» Democrats revisit Bush’s National Guard service Dvorak Uncensored: General interest observations and true web-log.

Democrats revisit Bush’s National Guard service

Published on September 9th, 2004

neil
Why isn’t anyone talking aout Neil and Jeb Bush’s military service to see if there is a pattern of abuse?
Democrats revisit Bush’s National Guard service It looks as if all the anti-Kerry attacks are beginning to draw people out of the woodwork. The theory is that real military men are getting a little annoyed by Bush and Cheney (who shirked duty) being so high and mighty about Kerry who did go to Viet Nam for however long.

What the mainstream media needs to do is look for patterns. that means looking into the military careers of Jeb Bush and Neil Bush. Both of whom are in the age category that put them into the Viet Nam draft. Where is this information? Where is this liberal media when we need them? Do I have to do it? What do these reporters do all day?

The new material includes details in a Boston Globe story indicating that Bush, despite pledging to do so under threat of being called to active duty, did not fulfill his Guard responsibilities after he moved from Houston to Massachusetts and Alabama.

The Pentagon also released new Bush military records this week despite previous claims by the White House that all available records had been released.

In addition to the new reports, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes went on “60 Minutes” Wednesday night to reiterate comments he first made at a rally of John Kerry supporters in Austin in May. Those comments were later posted on a Web site run by Kerry backers in Austin.

Barnes, who in 1999 acknowledged he had been contacted by a Bush family friend in 1968 about getting young George W. Bush into the National Guard, told Dan Rather that he helped many sons of politically connected Texans get into the Guard during the Vietnam War.

related link:

If you have the time read the Freezerbox post, specifically item number 4. The writer has amassed a ton of material but unfortunately presents it as a long wall of type making it difficult to read.

There is also this interesting observation in item 6:

As for the man responsible for 9/11, the Amdinistration has chosen to quietly forget him. Since the beginning of 2003, Bush has mentioned Osama bin Laden’s name ten times, six of which were in response to a direct question. On four other occasions Bush was asked about bin Laden but managed to answer without using his name. None of these instances involved a lengthy or substantive discussion of bin Laden; in the same period he mentioned Saddam Hussein by name more than 300 times. In a news conference in March of 2003, when CNN reporter Kelly Wallace asked Bush why he discussed bin laden so infrequently, the President rambled a bit and then had this to say:

I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you… I truly am not that concerned about him.

Well, I’ve got to be honest too. Considering that Bush’s Administration regularly initiates dubious (and suspiciously timed) terror alerts based on threats from bin Laden’s organization, it’s a little disconcerting that the President pays the man no mind. He certainly seems to want the rest of us to worry about Osama. Why doesn’t he worry about him?

5 users responded in " Democrats revisit Bush’s National Guard service "

# 1 Mike Voice said, on September 11th, 2004 at 8:48 am

“Focus” has shifted from bin Laden to al-Qaeda, and from Hussein to al Sadr.

Who knows where bin Laden is? Is he even alive?

Who knows where Hussein is? Iraq? Gitmo?

Does anybody really care? in an election year? on the anniversary of the event that “changed everything”?

# 2 Mike Voice said, on September 11th, 2004 at 9:19 am

A nice “zinger” in the Feeezerbox post, #7:

Cheney and Bush supported Vietnam but didn’t go. Kerry went, developed doubts, and came home a protester. This, apparently, is the height of anti-Americanism, which is why Tom Delay ripped into Kerry for it in 2003. “If we had had the leadership of a George W. Bush in those days,” Delay said, “we probably would not have lost that war.” And why was DeLay at home during Vietnam? Here’s the explanation he gave back in 1988: “So many minority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape poverty and the ghetto that there was literally no room for patriotic folks.”

# 3 Charley said, on September 12th, 2004 at 8:19 pm

The real analagous question is:

Why has no one looked into how Kerry got into that cushy spot in the Naval Reserve. He applied for a deferment – it was denied – he quickly gets into the Naval Reserve Anyone believe that there were not other people in Boston wainting in line for that slot?

The only difference between the Kerry and Bush scenarios is that Kerry’s unit was – suprise – called up. Other units of the TANG were called up – Bush’s wasn’t.

Bush’s training REQUIRED about two years of full time duty – Kerry’s did not. Kerry potentially had the much esier route – he was simply unlucky. But he was sure Lucky to get in. Who did he pay? What did they have to say – and to whom – to get HIM in? Where’s the investigation or story?

# 4 Mike Voice said, on September 13th, 2004 at 10:00 am

Other units of the TANG were called up – Bush�s wasn�t.

Careful, Charley – the way this crap keeps snowballing, some “liberal” will spot that and claim the reason Bush’s unit wasn’t called-up is because it was Bush’s unit.

# 5 Charley said, on September 13th, 2004 at 8:09 pm

Those who would question why Bush’s unit ws not called up would simply have not done any research before asking.

The palnes had been determined to be not useful for a mission in Vietnam. They had taken them over there and the 102’s had not bee effective. They were assigned other missions in the US. I’m not sure when this became evident – but it seems that it was after Bush was trained in that plane.

Leave Your Reply Below...