Thread: Bush’s National Guard years
09-16-2004, 07:17 PM #1
Bush’s National Guard years
Bush’s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts
What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?
News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:
The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.
That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.
Not two years of weekends. Two years.
After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.
According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).
Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?
That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).
Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.
“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”
So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.
In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.
Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.
During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.
A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”
A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”
Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.
The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.
And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.
In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”
Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.
That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.
And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.
09-16-2004, 07:47 PM #2
The fact that bush pulled some strings to dodge vietnam doesn't surprise most, most politicians did it, whats the big deal? So what if bush seems to have disappeared for several months during his duty, I'm not voting for that. The more ppl don't talk about the issues, the better it is for bush.
09-16-2004, 07:48 PM #3
Bush didnt bring this crap up... Dan Rather did
09-16-2004, 08:08 PM #4
hey jdawg just curious. do you have any thoughts of your own? or are you content to be a republican party parrot?
09-16-2004, 08:09 PM #5
Sin, Sin, Sin....
09-16-2004, 08:18 PM #6
09-16-2004, 10:57 PM #7Originally Posted by Jdawg50
The big question about the whole issue is, did Bush get special treatment to avoid going to Vietnam because of his political connections that other guys didn't get?
The answer is yes, if you beleive what the then Lt. Governor of Texas (Ben Barnes) stated -- that he got GW Bush into the Texas Air National Guard ahead of other guys.
Hid father, Bush I, had been serving in Richard Nixon's administration as Ambassador to the United Nations, and around 1970, Nixon had the US military secretly bomb dikes in North Vietnam, which, if they had succeeded in destroying them, would have drowned about 200,000 civilians, and would have been a war crime. Well, Jane Fonda publicized this dirty little secret, and Bush I publicly called Ms. Fonda a liar. Of course, journalists dug up the truth and vindicated Ms. Fonda . . .
So, while Bush I was supporting the Vietnam war, he was busy getting his alcoholic son special treatment so he wouldn't have to go . . .
GD hypocrite . . . these people are not the sort of leaders the military needs, much less the entire country needs . . .
09-16-2004, 11:21 PM #8Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 07:13 AM #9
personally i dont think anyones war record should make a big deal when running for political office. In my estimation they are two different fields, why would you want a great military general in charge of the country? Yes i understand that the president is the "commander in chief" but come one! And yes i do understand that many of our greatest presidents had substantial war records (plenty of bad ones did as well). "waving the bloody shirt" doesnt do anything for me.....
09-17-2004, 07:33 AM #10
The Kerry campaign calls bush a deserter and says he went AWOL.. Bush has released every one of his military records, why wont john kerry?
09-17-2004, 07:38 AM #11
Kerry did when he was asked to do so last feb..... Bush's has inaccuracies(before this CBS crap) with many things being ommited from documents.
09-17-2004, 07:39 AM #12Originally Posted by biglouie250
09-17-2004, 07:43 AM #13
according to him he has. according to bush he has as well....... take it for what its worth ( a politicians word)
09-17-2004, 07:45 AM #14Originally Posted by nickrizz
Ok, what files has he NOT released?
09-17-2004, 07:47 AM #15
he has not released any files pertaining to his first purple heart
09-17-2004, 07:50 AM #16
09-17-2004, 07:58 AM #17
Jane Fonda = John Kerry, They both met with the north Vietnamies. I'd rather have a guy that got some preferencial treatment than a guy that commited treason.
09-17-2004, 08:13 AM #18Originally Posted by Jdawg50
If George Bush II was in the middle of committing war crimes against the Iraqi people, it would be the duty of every patriotic American to call him on it, and to prevent him from carrying out his plan, even if it meant meeting with the folks on the other side of an armed conflict.
The person who committed treason was Nixon, not Jane Fonda. Nixon was obliged to abide by US Law and the United Nations rules the US is signatory to. Had Fonda aided the North Vietnamese in their conflict against the US, that would have been treason, but all she did was publicize what Nixon was trying to do.
That was a stupid war, pointless war, and it would have been catastrophic cruelty to drown 200,000 civilians over a dispute the US had no business being involved in . . .
09-17-2004, 08:17 AM #19Originally Posted by nickrizz
What other documentation would be involved?
And . . . are you of the opinion that Kerry didn't deserve that Purple Heart? I'd like to know why, because Bush and his campaign have stated Kerry served honorably and deserved his awards, he's got plenty of eyewitnesses to substantiate that he deserved his awards, and frankly, this is much ado about nothing . . .
09-17-2004, 08:27 AM #20
i dont believe he deserved them and neither do the doctor who examined them or his commanding officer.. I know 4 people who were in the war.. one was a green baret, one was a purple heart winner, one was a sergent and later drill sergent, and the other was a private in the marines... all three said he came home and talked so much **** about their brothers that were over there he deserves nothing, and not one of them are voting for him... also, every person over there with him exept 2 people said he did not deserve that first purple heart
09-17-2004, 08:28 AM #21Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 08:36 AM #22Originally Posted by nickrizz
Originally Posted by nickrizz
09-17-2004, 08:38 AM #23Originally Posted by Tock
i am 99% sure you dont get only one page when awarded the purple heart
09-17-2004, 08:42 AM #24
So now Jane Fonda is a National hero??? LOL
Now that's comedy bro..
These are all things you have asserted, and that's all they are assertions. I never saw Nixon go on trial for treason. I did see Jane fonda sitting in a anti-aircraft gun pointed at US planes.
Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 08:42 AM #25
Does it matter anyway about his medals, he threw them away anyway, so i dont think he deserves them just because of that
09-17-2004, 08:44 AM #26Originally Posted by nickrizz
So . . . LBJ screwed up. Nixon was caught right before drowning 200,000 civilians. Jane Fonda did good by exposing Nixon's attempted war crime, and Bush the First, Ambassador to the UN at the time, called Jane Fonda a liar, when she was telling the Gospel Truth. Bush the First supported the Vietnam War as long as his own sputtering fool of a son didn't have to go fight it, so he got the Lt. Governor of Texas at the time, Ben Barnes, to get Bush II set up in the Texas National Guard so he wouldn't have to go risk his ass like everyone else.
What a pitiful bunch of wussies . . . the only ones with any honor was LBJ who knew he screwed up and left office, and Jane Fonda who saved the lives of 200,000 civilians.
09-17-2004, 08:44 AM #27
WHo was the sitting prez during the begining of Viet Nam??? Hmmmmm
09-17-2004, 08:45 AM #28Originally Posted by Jdawg50
09-17-2004, 08:45 AM #29Originally Posted by Jdawg50
09-17-2004, 08:50 AM #30Originally Posted by nickrizz
Oh, yea, and what was there politcal leaning???
That's right they were Democrats
09-17-2004, 08:52 AM #31
ALSO............... Bush and Cheney openly said Kerry served honorably.. and after the president talked at the RNC at 12am Kerry came on and bashed Cheneys deferments... Also Bush has said kerry was braver than him for going to Nam and Bush staying home.... Bush said SwiftBoat ads should stop and so should the attack on kerrys record, why wont kerry say the same about bush;s record?
09-17-2004, 08:59 AM #32Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Your preacher tells you all sorts of things, like Jesus rose from the dead, and those are just assertions. No proof, no nothing. You don't challenge those stories with near the vigor you challenge this . . .
Well, fine. Here you go:
In 1964, Bush ventured into conventional politics by running against Democratic Senator Ralph Yarborough, making an issue of Yarborough's vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which almost all Southern politicians (including the Republican Sen. John Tower of Texas) opposed. He called Yarborough an "extremist" and a "left wing demagogue" while Yarborough said Bush was a "carpetbagger" trying to buy a Senate seat "just as they would buy a seat on the New York Stock Exchange". Bush lost in the 1964 Democratic landslide.
He was later elected in 1966 and 1968 to the House of Representatives from the 7th District of Texas. He later lost his second attempt at a Senate seat in 1970 to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen who defeated the incumbent Yarborough in the Democratic primary.
Throughout the 70s, under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, Bush briefly served in a number of positions, including Chairman of the Republican National Committee, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, US Envoy to communist China, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and board member of the Committee on the Present Danger. As Ambassador to the United Nations under Richard Nixon, Bush called Jane Fonda a liar when she publically exposed the bombing of dikes in Vietnam. It is said that Bush did not personally enjoy many of these jobs, yet accepted them out of a sense of loyalty to the President. Had Bush not received the succession of appointments after his senate defeat in 1970, its unlikely he would have risen to a level of national prominance in politics.
Late in the Vietnam War, the United States of America engaged in a policy of systematically bombing a system of dikes in Vietnam's Red River Delta that protected several hundred thousand people from having their land overrun by water.
The threat of the bombing was used as a leveraging tool against the North Vietnamese to encourage them to accept a proposed truce. The Red River Delta provided the majority of the food to North Vietnam, and the destruction of the farmland and the people within would have starved the nation's population and army. Under this threat, in September, 1972, North Vietnam agreed to drop their demand that President Theiu of South Vietnam be overthrown. Theiu rejected the treaty, not wanting to leave North Vietnamese troops in the south.
Many have referred to the bombing of the dikes as a war crime, although little was accomplished in the bombing before it ceased. Actress Jane Fonda is often credited with helping publicize the bombing, for which then U.N. Ambassador George H. W. Bush accused her of lying.
The following transcript between Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger on the subject was recorded in 1972; it has since been published in "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers" by journalist and publisher of The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg.
Nixon: We've got to quit thinking in terms of a three-day strike [in the Hanoi-Haiphong area]. We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack - which will continue until they - Now by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond. I'm thinking of the dikes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks.
Kissinger: I agree with you.
President Nixon: We've got to use massive force.
Two hours later at noon, H. R. Haldeman and Ron Ziegler joined Kissinger and Nixon:
President: How many did we kill in Laos?
Ziegler: Maybe ten thousand - fifteen?
Kissinger: In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen.
President: See, the attack in the North that we have in mind, power plants, whatever's left - POL [petroleum], the docks. And, I still think we ought to take the dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
President: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
President: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes. (Ellsberg p. 418, ellipses original)
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
Again, I say that Jane Fonda did good, and Nixon screwed up.
09-17-2004, 09:01 AM #33Originally Posted by nickrizz
Because Bush II got special treatment on account of being well-connected, and got out of having to go to Vietnam himself.
Bush II is a wuss. Able to send guys into battle, but unwilling to go himself.
09-17-2004, 09:04 AM #34Originally Posted by Jdawg50
The Eisenhower Administration developed and implemented policies in Southeast Asia that contributed directly to the massive American military involvement in Vietnam in the decade after Dwight Eisenhower left office. Working with the most recently declassified government records on U.S. policy in Vietnam in the 1950s, David L. Anderson asserts that the Eisenhower Administration was less successful in Vietnam than the revisionists suggests.Trapped By Success is the first systematic study of the entire eight years of the Eisenhower Administration's efforts to build a nation in South Vietnam in order to protect U.S. global interests. Proclaiming success, where, in fact, failure abounded, the Eisenhower Administration trapped itself and its successors into a commitment to the survival of its own frail creation in Indochina. The book is a chronicle of clandestine plots, bureaucratic fights, cultural and strategic mistakes, and missed opportunities.
Anderson examines the politicla environments in Saigon and Washington that contributed to the deepening of American involvement. Contrary to other studies that highlight Eisenhower's restraint in preventing French collapse in Indochina in 1954,Trapped By Success shows how the administration publicly applauded South Veitnam's survival and growing stability, while it was actually producing an almost totally dependent regime that would ultimately consume billions of American dollars and thousands of American lives.
What does that have to do with the price of eggs?
Last edited by Tock; 09-17-2004 at 05:38 PM.
09-17-2004, 09:07 AM #35
everyone acts like he sends infants into battle, he sends soldiers that have volunteered to join the military into battle...Clinton has NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE would it have been ok for him to send troops into battle???
09-17-2004, 09:10 AM #36
Originally Posted by Jdawg50
I did see Jane fonda sitting in a anti-aircraft gun pointed at US planes.
Originally Posted by nickrizz
She has the freedom to do that now, but I'm sure she prefers Georgia and the company of Ted Turner.
Nevertheless, Jane Fonda deserves a medal for saving the lives of those 200,000 innocent civilians from the malicious onslaught of Richard Nixon and the USAF.
Y'know, just because you're President of the United States and the US military has to do what you tell them, doesn't mean that whatever you say is 100% right. IMHO, patriotic Americans call the president when he screws up, instead of cheering everything he does.
09-17-2004, 09:14 AM #37
But i wouldnt sit on an anti aircraft turret if i knew they might shoot down planes from my country
09-17-2004, 09:15 AM #38Originally Posted by nickrizz
Originally Posted by nickrizz
Sure, Clinton may not have had military experience, but his judgement on how to use the military was better than Nixon's, and Bush II's.
09-17-2004, 09:55 AM #39Originally Posted by Tock
Originally Posted by Tock
09-17-2004, 05:22 PM #40Originally Posted by nickrizz
Then I'd get me a few good lawyers, spill the story to the newspapers, then turn myself in to the US authorities, and see how far they'd get prosecuting me.
Last edited by Tock; 09-17-2004 at 05:40 PM.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)