The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on October 29, 2015, 07:51:10 AM

Title: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: dutch508 on October 29, 2015, 07:51:10 AM
The are two fundamental truths to being a DUmp Monkey.

1) BUSH stole the elections. All of them... even Washington's.
2) BUSH is an idiot. And a genius. And was AWOL. And is evil.


Quote
eridani (47,462 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027298160

George W. Bush Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It?


http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33189-focus-george-w-bush-was-awol-but-whatsqtruthq-got-to-do-with-it

Two things are undeniably true about the Bush-AWOL story. One is that its collapse exemplified the Bush magic that somehow imbued him with the aura of competence, intelligence, and leadership and made him oddly invulnerable to obvious criticism — think “The Emperor’s New Clothes” — until it all came crashing down after Hurricane Katrina.

The other truth is that Bush was undeniably a shirker, and smugly AWOL from his safe, cushy National Guard gig at a time when thousands of young men his age were being sent to their slaughter in Vietnam.

That had been clear ever since Walter Robinson, the editor of the Spotlight investigative team at the Boston Globe, extensively reported out the story in May 2000, piecing together an article from available military records that has never been definitively challenged.

The Washington Post in 1999 had raised questions of favoritism and joining the Guard to avoid dangerous duty in Vietnam. But it was the Globe that introduced the missing AWOL year.

Possibly because the Globe had out-reported its bigger colleagues, the story didn’t get picked up by the elite national outlets. When Democrats tried to bring it up again on the eve of the election, the New York Times pooh-poohed it under an instant classic of false-equivalence headline: “Bush’s Guard Attendance Is Questioned and Defended.” A “review of records by the New York Times indicated that some of those concerns may be unfounded,” the story said.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post castigated Democrats for their “11th-hour attempt to exploit a dormant issue.” The Post acknowledged the truth — “It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him” — but waved it off as an irrelevance.

 ::)

Quote
LakeVermilion (102 posts)
1. But the WP felt no shame in enabling the Republicans to "Swift Boat" John Kerry. Kerry actually was engaged in combat in Viet Nam, while Bush was "serving" locally

 ::)

Quote
Snobblevitch (1,082 posts)
2. My response to this topic is to ignore it. We don't want an interest into President Clinton on the same topic.

 ::)

Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: txradioguy on October 29, 2015, 07:53:57 AM
Quote
eridani (47,462 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027298160

George W. Bush Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It?

Because the truth doesn't support your lie.

We had over 200 FOIA requests for his military records jacket in 2000.  There was no "there" there.
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on October 29, 2015, 09:39:52 AM
Another Lib hitpiece film destined to flop at the box office despite adoring blowjobbery from the Lib reviewers.
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: SVPete on October 29, 2015, 11:23:51 AM
Quote
The other truth is that Bush was undeniably a shirker, and smugly AWOL from his 1. safe, cushy National Guard gig at a time when 2. thousands of young men his age were being sent to their slaughter in Vietnam.

That had been clear ever since Walter Robinson, the editor of the Spotlight investigative team at the Boston Globe, extensively reported out the story in May 2000, piecing together an article from available military records that has never been 3. definitively challenged.

The Washington Post in 1999 had raised 4. questions of favoritism and joining the Guard to avoid dangerous duty in Vietnam. But it was the Globe that introduced the missing AWOL year.

NTSA! (Not invoking the government agency)

1. The F-102 was a difficult plane to fly, and not a few pilots died in crashes.

2. GWB volunteered for a program in which several TANG F-102 pilots served in Vietnam. GWB was turned down for lack of cockpit hours, and the program was ended soon after.

3. Actually, the story has been refuted, by multiple sources, including by another member of GWB's TANG squadron. The key word in this sentence is "definitively": the article author is the one who is the judge of what would be "definitive".

4. There was "favoritism" involved. TANG took pilots ahead of future gate guards. GWB was already a pilot. As for "to avoid dangerous duty in Vietnam" see 1. and 2. above.

My sources for the information above, plus a lot more:[/q]

http://www.wnd.com/2004/02/23318/ - WorldNetDaily, "EX-AIRMEN DOUSE RUMORS OVER BUSH'S GUARD SERVICE"

http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html - George Magazine, now defunct, founded by JFK Jr., "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either"

http://factcheck.bootnetworks.com/article140.html - FactCheck.org, "New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/feb/10/20040210-082910-8424r/?page=all - ‘Bush and I were lieutenants’, letter to the editor by Col. Campenni

http://www.aim.org/press-release/report-says-dan-rather-personally-involved-in-cbs-news-campaign-to-destroy-/ - Accuracy in Media, "Report Says Dan Rather Personally Involved in CBS News Campaign to Destroy President Bush; Accuracy"

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/13/doubts_raised_on_bush_accuser/ - Boston Globe, "Doubts raised on Bush accuser"

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-military_x.htm - USA Today/AP, "Former Guardsman: Bush served with me in Alabama"

I'm sure at least some DU-folk would sneer at some of the sources - e.g. WND and the WashTimes. But some of the sources will be less easy to dismiss - the AP, USA Today, the Boston Globe, and FactCheck.org.
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on October 29, 2015, 01:31:21 PM
NTSA! (Not invoking the government agency)

1. The F-102 was a difficult plane to fly, and not a few pilots died in crashes.

2. GWB volunteered for a program in which several TANG F-102 pilots served in Vietnam. GWB was turned down for lack of cockpit hours, and the program was ended soon after.

3. Actually, the story has been refuted, by multiple sources, including by another member of GWB's TANG squadron. The key word in this sentence is "definitively": the article author is the one who is the judge of what would be "definitive".

4. There was "favoritism" involved. TANG took pilots ahead of future gate guards. GWB was already a pilot. As for "to avoid dangerous duty in Vietnam" see 1. and 2. above.

I'll have to add some urls to this post later, my sources for the statements above.

The Century-series jets were ALL widow-makers, as were their Naval contemporaries, the 102 and 106 probably among if not the worst of all for the US (And the 104G for Germany), due to all but one of the series-production planes being single-engine birds with aerodynamics designed around pushing them through the air near or past the speed sound, which resulted in rather 'Sporty' behavior at the speeds necessary for landing and glide ratios roughly similar to boulders if the engine had a bad day.  In the days before rocket-powered ejection seats (They mostly used a pair of 20mm blank shells to blow off the canopy and a 37mm blank to blow the seat assembly out), ejection during a landing gone bad was normally fatal since the ejection trajectory did not go high enough for the chute to inflate.  Riding it out, also pretty likely to be fatal, was the only option.  Planes and lives were a lot cheaper then, and the Air Force had a lot more of each.

But the whole AWOL meme is technically defective anyway.  W was excused, properly or not, from drill days, which are 'Inactive duty training.'  You cannot be legally AWOL from that type of duty, only from an active duty status like 'Annual Training,' 'Active Duty for Training,' or the like.  If you miss drill days without permission, you simply get an administrative black mark for unsat performance of the drill period(s) you missed; once you accumulate a big enough stack of them, you could (In those days) be involuntarily activated and shipped out (Nowadays, they just separate you from service).  The degree to which people are excused from those drill duties varied widely from unit to unit, but given how reserve component units were funded at the time, I doubt his squadron had any flying hours to spare beyond the necessary minimum to keep the active pilots minimally qualified, they were probably at on near full manning, and a bunch of bored butterbar pilots sitting around the break room reading the paper while everyone else does the normal unit support work is not all that appealing to most commanders.
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: DLR Pyro on October 29, 2015, 03:19:50 PM
Quote
eridani (47,462 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027298160

George W. Bush Was AWOL, But What's "Truth" Got to Do With It?
I'll indulge you DUmbphucks wetdream that GWB was AWOL for a few minutes to ask you how many people died because he was AWOL?  Hmm?  Fast forward to today and lets look at beau bergdahl who was not awol, but deserted his post and in the process of looking for him, people did die and what did he get?  A rose garden ceremony by obama and a slap on the wrist for his crime. 

And while we are on the subject of obama and awol, this clown has been awol from the office of the President for most of his term, spending much of his time on the golf course or jetting his extended family all around the world at the American taxpayer's expense.

GWB has been out of the White House for 7 years so even in he had been awol many decades ago, to quote the leading democrat party caniddate for 2016, "What difference at this point does it make?"
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: thundley4 on October 29, 2015, 04:04:39 PM
Quote
Snobblevitch (1,082 posts)
2. My response to this topic is to ignore it. We don't want an interest into President Clinton on the same topic.

Did Hillary travel with President Clinton when he was a young draft dodger?
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: Delmar on October 29, 2015, 04:33:16 PM
Hey lurking primitives, here's another rich kid shirker with a safe and cushy National Guard gig for you to hate on.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8EfdKK1k_4[/youtube]
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: Ptarmigan on October 29, 2015, 09:17:59 PM
They still cannot get over with Bush. Talk about grudge holding!  :mental:
Title: Re: AWOL BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Post by: JakeStyle on October 29, 2015, 09:44:56 PM
They still cannot get over with Bush. Talk about grudge holding!  :mental:

They never will, any discussion of the Bush Crime Family Evil Empire sends them into a paranoid frenzy.  It's really the only thing that makes me want to see Jeb stick it out.