Pacific Views

Well, I was going to post how Bill Clinton never served a day in uniform in his life, and how it was never an issue for Democrats back then, but...

I would probably have my post deleted.

Dear Hanging,

Don't be a fool. Clinton never claimed to have served his country in the military. Bush would like us to think precisely the opposite, whereas it has become abundantly clear that this isn't true. Throughout his life, Bush has done whatever was expedient; this has never involved any sacrifice on his part.

Well, he did fly in the Guard. If the Guard isn't "serving your country", then you must say that about all who serve and fly in the ANG, not just Bush.

Are you willing to say that? That the ANG is not serving your country?

dear hanging:

don't try to argue with people by asking an unrelated and inflammatory question. not only does it not work as a tactic, it just makes you look like a jerk.

but, taking your question about whether the national guard is serving your country seriously (even though it was just a troll), nobody is arguing that being in the national guard isn't a legitimate form of national service. BUT plenty of people are arguing that there's serious doubts that dubya ever completed his guard service. and there are questions as to whether his honorable discharge was the result of political pressure, not a statement that he'd completed his guard service satisfactorily.

dubya could, of course, settle all the questions about his national guard service by making his military records public. for some reason, he hasn't seen fit to do so ... it's his right to keep them confidential, but i'd think that if his service record was so cut & dry as the administration is maintaining, making the records public would end questions about his military service once and for all.

Magpie,

Indeed.

Hanging,

Do you think that W's reluctance to release his military service record has *anything* to do with a possibility that there's something there that's none too flattering? Don't you find it a bit strange that he's the only president (elected or unelected) who has declined to do so?

In the final analysis, this whole matter would be of little concern to me if it weren't symptomatic of a pattern of shirking responsibility for the negative consequences of any of his actions.

The question is whether Bush was ever AWOL. The answer is yes and I've seen very little to dispute this fact. The fact that Bush "made up" for the days he was AWOL does not change the fact that he was AWOL.

i have to agree with ignobilator. the main significance of dubya's neglecting his national guard responsibilities is his failure to take responsibility for his actions, whether it involves his personal behavior or his policy decisions. he apparently can't recognize that his decisions have consequences for anyone other than himself, and that escaping those consequences is just a matter of denial, half-truths, or lies.

why we tolerate behavior from dubya (or any public official) that we wouldn't tolerate in family or friends is a mystery i don't understand.

Thanks guys for the responses.

I think GW Bush should go ahead and release whatever happened 35 years ago. 35 years is not a long time, if one ponders on this a while, 35 years could be just like yesterday.

A man cannot grow up and overcome past mistakes in the span of 35 years. If Bush is found out to have been AWOL, he should come clean about it.

Say, does the statute of limitations reach that far back in time?

Well now, something has come up about Kerry's past as well. It seems he took money from Chinese Military Intelligence in 1996!

I think this is much more detrimental to a President than an unclear record in the Air National Guard!

The story is here: Cash and Kerry

Can we trust a man who takes cash for favors from the China's People's Liberation Army?

1) the kerry/chung/china story is *very* old news

2) if you read a few paragraphs into the newsweek story hanging points to, you see this sentence:

There was never any suggestion that Kerry knew about the dubious origins of Chung's largesse.

so i'd say that linking kerry and the PLA is a ***very*** big leap ... especially if you're trying to base that leap on facts.

Dear Chad,

A man cannot grow up and overcome past mistakes in the span of 35 years. If Bush is found out to have been AWOL, he should come clean about it.

Part of Bush's problem is he is the one who spends significant energy in demanding that others are "accountable" for their actions. It is a sign of his hypocrisy that he is never accountable for his own. If he really had to pay for his actions, he would be broke and living on the street. He thinks nothing of locking up people for "drugs" for decades even when his connections rescued him again and again from his "mistakes". Bush is the ultimate "entitled" boomer. I'd think you would find his crap just that - crap. Or perhaps it is only the unconnected that should pay for their mistakes?

I see my postings of honest questions has been deleted here as well.

While Dubya's military service is being questions, and John Kerry touting a military ticket,

Read this:

Vietnam Veterans against John Kerry

You'll find that Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the Silver Star, he used an obscure Navy regulation to leave Vietnam and his crew before completing his tour of duty.

dear hanging:

yep, i surely did delete some of your posts. as i warned you in the comments to another post, i'm not going to put up with trolling in the comments -- no matter what the political views of the troll. so if you want to keep from being deleted, stop trolling.

as a bonus to you, though, i'm going to take your last post seriously, even though you really weren't looking for a discussion. i followed the link to the anti-kerry vietnam vets site ... to begin, i have to question the credibility and historical accuracy of any source that calls vietnam veterans agains the war 'one of America's most radical pro-communist groups.' while some of the people in VVAW were radicals, a lot weren't. and, other than opposing the war, i doubt you could have called kerry's politics of the time 'radical' by any reasonable standards. as for communists, i doubt you could have found any more of them in VVAW than in, say, the george mcgovern campaign ... but then you probably think mcgovern was a communist too because he opposed the vietnam war.

as to the 'obscure Navy regulation' that let kerry leave vietnam, i'd suggest that it's only an issue if kerry got preferential treatment in the application of that regulation. even the site you linked to admits that he was wounded three times in vietnam, which entitled a soldier to go home if they asked. unless nobody else was able to successfully use that regulation, kerry's leaving vietnam is a non-issue.

i also notice that the anti-kerry site has no sources listed for the various aspersions it casts on kerry's service in vietnam. if his behavior there was as seriously bad as the site holds, i'd think that they could give some sources, couldn't you?

there are people on the right who do their research and give their sources, instead of making stuff up or repeating long-discredited slanders ... maybe you could try linking to some of those when you're trying to make an argument, instead of the drivel that you keep trying to pass off as fact.

oh, and *do* remember to talk *to* people, not at them, okay?