Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

FROSTY28

Dubya's Military Record -- An Issue That Won't Go Away?

Recommended Posts

Hey, at least Slick Willie took time to write a letter. Slick Dick Cheney just said he "had more pressing matters" than serving his country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Looks like sfrench wins on a technicality. His claim, that previous administrations never made the statement "I loathe the military" appears borne out by your evidence.

Yes, and attempting to avoid the issue via "technicalities" was another one of Clinton's dubious traits.

Your statement, AtB, has about as much credibility as Clinton's attempt to redefine "sexual relations".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by OaktonSkinsFan

Yes, and attempting to avoid the issue via "technicalities" was another one of Clinton's dubious traits.

Your statement, AtB, has about as much credibility as Clinton's attempt to redefine "sexual relations".

Yup, just playing along. :) That's why I fully admitted it's a technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Looks like sfrench wins on a technicality. His claim, that previous administrations never made the statement "I loathe the military" appears borne out by your evidence.

Sorry.

Technically, I'm correct.

See, I never made the claim that came from an "adminisrtation", Navy Dave did. I merely repeated Clintons words. It was more than appearent that his philosophy never changed by his treatment of the military during his administration.

I'm still waiting sfrench

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Kilmer17

According to the military, there is no missing time in his service record.

Kilmer, on what do you base that statement? Because he received an honorable discharge? Fair enough, as far as it goes. But the way I understand it, if you go to the military and ask they are unable to produce records that refute those "gaps". In fact, from what I read all you will find are that his supervisors at his posts in Houston and Alabama said he never showed up for duty. They say this now, but they also said it at the time when it was time for his evaluation. There appears to be no military person and no military record that vouches for his whereabouts and for his fulfilling the necessary credits.

There does exist a document that seems to prove Bush fulfilled his requirement. I'm not sure who's actually seen this document, but its described as a torn sheet of paper bearing GWB's SSN but not his name, and sufficient credits. But I believe that document was unearthed by the Bush campaign in 2000, not the military. Can you show me that this is a record we can find in military files? I'm not bashing; you sound quite confident so I wonder whether you might know.

Originally posted by IAMBG

GWB had his whole military service probed and written about by several liberal publications. JFK Jr's mag, NYTIMES, WPOST and one other. Cna't remeber. They all confiremed that he was legit, served during a time of war (after LBJ declared that Nat'l Guard troops would be sent to Vietnam) and was honorably discharged therefore having sucessfully completed his service which was 21 months of active duty. The stuff about absences and special treatment are lies.

Now that's not exactly true. The Times, Post, etc. have been all over the map. Some of their articles continue to raise the question, some accept the idea that he fulfilled his requirement. The ones that back up Bush accept without question the validity of the torn document I mentioned above. But I'm not sure the origin of the document has been explained. I'm interested to find out whether the military can produce its own copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Kilmer, on what do you base that statement? Because he received an honorable discharge? Fair enough, as far as it goes. But the way I understand it, if you go to the military and ask they are unable to produce records that refute those "gaps". In fact, from what I read all you will find are that his supervisors at his posts in Houston and Alabama said he never showed up for duty. They say this now, but they also said it at the time when it was time for his evaluation. There appears to be no military person and no military record that vouches for his whereabouts and for his fulfilling the necessary credits.

There does exist a document that seems to prove Bush fulfilled his requirement. I'm not sure who's actually seen this document, but its described as a torn sheet of paper bearing GWB's SSN but not his name, and sufficient credits. But I believe that document was unearthed by the Bush campaign in 2000, not the military. Can you show me that this is a record we can find in military files? I'm not bashing; you sound quite confident so I wonder whether you might know.

Now that's not exactly true. The Times, Post, etc. have been all over the map. Some of their articles continue to raise the question, some accept the idea that he fulfilled his requirement. The ones that back up Bush accept without question the validity of the torn document I mentioned above. But I'm not sure the origin of the document has been explained. I'm interested to find out whether the military can produce its own copy.

Jimbo - why aren't you furious about Clinton's letter and actions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know, in some way Clinton must have been a GREAT president. Because even years after his presidency some of you are unable to discuss any subject at all without considering how this man dealt with the same topic.

Don't know about "his actions", that covers a lot of ground. I don't like that sentence about the military.

But that has nothing to do with a discussion about GWB's background. Why do you need to change the subject, do you have nothing to add to the thread?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimbo, you hit the nail on the head.

There is proof that he fulfilled his duties. Any missed time (he freely admits that their was missed time) was made up within the rules of the Guard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JimboDaMan

Y'know, in some way Clinton must have been a GREAT president. Because even years after his presidency some of you are unable to discuss any subject at all without considering how this man dealt with the same topic.

Don't know about "his actions", that covers a lot of ground. I don't like that sentence about the military.

But that has nothing to do with a discussion about GWB's background. Why do you need to change the subject, do you have nothing to add to the thread?

Because you are quick to condemn Bush for seemingly nothing regarding his military service. And, yet, when confronted (in this thread and elsewhere) with the disgusting truth about Clinton, you do not condemn him. It's called inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see this turned from a questioning of Dubyas military service to a bashing of Clinton.....socker there.......by the way for those that are interested the military liked Clinton...because he was pretty hands off...were as the military doesn't like Bush as much because he put that a**hole Rumsfeld in charge who constantly pisses them off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Funkyalligator

......by the way for those that are interested the military liked Clinton...because he was pretty hands off...were as the military doesn't like Bush as much because he put that a**hole Rumsfeld in charge who constantly pisses them off

I have no great ax to grind with Clinton, but thats as patently false a statement as any I've ever seen posted here. 'The military', as much as you can describe hundreds of thousands of servicemen and woman as a single unit, did not 'like Clinton'. He was the Commander in Chief, and in the military, the Commander in Chief gets the respect that goes with that title. But I know not a single Marine Corps officer of that time period (and I personally knew a slew of them) who felt the military was better off with Bill Clinton running the show than the previous or current administrations. Its just absolutely false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reallly...I know a lot....they might not have liked Clinton very much but he at least did his best to support the military instead of cutting benefits and such to veterans like Bush has done...also Rumsfeld has managed to antagonize most of the leading generals to point were they really hate him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by The Evil Genius

And the very same people who turn a blind eye to Dubya were the 1st in line to chastise Bubba for draft dodging.

Dubya has a large whole in his record. That's a point of fact. That large whole goes beyond the term awol (which is like within 90 days I believe) - desertion of post is the most accurate term I believe.

Does anyone truly believe that Bush senior didn't have some pull into helping Dubya avoid a dishonorable discharge?

I liek the guy, believe or not - and do support him on many issues. But I am calling a spade a spade here. Dubya did, it appears, desert his post.

No, it's not either. Have you ever served in the military? I'm betting you haven't. Desertion only applies to active duty personnel. To call someone who was in the guard or reserve a deserter is idiotic to say the least. Quit trying to copy off that fat F'ck Michael Moore...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd never say that Dubya deserted that is just horrible...he might have fudged a few things here and there but its not a big deal....the only reason I see to attack Bush on this issue is to get revenge for the attacks other Republicans have made against democrats on similar stupid little things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct that Rumsfeld is a threatening figure to a lot of senior military officers, but thats not necessarily a bad thing. Career officers are entrenched in bureaucracy. They don't want change, they don't like change, they'll do almost anything to avoid it. The civilian-military relationship in DC has ALWAYS been a love-hate, respect-fear relationship. But the military would never change its approach without occasional guys like Rumsfeld putting a boot up their @ss or otherwise stirring up the hornets.

You can argue a lot of things, but arguing that the military was 'better off under' and 'liked' Clinton's stewardship is way out there. I think I'd be hard-pressed to find a veteran who'd be able to say it with a straight face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Funkyalligator

Lets see this turned from a questioning of Dubyas military service to a bashing of Clinton.....socker there.......by the way for those that are interested the military liked Clinton...because he was pretty hands off...were as the military doesn't like Bush as much because he put that a**hole Rumsfeld in charge who constantly pisses them off

I was active duty Air Force from 1992-1997 and everyone I knew thought Clinton was a horrible Commander-in-Chief and a douchebag for being a draft dodger...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS...I'm checking out of this thread Funky, you've a right to your opinion....I'm not up for the Tailgate bashings these days...detracts from the usual positive vibe of extreme for me. So on that note....have a great day :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.