Bush Dodged Vietnam
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130452,00.html

So he had daddy get him out of the war (no surprise, but I guess we know where he gets his habbit of special favors) Then he brags about his military carrier. Then he critizes Kerry's service. I wonder if Bush has ever done anything noble in his carrier. At least Clinton admitted he dodged the war.

so much moaning about kerry's record being called into question by hundreds of veterans. yet, when a single person resurrects charges that caught no traction 5 years ago, charges that have no proof other than the word of a single person, people are more than willing to jump on board. apparently rekna takes this man's word as gospel.

Not to knock your post or anything, Rekna, but I honestly don't see what the big deal is and why people (media and politicians) focus so much energy and attention on this.

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but really... the past is the past. If he dodged the war, then whatever. I don't think that course of action really reflects the issues that we, as a country, are faced with today. Same with these Swift Boat Veterans blasting Kerry because he made "negative" comments about the Vietnam war... all this matters so very little.

IMO, whether or not someone served has very LITTLE importance on what currently needs to be taken care of, so to me, it's really mind boggling why people focus so much of their attention to these matters.

I could see veterans being a bit ticked off because THEY had to go while Bush go to stay home because of who he or his family is, but aside from that... eh, no biggie. To be honest, I would've dodged too, so I can't really blame him there :)

well stompy... i applaud your clearheaded perspective on the issue, but...

if Bush did say that he did not receive help from powerful officials to avoid the war, then he had better not have. if it is proven that he did, then i think that is a serious lie that he should be accountable for.

this issue has been explored before. trust me, if there were real meat on this bone... it would have come up long before now. it just cracks me up how people will put up AWOL stickers or clutch onto any bit of gossip they can get their hands on, no matter that it has no factual basis in reality. the truth really doesn't matter much anymore.

i'm getting too cynical for my own good. :)

My issue is we are willing to rail on Kerry because he left the war after getting 3 purple hearts, even to the point of disbuting if he deserved the purple hearts or not but yet no one questions why Bush never even went to vietnam.

rekna, i'd take your side if that were my perception also, but it seems to me that there have been a lot of people questioning that aspect of Bush's record.

it's just that the answer to the questions asked aren't all that dramatic, so that's why the media hasn't had a sustained feeding frenzy. the consensus (as backed by military records) is that Bush just did his time in the National Guard and got out. true, he didn't gallantly volunteer for frontline combat... but he didn't go AWOL or get special favors either. the truth isn't compelling or scandalous, so that's why there doesn't seem to be the same level of scrutiny.

But the question is did he get special treatment when being assigned to a group that would never see war. I read somewhere that there was a very large number of influentials in Bushes class. Lots of politition's sons, pro athletes, ect.

Am I not mistaken, but a big catch of the draft was if you voluntarily(sp) enlisted you were given choice of service. Bush voluntarily enlisting in the National Guard, usually a state side organization had to help his prospects of not going war. Had he been drafted (which no doubt with his connections, wouldn'y have happened), perhaps a different story?

Am I wrong on this?

mojo,

i think you're on the right track except for the machinations of the draft process. i've always understood it to be that the people sliding through vietnam had made themselves ineligible for the draft, but once you were drafted there was little that could be done if you wanted to avoid service.

all this was happening way before my time... perhaps a salty-ol-TFPer can help us out?

You be the judge

(note: there is more at the link but the story is really really long and lots of it is not relevant to this current discussion)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...bush072899.htm
What gets me is he scored very low on the tests and yet he bipassed the entire waiting list. That seems like special treatment to me.

Having never served in the military, I am unable to criticise either Bush or Kerry for their service or lack thereof. Having read numerous articles regarding the distinction that Kerry volunteered and Bush did not, my understanding is this is misleading and subject to debate.

Bush enlisted in the Air National Guard, a relatively safe stateside gig that would almost guarantee no combat. His unit was never activated, lucky for George.

Kerry applied for student deferment with the draft board and was denied. Subsequently, he enlisted in the Naval Reserves. Unfortunately for Kerry, his unit had the bad luck of being activated.

What I understand is that neither man actually volunteered for active service in Vietnam. Also, let's not forget that both men have privileged backgrounds. To be critical and fair to each party, I suppose one could say that George Bush "dodged" Vietnam and John Kerry had to be "dragged" there.

Beyond this non-story in my opinion, there are more pressing issues than what these two men did or did not do thirty-five years ago.

rekna, i didn't read anything in the portion you cited that alluded to any sort of waiting list. where did you pull that from?

also, the pilot aptitude test isn't the only criteria with which pilot candidates are selected. physical fitness and conditioning eliminate many candidates who are otherwise highly qualified. GPA, educational background and other factors round out the many criteria used for pilot evaluation.

this was a time of war anyway... i'm doubting that the competition was high or the demand that low. :)

Again, does it matter if Bush went to Alabama as a national guardsman and Kerry went to Vietnam. What does it matter if Bush had special priveleges or not? There's way to much that you can criticize from both sides than their military records.

BTW, what was Clinton's military records? Oh that's right he went overseas to go to school and was involved in protests. Yet, he was elected and then re-elected.

Sorry it was from other parts of the same article

and

DALLAS, Texas — Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes (search) said he is "more ashamed at myself than I've ever been" because he helped President Bush and the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard so they could avoid serving in Vietnam.

This quote cracked me up :D A politician who has never been so ashamed,
please Barnes you were speaker of the house, I am sure you have done worse. :rolleyes:

Kerry will always have the upper hand on this issue, he was infact "incountry".
My hats off to him for that, how he got there and what he did there and afterwards is a debate in itself, but please I would like to see both sides really stop the nit-picking and get on with the issues at hand.

It must pain Republicans to no end to defend W Bush from this kind of stuff.

They must just taste the bile in the backs of their throats and hold their noses that this little sleeze ball George W. Bush is their candidate. Where is an Eisenhower'esk individual when you need him.

On the other hand, it was Kerry who thought he would use the whole Vietnam thing to his advantage and it seems to have backfired in his face.

Perhaps, he should have just left sleeping dogs lie

Actually my post wasnt a defense of Bush at all, Kerry tried his damedest to get out of Vietnam, by enlisting in the naval reserve, his only problem was his luck sucked and that unit got activated, after spending some time on a ship in very SAFE waters, it was time to be transfered to more hostile conditions,
Kerry being the brave soul he is he volunteered for swift boat duty (at the time also had a very slim chance of enemy contact), well with johnny boys luck he saw action, almost everyone who knew him in vietnam knew he wanted out as fast as possible, hence 3 hearts in 2 months.

And second of all your a Canadian how the hell would you know what a republican has to do?
A democrat destroyed this countries face around the world, its dam time someone fixed it.
Unless ofcourse you are a socalist then there might be a problem.

[QUOTE=reconmike]
A democrat destroyed this countries face around the world, its dam time someone fixed it.
/QUOTE]


could you elaborate on that please?

bush is a democrat?

Also, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.

Time to exorcize the typo demon.
You're;country's;it's;damn;of course;socialist.

All I will say about the substance of this remark is: after 9/11 the US enjoyed the greatest outpouring of support and goodwill from the rest of the world since perhaps WWII. That is gone now. During that span, it was a Republican running the country.

You're right, Kerry dropped the ball on that one.

He should have joined the Texas Air National Guard, that would have totally kept him out of action.

Back in the good old days of the late 60's most normal people tried in any way they could to get out of the draft. Of course there are always a few gung ho guys who joined the Marines. But if you could not get out of the draft, you could join a branch of the service when the chances of not getting killed were better. Like the Air Force or the Navy. An example was John F. Kerry, he applied for an deferment so that he could study in Paris. The request was turned down. He then Joined the Naval Reserve. He ended up on a Tin Can in Gulf of Tonkin. Because he was a John Kennedy wannabe, he put in for duty in a new service, called the swift boats. Swift Boats at that time was on non Hazardous coastal patrol duty. After he got there, they went into combat. The rest of the story has been rehashed everynight.
George W. Bush has stated many times that if his unit had been activated(a possibility) he would have gone. Once the shooting started John Kerry figured the best way to get out of there. No one is complaining about that. What people complain about is what he did when he got back. Then when he runs for President, he makes a big issue of the fact that "I was in Viet Nam". People who served with him are now having Flashbacks. The rest is history.

It may surprise you, but most Canadians know far more about the USA than the other way round. Hence I can debate you on American issues, whereas the reverse is seldom true.

The only US president to have destroyed the US's face around the world is George W. Bush. The man is despised across the globe. There is not a single country in the world who's populace is pro-Bush. Not one.

In Canada for example, 85% of Canadians according to a recent poll are hoping that Bush loses the next election (and I am one of them). When so many people despise you, you have to think, "hmm, maybe there is something there."

Bush is a fool. He is a unintelligent, uninspiring, lazy, and worse still dangerous.

Economically, he has increased gov't spending more than any previous democratic president (and that's not just on defense and security either), he has cut taxes mainly for the rich, and he has been running record deficits on an annual basis.

Four years ago, when they nominated George W. Bush in Philadelphia, Republicans were the party of small government and something called "compassionate conservatism."

No-one has a clue of what either of those is supposed to be now.

If the election turned on these and other domestic disappointments, including a net loss of jobs, Republicans would lose the November presidential election.

you know, james, I was thinking some things this morning that made me realize reality is not synching up for republicans.

last night, I was watching a couple of elected officials, one of whom who claimed to have war experience, I think he might have been a senator or something from new mexico, say how misinformed the public was by the media. it was tragic, in his view, that the public wasn't being shown how noble an act going on over in iraq--only the negative. just like vietnam, in his estimation. I'll not linger on his romantization of that past war, but I found it strange that he argued we were being misled by the (he paused here) 'mainstream' media.

Now the reason I find this so interesting is because I keep thinking about those iraqi soccer players. One would think in the height of their winning streak, just when they are feeling so damn awesome, and from what I think I can safely believe about olympic athletes in regards to their politics (shortly, that they might be more prone to be apolitical during their events and really just enjoy what they are doing with one another)--I was thinking," just why the hell didn't one of them say, thanks? or man this is complicated, but the people really aren't getting a fair viewing, don't use us in your campaign, but we aren't mad at you--american people,; anything?"

the commentators made a point to explain that the greeks always seperated between the events, the american public, and the actions of our leaders after the support for our athletes was so loud and consistent. it got me thinking that some nations might just feel for us, for our apparent blindness to the actions of our politicians, or maybe just our real lack of ability to change anything substantially, despite our notions that this is the 'free-est' nation on earth.

this is all jumbled together but it just struck me as profound that if the people of Iraq were really as happy as many people keep claiming, if the media is just not showing us all the shiny, happy people in the land, why the hell aren't any of the happy people saying anything whenever they get the chance?

not even a 'mums the word on this complicated situation' when these athletes are doing things that are fulfilling their dreams. Not even a 'we support you america' line, but just a very reassuring 'there are many good people in iraq, don't worry' ; what we got was 'there are many good people in iraq, and they (and we) want to battle you right out of our homeland--just like any other good people would do anywhere else."

don't know if I'm making sense.