George Bush: AWOL

Orcinus has a nice discussion of the ongoing flap regarding Michael Moore’s having called Bush a “deserter,” and Peter Jennings (and other media types) then pushing Wesley Clark to repudiate the statement. More specifically, Orcinus focuses on the too-hasty effort by Bush supporters (like Donald Sensing) to sweep under the rug the question of just what Bush might actually be guilty of, assuming that a strict reading of the Uniform Code of Military Justice exonerates him from a charge of desertion: AWOL Bush: Debunked? Hardly!

5 Responses to “George Bush: AWOL”

  1. Jimmy Says:

    how about the strict reading of Bush’s military records hmmm?? try Honorary discharge you stupid morons.

  2. Craig Says:

    There are arguments and evidence on both sides of this issue. =http://www.obbsonline.blogspot.com/2003_05_01_hobbsonline_archive.html#93934189 This, in the end, is another ghost accusation that registers a large collective yawn from those who are Bush zelots, strong supporters, casual supporters, and even swing voters.

    The bottom line that the voters, whom activists and Bush-haters would like influence, understand is simply this: that Bush served in the Guard, did his time, learned to fly, and got an honorable discharge!

    You can go in and try to make your points that he didn’t do some aspects of his service exactly “by the book”, but this type of “guilt by technicality” argument is met with a blank stare.

    Why do you suppose the Democratic Party hasn’t made as much of this issue as some of its insistent members? Because they also see the reality of wasted energy on a politically worthless argument.

    But its just another little itch on the body of the Bush haters that they can’t resist scratching from time to time to make themselves feel better.

    If they ever put some of that lost energy being wasted on Guard Service and stolen elections and put it on issues that would matter to the voting public, they might start to actually become relevant.

    Shhhhh, don’t tell them.

  3. Mike Says:

    Not showing up for duty for an entire year is most certainly not a “technicality”. Whether or not voters care about the fact that the Commander-in-Chief has commited such an offense against his country is a matter for each one of them to decide for him- or herself.

    Nor does his shirking of his past military duty jibe well with the image that he and his apologists like to project of a strong military leader. Nor do the fact jibe with the lies he has told about his military service.

    In addition, the fact that he received an honorary discharge despite what he did only serves to bolster one of the chief problems with his military service–namely the favoritism that he received. He was the beneficiary of favoritism in the first place just by leapfrogging over all those people on the waiting list so that he could avoid military service. His mysterious grounding during the last period of his military “service” has yet to be explained–did he fail a drug test, or just refuse to take the physical because he knew he would? Given that, despite having not showed up for duty, he still got an honorable discharge (and an early one at that!) is the perfect bookend to the favoritism he was given at the beginning by making into the National Guard in the first place.

    Do voters care enough about Bush’s lies and hypocrisy on this issue such that it will influence their vote? Time will tell. There are so many other lies that he has told while president that maybe they don’t care what he did 30 years ago. Then again, he himself has played up his image as a military leader, and the whole Abraham Lincoln fiasco points to the fact that he likes to make connections to his military “service” for his own military game. So this really should be a fair issue to bring up in the campaign.

  4. Jonas Cord Says:

    It dont matter what the Democrats say and the fact that they cannot make an issue out of it. The bottom line is that the Republicans are embarassed about George using daddy’s influence for getting him out of the military reserve. At least Clinton was against the war. What was Bush’s excuse? It is a disgrace and a mockery to thousands who died in Vietnam fighting a corrupt war for the generals and the Defense Department. Only morons who are sheep follow their leader like herds; this goes for the Democrats and Bush supporters.

    If Kerry wins, at least he was man enough to go to Vietnam and not a coward.

  5. clarence swinney Says:

    no debate. look at almost 200 lie

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.