No seriously, was Bush really AWOL for a year?

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I'm used to getting my fair share of chain letters with urban legends, but when I read that Bush was AWOL his last year in the National Guard I was sure this had to be a lie.



I googled for the story, but everything seems to suggest he was AWOL. Is this just the liberal media?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    Oh I'm sure he'll tell us if it is true or not. You can trust him....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 15
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    as far as i know, he was AWOL. odds are daddy pulled some stings and he didn't get in any trouble.



    granted, i don't think he was listed as "officially" AWOL, just that he was gone and they don't know where. (maybe it was a top secret mission to Columbia. )
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 15
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    (maybe it was a top secret mission to Columbia. )



    I figured it was to look for WMD in Iraq. (like a pretrial...)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 15
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    I can swear that i have seen GW Bush performed his duty from 1972 to 1973 in the national guard.





    Give me the reward now
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 15
    Would you like that in trucks or Oil or in heads of Cattle from the ranch?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    It doesn't seem to be true.



    This article, originally appearing in George magazine, says basically that he technically fulfilled all his requirements for service, but there was some missing time and he failed to take some of his exams to continue his service.



    Quote:

    Its basic conclusions: Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 15
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Nordstrodamus

    the liberal media



    Broadswiping well-sounding generalisation. Gratuitous moreover. Numbers remain ellusive however. Joe Conason cites a 2 to 1 implicated endorsement (read "quiet slant", or your own paraphrase) for G.W. Bush vs. A. Gore in the written media during the elections. 2 republican vs. 1 democrat. 2 conservative vs. 1 liberal. Let's see your numbers.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 15
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    der Koph, you can't just write that w/o links dude.



    link it up!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 15
    der kopfder kopf Posts: 2,275member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    link it up!



    I heard Conason say such in an mp3 of him in an interview with Leonard Lapote (whom I know not the reputation of, cause I'm foreign and such). Anyway, a short session of googling got me the following quote:



    Quote:

    How about the newspapers? According to the trade magazine Editor & Publisher, newspapers endorsed Bush 2-1 over Gore before the 2000 election. Conservatives have Smith Richardson, John Olin, Richard Mellon Scaife and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation to bankroll the dissemination of conservative writings and studies to a wide audience, an advantage liberals lack.



    From this reputable source. (<- how reputable is USA Today?).



    - der Kopf
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 15
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    that's a book review. not sure that's exactly hard proof.



    it's "they said that he said" i have no idea what his sources were for his book, and i'm not about to pay to find out.



    i know that folks have linked to a variety of stats that show the opposite.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 15
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Here's Conason's source:



    http://www.tipponline.com/articles/00/E&p112.htm



    Quote:

    The Editor & Publisher/TIPP poll also asked who the editors and publishers plan to vote for themselves next week. In another surprise, those willing to reveal their vote named Bush by a 2-1 margin. Publishers will vote for Bush at a 3-1 ratio, with editors favoring the Texas Governor by a narrow margin.



    Conason also says the following here:



    Quote:

    We also know that Jack Welch, former chief of NBC (and GE) is an ardent Republican. So was Larry Tisch when he owned CBS. So are Richard Parsons and Steve Case of CNN (and Time Warner AOL). Michael Eisner (Disney ABC) gave to Bill Bradley and Al Gore, but he gave more to Bush and McCain -- and he supported Rick Lazio for the Senate against Hillary Clinton. Rupert Murdoch and John Malone are big Republican supporters of the Cato Institute. So why isn't anybody complaining about the "conservative bias" of media executives?



    [OK, after 843 edits, I think I've got it.]
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 15
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    interesting. they say they weighted the papers based on circulation, but those results are what i would have expected had they NOT taken circulation into account.



    Quote:

    Nearly 4 out of 5 who said that newspapers favored one candidate named Al Gore as the beneficiary.



    does this quote mean that even the media folks think that newspapers are biased?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 15
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Here's a read: http://www.talion.com/hackers.html

    There are details of how the site(s) that put up details of Bush's military records prior to the 2000 election were hacked, attacked and "denial-of-service'ed".

    There's photocopies here of Bush military 'bloopers'...(suspension order, disciplinary measures etc).



    More documents here http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

    on Bush's military records. Look at the photocopy of the doc where he is grounded (suspended from flying F-102s). James R. Bath gets a similar suspension just 4 weeks later. Bath was Bush's "babysitter" in the military and longtime buddy afterwards in business. 30 seconds googling pulls up some interesting stuff on Bath, Bush, Carlyle Group, Saudi financing of terrorism etc etc here (amongst numerous) http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive....a20163e3.html



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 15
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.