DESERTERAn examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a deserter by the United States Air Force.
posted by Postroad (66 comments total)
Stop the presses! Wingnut with internet access has axe to grind! posted by loquax at 1:19 PM on June 30, 2004
loqaux: An excellent and thorough analysis of that facts and topic at hand! Your logic and debate skills leave me speechless and in awe. Good work, my man. posted by xmutex at 1:22 PM on June 30, 2004
loquax - Have you read the linked page? I'll admit I've only been following this story off and on, but the site has a great deal of information I hadn't seen before. And even though I've only read about half of I'd say it does an excellent job of carefully presenting the facts. I see primary sources from top to bottom.
Please point out the "Wingnut" section of their case. posted by y6y6y6 at 1:36 PM on June 30, 2004
There's a lot of loquax' variety of messenger-shooting going on; check out Kristof's take on F9/11 in today's (oh-so-left-biased) NYT. He's basically saying that because the 'Clinton death lists' and other wholly invented drivel aimed at Clinton were scurrilous and false, this film must be scurrilous and false too. Any accusation against anybody is just plain wrong! Empty the prisons! Y'see, it's now wrong to accuse people, let alone indict and convict them. The facts have no bearing; all accusations are now just plain wrong and immoral. posted by George_Spiggott at 1:41 PM on June 30, 2004
If you take the time to actually read through what this site compiles, it presents - I think for the first time - a fairly straightforward representation of Bush's last two years of Air National Guard "service." Anybody with a functioning brain has already realized that the whole truth is not being told about this period. To examine the details of the period and follow them to their logical conclusion is to be confronted with the fact that this President and those around him are flat-out lying about those years. "War President," my fart-burning ass... The double-standard of the President's supporters - who wanted to essentially crucify President Clinton for using a legal and above-board student deferment - is just awe-inspiring. posted by JollyWanker at 1:43 PM on June 30, 2004
Oh come on, people. Give it a rest already. Fine, conceded, Bush is a draft dodger. That dirty chickenhawk. So now what? Impeach him? Arrest him? Is this the biggest problem your country has? And I though we had been over all of this stuff. Should I post the "Starr report - 5 years later" next? Didn't Clinton dodge the draft too? Who cares? Attack Bush on his record as president, there's plenty there. This kind of garbage scores 0 points with voters, and serves only to paint fanatical anti-Bushies with the same brush as the Gingriches and Limbaughs that went after Clinton.
This is not inspired political dialogue, this is tabloid, partisan nonsense. Whatever point you think you've proven, congratulations. Enjoy preaching to the choir. posted by loquax at 1:53 PM on June 30, 2004
Please, let me state, for the record, if anyone is keeping tabs, that if I were an American citizen, I would vote for John Kerry. But for real reasons, not because Bush snorted coke 30 years ago, or because he can't spit out a complete sentence, or because he belongs to secret societies with his dad. Not even because he lies and abuses his power and connections, because guess what? Every president since 1776 has done just that.
I'm upset with this kind of thing, and I apologize if I offended anyone. I'm upset because this kind of discussion is fit for USA today, or the NY Post, or AM radio call in shows. I would have hoped that the fine and intelligent folks at metafilter could do better in illustrating their points than dredging up what is essentially a dead and buried silly story, and one that didn't have much to it when it was alive. Seriously, these are tactics and mud-slinging that are deplorable on both sides, not because they're untrue, but because they are totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Not only that, but Matt has said on several occasions that single source op-ed type posts are no good, and has deleted threads on both sides for that reason. That's why I made my snarky comment, and I apologize for it.
If none of this makes sense to you, fine, just try not to alienate moderate Democrats with single-minded zealotry. posted by loquax at 2:12 PM on June 30, 2004
Yeah, what sort of wide-eyed crazed lunatic would take up issue with the apparent fact that man who did everything in his nepotistic powers to avoid serving in the military would later become President and march not only his own country into an unnecessary and, to say the least, poorly justified war but also as much of the entire world as he could manage with his amazing diplomatic powers? Who could possibly see that issue as a gross and distressing moral conflict, if not an outright ethical failure or abuse? Certainly only some bitter, confused partisan, right? posted by xmutex at 2:13 PM on June 30, 2004
Fine, conceded, Bush is a draft dodger. That dirty chickenhawk. So now what? Impeach him? Arrest him?
Draft the motherfucker posted by Satapher at 2:18 PM on June 30, 2004
xmutex, fine, I said that I agreed with you. But now what? Use it against him to remove him from office? It won't work. It didn't work months ago when this was first a story. It's not my fault or your fault that voters don't care, or see this as an unfair and partisan attack. There is such a thing in politics as choosing your battles. All I'm saying is that this one is about as unwinnable and irrelevant as you can get. I would never say the same thing in terms of say, PATRIOT, or stem cell research, or farm subsidies. posted by loquax at 2:26 PM on June 30, 2004
loquax, it's great that you stopped and made your point clear... but I confess I still don't comprehend it. What this documents is an extraordinary abuse of power and connections, a poverty of ethics and an almost breathtakingly self-serving use of the military with the active collusion of powerful family cronies. It really doesn't take any great leap to see how this applies to his fitness for the most powerful (and dangerous) office on Earth, nor to see how his present use of that office is a straightforward and completely predictable extension of that pattern. If he was willing to misuse the military, violate his oath and break the law for his personal ends then, it's becomes very difficult to see any difference in what he's doing with it now; but the real and potential consequences of that abuse in the present instance are incalculably greater. Saying it's old news is head-in-the-sand ignorance of the first order. posted by George_Spiggott at 2:27 PM on June 30, 2004
I have no trouble believing that Bush *did* do everything within his nepotistic powers to avoid military service, but the way this alarmist, single-sourced, dishonestly worded FPP presents the case only draws attention *away* from that fact. Which, by the way, should be much less important to a discussion of his presidency than events that actually occurred during it.
Oh, and yet again, the way you jumped on loquax for (albeit harshly) pointing this out further illustrates the hypocrisy prevalent in political discussions here. Go ahead and enjoy your self-affirming collective suppression of the invididual opinion. posted by Krrrlson at 2:27 PM on June 30, 2004
Fine, conceded, Bush is a draft dodger. That dirty chickenhawk. So now what? Impeach him? Arrest him?
First off ... unless you've read the entire link (a very well-researched one, from all appearances), I suggest that your knee-jerk, uninformed opinion is unwelcome. Inform yourself, consider what's presented and then chime in, please.
Furthermore, "deserter" was the legal term used, not "draft dodger". However, that's not the real issue here, is it?
Do you not find it relevant that the analysis of the documents point to Bush having used his family's power and government connections to falsify military records in order to make it look as if he had completed his service when he hadn't? If true, that astonishing bit of cover-up begs so many more questions. Who perpetrated the cover-up? Why go to all that trouble to cover it up? What else did he/they have to hide? And more important, if they were willing and able to do that then, now that Bush has the presidency, what are he and his cronies willing and able to do now?
On preview: what George_Spiggott said. posted by chuq at 2:33 PM on June 30, 2004
MetaFilter: Self-affirming collective suppression of the invididual opinion posted by xmutex at 2:35 PM on June 30, 2004
"... I soon realized that what are supposedly the worst things (lying, to mention only one) are hard to do only when you have never done them; but that each of them becomes, and so quickly! easy, pleasant, sweet in the repetition, and soon a second nature."
-- Andre Gide posted by Satapher at 2:35 PM on June 30, 2004
Uhh, websavvy, is there a relevant call-out in MeTa, or were you just presenting the features of the community? posted by trharlan at 2:36 PM on June 30, 2004
So now what? Impeach him? Arrest him?
Sure. Either of those would be fine.
Is this the biggest problem your country has?
It certainly does seem that way, lately. posted by Mars Saxman at 2:41 PM on June 30, 2004
chuq, yes, I apologized and I'll apologize again for being too harsh. I was condescending, but I'm hardly the only person ever to be that way around here. Seriously, take a look through the other threads on Iraq when someone makes even a slightly pro-Bush comment. Take a look at Civil_Disobedient's calls to violent overthrow and shooting those with whom he disagrees. Not that it's an excuse, but cut me a little slack.
Who perpetrated the cover-up?
Assuming there was one, Bush's pals. Just like Clinton tired to cover up Lewinski and Whitewater. Just like Nixon tried to cover up Watergate. Just like Kennedy tried to cover up his affairs. Just like just about everyone in a position of power attempts to use that position for their own gain. Not that this is a good thing, but it's hardly a revelation.
Why go to all that trouble to cover it up?
Well, this thread for starters.
What else did he/they have to hide?
Probably a whole bunch of stuff. Just like everyone does, but are unable to.
And more important, if they were willing and able to do that then, now that Bush has the presidency, what are he and his cronies willing and able to do now?
I think we've seen what they are willing and able to do. This is exactly my point. Attack Cheney for his misdeeds as VP, attack Rumsfeld for his policies as Secretary of Defense, attack Bush for what he's done as President.
Why bother attacking him for covering up his lack of a service record 30 years ago? In the grand scheme of things, is this not the least of his offences? Does it not detract from the more serious charges levied against him here and elsewhere? Can you really not see the parallels between this and Clinton's pot smoking and womanizing, in principle if not in content? Moral outrage and fitness to rule were the cries against him during his presidency, and it disgusted me then.
Again, what would be your proposal for punishment? Seriously? I think the statute of limitations has run out on document forging or going AWOL. Your best bet to punish him is to attack him on the course of his presidency, and hope that he loses the election. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a feeling that this story won't help do that. posted by loquax at 2:49 PM on June 30, 2004
loquax - So............ First it's crazy talk. Then when people point out it's carefully documented and well reasoned, it's suddenly not important. What next? When someone points out how this is important to the election, you will discount it how?
1) Certain things rise to such a high level of hypocrisy that they do indeed become valid election issues. Bush has such issues in spades. I, and most Americans, don't mind our presidents being human. But certain things just cross the line. And when there is a lie and a cover up, as there seems to have been here, we Americans tend to get very pissed. A smoking gun like this is enough to sway many undecideds. Right? And that being the case, I don't see why you have a problem with someone laying out a well documented case for it.
2) This is about as far from an op-ed as you can get.
3) I don't know how things look from where ever you are, but over here in the States, we're having a great crisis of faith with the idea that our president can be trusted. He doesn't seem too smart sometimes, really important things he told us 15 months ago were wrong, things aren't going very well on either the foreign or domestic fronts, and the focus these days is squarely on military matters. Given all that it seems natural to have an interest in whether the president ducked his military duty.
4) Most people have written off this story just as you did at the top of this post. But the site makes a much better case than anything I've seen before. I think it would change many minds. Before we had tinfoil hat stuff. Now we have hard evidence.
I think you protest too much.
Personally I don't care if people in the sixties tried to get out of the draft. It was a weird time. I might have dome the same. But when they lie about it, and the other candidate risked his life in the war you avoided............ Yeah, I think it matters.
"Just like Clinton tired to cover up Lewinski and Whitewater. Just like Nixon tried to cover up Watergate."
We impeached those two. posted by y6y6y6 at 2:58 PM on June 30, 2004
"We impeached those two."
Actually, one was impeached and the other resigned.
Either of those outcomes with the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue would suit me just fine. posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:10 PM on June 30, 2004
y6y6y6, maybe you're right. You make some good points, and maybe I was too quick to judge. I didn't mean to imply that it was crazy talk, in fact, I agreed shortly thereafter that Bush likely did skip out on his service, and I would not be surprised that he covered it up.
I just remember when I posted an environmental assessment that had some positive news in it, and it got ripped apart as being partisan, and obviously coming from Bush's back pocket. Maybe that was true, but why is this community so accepting of this type of site? Do these folks not have an agenda? Are they not biased? Do they not stand to profit in various ways from their findings? Should their conclusions not be taken with the same grain of salt that all news sources are? I tried, before I posted, to see who had come up with this report, but there's no claim of responsibility. So it's basically an anonymous collage of facts.
As for the importance of the story, maybe you are right again. I'm up in Canada, and I don't have the same perspective as many of you on the domestic affairs in the US. Trusting GWB is not a big issue for me, and I'm far more concerned with his actions now, especially in the realm of foreign policy, because they are the ones that primarily affect me. So I'll accept that covering up his shady lack of service is contributing to the crisis of faith in the US. It makes no sense to me, and I can see far more important issues that would contribute to that, but I likely don't have the same perspective you do.
As for Nixon and Clinton, they were impeached because of what they did during their respective terms, not for events 30 years earlier. posted by loquax at 3:26 PM on June 30, 2004
What this documents is an extraordinary abuse of power and connections
It wasn't extraordinary. It was common at the time to use connections or money in different forms to avoid going to The Nam. This particular path is sleazier-seeming than, say, Clinton's deferments, but...
While I don't like it much, and have no use for Bush, I have to admit that I don't think most people see trying to get out of Vietnam as particularly scurrilous. It's what lots of scared kids-and-barely-older did then, through whatever means they had available. If you already don't like the guy, it's another reason not to, but I don't think it's going to make much difference to most people. Too many people, it seems, see avoiding Vietnam as just one of those things that normal people did back then. posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:31 PM on June 30, 2004
Good link, Postroad. Thanks. posted by homunculus at 3:33 PM on June 30, 2004
FWIW (betterwhois.com):
Registrant Name : lukasiak, paul
Registrant Organization : goddam librul commie queers of the USA
Google link pretty much maps out the vast left-wing psychosphere. posted by swell at 3:37 PM on June 30, 2004
Do these folks not have an agenda? Are they not biased?
Errrr I've watched you backpeddle in this thread Lo-quack. So, where SHOULD people go for information that will lack an agenda and/or bias, given how much of a know-it-all you present yourself to be? posted by rough ashlar at 3:39 PM on June 30, 2004
ROU_Xenophobe, avoiding the draft by legitimately (disregarding the pull that got him jumped over hundreds of applicants ahead of him) taking service in the air national guard is not the crime. The crime is desertion after he took service. I don't think there are very many people in America who would consider a deserter fit for the Presidency if you put the question to them. It might not be possible as a matter of law: if he fits the military's definition of deserter, can he legally serve as commander in chief of the US armed forces? And would any sane person let him? posted by George_Spiggott at 3:39 PM on June 30, 2004
Sorry rough ashlar, instead of conceding that I may have jumped the gun, and apologizing, and trying to clarify my views what should I have done? Ranted and raved without reading and acknowledging the valid criticism aimed at me?
Oh, and thanks for making fun of my username, but I'll decline to answer your question. posted by loquax at 3:45 PM on June 30, 2004
loquax...Nixon wasn't impeached...he resigned. Just to be factual. posted by SweetIceT at 3:52 PM on June 30, 2004
"I just remember when I posted an environmental assessment that had some positive news in it, and it got ripped apart as being partisan, and obviously coming from Bush's back pocket."
Ah, I see. If it's not tinfoil hat stuff, and it's important to the election, so it must be partisan and biased. So if we can show that it's not partisan and biased, what will be the argument then?
I'm kidding. It's just that you amaze me with your constant back pedaling. Most fake liberals have the sense to just shut up after they've been outed. You just keep coming.
Seriously though. The site is very up front about is partisan nature and it's goals. How does pointing out the obvious lesson it's impact? If the document is indeed biased then you'll have to point that bias out. I don't see any. In fact it looks like they've gone far out of their way to present a "just the facts mam" case, and back up all conclusions with primary sources.
Indeed I would lobby you that this document is refreshing in it's avoidance of spin and hyperbole. Would you not agree that if posters here at MetaFilter put together this solid and, dare I say, unbiased a case they'd be quickly called out in MetaTalk for their wonderful effort?
So, it's not looney, it matters, and it's purposefully unbiased.
I think you're all being too hard on loquax. He/she is doing a good job of being civil even when others aren't being civil back. I hope Loquax continues to disagree with stuff and do it in a thoughtful way. Loquax has even admitted mistakes, how many other Metafilter ArgumentLovers do that?! posted by chaz at 4:09 PM on June 30, 2004
chaz: I'll certainly be right there admitting a mistake if I ever should make one. posted by xmutex at 4:11 PM on June 30, 2004
xmutex, reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw today:
People who think they know everything annoy the fuck out of those of us who do. posted by chaz at 4:13 PM on June 30, 2004
"Loquax has even admitted mistakes"
This goes to the heart of my hammering. Several times I've been in threads where loquax has trashed something out of hand when it was negative to Bush. But then he'll quickly backtrack and start telling us how he's a Kerry supporter and how messed up Bush is.
It seems odd. Why trash lefty posts that he ends up agreeing with in the end? posted by y6y6y6 at 4:18 PM on June 30, 2004
avoiding the draft by legitimately (disregarding the pull that got him jumped over hundreds of applicants ahead of him) taking service in the air national guard is not the crime. The crime is desertion after he took service
And it seems that, for most people, this is not much more serious than getting an educational deferment and not going to class. I'm not trying to defend it, just noting that whatever its objective merits, most people in the US seem not to care very much.
It might not be possible as a matter of law: if he fits the military's definition of deserter, can he legally serve as commander in chief of the US armed forces?
Yes. The only legal bars to being President are not being old enough, not being a natural-born citizen with enough years of residency, having served twice before (blah yadda for veeps), or having been convicted following impeachment with the punishment of no-further-officeholding imposed. That's it, period. You can be of bad character, clinically insane, a heroin addict, a convicted axe-murderer, or doing time in prison, and legally become President if you somehow convince a majority of electors to vote for you, so long as you meet the very few legal requirements. posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 4:26 PM on June 30, 2004
I think you're all being too hard on loquax.
Really? How is "Stop the presses! Wingnut with internet access has axe to grind!
posted by loquax at 1:19 PM PST on June 30
" a useful comment? The google link to the author was FAR more useful. Rather than address the message, Loquax attacked the person who compiled the data. Seems that what Loquax dishes out, he can't take.
The data is FAR more than I have on the matter and the author seems to write from knowledge on the topic of what the Bush service record shows. And what has been presented doesn't have alot of rebuttal other than "So what? That happened 30 years ago" - from the school of minimize the damage via spin.
Loquax's latest position on his backpeddling is about how the FPP author has an adgenda and is biased. And it seems he can't be bothered to provide all the non-biased and non-adgenda sites for data he uses to generate the 'stop the presses' position he took, and the position he took to 'discredit' the data gathering presented about Bush's service.
Loquax knows internet wingnut because he can see himself in his monitor's reflection. If he's got data that actually show the data is forged or the interpertation is wrong, lets see it. Oh, and lets see it from someone without an adgenda or bias, becuase, well, Loquax is gonna have to be better than the other guy. posted by rough ashlar at 4:33 PM on June 30, 2004
that's it! the new Bush/Cheney slogan!
Bush/Cheney 04: of bad character, clinically insane, a heroin addict, a convicted axe-murderer, etc posted by amberglow at 4:34 PM on June 30, 2004
y6y6y6, I never claimed that I was a liberal. I said that I would likely vote for Kerry if I was American. I'm a Canadian conservative, which doesn't translate into either the Democratic or Republican Party. If you must know, on social issues I'm very liberal, I believe in smaller and more local government, and in general, I agree with US foreign policy. I hardly think I've been outed as anything. Maybe I'm not as ideological as many of the people around here, and am more willing to accept arguments from the opposite side that make sense. I wrote earlier in the thread why I would vote against Bush, take me at my word, I'm not trying to fake you out here.
As for backpedaling, seriously, what do you want me to tell you? Postroad, I apologize for mocking your thread. It was impolite and rude and I promise I won't make a glib remark like that again. Re-reading the document, as I said, it made good, if what I still believe to be irrelevant, points, especially this one: However, Bush’s desertion from the Armed Forces thirty years ago is not terribly relevant. Lots of people make mistakes in their early twenties, and those mistakes do not necessarily reflect on the character of individuals when they are in their fifties.
What is relevant is Bush’s continued lies about his service, and his insistence upon presenting his service in the US Military as “honorable”. It was not. Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically influential family.
I also acknowledged that I don't have the same perspective as you. If you want to call that backpedaling, fine. I'd said that I admitted I made a mistake and should have gone about my initially misguided protests a different way. Isn't that refreshing? Seeing someone here (especially a conservative) admit they were wrong? Be gracious in your victory!
On preview: It seems odd. Why trash lefty posts that he ends up agreeing with in the end?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with this post, or with the majority that I read here, I'm agreeing that my protest may have been misplaced in this thread. I can't think of where else you would have seen me "backpedaling", unless you've confused it with debate, discussion and compromise.
On double preview: rough ashlar: I'M SORRY I MADE THAT COMMENT! I TAKE IT BACK WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION! Are you going to apologize for calling me lo-quack? posted by loquax at 4:39 PM on June 30, 2004
I know that Vietnam veterans and the families of all the inductees who died will take it seriously.
Desertion in time of war is considered by the military a far more serious offense than just going AWOL. It was, and is, not a trivial thing as you seem to imply. At the time, others were being drafted, and dying, and if they had just waltzed off to either a) work on some buddy's election campaign, or b) fulfill community service in lieu of punishment for a separate felony (these are the two possibilities for his absence I've heard most speculated), they would have served hard time somewhere very unpleasant. Not everyone who served had a daddy in the CIA and powerful fixers like Jim Baker to follow him around cover over his scat. posted by cookie-k at 4:59 PM on June 30, 2004
loquax: now a graduate of the Techgnollogical Institute's famous internet Stop this post, let's talk about me! correspondence course for thread derail. posted by y2karl at 5:16 PM on June 30, 2004
I thought desertion in wartime was a capital court martial offense. Perhaps only for active duty personnel?
Desertion under fire, as in during an actual battle in combat conditions, I think can be punished by immediate summary execution -- i.e. as you run away you can be shot dead. I could be way off base on that. Any former military personnel got the real scoop?
I'm not implying anything by this; it may be a distorted memory in my head. posted by zoogleplex at 5:39 PM on June 30, 2004
My love for you is like a truck, BERSERKER!
Would you like some making fuck, BERSERKER!
My love for you is like a rock, BERSERKER!
The Berserker is just so obscene
Likes evil people you know what I mean
He takes your soul and then just rips you apart
He'll steal your heart
Would you like to smoke some pot, BERSERKER!
My love for you is ticking clock, BERSERKER!
Would you like to suck my cock, BERSERKER!
Would you like some making fuck, BERSERKER! posted by swift at 5:47 PM on June 30, 2004
This IS news, the character of the most powerful man in the world is news. This is presenting strong evidence that he is ever more of a liar and charlatan and scumbag than before.
Derailing the thread into a personal flamewar against loquax is stupid and irrelevant. Sure, his comment was off the cuff and useless but so what, lots of comments made here would be better if the writer could go back and retract them after a cooling off period (just like there are some comment threads I'd like to reopen to comment on some troll's final taunts and insults).
Zoogleplex, you may have a point. In war time, deserters were very often shot. I don't know about in war time when you are not in a warzone but boy wouldn't it have been nice if they'd just killed the bugger way back then? posted by fenriq at 5:56 PM on June 30, 2004
metafilter : "Are you going to apologize for calling me lo-quack?"
There will be some especially ripe patriotic-military "War on Terror" cheese served up at the Republican convention this year, I'll bet.
Maybe they'll parachute George W. Bush out of an F-16 for the final event.
No doubt there will be a firefighter or two offering nostalgic memories of our dear leader :
"We were lost, in despair, and then he arrived and......it was like he took charge."
Or, maybe Michael Moore's airing of the (now infamous) "seven minutes" nipped that one in the bud? I hope so. posted by troutfishing at 4:09 AM on July 1, 2004
"..."seven minutes" nipped that one in the bud? I hope so."
I agree... recent history suggest seven minutes of the presidents time should be spent getting a hummer from an unattractive intern. posted by soulhuntre at 5:39 AM on July 1, 2004
I agree... recent history suggest seven minutes of the presidents time should be spent getting a hummer from an unattractive intern.
Laugh about a blowjob all you want--Clinton's decision doesn't demonstrate the deficit in leadership capacity that Bush's decision to continue to sit in an elementary school classroom for seven minutes while terrorists attacked does.
Think of the children... What the hell was this thread about? posted by bafflegab at 7:09 AM on July 1, 2004
loquax: now a graduate of the Techgnollogical Institute's famous internet
Stop this post, let's talk about me! correspondence course for thread derail.
There is not much to talk about. Either the data is wrong or the data is right.
Either the analyst of that data is wrong or the analysis is correct.
Without the 'loquax' "input", this thread would be baron, what with all the comments from the metafilter-Bush-defenders expert rebuttal of the data and the analysis of the data.
The people data like this will sway will be people who lived through Nam and people who've served and have respect for the institution of the military.
Because of the golden rule - he who has the gold makes the rules - nothing will happen to GW Bush. At least nothing like would happen to someone who's buddy modified paperwork w/o the blessing of others higher up in the chain of command. posted by rough ashlar at 7:12 AM on July 1, 2004
I'M SORRY I MADE THAT COMMENT! I TAKE IT BACK WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND WITHOUT RESERVATION!
I understand. You can't support the idea of a source of data without an agenda or that is unbiased, so you wish to retract it. That's ok.
Are you going to apologize for calling me lo-quack?
I am sorry that your hypocrisy was shown to the metafilter readership via your willingness to call the compiler and commentator of the data about George Bush's discharge status a "wingnut", yet did not at all care for a simple mistyping of the screen name you chose Loquax. I am sorry that showing you the error of your ways via example has hurt your fragile psyche so. posted by rough ashlar at 7:17 AM on July 1, 2004
This issue won't go away, especially now that the Repubs are calling for release of Kerry's divorce papers. There are many pieces of paper still unreleased about the AWOL/deserting thing, cocaine and other busts, business bailouts, etc from Bush that will be brought up as well.
These records, even tho Bush said he released them all, are still partial, and there are missing medical records. posted by amberglow at 9:30 AM on July 1, 2004
Hey rough ashlar - shut the fuck up. God, people of your type are insufferable. Not only, not only is it impossible to disagree with you ever about anything, or even be human in any way and maybe say the sort of thing humans say, whenever it happens it becomes original sin. You'd spit on his descendants three generations hence if you could. How much fucking apologizing does someone need to do? Once they've said "well I was wrong", you just can't handle it. It's as if your language centers shut down and a default call-them-a-hypocrite circuit pops up. I can't even comprehend how you communicate with other humans in your day to day lifel; have you modified a great deal of mannequins to sit around and play a recording of "you are so awesome and correct about everything" all day, 24/7? Maybe a little picture of yourself looking stern so you can pull your pud looking at it? You're sad and pathetic and you need to get a fucking grip.
That goes lesser for y6, who also just can't seem to let go of that first post. I want you to imagine yourself doing this at a polite party, or maybe a lunch with some aquaintances. Imagine your whiny, nasal voice steadily rising in its enraged fervor as, no matter what the other person says, your answer is "but look at what you said ten minutes ago!!!!!!" Imagine that. When it becomes clear that your goal isn't to convince the other person, but rather to shame him, you have lost in a very substantial way, and even in your petty, secret goal of shaming, you have lost. The shame is now yours.
Ok, deep breath.
I think loquax's point about this being a failure as an election issue is pretty much correct. It was in fact three decades ago, and remember all that dismissive rage you felt for the Evil Right when Clinton got impeached? Remember their wailing about a lie and a coverup? This is a lie and a coverup. Remember when the Evil Right ansewered your accusations that the offense was trivial by wailing that it wasn't about the blowjob, it was about the lying?
This is now you. It was thirty years ago. He just invaded another country. His head of intelligence is giving him really shitty intelligence. He thinks queers are sinners and don't deserve the same rights as other citizens.
This country is largely single issue right now. That issue is this: "who will make sure there are no more Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil." You babbling about this just makes the single issue voters ignore you, and maybe hate you. It does not matter. Move on. posted by kavasa at 9:31 AM on July 1, 2004
fenriq, that might be a bit extreme, heh...
However one point that does come to me is that this sort of thing is relevant in the sense that it:
Establishes a prior pattern of behavior; and
Goes to credibility.
It's kind of predictable that someone who would follow the pattern of dishonest, arrogant, laughingly rules-flouting behavior as described in the FPP article would follow similar dishonest, arrogant, laughingly rules-flouting behavior in any other endeavor in his life. As has been demonstrated by his subsequent behavior in all his political offices.
Yes, I watch too much Law & Order. But Jack McCoy would make mincemeat out of GWB on the stand.
Fictional prosecutors aside, my thought is that knowing the series of events of his National Guard "service," it should have been clear to everyone that he was going to do the same crap as President. And that's important.
kavasa, you may be right about the one-issue thing, at least with a large number of people who can only fit one issue into their thought processes at a time, but as regards your take on that one issue, I feel 100% confident that the answer to the question "who will make sure there are no more Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil?" is most definitely and emphatically NOT George W. Bush.
Nor is it John Kerry, or any other single person. That task requires the talents and dedication of a large number of skilled, motivated Americans AND their equally skilled and motivated counterparts in all the other nations here on Earth. If you are indeed correct, and the "one issue" nation is the actual state of affairs, then by hero-worshipping any one "leader" who is perceived to be the "badass" that can whip those terrorists, the American people are GUARANTEEING that there WILL BE another Islamic terrorist attack on the United States.
Leader worship is foolish and dangerous in a very-much-more-than-one-issue world. posted by zoogleplex at 10:14 AM on July 1, 2004
Heh... good post kavasa!
Laugh about a blowjob all you want--Clinton's decision doesn't demonstrate the deficit in leadership capacity that Bush's decision to continue to sit in an elementary school classroom for seven minutes while terrorists attacked does.
Again, there may be much about Bush to criticize, but the straw-cluthing I've seen with this whole seven minutes thing is laughable and severely detracts from the credibility of anyone who chooses to use it as an argument. I've always been a fan of Clinton, but you're going to suggest that constant extramarital affairs will have less of an impact on a man's work than seven minutes a man spends in shock after learning about the largest terrorist attack on US soil? Hilarious.
Y'know I hear Bush took a dump this morning... that's five minutes he could have spent protecting the country from terrorist attack!
Fictional prosecutors aside, my thought is that knowing the series of events of his National Guard "service," it should have been clear to everyone that he was going to do the same crap as President.
Impeccable logic here. posted by Krrrlson at 11:26 AM on July 1, 2004
I agree that this probably won't be a significant election issue, unless the story gets a strong push from veterans or the active military. From the Democrats, a focus on this issue would look too much like mudslinging to be taken seriously. But I think if this story had been as well-substantiated during the run-up to the 2000 election, especially in the wake of Clinton's behavior, the Republicans wouldn't have even nominated Bush in the first place. posted by Lazlo at 11:39 AM on July 1, 2004
Krrrlson:Again, there may be much about Bush to criticize, but the straw-cluthing I've seen with this whole seven minutes thing is laughable and severely detracts from the credibility of anyone who chooses to use it as an argument. I've always been a fan of Clinton, but you're going to suggest that constant extramarital affairs will have less of an impact on a man's work than seven minutes a man spends in shock after learning about the largest terrorist attack on US soil? Hilarious.
Y'know I hear Bush took a dump this morning... that's five minutes he could have spent protecting the country from terrorist attack!
The actions people take in periods of imminent crisis are substantially more telling about their leadership qualities than when no immediate problem is present. Although we don't know what Clinton would've done one way or the other, if Clinton had been told about WTC while receiving a blowbjob (marital or extra-marital), my guess is that he would've stopped and started to do something in reaction to it. Based on the particular, seven-minute observation that we do have of Bush facing an immediate crisis, Bush had difficulty reacting in any demonstrable way.
Over the entire timeline of the War on Terror, any individual five or seven-minute period will usually not be very important. On September 11, 2001, however, Bush had seven very important minutes when taking some action might have prevented further deaths, but he sat... and did nothing. posted by bafflegab at 1:44 PM on July 1, 2004
The actions people take in periods of imminent crisis are substantially more telling about their leadership qualities than when no immediate problem is present.
And the actions people take repeatedly over a prolonged period of time indicate a potentially detrimental habit. So?
Although we don't know what Clinton would've done one way or the other, if Clinton had been told about WTC while receiving a blowbjob (marital or extra-marital), my guess is that he would've stopped and started to do something in reaction to it.
This example is asinine, I'm sorry to say. But since you "guessed" what would have happened, I guess it must be valid. Good job, I surrender.
On September 11, 2001, however, Bush had seven very important minutes when taking some action might have prevented further deaths, but he sat... and did nothing.
And what action could he have taken to preven further deaths, pray tell? I'm really curious to hear this.
Note that you're spinning his seven minutes one way, while his supporters spin them another way. I see no reason to believe either of you. posted by Krrrlson at 3:04 PM on July 1, 2004
you're spinning his seven minutes one way, while his supporters spin them another way
Thanks for the link Lazlo. Seems pretty cut and dried. Desertion in wartime is punishable by death, or by whatever punishment a court-martial decides is appropriate. The burden of proof required is pretty clear too; I'm not sure that the FPP article covers enough evidence under Article 85 to actually convict Bush of the crime of desertion, however, so the assertion that he was can be interpreted ambiguously. And therein lies the rub.
Krrrlson, my though above was not a logical assertion. It was an opinion based on my personal observation of human beings over many years - generally, people have patterns of behavior that, unless forced to, don't change much - and therefore does not need to meet the standards of logical argument. S'all I'm sayin'. posted by zoogleplex at 4:49 PM on July 1, 2004
Uh, that would be "my thought above." Sorry. posted by zoogleplex at 4:50 PM on July 1, 2004
Did he say making fuck?
/obligatory posted by euphorb at 10:37 PM on July 1, 2004
This example is asinine, I'm sorry to say. But since you "guessed" what would have happened, I guess it must be valid. Good job, I surrender.
This isn't an example, it's a non-example--you don't have to guess about its validity at all because it doesn't matter. There can't be any evidence about how Clinton (as President) would've reacted to WTC because it happened in 2001. Because we do have that evidence on Bush, we can make a judgment on his leadership in an imminent crisis.
And what action could he have taken to preven further deaths, pray tell? I'm really curious to hear this.
The seven minutes of nothing occurs right after Bush is told about the second plane hitting the WTC. At that point, there were still two planes in the air, thirty-five minutes before the Pentagon is hit. Seven minutes is a long time to come up with something that might've prevented further deaths.
Note that you're spinning his seven minutes one way, while his supporters spin them another way. I see no reason to believe either of you.
If by "spinning" you mean "evaluating leadership", then, yes, I am. I'm not making this political, and your "I'm neutral" allusion serves only to feebly disengage yourself from an argument you weren't genuine about in the first place. Goodbye. posted by bafflegab at 6:50 AM on July 2, 2004
There can't be any evidence about how Clinton (as President) would've reacted to WTC because it happened in 2001. Because we do have that evidence on Bush, we can make a judgment on his leadership in an imminent crisis.
And I say that you cannot make a practical judgement without any real example to compare it to.
The seven minutes of nothing occurs right after Bush is told about the second plane hitting the WTC. At that point, there were still two planes in the air, thirty-five minutes before the Pentagon is hit. Seven minutes is a long time to come up with something that might've prevented further deaths.
You've had 3 years to think -- *what* could that something be? I challenge you to come up with even a plausible solution that would have prevented that plane from hitting the Pentagon.
If by "spinning" you mean "evaluating leadership", then, yes, I am.
You are interpreting the situation a certain way and forcing that view on others as if it were truth unquestionable. That counts as spin in my book.
I'm not making this political, and your "I'm neutral" allusion serves only to feebly disengage yourself from an argument you weren't genuine about in the first place. Goodbye.
You are not making a political argument political? M'kay. But apparently it's an argument you think you can win by petty insults. Good show. posted by Krrrlson at 9:04 PM on July 2, 2004
Without a working election system you can not have a democracy.
The United States of America no longer has a working electoral system. posted by five fresh fish at 7:38 PM on July 3, 2004
« Older
The art of being Kuna...
| From all over...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
posted by loquax at 1:19 PM on June 30, 2004