No arrival ceremonies for deceased from Ramstein, Dover

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-23 04:45pm

From Capitol Hill Blue

The Rant
Cold-Hearted Bastards
By DOUG THOMPSON
Oct 21, 2003, 14:02

Well, it’s official. The so-called “compassionate conservatives” at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue are, in fact, sanctimonious, uncaring, hypocritical bastards.

And the President who claims to care so much for the Americans he has sent in harm’s way in Iraq cares so little for the soldiers who have given their lives for their countries that he has not attended a single ceremony when those dead heroes came home.

Not one. Nada. Even a draft dodger named Bill Clinton took the time to stand and recognize fallen soldiers when they came home.

Not Dubya. He’d rather not deal with those who died fighting his war in Iraq. He won’t take the time to honor them when they come home. Even worse, his administration has banned the the traditional homecoming ceremonies that honor the war dead.

In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, the administration issued the following directive to all U.S. military bases. “There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops.”

In other words, no ceremony to honor those who fell in battle. Nothing. Just unload the casket from the airplane and send it to the family. We mustn't let the dead show up on the 6 o'clock news. That might mean bad press.

The Pentagon has had policies in place since the Clinton administration limiting press coverage of ceremonies when the dead come home but the order was loosely enforced and did not ban the ceremonies themselves. But the Bush administration ordered the Pentagon to ban the cermonies and enforce the rules "without exception" because the homecoming ceremonies would focus too much attention on the body counts from Iraq.

Hell of a way to dishonor those who served their country and sacrificed their lives.

Up until now, I thought Bush’s bible-thumping might be sincere, that maybe underneath that hardened heart of a political opportunist there was still a shred of humanity that cared for Americans who die for their country.

Apparently not. In Bush’s world, those who go to war and die for their country are best hidden from view, best forgotten. Reminding the American people that young men and women are dying in far off lands is not good when there’s an election to win. Must avoid bad press.

Before Bush, every Commander in Chief who sent Americans into battle cared enough to show up for at least one of the cermonies when they brought the dead back to American soil. Not him.

Before Bush, even when the media were not allowed on base, the dead were still honored with a ceremony attended by their comrades and family. It is the least a grateful nation should do when someone gives their life for their country.

But George W. Bush apparently doesn’t care to honor the dead. He has banned the ceremonies themselves. Oh, he has put in an appearance or two visiting families and the wounded at Walter Reed but he can’t be bothered when it comes to attending a cermoney that honors those who have fallen.

Compassionate conservatives my ass. The men and women who fought and died for their country deserve far better.

So does this country.

© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-23 05:01pm

Sorry, Capitol Hill Blue + unnamed source isn't going to be good enough.

If this does turn out to be true, it's pretty fucking disgusting.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-10-23 05:06pm

Wash. post

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-23 05:09pm

Another take on the issue. Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins (washingtonpost.com).

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-10-23 05:10pm

Damn Hamel beat me to it.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-10-23 05:10pm

Durran Korr wrote:Sorry, Capitol Hill Blue + unnamed source isn't going to be good enough.

If this does turn out to be true, it's pretty fucking disgusting.

Can you honestly remeber the last time you saw one of those cermemonies even in passing on TV? The only thing I can remember from Ramstein is when the 'hero' Lynch arrived at Ramstein, then that was it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-23 05:11pm

Better. And still disgusting.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-23 05:12pm

Of course, they'll probably have to reinstate ceremonies now that they got caught.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-23 05:27pm

Durran Korr wrote:Of course, they'll probably have to reinstate ceremonies now that they got caught.

No, because this is very old and made the news back in March when it was announced.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-23 05:49pm

What do you expect from a man who went AWOL during Vietnam? He's all good on the slick political side, but he's got no substance behind his flash.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-10-23 06:01pm

The Dark wrote:What do you expect from a man who went AWOL during Vietnam? He's all good on the slick political side, but he's got no substance behind his flash.

That is called DESERTION, AWOL is for a short time and if you return.

Atleast in the Swedish army dunno about the american but I suspect it's the same there.

Desertion used to be punishable with death, that and Treason was the last death penaltys removed in Sweden

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-23 06:14pm

The Dark wrote:What do you expect from a man who went AWOL during Vietnam? He's all good on the slick political side, but he's got no substance behind his flash.

Funny, no charges where ever filed over this huge crime he supposedly committed. And of course the only proof anyone ever comes for it all is a partial quote from what's said to be his commanding office. Interesting that this man never did anything about it.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-23 06:33pm

The Straight Dope on Bush going AWOL

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-10-23 07:36pm

Either way, he has to realize there's more to supporting the troops than landing on an aircraft carrier and making the occasional photo op. I'm thinking that allowing ceremonies to honor the dead would actually be good PR.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-10-23 09:39pm

Republicans are generally pro-military, but these guys apparetlty only like using the military. The damn chickenhawks don't give a damn about real soldiers.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-24 01:22pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Dark wrote:What do you expect from a man who went AWOL during Vietnam? He's all good on the slick political side, but he's got no substance behind his flash.
Funny, no charges where ever filed over this huge crime he supposedly committed. And of course the only proof anyone ever comes for it all is a partial quote from what's said to be his commanding office. Interesting that this man never did anything about it.

His record shows him vanishing for a few months from the Air National Guard. From May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1973, he recorded ZERO days of active duty service. Admittedly, he had no duty orders for the first four months of this time. However, the other eight months he was required to be in Texas. He was in Alabama. This site obtained Bush's service records and examind them, finding the lack of active service for an entire year.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-10-24 04:10pm

The Dark wrote:This site obtained Bush's service records and examind them, finding the lack of active service for an entire year.

That's nice, notice how it also has no mentions of charges being filed and that a couple months of extra duty where simply tacked on to make up what he missed, something which happens quite often. And before anyone tries any bullshit about how he has "no obligations" they ought to remember that he wasn't the only person in those units by far. You can blame the fucked up organization of the Air Force and indeed the whole military in the 70's for that.

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-24 05:37pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:That's nice, notice how it also has no mentions of charges being filed and that a couple months of extra duty where simply tacked on to make up what he missed, something which happens quite often.

Where are the "months of extra duty"? The article is quite explicit that the time was not made up on active service, and that Bush served irregularly with his unit from May 1973 until his discharge upon request in September of that year. *note: I just found the paper unit he was attached to for six months, where he was on inactive reserve for six months to make up for being missing from active reserves for twelve. Regardless, he cost several hundred thousand dollars for the equivalent of two months and one week of active service.

And before anyone tries any bullshit about how he has "no obligations" they ought to remember that he wasn't the only person in those units by far. You can blame the fucked up organization of the Air Force and indeed the whole military in the 70's for that.

True, Bush's unit consisted of children of politicians and some members of the Dallas Cowboys. It's really no surprise they were referred to as the FANG (Fucking Air National Guard) by the front-line Air Force.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2003-10-24 07:02pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Dark wrote:What do you expect from a man who went AWOL during Vietnam? He's all good on the slick political side, but he's got no substance behind his flash.
Funny, no charges where ever filed over this huge crime he supposedly committed. And of course the only proof anyone ever comes for it all is a partial quote from what's said to be his commanding office. Interesting that this man never did anything about it.

The moment GWBs air guard unit went active, GWB went missing until it was no longer active. Not a single person in the military can acount for where GWB went and GWB himself can not account for his whereabouts at the time. Clinton avoided the draft legaly. GWB flat out violated the military rules and ran away when possible danger came up.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-24 08:00pm

Acvtually like Dan Quayle Bush got a defirment to a safe national gaurd posting during the war. The fact that both units had a very high number of fairly well to do folks kids in them, is part of why the draft got overhauled, and was one of the standing complaints against it since the time of the civil war.

Sure no one at the pentagon would like to see "Celebraty Actor" get KIA in Iraq, it would be too much bad publicity.

Now, the AWOL charges come from the fact that while allegadly defending the skies of Texas, while folks like my stepdad were out in the jungle, the current Commander in Chief was often having benders, lots of parties, and was gone for a whole summer to help out his dad's senate campaign. Actually he did have permission from his commanding officer for the lattermost, just that the commanding officer never wrote or filed the permission until the following year.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-24 11:10pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Funny, no charges where ever filed over this huge crime he supposedly committed. And of course the only proof anyone ever comes for it all is a partial quote from what's said to be his commanding office. Interesting that this man never did anything about it.

The evidence of his desertion is quite overwhelming. He never returned to duty- that much is fact. The mere fact that he wasn't charged means nothing- you're a thief if you steal something, regardless of whether you get caught, or if you use your daddy's influence (probably) to get out of it.

Yosemite- check up on it- he didnt' just serve at a cushy ANG squadron (where all the other sons of prominent people were serving)- he could'nt even hack that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-24 11:24pm

He never returned to duty- that much is fact.

Yes, he did.

Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first. Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a Guardsman.

Also, Bush received an honorable discharge eventually to attend business school. Folks who go AWOL typically aren't given honorable discharges, as I'm sure you can imagine.

He was hardly a stellar Guardsman, but he wasn't a deserter, either.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-24 11:38pm

Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report

He was ordered to. That doesn't mean he did.

to annual active duty training the following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first.

No *date*? That's *incredibly* lame. I'd be much more impressed if they got one officer or colleague who can attest to him serving during the disputed period. Furthermore, the issue of 'points' is irrelevant. The definition of desertion in the Code of Military Justice says nothign of points.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-10-24 11:56pm

Fine, from the NYT:

Two Democratic senators today called on Gov. George W. Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts raised by a newspaper about whether he reported for required drills when he was in the Air National Guard in 1972 and 1973. But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded. The Times examined the record in response to a previous Boston Globe story.
Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question... On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November." Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-10-25 01:34am

like I said, he was absent, but as per official statement he made up the time in question, and his official permission were both granted (AFTER THE FACT) and the make up documents were undated, and unsigned. where also entered in ex-post-facto. Officially he's covered. The handling as far as I know, wasn't proper (Military can be anal at times), but it's still officially handled. Just like his dad's war crimes incidents wer handled with an official off the record conversation, and no need to futher the inquiery.