FLEETWOOD MAC fans for KERRY

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While I perhaps agree that W's purported year absence is questionable, my point is the NG apparently had no problem with it and the records andlive testimony cited above are, at best, sketchy about W's presence during that time period.

Questionable? Other men went to Leavenworth for this type of thing. Where are his records? Daddy fixed it for him and they are praying to God no one digs too deep on this.
Next time you see a veteran you know, ask them how they feel about it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

.

Because you have to actually be in the service to be a deserter.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, he can hemm and haww all he wants, but the fact of the matter is the NG was okay with what W did.

You keep saying that darlin' but where are his records? We don't know if they were okay with it or not. Why won't he release his records? Why wouldn't he take his physical that included a drug test?

[gldstwmn]

Hard evidence of criminal misconduct in the Plame case:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/arc...01.html#002529

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

You can't desert if you don't join. That is actually as straightforward as it gets.

[strandinthewind]

I get that you cannot be a deserter if you do not join. I am not talking about that. I am talking about people like Bill Maher saying Bush is a deserter based solely on his decision to join the National Guard and on his using connections to get in. They say that everyone knew that then the NG was a way to avoid going to Nam and therefore, W was a "deserter." They do not use W's missing AL record to further this argument. They base the term "deserter" solely on W's going into the NG and using connections to get there.

So, I said if that is the case, Clinton did the same thing because he putzed around with the ROTC never (I think) really joinging, then his uncle tried to get him into the reserves, and then he fortuitously got a high draft number. So, by the same standard applied to W, Clinton should be labeled a "deserter" in that he did everything he could, including using family connections, to avoid the draft. So, like Bill Maher, here, I am in no way talking about the missing AL time and the fact that W joined the NG is irrelevant, at least to them, in this context.

Personally, I think the NG should release W's records. But, if they did, the fact still remains that at the time, the NG gave W an honorable discharge or whatever you get from the NG. So, based on those records, in the NG's opinion, W completed his service despite this alleged absence. This is a hard fact to overcome based on speculation, etc. But, again, I say make the records public. Apparently and sadly, no one cares too much about this issue anyway because it apparently did not hurt either of Clinton or W.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Because you have to actually be in the service to be a deserter.

Not according to Bill Maher and his followers. BM said that the mere fact that W joined the NG standing on its own was enough to call him a deserter

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I get that you cannot be a deserter if you do not join. I am not talking about that. I am talking about people like Bill Maher saying Bush is a deserter based solely on his decision to join the National Guard and on his using connections to get in. They say that everyone knew that then the NG was a way to avoid going to Nam and therefore, W was a "deserter."

I don't see what Maher has to do with this. He's entitled to his opinion but he's not a body of military of civilian law. Plese post the text of what he said.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Personally, I think the NG should release W's records. But, if they did, the fact still remains that at the time, the NG gave W an honorable discharge or whatever you get from the NG.

We don't know that. There is no proof because there are no records. That's the problem. Was he honorably discharged? Who knows? It's not the military holding back the release of his service records, it's W. Why?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I don't see what Maher has to do with this. He's entitled to his opinion but he's not a body of military of civilian law. Plese post the text of what he said.

I looked for it, but cannot find it. He said it on his show and on Bill O'Reilly's show. Bill Maher has a lot of followers. That is what he has to do with this.

Also, if you want to get technical, W is not guilty of desertion because the NG never found him to be one Again, we can call him that all we want based on our opinion of the facts we know (which are not all of the facts). But, that is not the same as him being found guilty of desertion, which he was not. Rather, the NG was satisfied enough with his service to discharge him after completing his term to the satisfaction of the NG. The NG apparently is still happy with that decision.

Finally, to be techincal, you cannot be a deserter unless you are, I believe, 31 days AWOL (I think also a court martial for a convicted crime is desertion). W could not be AWOL for going to AL because he was authorized, right or wrong, to do so. I suppose if he was missing as much as is alleged while in AL, he may have been AWOL, but the NG did not see it that way. Here is alink to an apparently amateur article containing links about this (sorry - I had no more time to research more and this site had it, etc. )

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
While I perhaps agree that W's purported year absence is questionable, my point is the NG apparently had no problem with it and the records andlive testimony cited above are, at best, sketchy about W's presence during that time period. So, the only conclusion supported by the known facts is that W's service in the NG must have been legit. from that perspective. In the end, all we have is unsupported but probably true conjecture. Note: men have hung for less

Don't you think that the reason they have no problem with his absence is because his father used his influence to *not* make it a problem? He used his daddy to get him and I'm sure he used his daddy to get out.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Again, I just do not see how they both were not deserters if you follow that line of logic?

BECAUSE HE DESERTED HIS POST IN THE GUARD!

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
For example, his statement "Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion." He implies W was somehow unqualified. Yet, W passed the test. What more is there to say? Also, he became a fighter pilot - so apparently he was qualified

His point was that those positions in the Guard were highly coveted and very hard to obtain at that point, yet Shrub, ranking the lowest, got accepted. It doesn't pass the smell test.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Don't you think that the reason they have no problem with his absence is because his father used his influence to *not* make it a problem? He used his daddy to get him and I'm sure he used his daddy to get out.

I agree that is an issue - but my point in all of this is not W culpability - it is W did not do anything Clinton did not do. Clinton used family influence to avoid the draft. The two are equal in my eyes.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
His point was that those positions in the Guard were highly coveted and very hard to obtain at that point, yet Shrub, ranking the lowest, got accepted. It doesn't pass the smell test.

But, he qualified. That is legitimate. It would be different if he had failed the tests, etc. But, he did not. He passed them, particularly the flight school test, within the accepted range.