What did Dubya do in the war, daddy?

Toronto Star ^ | Nov 17, 2002 | LINDA MCQUAIG

[jody_b]

It's often said that people just won't go into politics any more because of the intense media scrutiny one faces for even the smallest indiscretion in one's past. In fact, the media are temperamental beasts; fierce one day, gentle as lambs the next.

Certainly the media showed its soft side last week. As George W. Bush piously observed Veterans Day, media pundits somehow restrained themselves from pointing to the irony that the U.S. Commander-in-Chief, who's sometimes referred to as a "former fighter pilot," has an embarrassing military past. His records show that for months at a time during the Vietnam War, Bush could be classified as, at best, "absent without leave" (AWOL) or, at worst, as an army deserter.

This would be equivalent to the media withholding comment as former U.S. President Bill Clinton publicly espoused the virtues of marital fidelity.

Indeed, one hardly needs to wait for Veterans' Day to note the irony in Bush's military fervour. The man can scarcely contain his enthusiasm for war ? or at least for others going to war. As he inches closer each day to sending tens of thousands of American soldiers into Iraq (to be followed likely by hundreds of Canadian soldiers), any day would be appropriate for the media to satisfy its allegedly insatiable appetite for dirt on the rich and powerful by reporting the president's own military past.

The legwork has already been done by the Boston Globe, which dug up Bush's military records and interviewed his former military commanders.

While the paper published its dramatic findings during the presidential campaign of 2000, the rest of the media all but ignored the story and continue to do so, even as Bush has turned himself into arguably the most hawkish president in U.S. history.

It's not that the media are not hard on military laggards. While there were only 49 media stories about Bush's military past during his presidential campaign, there were a whopping 13,641 media reports on Clinton's Vietnam-era draft dodging during his first presidential race, according to former Clinton aide Paul Begala.

Begala made the observation on a media panel at a labour conference shortly after Bush's election. Other panelists, including journalists from major TV networks and Time magazine, agreed that Bush had had a much gentler ride, but attributed it to the media's alleged exhaustion after all the Clinton-era scandals.

Of course, it's possible Bush was so morally repelled by the U.S. slaughter in Vietnam that he just couldn't bring himself to participate. But probably not. Here's what we know.

Upon graduating from Yale, Bush applied for a position in the Texas National Guard, a coveted spot that required only part-time military duties at home, far from the battlefields of Vietnam. Bush was catapulted to the front of 500 other applicants after a friend of his father, then a wealthy Houston congressman, phoned the Speaker of the Texas House, according to the Boston Globe.

After completing training as a pilot, George W. Bush requested and immediately received a transfer to an Alabama National Guard unit in May, 1972. But Bush never showed up for duty there, according to the Alabama unit's commander and the commander's assistant, who were interviewed by the Boston Globe.

Military records show that Bush's two commanding officers back in Texas reported George W. did not show up for duty there either for a year, and that they believed he had been transferred to Alabama. Meanwhile, when Bush failed to take his required annual medical exam in August, 1972, his pilot status was removed.

It should be noted that reporting for military duty is not something that's optional, particularly during a war. Those caught shirking National Guard duties were usually punished by being drafted into the real army ? the one that landed you in Vietman, where some 350 American soldiers were killed each week. But, despite more than a year absent from duty, nothing happened to the well-connected George W. Bush.

Favouritism is a sore point among those who actually went to war, including U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. As Powell wrote in his autobiography: "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed ... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units ... Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal ..."

You've got to marvel at Powell's anger management skills.

[Theyknow]

Actually there is, but as I said who cares? If no one cared about Clinton why should they care about this.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Hmmm, Eisenhower returned to the US from his position as a staff officer under MacArthur in the Philipines in January of 1940. Who was shooting at him?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

After the war, they were called, "the Huks," but were Muslims of the P. I. variety.

[Stand Watch Listen]

This would be equivalent to the media withholding comment as former U.S. President Bill Clinton publicly espoused the virtues of marital fidelity.

OR, perhaps equivalent to Clinton saluting Armed Forces personnel, personnel whose fathers/uncles/brother,moms/sisters were protested against by Clinton, the Rhodes (disinvited to continue) Scholar.

OR perhaps equivalent to Clinton (feeling the pain), of the parents, receiving the remains of their dead sons at Dover AFB . Their dead sons killed in Somolia because request for armor and support was denied by Clinton/Aspen.

[Stand Watch Listen]

This would be equivalent to the media withholding comment as former U.S. President Bill Clinton publicly espoused the virtues of marital fidelity.

OR perhaps equivalent to Clinton's expression of 'loathing' towards the military

Bill Clinton's letter to Col. Eugene Holmes, Director of the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas ..3 December 1969.

Copy - 1992 Affidavit by Lt. Col. Holmes:Regarding Bill Clinton's Draft Evasion

[SoCal Pubbie]

All right, let me be more precise. Eisenhower never directly commanded any combat unit in the field while it was engaged in any combat whatsoever with a hostile force of any recognized army anywhere in the world. His entire service in the army consisted of staff, planning, and headquarters command positions, and while he of course was in command of combat units in WWII, including all allied armies in Europe, he never directly faced hostile fire from an enemy army. Does that about sum it up?

This is in contrast with both Patton and MacArthur who commanded units in the field before and during WWI. This is not to denigrate Eisenhower in any way, quite the contrary, it illustrates the point that no one seems to accuse Ike of somehow being less worthy because he never faced the cannon fire directly.

[Miss Marple]

This has been discussed numerous times. I didn't read the links because I know that this is all a function of the ways in which the ntional Guard deploys people. If the link says he was AWOL, that is simply not true.

[cookcounty]

" Bush could be classified as, at best, "absent without leave" (AWOL) or, at worst, as an army deserter. ' were in the army!

Now tell me, where is the Toronto Star's link that responds to the charge that this reporter is a bigoted, hateful halfwit? Hmmm? Why won't they clear this up---hmmmm?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

We were fortunate to have him on our side.