Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can you link to to sources a conservative would see as "credible" re: AWOL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
One Taste Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 08:29 PM
Original message
Can you link to to sources a conservative would see as "credible" re: AWOL
I've been trying to explain to people on other boards that bush WAS AWOL, but they won't even LOOK at sites like http://www.awolbush.com/ , even though it has real evidence. So does anyone have any links to news sites that a conservative might consider "credible?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
arewethereyet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'd like to see this too
I've yet to see one but I can't say I've looked hard. I think its a hopeless issue to try and work or McCain would have been the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. Seems there'd be plenty of sites willing to defend GWB, but I've
not heard of a single site that offers evidence that contradicts the basic premise as we know it. Could it be because it is indefensible?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Have you tried some of the ones Moore put up at his site?
Edited on Fri Jan-23-04 08:46 PM by 0rganism
Boston Globe
Washington Post
Dallas Morning News

http://www.michaelmoore.com/ has the links.

However, it would be a mistake for you to assume the entirety of burden of proof. Ask them to provide you with any credible record of bush's service days between May 1972 and May 1973. This should be a cut & dry operation for them, as bush's election campaigners did some serious background work in 2000, clarifying his military record. However, they won't be able to find anything. Why not?

There's nothing to be found. He didn't show up for duty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Namvet04 Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. We should give up on this - it will not go anywhere
I am a viet nam vet and we should forget the past. People served and other did not. All parties have people who served, dodge the draft, rich kids that got out, etc. Forget the past and pressed on to work on problems and fix them. Show people we want to fix problems and not gripe about something 40 years ago. They tried to use it on Clinton and it did not work. Get over Nam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:10 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. nope, sorry, ain't gonna happen
the right-wing dares to question Clark's PATRIOTISM because he refused to lie and say that Bush's AWOL was bullshit. It's the RIGHT that is dredging this up, not the left.

the truth hurts...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Maybe we just haven't tried hard enough
Edited on Fri Jan-23-04 09:20 PM by 0rganism
Given the same 13,600 article push the repukes used on Clinton's draft avoidance, maybe the matter would gain some traction? At least Clinton wasn't violating any orders to report for duty, missing service days and mandatory physicals. And a lot of the GOP support is hardcore military, who might find it incongruous to have a deserter for a commander-in-chief. Heck, even you as a veteran must find it personally annoying that the guy who oversees all those benefit cuts for you and your family wouldn't even show up for duty at his cushy national guard "champagne" unit.

Tell you what, how about we give it 6000 major media articles, well under half the press action the GOP used on Clinton for the 'Nam issue. If nothing happens and no one cares, we admit that past disservice is best forgotten and move on to the matter of the stolen election, the ruined economy, the Iraq occupation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and other matters of croney capitalism. Deal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Namvet04 Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Forget things 40 years ago and present what we will do
Clarke should have people they pick on that are telling you how to get medical insurance for everyone. Moore brings only baggage to defend from what I see.

I think we should present what we will do for the workers of this country. They could careless about Viet Nam. You can attack most people in every party on this issue and who cares anymore.

Maybe with Edwards finishing in front of Clarke he will go away. They can't pin that on him, he was at the kitchen table with mom and dad trying to figure out how to pay for college like most of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. we should never
get over it until the truth is told by bush-where was he? why didn`t he take his physical? there are to many holes in his story.
he was a coward then and he is a coward now. he has sent the finest of our military to their deaths in a war that was based on lies and deceit. he bravely sends them to their death ,something he was unwilling to do when he was in the national guard.
we should never forget nam and we certaining should never forget bush`s personal war. our country deserves answers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. and remember- he CUTS VETERANS BENEFITS
how ANY veteran can vote for this asshole is a wonder of human psychology....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Namvet04 Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Now that is good to say
Your wasting your time listening to Moore. Listen to people who know what the people want to hear. Present programs that will benefit people. You keep bringing this up and they can throw back Gore and Clinton and so many more. You can do it for all the parties. Viet Nam war is over, forget it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. the war will never be over for those who served in it
and those who are getting screwed by Bush's benefit cuts. you don't want to bring that UP??

Who says I listen to Moore, anyway? I knew about Bush's AWOL in 2000, long before Moore said a word about it.

I can't help but notice that you have done nothing but try to talk us out of this unpleasant, embarassing subject, without offering any examples of this thing that everyone wants to hear.

And hell, Mike's books are always best-sellers, so apparently "the people" DO want to hear!! You don't have a monopoly on what the people want.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Namvet04 Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. If it did not work against Clinton and Gore
It will not work here. It is a waste of time. Americans want to hear what your going to do for them not what happen 40 years ago and it can be debate all night.

When Edwards knocks clarke out of this, you will hear it raised no more.

Kerry is like me, we served but then stood up against the war.

I do not get mad at all the rich kids in all the parties that their dads got them out, the poor guys that ran to canada or anyone else. It was a strange war. Let us forget it and offer the people something that will get them to vote for us not bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. hmm, when were Clinton and Gore accused of desertion?
never, as far as I know. Your point is irrelevant.

and AGAIN I say, it was the right-wingers in the media who dug this back up, not me. If they want to use this issue to attack Clark, then it deserves a response.

Bush committed a capital offense, one that would've shown you the electric chair. George W Bush should be in the ground, 30 years rotten. If that bitter taste in unpalatable for you, that is not my problem. If it's a non-issue, then tell the news nazis to shut the hell up about it.

Let's just forget about everything Bush has or has not done, would that make it better?

If only you could defend the Dems as much as you defend Bush, we might be better off. Aren't you angry that Bush is cutting your benefits, after HE walked away from duty, leaving others to die in his place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Namvet04 Donating Member (151 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You miss the point, it is wasted time, use your time and resources
on things that count with Americans.

If you will remember they tried to use Viet Nam against Clinton and also Gore. It is over with most americans and Kerry showed leadership in saying so. Forget it but if you want to waste time, go ahead.

I want to hear what they are going to do for workers not something 40 years ago that will be debated to death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Yes, Bush would appreciate it, if we'd just forget about it.
You are a pretty magnanimous VietNam vet who is willing to let bygones be bygones. While others took his place, Bush got a million dollar education flying jets and then walked on his commitment with no reprucussions.

Now the chief chickenhawk and his flock of friends are cooking up endless war for personal profits....and you think it's irrelevant? Does character mean anything to you? It's always those that avoid the fight that are so willing to send others to do it for them. If a Kerry or Clark say that war is necessary, I respect that- because they know and they understand the horror and suffering that their decision will bring to families. Bush is simply a liar willing to shed American blood to further his personal political/economic agenda. Want to forget about this, too?

So, Namvet04, keep posting apologies for your "buddy in arms"...I'll hang with real leaders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. I dunno but it's getting press now- Dallas Morning News op-ed Wednesday:
A Kerry-vs.-Bush matchup would be the Democrats' best bet. It would be the Purple Heart vs. the Chicken Heart. (Mr. Bush has been charged with going AWOL from his National Guard service for a year during the Vietnam era.) Only Mr. Kerry (or retired Gen. Wesley Clark) could get away with showing Mr. Bush in his flight suit on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln and make him look like Michael Dukakis in a tank.

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/012104dnediatkins.9c6c.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HawkerHurricane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. Nope
No source that a conservative calls credible will have evidence that Bush was AWOL.
And, no source that says Bush was AWOL will be considered credible by a conservative.
Catch 22.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
10. There is a George Magazine article...
...but it's controversial because it uses a late addition to the paperwork that allegedly shows Bush with enough points in his 72-73 year.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html

AWOLBush.com has some good reasons for not accepting this paperwork, but most journalists do. Even with this new paperwork, it's obvious that Bush wrote off the Guard in his last two years of service, and didn't report for any duty from May-November 1972 whatsoever.

That's six months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmaier Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-04 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
19. forget it
If the evidence was located in the Old Testament, born again rethuglicans would consider this THE one exception to it being the literal word of God.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
forgethell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-04 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
20. I'm not sure that this is important
Edited on Sat Jan-24-04 12:03 AM by forgethell
and I'll tell you why.

During the Vietnam War, I went through ROTC and was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant in 1971. I served 3 months on active duty in Engineer Officer's Basic Course. Instead of the 2 year active duty, 2 years of attending drills, and 2 years inactive reserve, my obligation was attending drill for 8 years.

I attended drill for 1 year, then moved to Houston. I reported to the Reserve Center there and was told they only had supernumerary positions open for 2LTs. So I told them to call me when they had a slot open. I never went to another drill. In 2 years, I was promoted to 1LT, in 3 more I was promoted to captain, 2 more and I received my honorable discharge. I NEVER WENT TO ANOTHER DRILL. The Army knew where I was.

This is the same time frame as GWB. If the Armed Services didn't consider it an offense, I don't know that we should, and I don't think it will resonate with the voter. Carter took most of the venom out of Vietnam when he pardoned the draft-evaders that had fled to Canada. Just my oopinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 02:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC