This should dispel the Bush AWOL myths

[BrandoFan]

Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley

 

David was the smarter kid in that family.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Others reasons are, Kerry was very visible - we would all know if had had said anything remotely, remotely close to these lies, nuke, and the Nixon Justice Department would have nailed his ass if anything remotely, remotely close to these lies were so -

His financier and comrade "Hanoi Jane" sat on a NVA air defense battery and took a note passed to her by a prisoner she visited to the guards resulting in the captive being beaten to death by the NVA and nobody ever prosecuted her.

 

That means nothing.

[BrandoFan]

(for the record I am in the anyone but Bush camp).

 

I could take or leave Clinton and Dean....but man, Fanof14, I can honestly say you're on the right track.

 

Anyone but that worthless POTUS-sans-TU indeed.

[BrandoFan]

His financier and comrade "Hanoi Jane"

 

It's important to note that Hanoi Jane had more conviction and courage in her misguided little mind than your testes-challenged Aunuld, Bruce and Pa Moses have combined.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Correct. In the assessment of Kerry and his actions it means nothing.

 

Here's some of the graphic and likely disagreeable 1971 testimony from Kerry. Such reports have come from other vets. If it is true, then it's not even slanderous, let alone treasonous.

 

If it's true, should it not be made public?

 

[A particular sore point is Kerry's 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate. He said American soldiers "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."]

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Correct.  In the assessment of Kerry and his actions it means nothing.

 

Here's some of the graphic and likely disagreeable 1971 testimony from Kerry.  Such reports have come from other vets.  If it is true, then it's not even slanderous, let alone treasonous.

 

If it's true, should it not be made public?

 

[A particular sore point is Kerry's 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate. He said American soldiers "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."]

Trouble is that it is not true. Kerry's group VVAW in February of 1971 did what was known as the "Winter Soldier Investigation" where he interviewed a number of disgruntled veterans, many of whom were later exposed as imposters, about alleged US atrocities. That's where he got his info from.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

It's important to note that Hanoi Jane had more conviction and courage in her misguided little mind than your testes-challenged Aunuld, Bruce and Pa Moses have combined. 

So you define conviction and courage as going to an enemy country and posing in a propoganda film atop one of their ADA batteries.

 

Or is it taking a note passed to her from a captive pilot to his wife and handing it over to the guards resulting in the captive being beaten to death.

 

Your little miss conviction and courage is a traitor to her country and has the blood of American servicemen on her hands.

 

What a sad, twisted person you are.

[BrandoFan]

What a sad, twisted person you are

 

Thanks.

[BrandoFan]

[A particular sore point is Kerry's 1971 testimony before the U.S. Senate. He said American soldiers "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."]

 

That and the systematic rape and abuse of female (and male) cadets in military academies across the nation (phenomena not confined to USA, of course).........

 

Military honor.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Trouble is that it is not true.  Kerry's group VVAW in February of 1971 did what was known as the "Winter Soldier Investigation" where he interviewed a number of disgruntled veterans, many of whom were later exposed as imposters, about alleged US atrocities.  That's where he got his info from.

But Kerry was not the only vet to vocally protest the war after returning from Viet Nam. Not by a longshot. It was very much the voice of these vets that rejuvenated a languishing anti-war campaign. Some of these vets, like author Tim O'Brien, reveal that it was their cowardice (of what others would think of them) that allowed them to be drafted into service instead of dodging the draft as their conscience told them they should do. They did their bit, put in their time, and when it was all over their initial feelings that the war was not a just war and the means were not a just means were validated. These are the anti-war voices that truly deserve to be heard, wouldn't you think?

 

Mai Lai and other such events did happen, are well documented, and substantially corroborated. Are all of the corroborators also traitors? At the outset, Viet Nam was intended to be a secret war, because American citizens would find the manner in which the war was executed to be highly objectionable.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

But Kerry was not the only vet to vocally protest the war after returning from Viet Nam.  Not by a longshot.  It was very much the voice of these vets that rejuvenated a languishing anti-war campaign.  Some of these vets, like author Tim O'Brien, reveal that it was their cowardice (of what others would think of them) that allowed them to be drafted into service instead of dodging the draft as their conscience told them they should do.  They did their bit, put in their time, and when it was all over their initial feelings that the war was not a just war and the means were not a just means were validated.  These are the anti-war voices that truly deserve to be heard, wouldn't you think?

 

Mai Lai and other such events did happen, are well documented, and substantially corroborated.  Are all of the corroborators also traitors?  At the outset, Viet Nam was intended to be a secret war, because American citizens would find the manner in which the war was executed to be highly objectionable.

The Mai Lai massacre is common knowlege but a lot of the stuff Kerry got out of his interviews was utterly fake and fabricated.

 

I never accused U.S. soldiers of being saints in that war but guys like Kerry and his comrade "Hanoi Jane" gave them a bad rap.

[BrandoFan]

Mai Lai and other such events did happen, are well documented, and substantially corroborated. Are all of the corroborators also traitors? At the outset, Viet Nam was intended to be a secret war, because American citizens would find the manner in which the war was executed to be highly objectionable.

 

Like I said...save your breath.

 

This guy's idols are Sen. McArthy and Rush Limba, for crying out loud!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Kerry served honorably in Vietnam and was highly decorated for his service.  For that he has my utmost respect.  It's what he did after the war that I take issue with.  He operated an activist group that engaged in treasonous activity to include encouraging soldiers to desert their units and conducting interviews with phony "veterans" to highlight supposed U.S. atrocities. 

 

Do you really want someone in charge of the military who actively encouraged soldiers to desert their units?  I sure as hell dont.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War did no such thing. I'm friends with a guy who has been in it since 1968 (after he got back from serving in-country)

 

And Nuke, you have no sources to back this up. It just sounds like more apologists for Bush and the other Chickenhawks.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

An article from SpinSanity:

 

What is Spinsanity? It's a Web site whose proprietors scrutinize statements by our political leaders, candidates, journalists, and pundits for honesty, fairness, and rhetorical soundness. Each Thursday on the Commentary Page, the good folks at Spinsanity will restore sanity to the spin of statements from both the right and the left. Today's subject is the debate over President Bush's military service record.

 

 

 

 

Despite claims pro and con, the jury is still very much out

 

Did President Bush honor his obligations in the National Guard? Though partisans are claiming otherwise, the evidence is murky.

 

The issue, last raised during the 2000 campaign, surfaced again recently after filmmaker Michael Moore referred to Bush in January as a "deserter" and Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe claimed on Feb. 1 that Bush "was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard."

 

Not even the harshest interpretation of Bush's record could possibly substantiate Moore's accusation. As Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon.com, " 'Deserter' is a criminal term: It refers to a military personnel who abandons his post with no intention of ever returning." This is very different from alleging that the President did not show up for some of his scheduled duty in the National Guard.

 

What about McAuliffe's charge that the President was AWOL? In May 1972, Bush requested a transfer from his Texas Air National Guard unit to a Guard unit in Alabama, where he had secured a job working on a Senate campaign. Though the transfer was denied, Bush moved to Alabama in May; a second request for a transfer was approved in September.

 

There is no definitive evidence, however, on whether or not Bush ever reported for duty in Alabama. In 2000, when the Boston Globe interviewed William Turnipseed, the commander of Bush's unit in Alabama, he stated that Bush never reported to him. (Turnipseed has backed away from this position in recent interviews, stating he does not know if Bush reported or not.) For his part, Bush has always maintained that he did report for duty in Alabama, performing some sort of desk job.

 

Bush returned to Houston in late 1972, but it is not clear when he resumed service with his Guard unit there. His superiors in Texas wrote in May 1973 that they could not perform his annual evaluation since Bush had "not been observed at this unit" from May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973. In 2000, Bush's campaign pointed to a torn document containing only the President's middle initial and blacked-out Social Security number as evidence that he had served in late 1972 and early 1973. After reportedly performing 36 days of active duty in the Texas unit in May, June and July 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge in October.

 

When asked about the matter Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Bush answered: "There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. . . . I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama." Then on Tuesday, the White House released a full version of the so-called "torn document" along with payroll records showing Bush was not paid for service between May and September 1972, but was paid for two days in late October 1972, four days in November 1972, six days in January 1973, and two days in April 1973. It is not clear where this service took place, or how the records square with the May 1973 assertion by his superiors that he had not been observed at his Texas unit.

 

In short, unqualified assertions that Bush went "AWOL" are not justified because the facts are still unclear. Where and when did Bush report? Did he fulfill his requirements as a Guard member? We do not know.

 

In recent weeks, Bush supporters have made similarly unqualified claims that the issue is settled, often relying on a Jan. 23 analysis by FactCheck.org, a Web site run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Marc Racicot, chairman of Bush's reelection campaign, claimed in a Feb. 3 news release that Annenberg "has said that the charges are unfounded." Tucker Eskew, an advisor to the campaign, said on CNN the same day that Annenberg "has recently completely overturned any of those crazy ideas." And in a Washington Times op-ed last Friday, three Republican congressmen claimed Annenberg "thoroughly investigated and dispelled these false charges."

 

In reality, Factcheck.org hardly settled the matter. Its analysis, which focused on Moore's "deserter" accusation, simply compiled a number of media reports in a haphazard fashion (omitting, for instance, the May 1973 performance evaluation) and suggested that Moore is wrong because "Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave." FactCheck.org did not claim Bush has been exonerated, however, writing that media reports have "reached mixed conclusions.

[BrandoFan]

Hehe

[BrandoFan]

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

 

Game, set, match.

 

With Kerry's record of treason I can see why he is trying to slander Bush's military record.

Yep

[Chisoxfn]

yes, treason

 

 

 

 

If encouraging soldiers of our military to desert their units and frag their officers isint treasonous activity i dont know what is.

If he really did those things, then I definatley believe that qualifies for treason. How do people take this lightly. I don't give a damn if he protested the war, but when it comes to encouraging people to frag people and deserting (which basically means you dont' have enough men to fight and can lead to more deaths) is wrong.

 

This is at the battle lines, not over in the states where if you desert your doing the wrong thing, but you aren't leading to more deaths.

 

Let me also say I think the stuff about Bush being awol is off. He missed some meetings, but thats it.

[Chisoxfn]

Nuke, your considering dissent againt the Vietnam War or any war with treason, I suggest you read the US Constitution again.

 

 

And for Bush?  He only got into the national guard because strings were pulled for the son of a US Congressman and grandson of a Senator.  If he had been anyone else, he would have been drafted.  But influence allowed strings to be pulled for Bush to evade the draft.

 

Both father and son Bush have admitted that strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard ahead of everyone on the list - they just deny "knowing" about it "aherad of time." 

 

 

Just as Cheney was a draft evader - he said and has always said that he was doing more important things than serving in the military.  He used every legal loophole to evade the draft.

 

Your calling out a veteran and praising draft evaders and draft dogers is simply incredible to me.

Are those the same strings that were pulled to get him into Harvard and that got him through Harvard???

 

Harvard doesn't pull strings, and if you get through Harvard and earn your MBA and pass the rigurous courses then you are incredibly deserving to have a Harvard diploma and no idiot is going to do that.

 

Also, no fool is going to be able to fly a jet which is what Bush did. I just don't get the dumb arguments and how strings were pulled. Sure the national guard was easier, but from what I've been told, they also did their time over in Vietnam (Although bush didn't).

 

I also know people that during the war were lucky enough to be statiened in Germany and other places (and no, they didn't have any connections).

[Chisoxfn]

prove that one - you damn well need to prove he said those things

 

 

and remember that treason is a legal offense, a constitutional matter, and after you prove that Kerry ever said what you have accused him of, you damn well better be able to expalin why he was never charged under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 1 or Bush 2 adminsitrations since I presume you will say Carter and Clionton let him of.

 

And then you damn well might explain why Kerry's closest friend in the Senate, John MvcCain, has broken party lines in the past to support Kerry

 

 

you have gone over the edge on this one

What about Kerry's voting record. Maybe I'm mistaken, but didn't he say vehemently during the Clinton years that Saddam must be taken out and then he started changing his mind.

 

I can't say that intelligence would be any different. Its hard to believe that Saddam, went completely around the UN Sanctions and the inspectors because he had already removed all the weapons or something along those lines.

 

Whether we find weapons or not, I still have to believe they were there. Its just not logical for Saddam to cause all that trouble and get himself captured in the end if he didn't have those weapons or wasn't in the process of building nuclear programs.

 

Also, why did he have to bug regions so he could get to areas the inspectors were going first.

 

I just think too much doesn't make sense about the whole situation, but like I said, WOMD weren't the only reason I was for the war. While Bush may of had other reasons then I did, I felt my reasons validated going to war, even if the presidents reasons differed in certain ways, I still agreed with the final say (Whose to say my reasons were different then his, I just had different reasons listed ahead of Bushes or at least I presume).

[Chisoxfn]

Presidential Historian Douglas Brinkley wrote a biography of Kerry called "Tour of Duty" which covers all of Kerry's shenanigans including his antiwar groups financial backing by none other than "Hanoi Jane" Fonda.

 

Yeah, the same Hanoi Jane pictured below at a NVA air defense battery.

Didn't she also go in the gunners or anti aircraft defenses that were being used to destroy our planes during the war.

 

Protesting is one thing, but going out of the way to help a country not named the US is another.

 

Like if someone from the States, went over and started doing bombings to blow up our soldiers, then they would be a traitor and in my opinion would never be allowed back into the states and if we caught them, they would be murdered and far deservingly.

 

While Jane never murdered anyone first hand, you could easily suggest that she led to US soldiers being murdered and she did help the Vietkong.

 

Apu protests the war, but he doesn't send funds to Saddam...to me there is a difference between good protests and what she did. I have nothing wrong with good protests (Remember, I am going off books and what I've been told by people I respect and work with that are knowledgeable since I wasn't around at this time).

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Are those the same strings that were pulled to get him into Harvard and that got him through Harvard???

 

Harvard doesn't pull strings, and if you get through Harvard and earn your MBA and pass the rigurous courses then you are incredibly deserving to have a Harvard diploma and no idiot is going to do that. 

 

Also, no fool is going to be able to fly a jet which is what Bush did.  I just don't get the dumb arguments and how strings were pulled.  Sure the national guard was easier, but from what I've been told, they also did their time over in Vietnam (Although bush didn't).

 

I also know people that during the war were lucky enough to be statiened in Germany and other places (and no, they didn't have any connections).

C averages don't usually get people into business schools. Legacy status of his grandfather and father helped to grease the wheels along with the library that his dad donated.

 

I'm not saying that it's the only reason he got in but it looks like there was more than just his grades which were much less than stellar. Also, many children of important families got into the guard, it was just not something devoted to the Bush family. JH Hatfield's bio of Bush does a pretty fair job in showing his life and everything. And his claims are backed up by at least 3 different sources or he did not include them and his source list is pretty expansive.

[Heads22]

 

 

 

Whitehouse.org...not to be confused with whitehouse.com or whitehouse.gov

[southsider2k5]

Reports are that parts of a Bush's accusers story could be false

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4261654/

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bush says he is now going to release all his military service records.

 

For my part, I am much more interested in the two blacked out paragraphs on his Guard application where he had to explain his arrest record than I am in where and how he spent 5 months in 1973. For my part, ALL the records will not be have been released until a complete and uncensored copy of the application is released. Any pending claims that all issues pertaining to his Guard service days are cleared up will be premature until the complete application is also released.

 

Wreath-stealing and rowdiness at a college football game are not likely the things that need to be blacked out of an application.

 

DUIs convictions or past drug abuse do not make the offender a categorically bad person, either. Humans make mistakes, and to Bush's credit he succeeded in cleaning up, compared to his younger years. At the same time, if the content of the edited parts of the application do deal with substance abuse-related arrests, blacking those items out suggests that it was understood they could present a problem. People would have questioned why Bush was selected for highly competitive flight training if other applicants with the same qualifications and the same sort of arrest troubles would not have been similarly selected.

 

In truth, the applications of Bush AND some other people (if they consent to their release, not required to be identified by name) selected for the same positions should be scrutinized along side the applications of some people who didn't make the cut. That's the only way to see if the selection process was on the up and up. If it was, case closed. There more pressing issues anyway.

 

Personally, I don't particularly care if strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard, into college, into business school or whatever. As it stands, it is generally widely believed that this is the case. But, how about coming out and coping to it then - 'Hey, my family was in a position to pull strings, I avoided the draft in a way that was available to me, but I still fulfilled my service obligation in he Guard.' I like that better than the perceived attempts to bury or censor the records on the issue.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Telling the truth isn't exactly Rove's policy.