 was to work on a political campaign. Why would a person uninterested in politics do that? Immediately after leaving the TANG he was already getting involved in politics.
I should also point out that contrary to what has been claimed here, John Kerry has NOT bashed Bush for being in the Guard. Some other Democrats have, and have claimed he was AWOL. Kerry has not. I have not bashed Bush for it. As I said, I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes. I just don’t think it should be claimed that a person joining the ANG during Vietnam was putting themselves in as much danger as someone who was sent into combat, or claiming that “fortunate sons” WEREN’T being given appointments to the ANG to keep them safe while preserving their future political careers. The ONLY reason the AWOL thing was resurrected was because of Michael Moore (the filmmaker) saying Bush was AWOL during a Howard Dean event - John Kerry, CLark, etc., had NOTHING to do with it.
“So far, yours has been the only one I have deleted anything from. I am sure you will go away from this feeling superior… obviously I must have deleted them because I couldn’t answer.”
When they seemed perfectly on topic to me, since they were in direct response to other posts made earlier, it just didn’t make any sense to me for them to be deleted.
“While you are polishing your Porsches, just remember that a hell of a lot of folks sacrificed for their country and you, and Bush is one of us.”
What did Bush sacrifice? I have tremendous respect for everyone who has ever been in the military. I have never called Bush a coward for joining the ANG - but I do believe that he most likely did it (as many other “fortunate sons” did) since it was a pretty safe bet he’d stay out of combat, without the bad rep of dodging the draft. Colin Powell also believes many “fortunate sons” did that - or at least he said so before Bush appointed him.
And for the record, since you brought it up (I see someone else can use google, eh?), not too long after 9/11, I sold the Porsches to buy diesel vehicles for myself and my wife to run on biodiesel produced by US farmers. I shifted my entire research focus to alternative fuels that can be produced here to get us off of foreign oil. But I probably did that because I hate America, right? That seems to be the label given to anyone who doesn’t support Bush anymore.
“Since there is obviously no way to convince you, there is no point in continuing this nonsense. I have a living to make.”
Ditto.
Just for the record, the reason so many ANG units were deployed this last war was because of the use of so-called “decomissioned” aircraft. The A-10 Thunderbolt was deployed to the same base I was stationed at; all piloted by ANG men.
And for the record, I saw an A-10 land with one engine during the beginning stages of the war. Came to find out the jet engine was operating at 20%. So it was operating on 10% total power, and the pilot still put down a beautiful landing. What a plane!
By the way, great website. Bush in ‘04!
Mike Briggs,
Since you claim to not having called anyone a coward, I quote from your post:
At the time Bush volunteered, that was not at all clear. Read this written by his a squadron mate of his, and see how it conflicts with your characterization of the chances of going to ‘Nam.
See above. You called Bush a coward.
I said:
Which you misread (you totally ignore the “at that time” clause) and state:
Mike Briggs, Regarding Your Post of Feb. 10:
In that post you raise two good issues: One pertains to the quality of service by George Bush in the National Guard during the Vietnam era. The second addresses the prudence of attacking Iraq after 9/11 when other countries in that