Well, when soldiers are right NOW fighting and dying for the freedoms of the USA and these so called "war heroes" attack, denouce, insult, and claim that those soldiers are murderers.

Than yes, I will dig up every bit of info on these folks past to find out if they really are what they say they are. I do not allow folks to insult and spit in the face of soldiers that fight the good fight.

When I am called a baby killer and murderer. I get angry. When the elected officals of my own government call me a baby killer and a murderer. I get pissed. Lastly, when someone of prior service that is an elected offical of my own government that calls me a baby killer and murderer. I get even.

As a vet, I will always support my fellow brother in arms no matter what thhey do. The battlefield is something that you cannot understand until you've been there.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I can accept that for an isolated case or two. But we are seeing for at least 4 people in the past few years. I found another example, in 2000 NewsMax (run by Bush pal Richard Scaife) ran articles by Ted Sampley (who was later behind the Swift Boat vets) against John McCain suggesting that he evaded death by snitching in the POW camp he was enterred). So I am wrong to say its just Dems. Its anybody who became an obsticle to the president.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/c...ear/index.html

5 people is a little too much of a coincidence for my taste and it just reeks of a smear campaign politics. I agree with Rabs whether you agree with their politics or not, people who have worn the uniform (espically those who saw combat) deserve to be respected unless the person is a certified phoney (like the Australian guy we saw in the other thread).

So whenever I hear a new story about how so-and-so lied/manipulated/etc about his military service I take it with a grain of salt.

I don't read NewsMax because they go overboard on most everything. Senator McCain was broken as a POW but what was given to the NVA obviously didn't hurt the Country. The first thing he did when he was released was apologize to his Father, Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander in chief of U.S. Naval forces in Europe and soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, including Vietnam. His Father forgave him and nothing else was ever discussed about the events.

Within days of his release, McCain wrote the following account of his captivity, which was published in U.S. News and World Report - May 14, 1973:
"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size of a football . . . when I saw it, I said to the guard, 'O.K., get the officer' . . . an officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as 'The Bug.' He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, 'O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'"

McCain now says it was only a coincidence that at the same time he was offering "military information" in exchange for special medical treatment, his captors discovered that his father was Adm. John S. McCain Jr.

Upon learning about McCain's father, the communists, in an unprecedented move, rushed McCain to one of their military hospitals where he received treatment not available for other U.S. prisoners of war.

"To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots which were sustained by this aircraft carrier due to its raids over North Vietnam territory and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany . . . upon arrival near the target, our formation, with six bombers, would mount the attack according to the following order: I would be number three, and the chief of the formation, number one. Each pilot would have to approach the target from a different direction, the choice of which would be left to him.'" A November 9, 1967 declassified Department of Defense document.

Source-http://www.usvetdsp.com/story22.htm

Originally Posted by mmarsh

I can accept that for an isolated case or two. But we are seeing for at least 4 people in the past few years. I found another example, in 2000 NewsMax (run by Bush pal Richard Scaife) ran articles by Ted Sampley (who was later behind the Swift Boat vets) against John McCain suggesting that he evaded death by snitching in the POW camp he was enterred). So I am wrong to say its just Dems. Its anybody who became an obsticle to the president.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/c...ear/index.html

5 people is a little too much of a coincidence for my taste and it just reeks of a smear campaign politics. I agree with Rabs whether you agree with their politics or not, people who have worn the uniform (espically those who saw combat) deserve to be respected unless the person is a certified phoney (like the Australian guy we saw in the other thread).

So whenever I hear a new story about how so-and-so lied/manipulated/etc about his military service I take it with a grain of salt.

Taking the view of POTUS service record and how it was boradcast and advertised, along with Mr Clinton's and just about every former POTUS then I would have to say that both sides are just doing a tit-for-tat smear campaign.

You know it as well as I that either side will do whatever they feel they need to do to get a leg up on the opposition.

If you are tired of this or any "Stale Topic" then do like I do when I see things I that I feel has been beat to death: Ignore It.

Blood Shirt politics are as old as our nation, and considerably older when you look beyond our history. Military men are great leaders...during war time. Otherwise the military and civilian classes should remain as distant in their leadership as possible. Consider how much trouble career soldiers have when they attempt to integrate with civilians at the end of their tenure. Consider that civilians endure two months of intense training before they can even tie their own shoes without the help of an NCO. Politicians don't make good soldiers. Good soldiers don't make good politicians. Why are we surprised when one man, be he Republican or Democrat, tried to be both but ends up neither?

Touche... so what of Eisenhower my esteemed colleague? Washington?

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

Taking the view of POTUS service record and how it was boradcast and advertised, along with Mr Clinton's and just about every former POTUS then I would have to say that both sides are just doing a tit-for-tat smear campaign.

You know it as well as I that either side will do whatever they feel they need to do to get a leg up on the opposition.

If you are tired of this or any "Stale Topic" then do like I do when I see things I that I feel has been beat to death: Ignore It.

I knew somebody would bring that up (hehehe).

Like I said, its not news unless there is something truly phoney about it. Telling everybody you were on a 40000 person military base for a full year but that nobody remembers you, espically when the unit you were assigned to only contained 5 other people is a pretty obviously lie. The difference between Kerry, Murtha, Cleland and others was that the accusations were made by people who were not even there. Whereas the accusations made against Bush were people who supposed to have served with him.

mmarsh, would you post your sources on this accusation?

But even if Bush was a shirker and was AWOL that wasn't what bothered me about Bush. What bothered was this guy was the macho attitude the 'war president' type comments. He had is opportunity to be a soldier, he decided to pass. That's perfectly fine, many others like Bill Clinton did also. But don't go around pretending that you know something about war, its just so phoney and I think it insults the guys who really did go. The only knowledge Bush showed in his youth about war was how to avoid one.

Your right though, the question of who served what and when is stale. I would wish politicans would stick to subjects they do know like incompetetance, greed, curruption and stupidity.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

But even if Bush was a shirker and was AWOL that wasn't what bothered me about Bush. What bothered was this guy was the macho attitude the 'war president' type comments. He had is opportunity to be a soldier, he decided to pass. That's perfectly fine, many others like Bill Clinton did also. But don't go around pretending that you know something about war, its just so phoney and I think it insults the guys who really did go. The only knowledge Bush showed in his youth about war was how to avoid one.

Hmm, I disagree. Bush never wanted to be the "war president" he was forced to be the "war president." His lack of knowledge of military affairs was fine cause he didnt micromanage the war. To a certain extent he didnt manage it enough. What he did understand though was that after 9/11 evil had to be confronted and destroyed. I cant think of one time were he was even trying to sound like a know it all on the military. He has been perfectly frank in my opinion about leaving the decisions on troop levels and such to the generals on the ground. What he needs to do is make sure hes getting those generals opinions and not Rummys dream world.

Missileer (as requested)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Some exerpts...

"In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted".

"According to the records, Bush had been instructed to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall and I do not," Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general, told the Globe in 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...duty_at_guard/

"In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months".



http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

(I made an error in the number here it was a 700-900 person unit not a 5, it doesnt change the argument but I regret the error)...

And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Missileer (as requested)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Some exerpts...

"In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted".

"According to the records, Bush had been instructed to report to William Turnipseed, an officer in the Montgomery unit. "Had he reported in, I would have had some recall and I do not," Turnipseed, a retired brigadier general, told the Globe in 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...duty_at_guard/

"In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months".



http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

(I made an error in the number here it was a 700-900 person unit not a 5, it doesnt change the argument but I regret the error)...

And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.

I still haven't read any charges of AWOL brought by the Military in any of your sources. Is that your thoughts or is there a record somewhere that I didn't see?


Quote from one of the above sources is a statement by the Globe who simply printed their idea of Bush's service:

Globe Quote:
The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.

Also from the sources above:

Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection.
"They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"


A good unbiased source from the articles above:


During the New Hampshire campaign last month, documentary filmmaker Michael Moore -- a Clark supporter -- referred to Bush as a "deserter" at a rally of 1,000 people outside Concord.

Missileer

I never made that claim. Bush was never officially charged with being AWOL. his commanding officier however offers us this tidbit as to why:

"Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard".

The fact of the matter remains that even if we are to believe Bush Service Records as presented by the White House there is still a 6 month gap from May to October 1972. There is a chart (sorry couldnt post image, click link, scroll to middle of page) of Bush's service record made up of documents given by the US Government. And even according to this rather bias source there is a 6 month gap where Bush is unaccounted...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...ce_controversy

And the Globe mentions that even this version is suspect because they couldnt find a single person at Maxwell AFB from AFTER October may 1972 who could prove that he was there. I dunno how big Maxwell is, but I can image that its fairly large. Ergo, logic dictates that within a year SOMEBODY at the Air Force base should have been able to remember him. The fact that nobody has yet to collect a $50,000 reward to prove his presence futher increases my view that in fact he was never there.

"In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months.

Lastly I dont understand where you are going with the Michael Moore piece. I never referred to Bush as a Deserter, Moore called him that. What can i say, Moore is often wrong, thats why I never quote him. But not being a Deserter doesnt mean was isnt guilty of the lesser charge of being AWOL. While there is no 'smoking gun', the evidence seems to proove was absent at least for 6 months and probably longer. If there was anything to disprove this, I think we would have heard of it by now.