New records: No flights for Bush in summer of 72

Seems to be part of a deliberate campaign to confuse or muddle the issue in everyone's mind: He served. He didn't serve. He served most of the time. He missed a year. The records "prove" he served. The records "prove" he didn't serve. The records are destroyed. No wait, they're not really destroyed.

All it would take to clarify is a good bit of consistent nagging from the Democrats. Repeat the mantra over and over, kind of like a talking point memo.

Lead, Don't Divide

"I am saddened that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign."

BY JOHN F. KERRY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

(Editor's note: Sen. Kerry delivered this speech on the Senate floor Feb. 27, 1992. The previous day, Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Vietnam veteran and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, spoke in Atlanta, where he criticized fellow candidate Bill Clinton for his lack of military service during Vietnam.)

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

What's even weirder is that in that speech, Kerry is complaining about the attacks on Clinton as a "draft dodger." This situation is entirely different. Bush didn't dodge the draft. He seems to have gone AWOL.

Good point midwinter. That is much, much, worse. He should have gone to jail.


A superb and succinct statement summing up Bush's media strategy and the way he runs the country. Like WAG THE DOG. Have you seen that movie Scott? Bush is a fucking bullshit artist. He should be a used car salesman, not the President.

Someone came in to Sears yesterday "Oh John Kerry, I don't trust his face." I asked him if he trusted a soldier that went AWOL to smoke doobies. He was like "John Kerry will tell you one thing one day and the opposite the next!" A "Dittohead." Scott you and Nick can use such big words, why are you two "Dittoheads" yourselves, swallowing what Fox News Channel tells you? Oh and wait, I forgot "John Kerry is for the queers!!!" He's gay, folks. And Jewish. And Communist. And FRENCH!!!

Don't forget that he's BOTH consistently liberal AND a flip-flopper. Nevermind that those two things are mutually exclusive.

Did anyone see the statement the K-E campaign released the other day? Bush accused them of being flip-floppers, and they claimed that he was intractable and hard-headed to a fault.

The fact that it cannot be said without a shadow of a doubt that bush was not AWOL for a good amount of time is disturbing in and of itself. regardless of how long, just that it appears to have happened(or at least there is a lot of evidence pointing towards either awol status of just a lot of unfortunate wrong place wrong time mishaps) is pretty friggin bad, I haven't really followed much of the whole Bush AWOL thing, so perhaps someone could fill me in on evidence that proves he wasn't gone for times other evidence says he was?

Speaking of flip-flopping....

The whole "flip-flopper" charge is disingenuous because all politicians change positions frequently and for various reasons. It's too sweeping a charge, given that you can even apply it to Bush's "stay the course" foreign policy, especially when he paradoxically supplies ever-changing reasons for "staying the course." The underlying charge is always opportunism, which, again, occurs consistently across the political spectrum-- even when leveling the "flip-flopper" charge itself!

It's also important to remember that situations change as well. I wouldn't want a president, or any politician, that couldn't or wouldn't change his mind for fear of looking like a 'flip-flopper'. Politicians need to be flexible if they want to accomplish anything.

Yes and yes.

Good example of Bush supporters changing the subject rather than answer to the charges.

Bush did not collect payment for service in Alabama. He had not been discharged. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was AWOL. He was definitely "A". But he must have gotten leave from somewhere.

Of course, being "excused" from his duties would have been exceptional and such a privilege would definitely have been reserved for only the most highly connected.

And then there's his repeated claims from his own mouth that he "served his time". Bullshit, blatant lies. It's obvious now that, though he may have had permission, he did not in fact serve his time. Bush is a liar, nothing short of it.

What do the "John Kerry shouldn't have spoken out against Vietnam" crowd have to say about Bush lying about being a patriot by having "served his time" when it was all a big lie?

It's obvious that the last "war hero" in the White House was GHW Bush and that the next will be John Kerry.

I agree it takes some pretty big balls to serve,risk your life and then come back and say how screwed up the whole Vietnam thing was. Vietnam was terrible. Iraq is the same only different location. if those people wanted freedom they would have fought for it many years ago. Bush administration is full of spin,misdirection and even lies and after 200 billion of our money we still have Zealots who think Republicans do no wrong just as we have here Zealots who think Apple does no wrong. Zealots suck but Zealots in position of power really suck.

Bush's whereabouts in 1972 has been published in many places. He was at a half-way house for nearly six months quite probably recovering from cocaine addiction. April 17, 1972 through October 27, 1972 is 193 days. The address for his check was "2910 Westheimer, Houston, TX 77006". That also matches the (court-imposed?) community service.

see also this link:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

So... he's not lying when he said he "served his time".

Only he served his time in rehab, NOT the military. Great president material, there.

Personally, I don't really give a shit about this particular blip on Bush's record. I mean I would certainly like to know once and for all the whole real truth, but if I never do it has no effect on me. There is so much quality material one can go after, it just seems this is a terribly weak thing to get hooked on. Like the WMD in Iraq accusations. That is something he needs to answer for, but really hasn't. And even if he gets voted out of office, to me that's still not answering for what has happened. In fact it would all but guarantee he walks into the sunset without ever addressing it.

If it comes down to the WMD debate vs. his service (or lack thereof) many years ago, it would seem to me one is far more relevant than the other.

Well I guess we agree to a point. I mean I disagree with a lot of what our post 9/11 reality has become.

My view is that the Vietnam era was a unique time in America. I'm just not into busting a guys balls for time he did or didn't serve back then. Many people back then did a lot of things that can be called into question today. It's just that that would be mostly counterproductive and ultimately fruitless.

It seems to me to be far better to focus on the here and now and the problems we really have, not the problems we want to create.

Fair enough. I can't really argue a person's desire to know something.

rageous, excellent points. Do you think Dick Cheney should go to jail for "stovepiping" information from the CIA? Or Rumsfeld go to jail for ordering abuse of prisoners (most civilian)? How about Cheney, for his "Energy Task Force"? Clinton got impeached for perjury. We have Bush on record saying he "served his time." If he didn't and he lied about it, should he be impeached? I think they should all go to jail. Nixon should go to jail. And I'm not talking about Watergate. He should be jailed for lying about Vietnam. Same thing as Bush is doing now with Iraq. What they are doing is serious and has cost many lives. I wonder how they sleep at night. In there world, they should be going to "Hell"!

Too late for internment...he's already been interred.