Did Bush go AWOL or was it desertion?
Peter Jennings tried to GOTCHA Clark at the debate last week... Micheal Moore has endorsed Clark.
Peter Jennings trying to nail Clark on "facts"... when it sounds like the facts haven't been sufficiently investigated for him to claim that the desertion charge is unjust.
The Bush campaign said he fulfilled his duties... but according to records... he left to work on an Alabama Senate campaing and never reported in... skipped physicals... training...
Some say that's AWOL... the rules seem to say it could be desertion too.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...o/mcm/bl85.htm
desertion
Text.
Ò(a) Any member of the armed forces whoÑ
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956); is guilty of desertion.
here's a fairly indepth covering of the issues...
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_01...09814210417564
Bob Rogers at Progressive Trail -- himself a former military officer -- explains further:
According to the Boston Globe -- the only major publication that has examined the last two years of Bush's military service in depth -- Bush simply "gave up flying" to spend six months on a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama.
But this explanation is highly suspect, because fully trained and currently qualified pilots with two remaining years of flying obligation are rarely permitted to simply "give up" without some form of disciplinary action beyond just suspension.
A pilot's completion of his six-year obligation is especially important because of the heavy investment the Government makes to provide jet fighter pilots with two full years of active duty training. In today's money, the US Government paid close to a million dollars to train 1st Lt. Bush in a highly complex supersonic aircraft.
....
A few of those on the right have tried to compare Bush's behavior here to Bill Clinton's well-chronicled avoidance of the draft. The difference, of course, is not merely one of degree but substantively of kind: Clinton neither broke the law in his behavior, nor flouted or undermined basic rules of military conduct, nor wasted taxpayer dollars in the process.
Though of course, we all remember how many critics of the mainstream right have referred to Clinton as a "draft dodger" -- which, like "deserter," is a term that refers specifically to acts of law-breaking. But then, I can't recall anyone demanding that George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole renounce the people who uttered those characterizations, either.
I just find it interesting that people are willing to Question Clark's electability because he think's Moore is entitled to his opinion.... but noone is willing to question Bush's re-election bid based on the AWOL/Desertion question never being resolved.
Peter Jennings trying to nail Clark on "facts"... when it sounds like the facts haven't been sufficiently investigated for him to claim that the desertion charge is unjust.
The Bush campaign said he fulfilled his duties... but according to records... he left to work on an Alabama Senate campaing and never reported in... skipped physicals... training...
Some say that's AWOL... the rules seem to say it could be desertion too.
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...o/mcm/bl85.htm
desertion
Text.
Ò(a) Any member of the armed forces whoÑ
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956); is guilty of desertion.
here's a fairly indepth covering of the issues...
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_01...09814210417564
Bob Rogers at Progressive Trail -- himself a former military officer -- explains further:
According to the Boston Globe -- the only major publication that has examined the last two years of Bush's military service in depth -- Bush simply "gave up flying" to spend six months on a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama.
But this explanation is highly suspect, because fully trained and currently qualified pilots with two remaining years of flying obligation are rarely permitted to simply "give up" without some form of disciplinary action beyond just suspension.
A pilot's completion of his six-year obligation is especially important because of the heavy investment the Government makes to provide jet fighter pilots with two full years of active duty training. In today's money, the US Government paid close to a million dollars to train 1st Lt. Bush in a highly complex supersonic aircraft.
....
A few of those on the right have tried to compare Bush's behavior here to Bill Clinton's well-chronicled avoidance of the draft. The difference, of course, is not merely one of degree but substantively of kind: Clinton neither broke the law in his behavior, nor flouted or undermined basic rules of military conduct, nor wasted taxpayer dollars in the process.
Though of course, we all remember how many critics of the mainstream right have referred to Clinton as a "draft dodger" -- which, like "deserter," is a term that refers specifically to acts of law-breaking. But then, I can't recall anyone demanding that George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole renounce the people who uttered those characterizations, either.
I just find it interesting that people are willing to Question Clark's electability because he think's Moore is entitled to his opinion.... but noone is willing to question Bush's re-election bid based on the AWOL/Desertion question never being resolved.
Comments
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Peter Jennings tried to GOTCHA Clark at the debate last week... Micheal Moore has endorsed Clark.
Peter Jennings trying to nail Clark on "facts"... when it sounds like the facts haven't been sufficiently investigated ...
You gotta be kidding me? This has been beaten into the ground. Besides Moore is a known liar.
The Natl Guard/Air Reserve has much more lax rules on such things than the std military. You can skip, as long as you make up later. Sounds like what happened. *shrug* Dunno. Duncare.
Noone has been found that served with Bush during his last 2 years out of his 6 years of duty.
here's the definition of AWOL
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...o/mcm/bl86.htm
Article 86?Absence without leave
Text. ÒAny member of the armed forces who, without authorityÑ
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.Ó
Elements.
(1) Failure to go to appointed place of duty.
(a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;
(b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and
(c) That the accused, without authority, failed to go to the appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.
(2) Going from appointed place of duty.
(a) That a certain authority appointed a certain time and place of duty for the accused;
(b) That the accused knew of that time and place; and
(c) That the accused, without authority, went from the appointed place of duty after having reported at such place.
(3) Absence from unit, organization, or place of duty.
(a) That the accused absented himself or her-self from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she was required to be;
(b) That the absence was without authority from anyone competent to give him or her leave; and
(c) That the absence was for a certain period of time. Note: if the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element
(d) That the absence was terminated by apprehension.
Clark handled the debate very poorly. This is like the fight with your girlfriend when you figure out all the right argments the next day.
A couple of articles about it:
CNN.
Texas Gov. George W. Bush on Tuesday dismissed a newspaper report suggesting he had not fulfilled his Texas Air National Guard service.
"I spent my time and I went to the Guard. It's just not true. I did the duty necessary...any allegations other than that are simply not true," Bush said.
An article in Tuesday's Boston Globe reports a one-year gap in Bush 's service record with the Texas Air National Guard, with no record of any drill activity from May 1972 to April 1973. Attendance at regular drills was a requirement of part-time Air National Guard members.
Bush joined the Air National Air Guard as a pilot in 1968 and served the first four years of his service based in Houston. In 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on the U.S. Senate campaign of Winton M. Blount, where he said he fulfilled his guard service locally on weekends. Upon leaving the campaign, Bush moved back to Houston where he completed the remainder of his six-year Air National Guard commitment.
Responding to the Globe's report that his Alabama base commander had no recollection of Bush ever showing for drills, the governor said "I pulled duty in Alabama and I read the comments and the guy said he didn't remember me. That's 27 years ago, but I remember being there."
Asked about his Air National Guard attendance record, Bush told reporters it was "spotty attendance but I did the duty necessary... I did the time that was required in the Guard."
Bush acknowledged that he was granted special permission to fulfill part of his Guard service in Alabama and that he was also given an early release to attend Harvard Business School, but denied that it was due to any favoritism because of his father's prominence.
WaPo.
AUSTIN ?? After a thorough search of military records, George W. Bush's presidential campaign has failed to find any documents proving he reported for duty during an eight-month stint in Alabama with the Texas Air National Guard.
But a spokesman expressed confidence Saturday that inquiries will turn up former Guard members who can corroborate Bush's having been there.
"He specifically recalls pulling duty in Alabama," spokesman Dan Bartlett said of Bush. "He did his drills."
http://www.awolbush.com/
I believe the argument runs that he is both AWOL and a deserter, and to my knowledge he has not spoken publicly about this missing year.
Mother Jones also points out that Bush's "absence" coincides with the ANG beginning drug screening of its pilots.
And no, this issue has never been resolved.
Cheers
Scott
During his fifth year as a guardsman, Bush's records show no sign he appeared for duty.
May 24, 1972: Bush, who has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race, gets permission to serve with a reserve unit in Alabama. But headquarters decided Bush must serve with a more active unit.
Sept. 5, 1972: Bush is granted permission to do his Guard duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery. But Bush's record shows no evidence he did the duty, and the unit commander says he never showed up.
November 1972 to April 30, 1973: Bush returns to Houston, but apparently not to his Air Force unit.
May 2, 1973: The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not been at the unit in that period.
May to July 1973: Bush, after special orders are issued for him to report for duty, logs 36 days of duty.
July 30, 1973: His last day in uniform, according to his records.
Oct. 1, 1973: A month after Bush starts at Harvard Business School, he is formally discharged from the Texas Air National Guard -- eight months before his six-year term expires.
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bush102.htm
http://www.seanet.com/~johnco/bushservice.htm
Originally posted by Anders
And all this was 30 years ago. Let it rest. If thats what the democrats are going to attact him on I´ll vote bush just in spite.
Well that's just dumb.
But a spokesman expressed confidence Saturday that inquiries will turn up former Guard members who can corroborate Bush's having been there.
The corroborating gaurdsmen are there-- mark my words! If not in Alabama then they were possibly moved to Georgia... or bunkers...
Doesn't that seem strange?
The accusation is beyond the pale even if it's true?
Bush should get a free ride... twice?
And Clark who served and was wounded in Vietnam and was a Commander in Kosovo should denounce Moore? Unelectable because he won't?
Doesn't seem at all twisted to anyone?
Originally posted by Anders
And all this was 30 years ago. Let it rest. If thats what the democrats are going to attact him on I´ll vote bush just in spite.
LOL touched a nerve there or something? If spite is what you resort to to decide who to vote for, maybe you shouldn't vote to begin with. This isn't junior high.
Back on topic. I remember reading an article recently that quoted the superiors Bush had to report to the last year or so. They said he never did.
Originally posted by Anders
And all this was 30 years ago. Let it rest.
OK, but Jennings asked a poor question, by suggesting that this was obviously factually untrue and that Clark should therefore have immediately denounced one of his supporters for saying it. What a biased question. It's not obviously factually untrue at all. This is just more of the "how dare you engage in hate speech against our president" crap.
"Since you bring it up Peter. I actually want to comment on Mr. Moores accusations against Bush. You know as a good democrat I say forgive and forget so I won´t use it against Bush in my debates with him if he doesn´t bring it up. But there has been a lot of accussations against Moore for what he said. Some people have called him a liar. But I asked him. I asked: "That are some serious accusations you have against Bush, Moore. Can you prove that stuff you are saying?". And he showed me these papers. And as a former general I must say that the papers he presented me really DO suggest that Bush never did end his military duties. Now a lot of the folks accusing Moore of lying come from the Bush camp so I would really want them to show us that what we are seeing is wrong. If they do then I agree with you. Them Moore went too far with his accusations"
Taadaa. Can loose on that one, no matter if or not Bush has a problem.
But instead Clark didn´t know what to say. He dropped the ball. So Moveon
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, but Jennings asked a poor question, by suggesting that this was obviously factually untrue and that Clark should therefore have immediately denounced one of his supporters for saying it. What a biased question. It's not obviously factually untrue at all. This is just more of the "how dare you engage in hate speech against our president" crap.
BRussell you are a murder. I'll refuse to denounce this until it's proven untrue.
Aquatic: I tend to agree with you here, but remember there's still 10 months or so to go before the election. There's a ton or **** that'll come out before then.
Originally posted by Scott
BRussell you are a murder. I'll refuse to denounce this until it's proven untrue.
A reporter looked for records of Bush's service, found it except for the missing time. They asked Bush's campaign, they claimed there was documentation of it, but never produced any. The commanders at the base said they don't remember him but would have remembered a congressman's son if he had been there.
So that's not quite the same. A better analogy would be that my friend was murdered, I was the last one seen with him, and I have no alibi. In that case, I'd probably be locked up unless I can provide positive proof of an alibi.