Posted on 02/11/2004 8:39:57 AM PST by new cruelty
"George W. Bush is a deserter..."
– Film director Michael Moore at a Jan. 17 rally for presidential candidate Wesley Clark.
"I would call it AWOL."
– Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe in a Jan. 25 interview with CNN.
"The issue here as I have heard it raised is, was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be?"
– Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, during a Feb. 8 news conference in Virginia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many issues on which President Bush's supporters and detractors can have an honest, but respectful, disagreement – from his prosecution of the war in Iraq to his stewardship of the economy. But the recent insinuations that Bush failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era commitment to the National Guard, that he deserted or went absent without leave, are a scurrilous attack. An analysis by the University of Pennsylvania's respected Annenberg Public Policy Center recently noted, "Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave."
The controversy over Bush's Guard service dates at least to 2000, when the Boston Globe published an election-year story in which the newspaper stated it could find no record that Bush performed any National Guard duties from May 1972 to May 1973. With the start of the 2004 election year, the president's most recalcitrant detractors, including Moore and McAuliffe, exhumed the controversy. Their aim, it appears, was to raise questions about the commander in chief's moral authority to send military personnel to fight and die in this nation's service.
This week, the Globe published its latest story on Bush's service. It stated that the newspaper recently obtained two new documents showing that Bush did, in fact, receive credit for duty, as required, between May 1972 and May 1973. The documents were obtained, the Globe reported, from a political activist, Bob Fertig, co-founder of Democrats.com, who acquired them in December 2000, one month too late to clear up the controversy about the one-year period during which Bush supposedly was AWOL.
Meanwhile, the White House released pay records this week which also document the dates on which Bush was paid for National Guard duty. They provide further evidence that Bush did not shirk his obligations to the Guard between May 1972 and May 1973.
Of course, there are some die-hard Bush detractors who are unwilling to accept that the president did not go AWOL, that he was not a deserter. But the fair-minded can lay the controversy to rest once and for all.
Where's Hillary? So silent. Always scarey. She said she would support whomever emerged. Will she? Can she? given Bubbas military shenanigans?
If these sleaze artists are going to subject GWB to a totally baseless anal exam, then I say we should answer Kerry's new favorite mocking slogan, "Bring it on."
Let's bring it on, in spades. Let's demand a full investigation of Kerry's admissions that he witnessed --even committed-- war crimes and atrocities. Let's demand a full investigation of who wrote up Kerry's citations for medals. Let's demand a full investigation of how he abandoned his unit and got out of his service early, on the basis of getting a few scratches.
And let's demand a full investigation of how much his stateside 'anti-war,' pro-HoHoHoChiMinh activities hurt our guys who were still fighting, imprisoned, and dieing over there -- in 'Nam.
Kerry has three Purple Hearts. Win, lose, or draw, the pantload got shot at and has the Silver Star. His war record beats JFK's for sure! Yet, JFK worked the war hero angle for decades.
This is a replay of the Dan Quayle NG story. The damage is done. Even Kerry's post military antics with Jane and the Commies can be spun. They drew blood with this.
Before you attack, make sure you aren't doing W more harm than good.
Yeah, but he got them for what?
A lot of vets got minor wounds, but turned down a Purple Heart because they felt embarrassed to receive a medal for little scrapes. Kerry snapped 'em up gladly and used them as a pretext to get out of his service ahead of time. Left his unit behind.
I think Kerry's Silver Star deserves a little investigation too. Who wrote up the citation? If he's going to flaunt the medals now after pretending to throw them away, then we the public deserve an explanation.
I disagree that the Bush smearers drew blood. I don't know anyone other than rabid Bush haters (who would never have voted for him anyway) who thinks the less of Bush because of the Guard story. Quite the contrary.
This issue of Kerry's medals is not going to be a productive one for us. He was there, he got'em. Over.
Were I able to influence the anti-Kerry op, I'd say:
Lissen, I want to thank Mr. Kerry for his service in Vietnam. However, by lending his name and approval, not to mention active participation, to organizations which worked directly against the welfare and success of his former comrades in arms whom he left in the field, he did them a great disservice. By making claims, later proven false, he gave great aid and comfort to an enemy still actively engaged against us in combat.
Mr. Kerry may well be a hero in a personal sense. But the harm he did the country and its fighting men, outweighs the good done by the personal bravery he displayed.
And if I were to have W's ear, I'd say, hold that statement until the fall, and drop it like a bomb. Round 1 in the Kerry-Bush fight goes to Kerry. But it's a long match.
But others, not under the control of the president, are going to get down-and-dirty and find out the real scoop behind those medals that Kerry proceeded to pretend to throw away -- whether you or I like it or not.
And I for one want to hear what they find out. I'll bet there are plenty of vets who want to know the truth, too.
The above would be fine with me, too. I just don't want the official Bush boys to get mired in this hossheep.
(1) They are absolutely no good at it and will get their little white butts whippped by the media-savvy (and media supported) Democrat professionals. And
(2) This is nowhere near the main event.
See what I mean, Kenny Bunk, see this example? How is the fact that Kerry had an affair in a nation where the divorce rate is 60+% matter? Is this what we will throw out at Kerry? Helped Bush and Dole against Clinton?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.