Bush's Military Record Released

Natorgator · Post by **Natorgator** » 2004-02-11 12:30am

Stormbringer wrote: 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.

Because, IIRC, there were about 100,000 on the waiting list to get in. There WAS a draft going on at the time, you know. And supposedly he scored in the 25th percentile on the entrance exam.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-11 12:30am

Rofl. Ex-head-of-CIA isn't big wig enough for you?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-11 12:43am

Stormbringer, in case you didn't know Bush's unit was known as the "Champagne Squadron". They were all the sons of privileged politicans and the like.

I enjoy all this very much. After his sickening Roman triumph on May 2, he gets what he deserves.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-02-11 12:47am

Natorgator wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: 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.
Because, IIRC, there were about 100,000 on the waiting list to get in. There WAS a draft going on at the time, you know. And supposedly he scored in the 25th percentile on the entrance exam.

Actually, it was 25 percentile in one area. He scored well in others (top 5% on leadership, IIRC)

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-11 12:50am

Hamel wrote:
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.

You're not very good at hearing are you? Michael asked if you had evidence. This, is what we call the Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

"Oh it happened before, and could've happened with him" is not evidence it actually did, and doesn't prove or say a damn thing.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 01:03am

Hamel wrote:Rofl. Ex-head-of-CIA isn't big wig enough for you?

He (George H. W. Bush) wasn't head of the CIA when his son was in the Guard. He had recently been defeated in a bid for the Senate and was IIRC the Ambassador to China.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-02-11 01:08am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Hamel wrote:Rofl. Ex-head-of-CIA isn't big wig enough for you?
He (George H. W. Bush) wasn't head of the CIA when his son was in the Guard. He had recently been defeated in a bid for the Senate and was IIRC the Ambassador to China.

Oh, okay

That's quite a difference then

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 01:11am

Hamel wrote:
What a load of hyperbole.

We're talking about people. We're speculating on the motivations of people we don't know anything about. How can you expect anything else? So of course it is. I might as well make up someone who was Bush's friend in the National Guard; it would be just as legitimate as the speculation that Chardok made.

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.

No, Hamel, it doesn't. Why I'm bring it up is because I find it ridiculous, facile, and a bit disgusting that we make an issue of someone's military record; that we appear to demand that a military individual make military decisions (the entire point of Kerry triumphing his service record is that he is apparently somehow more fit to command the military as the President than Bush is, thus his criticism of the war in Iraq is legitimate and etc), when clearly our system is intended for a civilian to be the Commander and Chief.

Okay? That's what I was driving at--that this entire trumpeting of military records is an effective implication that military personnel are more fit to be President, because they have military experience; because they alone have some sort of unique knowledge or moral right to send troops into battle. None of this is stated obviously, but it's all implied--and it also goes directly against the civilian nature of the Presidential office. Either that or the military record is totally pointless and should just be fucking dropped.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-11 01:15am

Hamel wrote:Rofl. Ex-head-of-CIA isn't big wig enough for you?

Wasn't able to get rid of that DUI, though. Odd, that.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-11 01:18am

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.

During the Vietnam War 60% of the population to reach draft age never did a minute of service in any form and over a half a million are known to have avoided service illegally. Who give fuck if Bush missed a few days or even years? At least he did somthing which is far more that can be said for most of the country.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-11 01:23am

AWOL is a particularly serious charge to make, and it is not something to be thrown around lightly. If you want to charge an ex-serviceman with being AWOL, you, the accuser, had better be prepared to back up that claim with evidence. Even if there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that he fulfilled his obligations, which there is anyway, innocence must be assumed unless there is evidence to the contrary.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 01:35am

Joe wrote:AWOL is a particularly serious charge to make, and it is not something to be thrown around lightly. If you want to charge an ex-serviceman with being AWOL, you, the accuser, had better be prepared to back up that claim with evidence. Even if there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that he fulfilled his obligations, which there is anyway, innocence must be assumed unless there is evidence to the contrary.

The evidence is right there in his May 1973 evaluation. Have you read this document?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-02-11 01:39am

What are you talking about? It says he had to move to Alabama, and is now serving at an AFB there.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-11 01:40am

I see nothing incriminating.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 01:42am

Joe wrote:I see nothing incriminating.

From CNN

The report stated Bush had been performing "equivalent training" at a Guard unit in Montgomery, Alabama. But the man who was that unit's commander at the time has said he does not recall Bush reporting for duty.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-11 01:50am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:What are you talking about? It says he had to move to Alabama, and is now serving at an AFB there.

That's the problem. There's no evidence at all that he ever showed up (refers to Kernel's post).

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 01:56am

The Kernel wrote:
The evidence is right there in his May 1973 evaluation. Have you read this document?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

It's so obviously a forgery--maybe done in paint--that the lines aren't even straight.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-11 02:00am

Marina has a point. There's reasons it might be fuzzy; there's no reasons that some of the lines on the actual document itself feature gaps.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 02:07am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
The Kernel wrote:
The evidence is right there in his May 1973 evaluation. Have you read this document?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
It's so obviously a forgery--maybe done in paint--that the lines aren't even straight.

Apparently neither you nor Axis Kast are familiar with an invention called a typewriter. Understandable, but you really should read up on your history more.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-11 02:10am

ROFLMAO. 'The line's are crooked, it's a forgery.'

When you're desperate, you're really desperate eh?

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 02:16am

Vympel wrote:ROFLMAO. 'The line's are crooked, it's a forgery.'

When you're desperate, you're really desperate eh?

Observe the bottom, where one of the lines rather obviously veers upward in a squiggle.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-02-11 02:17am

Apparently neither you nor Axis Kast are familiar with an invention called a typewriter. Understandable, but you really should read up on your history more.

Which produces the format of the document aside from the type?

We're not talking about the type - we're talking about the lines of the actual document itself. They aren't even straight. Some are curved. Others are jagged.

And find me this document from some other source than a pamphleteer's website. This is "evidence" dredged up only by some obscure editorial.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2004-02-11 02:18am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Observe the bottom, where one of the lines rather obviously veers upward in a squiggle.

Presumably those areas are supposed to indicate hole-punches, which in the other three (it's on the right-hand side) they do a decent attempt at. There, however, what is supposedly part of the document veers directly across what should be a hole in the page.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 02:22am

Axis Kast wrote:
Apparently neither you nor Axis Kast are familiar with an invention called a typewriter. Understandable, but you really should read up on your history more.
Which produces the format of the document aside from the type?

We're not talking about the type - we're talking about the lines of the actual document itself. They aren't even straight. Some are curved. Others are jagged.

And find me this document from some other source than a pamphleteer's website. This is "evidence" dredged up only by some obscure editorial.

Buddy, this very same document has been reproduced in other sources including Al Franken's book Lies and the Lying Liars that Tell Them. The only reason I went to that site is that I was too lazy to scan it and I just picked this first Google hit. Unless you think a best selling author could get away with producing a false document without being torn to pieces, I suggest you shut up with your stupid conspiracy theories.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-02-11 02:24am

EDIT: Oh, not to mention IT'S REFERENCED IN THE CNN ARTICLE I LINKED EARLIER. Maybe you should check it out.