Ted wrote:The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
And this article is a lie. There's a very simple explaination for why his transfer to the Alabama Guard didn't go through - But of course once it was approved he was no longer required to serve in the Texas Guard. He'd been transferred. Something then came up along the way, and that was that.
It's part of the military bureaucratic process - And, you know, we do need a national guard. There's nothing wrong with joining it, even in wartime (It could get activated, after all).
I'll make inquiries and get back to you.
Bush got a transfer to the Alabama Guard unit.
Only he didn't turn up there for a YEAR.
Well, if he was told not to turn up there, that would be an obvious reason not to, right?
When his medical was due, and they didn't have him, he lost his pilot status.
For EVERYONE ELSE who went AWOL or deserted like that would've been drafted immediately into the real army and plonked on the front lines in Vietnam, Shrun just had enough influence oto get around that.
Funny thing is that Clinton wasn't prosecuted for draft-dodging. So I'd hesitate before I used the words "everyone else".
And Bean, this article is from the Toront Star, and the reports from the CO's were from the Boston Globe, as it says in the article.
And that matters? There aren't any names of commanding officers, the sources are stunningly thin - This is just reprinted trash talk.
Here are some comments on it:
I'm going from memory, but the President flew F-106s and was indeed absent from some drills at some point. From personal experience, I can tell you that missing a drill is not uncommon. Life happens and there are procedures to make up that sort of thing. Heck, I missed part of drill a few months ago. Our training scedule had been changed and a regular Saturday/Sunday drill had been changed to include Friday night but I didn't get the word. I haven't seen anything to suggest that President Bush's absence(s) were not equally innocent.
And:
Nothing more than another liberal hit piece. Dubya was indeed a fighter pilot, he flew F-102's for the Texas Air Guard. And he couldn't possible have been an "army deserter" since he was never in the Army. His military records were thoroughly vetted in the 2000 campaign, they show him to have satisfactorily completed his tour of duty.
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
". . .there were only 49 media stories about Bush's military past during his presidential campaign. . ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats because there WAS NO STORY!! If there had been, does anyone doubt the media would have crucified him with it?
And:
I think that articles like this only seem to indicate that George Bush is possibly the most intelligent man to have ever lived. I just have a few problems with it:
1) Of course he knew that the ANG was safe and easy compared to the Vietnam War. He knew that the US and USSR would never go to war, there would never be a global nuclear exchange, the USSR would fall without a shot towards the west.
2) He must have also known that the US was going to lose the Vietnam War.
3) He also knew that there was no risk or danger of him dying in an aviation accident. The sons of rich guys only flew safe, easy, never blew up for any reason airplanes that included "get out of deadly situations" buttons.
4) I'd love to know what percentage of the US Armed Forces actually went to Vietnam in that time period. I mean, if there was planning by connected people to keep George out of danger, why not get him into the Coast Guard? Or as a nice, safe junior officer in the US Army, making sure that West Germany's beer stocks were kept at a consistent level?
I love writers like this who assume that the people in the past must have known everything we know today....
And this comment by a deliciously cynical ex-Marine:
The article uses Paul Begala as a source, heh heh. Yeah, Paul would know.
All from here of course:
http://pub82.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliti ... ic&index=2
I confess to being biased. But then, you are, too, and so is the article - Not to mention highly inaccurate.