Bush's Military Record Released

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-10 04:47pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3477833.stm

Nine days?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-10 04:52pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Nine days?

Apparently. It might not be particularly distinguished record but then again it doesn't seem he went AWOL as has been claimed.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-10 04:54pm

All the same, my Mum and Dad served more time in the pisser.

I thought he was in a couple of years at least just generally at the AFB doing unremarkable stuff.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-02-10 04:55pm

Not since Ulyssess S. Grant has our president been a war hero of such epic proportions.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-10 04:56pm

Not AWOL, but certainly nothing to write home about.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2004-02-10 05:02pm

Stormbringer wrote:Apparently. It might not be particularly distinguished record but then again it doesn't seem he went AWOL as has been claimed.

Does it really matter? When there is a war going on you go or you don't. He could have decided to enlist in the active duty forces and go fight, but instead he went to the Guard, while someone took his place in the rice fields. It is hyprocritical for him to defend his not wanting to fight in a 'political war' when his decision to invade Iraq can be construed the same.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-02-10 05:03pm

Well, not very impressive.....

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-10 05:31pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3477833.stm

Nine days?

Perfectly normal when you're serving in the National Guard.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-10 05:36pm

They've only released payroll records so far, right? Or the ARF Statement of Points Earned? I've seen those records and they don't show anything that can be identified as related to the National Guard. If he wants to convince people he needs to release his full record and not just vague papers.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-10 05:41pm

Hamel wrote:They've only released payroll records so far, right? Or the ARF Statement of Points Earned? I've seen those records and they don't show anything that can be identified as related to the National Guard. If he wants to convince people he needs to release his full record and not just vague papers.

Oh, come now. There's NO evidence that he actually went AWOL, which has been the consistent claim. Now we see that he was paid for his services during this time. Are you seriously arguing that he was paid for doing something completely unrelated to his duty in the National Guard? If so, where is the evidence that he went AWOL in the first place? Why hasn't anything come up that reveals this additional pay source?

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-02-10 05:59pm

[conspiracy theorist]Documents can be falsified[conspiracy theorist]

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-10 06:01pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Oh, come now. There's NO evidence that he actually went AWOL, which has been the consistent claim. Now we see that he was paid for his services during this time. Are you seriously arguing that he was paid for doing something completely unrelated to his duty in the National Guard?

Richard Cohen claims that he was paid for all the meetings he missed, so it is possible he could be paid even when not showing up.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-02-10 06:44pm

Does anybody actually give a rat's ass? I can think of things less relevant in this election than the candidates' service records, but not many. It's February and I'm already sick of the bloody shirt waving on both sides.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-02-10 06:47pm

RedImperator wrote:Does anybody actually give a rat's ass? I can think of things less relevant in this election than the candidates' service records, but not many. It's February and I'm already sick of the bloody shirt waving on both sides.

With the ranting going on over this issue from both sides it's about time they sorted it out else it's more fuel for the fire.

Since when has politics been rational anyway?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-02-10 07:02pm

i´d also like to know why people are so extremely interested in bush´s military career. i don´t think it changes anything about his politics. even the fact that he apparantly was a wimp doesn´t change anything about his politics.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-10 07:11pm

Both parties on insanely hypocritical on this. The Republicans said military service mattered in 1992 and focused on Bill Clinton's draft dodging, the Democrats said it was irrelevant. Now, in 2004, the Republicans are trying to shift attention from Bush's not very impressive military service, while the Democrats are spotlighting Kerry's Vietnam service and claiming that it does matter.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-10 07:14pm

Legal deferment is different from draft dodging, and far different than not showing up for your national guard meetings

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-10 07:36pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
Hamel wrote:They've only released payroll records so far, right? Or the ARF Statement of Points Earned? I've seen those records and they don't show anything that can be identified as related to the National Guard. If he wants to convince people he needs to release his full record and not just vague papers.
Oh, come now. There's NO evidence that he actually went AWOL, which has been the consistent claim. Now we see that he was paid for his services during this time. Are you seriously arguing that he was paid for doing something completely unrelated to his duty in the National Guard? If so, where is the evidence that he went AWOL in the first place? Why hasn't anything come up that reveals this additional pay source?

There is his May 1973 evaluation which stated that his commander had not seen him all year. He was supposedly in Alabama doing "equivalency training" but the unit commander says that Bush never reported for duty. This document showing that he was paid for his service doesn't prove that he didn't show up.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-02-10 07:44pm

You should have heard the ridiculous argument for the pay-issue. it was (And I quote from NPR) "These documents establish a time for which Bush was paid. You don't get paid if you don't serve, so, these prove he was, infact, where he was supposed to be and getting paid for it." Followed up by a SCATHING commentary about how NOBODY, not ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY person IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, has stepped up and said "Yeah, I served with Bush in Alabama, I remember him," ANYTHING that would corroborate his story. If someone ever does...well...I'll be...surprised, I suppose.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-10 10:44pm

Chardok wrote:You should have heard the ridiculous argument for the pay-issue. it was (And I quote from NPR) "These documents establish a time for which Bush was paid. You don't get paid if you don't serve, so, these prove he was, infact, where he was supposed to be and getting paid for it." Followed up by a SCATHING commentary about how NOBODY, not ONE, SINGLE, SOLITARY person IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY, has stepped up and said "Yeah, I served with Bush in Alabama, I remember him," ANYTHING that would corroborate his story. If someone ever does...well...I'll be...surprised, I suppose.

Maybe it's because the average military person is not a boastful showoff desirous of being associated with the President? Why the hell would the average person want all the media attention and demands/beggings for interviews that would inevitably follow such an announcement, just for sitting in a briefing room with some guy who later became the President, thirty-odd years ago? Would you want a hundred media trucks camped out on your lawn over it? And nine days isn't a long time to make friends, but, again, is perfectly normal for the guard; so one can't even say that he was, well, whatever the next accusation might be.

Seriously, there are lots of legitimate issues in this campaign, but this is not one of them, never has been, and never will be. I thought it was important to have civilian control of the military, anyway (and clearly implicit in that is the possibility that someone without military experience might send troops overseas to die)--now we want strong military leaders as our Presidents all of a sudden? What the hell is this? Oh, right, it's partisan sniping.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-10 10:53pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Seriously, there are lots of legitimate issues in this campaign, but this is not one of them, never has been, and never will be. I thought it was important to have civilian control of the military, anyway (and clearly implicit in that is the possibility that someone without military experience might send troops overseas to die)--now we want strong military leaders as our Presidents all of a sudden? What the hell is this? Oh, right, it's partisan sniping.

If the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military was AWOL during wartime, then that is a legitamate issue. I don't care about Bush's (or anyone else's) history with drugs, drinking or DUI's, but this are you trying to tell us that having a history of military desertion during wartime is irrelevent to the leader of the strongest military in the world?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-10 11:00pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:Does it really matter?

Yes, it does. He might not have gone to fight and in fact he didn't. But that's still a hell of a long way from the charges of desertion and such leveled at him.

Wicked Pilot wrote:When there is a war going on you go or you don't. He could have decided to enlist in the active duty forces and go fight, but instead he went to the Guard, while someone took his place in the rice fields. It is hyprocritical for him to defend his not wanting to fight in a 'political war' when his decision to invade Iraq can be construed the same.

It is mildly hypocritical. But the simple fact is too that there is no draft so the men and women sent to Iraq volunteered to be soldiers. They made the choice knowing what was possible.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-10 11:01pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Maybe it's because the average military person is not a boastful showoff desirous of being associated with the President? Why the hell would the average person want all the media attention and demands/beggings for interviews that would inevitably follow such an announcement, just for sitting in a briefing room with some guy who later became the President, thirty-odd years ago? Would you want a hundred media trucks camped out on your lawn over it? And nine days isn't a long time to make friends, but, again, is perfectly normal for the guard; so one can't even say that he was, well, whatever the next accusation might be.

What a load of hyperbole.

Seriously, there are lots of legitimate issues in this campaign, but this is not one of them, never has been, and never will be. I thought it was important to have civilian control of the military, anyway (and clearly implicit in that is the possibility that someone without military experience might send troops overseas to die)--now we want strong military leaders as our Presidents all of a sudden? What the hell is this? Oh, right, it's partisan sniping.

Strawman. Concerns over blowing off military duty do not equal a desire of having "strong" (wtf do you mean by strong anyway?) military presidents. No one here has even came close to opposing civilian control of the military. Why you even bring that up is bizarre. It most likely suggests that this is a bigger issue than you want it to be, and you're desperate to spin the current data in the prez's favor.

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-02-11 12:02am

Whether he was AWOL or not, it's plainly obvious that the only reason Bush got into the National Guard and THEN discharged early for Harvard is because of his daddy.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-02-11 12:13am

Natorgator wrote:Whether he was AWOL or not, it's plainly obvious that the only reason Bush got into the National Guard and THEN discharged early for Harvard is because of his daddy.

And exactly why do you say that? There's no reason to think he couldn't get into the Guard on his own and unless they're active people leave the Guard for college often enough.

Besides, his 'daddy' wasn't exactly the big wig you make him out to be at that point.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bush's Military Record Released

Bush's Military Record Released

Re: Bush's Military Record Released

Re: Bush's Military Record Released

Re: Bush's Military Record Released

Re: Bush's Military Record Released