Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush Was Not A Deserter

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
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 10:52 AM
Original message
Bush Was Not A Deserter
General Clark is on MTP at the moment and he was asked about Michael Moore's having called Bush a deserter. The Code of Military Justice was brought up and the death sentence for desertion during time of war. General Clark deflected the question as a past he doesn't want to revisit but I think he gave the wrong answer.

I very much think this was the wrong answer. I think it would be much better if the candidates, when confronted with this question, simply respond that in considering how the charge was being interpreted in the early 70's he was not a deserter. At that time, as I recall, in order to be considered a deserter one had to be gone for at least a year and had displayed no intention of ever returning. So that by carrying a military ID one couldn't be charged with desertion. So, considering the times the record simply indicates he was AWOL for a year, a much less serious charge in the eyes of the military. Now how the public sees it may be a much different matter ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
onebigbadwulf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
1. That would have been hilarious
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 10:54 AM by onebigbadwulf
Clark responds "You're right the allegation that he was a deserter is ridiculous, everyone knows he was officially AWOL"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruti Donating Member (51 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Also being discussed at:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. He DID abandon his post during wartime. Indisputable!
Whether on not he is technically or legally a deserter can be argued into unimportance.

It IS historical FACT that he was GROUNDED for failure to report for a physical. It is a FACT that he disobeyed a direct order to report for this physical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
junker Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
4. sorry but your memory fails you...texas military code of justice
does show him deserter. Plus 30 days away or less = awol, over 30 it is at the discretion of the base AG as to charges with/without special circumstances.

Look to the 1968 version of texas military code of justice and by definition bush deserted in that 2 consecutive superior reviews could not be completed due to absence. One of the many definitions/qualifiers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. There was never a hearing
I've heard from Guardsmen who served in the 60s-70s that there should have been some sort of hearing about Bush not reporting for duty, supposedly so he could explain himself. Apparently this hearing never took place. My question is, why not? Or is this just another example of how privilage, wealth, and power got Shrub out of a tight spot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. That's Not The Point
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 11:19 AM by ThomWV
My point is that the candidates should force the issue to become one that accepts the missing time and forces a review to see what charges are necessary. Its a ploy simply to cause public focus on the issue. I know that Bush isn't going to be taken out back and shot at this late date, hell, I know it wouldn't have happend then. I simply want the public to know what kind of self-serving coward we have in office.

Thom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
5. This should be an easy one for all of our candidates
Show us the records. Each candidate has released their military records. Why won't Bush* release his? What has he got to hide? If he has nothing to hide why is he hiding it? How did he receive his "Special Commission"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stuart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
7. Technically yes, theoretically No.
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 11:19 AM by Warren Stuart
In order to be a deserter you must be AWOL for 30 days or more from Active Duty, whether or not you carry our ID is irrelevant. You must be absent from Active Duty in order to fall under the UCMJ.

Now the theoretical issue, Bush wasn't on Active Duty, but by being absent from the TANG, he would have had to make up missing days by going on Active Duty. So even though he wasn't Active Duty, if he was anybody else he would have been compelled to go on Active Duty. Therefore, if the system worked like it should have Bush would have been called up for Active Duty.

Had this happened he most likely would have showed up, but we will never know. He was not called up when he should have been, 30 days after this point he was still absent. Theoretically Bush is a deserter, this is not an easy issue for Clark at all. It is not something he can easily dismiss. Russert and Jennings are both naive to think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salinen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. It is easy to believe him as AWOL
just look at how he opperates the WH from Crawford.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
9. Clark doesn't want to support it but he doesn't want it to die either
Ruti supplied a link to another GD thread (mine actually) about this.

I think you are right that techinically he isn't a deserter nor did he got AWOL. Oddly this would be a long winded denial by their pundits which does not fit their playbook.

His guilt or innocence isn't the thing, the thing is that it could get out into discussions....the big lie method.

Brokaw said on MTP that he couldn't believe that Clark didn't "kill that snake a week ago"....but added "there ARE some questions about Bush's time in the Alabama guard" BAM! right there from the most watched anchor on one of the standard Sunday morning talk shows. I couldn't believe he actually said that and I wonder how many people looked up from their newspaper and thought hmmmmmmmm what's that all about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Night Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Brokaw said that he couldn't believe Clark didn't kill that snake?
I was not watching the TV, but was listening from an adjoining room. I could have sworn that it was Broder who said that he couldn't believe Clark didn't "kill that snake a week ago."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I think Broder said he asked Clark about it right after the event
and that he couldn't believe Clark didn't end it right there. I am pretty sure the "snake" quote was Brokaw's, I could be wrong but one of them did say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsewell Donating Member (437 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
11. It's not worth the effort!
I think it's a waste of time to harp on the "Bush was a deserter/AWOL" business. Whose opinions of Bush is it going to change, even if you can make it stick? Not conservatives:
  • Evangelical conservatives feel that everything Bush did before the age of 40 is irrelevant because that was before he was saved.
  • Redneck conservatives will think, Well, shee-it, if I coulda skipped out on a buncha boring drills without gettin' caught, I'da done it myself.
  • Rational conservatives will think, Yes it was a technical violation of military code, but not a very serious one. If it had been serious, wouldn't his superiors have done something about it?
People who already dislike Bush already dislike him. As for the mythical wavering folks in the middle, as many will be alienated by a perceived attack on the President's patriotism as might be alienated by Bush's hypocrisy.

In short, there are better battles to choose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. That's why Clark's non-denial is sly!
It is not Clark who is keeping this on the front page, it is the Media. Someone will eventually have to reveal the REAL FACTS concerning bush* the Coward!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. No, don't talk bad about W
Don't try to let people know the truth about this pretender to the thrown. Nah, won't do any good.

So, in other words, we should tell everyone that BUSH WENT AWOL! Not an issue, nay. No one cares that BUSH WENT AWOL.

Well guess what, in 2000 Bush was only a candidate, in 2004 he is the Commander in Chief and has led this country into two wars and is working on the third. You can god damn bet your ass, this is a major issue. I want to see W complete military record, now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #11
19. Locally
As you drive into Masontown, West Virginia, on the only road that passes through the little town, the first building you will see is a VFW. Its a small single story building with a bit of parking. The place fills up on saturday nights, there might be 100 people in there. I can absolutly guarantee you that if it was generally known within that hall that Bush had been AWOL that half of them would not vote for him again. And yes, I did intend to use the word AGAIN. They might not vote for a democrat but the will not vote for a man who shirked his duty to country - - and continues to shirk his duty to country to this day.

Thom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
15. Let's go to the transcript!
Edited on Sun Jan-25-04 11:46 AM by bicentennial_baby
MR. RUSSERT: Since you've been up here in New Hampshire, I've noticed a lot of news coverage--it was brought up in the debate the other day--about Michael Moore's endorsement of you, and I want to give you a chance to clear up this incident if we can. This was Michael Moore on January 17 greeting you at a rally, and then he offered these words.

(Videotape):

MR. MICHAEL MOORE: The general vs. the deserter! That's the debate!

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "The general vs. the deserter! That's the debate!"

GEN. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it appropriate to call the president of the United States a deserter?

GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, Tim, I wouldn't have used that term and I don't see the issues that way. This is an election about the future, and what's at stake in this election is the future of how we're going to move ahead with the economy, how we're going to keep the United States safe and what kind of democracy we want to have, whether we want an open, transparent government or whether we want a very closed and secretive government. To me, those are the issues.

And I was in bowling alleys in Manchester last night talking to people, and nobody mentioned anything about President Bush and his military record. But what they are very concerned about is they don't have work. And when they have work, the work doesn't pay enough to really support a family. That's why what we've done is we've initiated the preparations for the most sweeping tax reform in 30 years. And here's what we're going to do, Tim. If you're a family of four making $50,000 or less, you're never going to pay federal income taxes again. And if you're a family with children making $100,000 or less, you're going to get a tax reduction of about $1,500 a year.

Now, I spent most of my adult life making less than $100,000 a year. In fact, more than half my time in the Army, I made less than $50,000 a year. My mother was a secretary in a bank, and so we struggled, from the time I was a kid growing up all the way through my military career, with what we were going to do at the end of the month and whether we could afford to get a car repaired and what if the seats had a hole in them and how you were going to pay for braces, and all of those issues were important. What we want to do in this campaign is help Americans. We want to take back the White House so that we can help ordinary working families in this country.

MR. RUSSERT: But words are important, and as you well know under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if you're a deserter, the punishment is death during war. Do you disassociate yourself from Michael Moore's comments about the president?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I can't use those words and I don't see the issues in that way. But I will tell you this: that Michael Moore has the right to speak freely. I don't screen what people say when they're going to come up and say something like that. That's his form of dissent, and I support freedom of speech in this country, and I would not have characterized the issues in that way. I think this is an election where we have to look at the future, not at the past. And so what we're doing is we're taking the campaign to the American people on the issues of jobs, education and health care. We can do so much more for people in this country if we just have a government that cares about ordinary people. And that's the way I grew up.

We never had any money in my family and, you know, my father died when I was not quite four and we moved back to Arkansas, and she moved in with her mother and dad. My grandfather, he worked in a sawmill. He basically sharpened saws in the sawmill. We never had anything, and I was just a very lucky young man. I made good grades and I believed in public service, and I owe a lot to this country and I want to help this country do things for other people.

MR. RUSSERT: The right of dissent is one thing, but is there any evidence that you know of that President Bush is a deserter from the United States armed forces?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I've never looked into those, Tim. I've heard those allegations. But I think this election has to turn on holding the president accountable for what he's done in office and comparing who has the better vision to take the country forward.

MR. RUSSERT: One of your major supporters uses words like that. Isn't that a distraction?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it's not distracting me, and I don't see any voters out there who are distracted by it. I've talked to people all across this state, and not one single person has mentioned that. I will tell you this about Michael Moore, though. I think he's a man of conscience. I think he's done a lot of great things for ordinary people, working people, across America. And I'm very happy to have his support. He's free to say things, whatever he wants. I'm focused on the issues in this campaign and how to take America forward.

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/4028066/

I think General Clark did just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GiovanniC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. It's Not Distracting ME
When Russert asked, "One of your major supporters uses words like that. Isn't that a distraction?", Wesley Clark said,

"Well, it's not distracting ME." Emphasis on the me. As in, maybe it's a distraction for you media whores, but I've got a nomination to win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. How Dems Ought to Answer to the "Deserter" Question
"You know, TimMAY, I as an individual don't have access to all the information regarding Shrub's whereabouts during that year, don't have the authority to compel witnesses--or Shrub himself---to come forward. But YOU, TimMAY, and the press at large DO have powerful resources for bringing out the facts upon which a judgment can be made. And actually, TimMAY, this is what should have been done back in Campaign 2000. It's almost a cold case now, the way Shrub shoots first then later says why-not. But I welcome you, TimMAY, and your colleagues' continuing to bring up the issue, so be sure to look into it and give us all the facts so that offical authorities can make a judgment one way or the other."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
17. This is true
and why I, too, thought Moore's statement was "over the top". Moore should have used the term AWOL....big difference in military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
18. Clark did right in his answer.
He defended Moore's right to free speech and at the same time, indicated Moore wasn't the only one to have issues with bush's record. Then he said that's not the issue or issue's he was running on. This leaves questions about this issue in people's minds and they may look into it themselves. The absence may bother some people who didn't think bush would be someone who would disappear from the record for awhile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
21. At this point he did the right thing by deflecting the question.
If the media keeps hammering it after Clark gets the nomination then he should ask * to explain what happened. Get a national dialogue going on. He shouldn't take this question to his campaign. Let AWOL to tell the American people just where he was during his National Guard "missing months".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stuart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-04 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
23. Clark is not being disingenious
Or sly, or slick or any other weasel word you wish to employ.

He dosn't have much of a choice in the matter, as I discussed in Post #7 in this thread. As a former military man (an officer and a general) he is imbued with the military mindset (not that there is anything wrong with that).

He is stuck in a difficult position, to him this is not a "snake" to be killed, or a matter to be dismissed. Too many heroes have died serving their country, for their sacrifices to be diminished by the reprehensible behavior of the current president.

Quite frankly, I don't see how Clark or any other senior military officer could have handled this any differently. Have any other former senior military officers weighed in on this issue?
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, 01:11 PM
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