Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush fulfilled his commitment

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 (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
really-looney Donating Member (330 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:14 AM
Original message
Bush fulfilled his commitment
When AWOL joined the Texas Air National Guard he signed up for a six year hitch. Why so long, because the American Tax Payer (Its your money) spent a lot of money to train him to fly an obsolete aircraft ensuring that he would not have to go to Viet Nam.

When the White House says, "He fulfilled his commitment" they are not telling the truth. It is pretty simple 6 year commitment, 5.5 years of service.

He did not complete his service. Additionally he did not fulfill his commitment to keep up his flight status after we spent all that money to train him.

How many people got to drop out of the Guard with our completing their total time.

How many Senators grandsons and Congressman's sons got that treatment, I can think of only one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. The pertinent question is "Why was he grounded?"
Refused to take physical/drug test. Why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Refused a direct order to take a flight physical.
It wasn't a choice he could just choose to ignore. It was a Mandatory Physical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. The 'grounded' document has not been mentioned lately.
Not on DU either. Certainly not on news programs.

Was the document showing that Bush had not flown and would be grounded, not allowed to fly, along with W's friend Bath coincidentally, debunked? The document noted that the required medical was not taken for both buddies. This was supposedly the first time the Bush medical would include DRUG TESTING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Well
I have to say, there's only one who's currently in the spotlight, but I would be surprised if other children of the rich and powerful enjoyed a similar privilege.

Not that i'm justifying it; I think this issue points to the inherent inequalities that exist in our cultures.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. That makes it OK then.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I guess you missed my point
Do you think it's ok if someone weasles out of their national guard duty if they aren't running for President on the Republican Ticket?

I don't. And like I said, I think this points to a system that protects George W. Bush and people like him, while screwing a lot of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DenverDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I guess you missed my point.
To say that all rich kids got the kind of absurd favoritism that AWOL got diminishes the ridiculous level of privilege he enjoyed. War is a poor man's burden. War is a scam to redistribute a nation's wealth to the rich. Rich kids don't fight wars unless they volunteer like Kerry. But the unbelievably sweet ride that worthless george got is reserved for the power elite. The outrage over this issue should have masses storming the gates of the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qanisqineq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. The only way my husband got out
of the National Guard was by going back to the regular Army. But he was going to be called back to active duty anyway (due to Iraq war).

If you want to get out, you have to have a powerful daddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think it's funnier that they are pointing out that he got paid
as proof.

When I heard that, I kept thinking about those "phantom employees" that accountants at firms keep "issuing large checks" to, and yet, nobody remembers them.

Remember the guy in "Shawshank Redemption" that Tim Robbins' character set up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
6. Here is what the Air National Guard says about it
http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp

<snip>Vietnam revealed a negative aspect of relying on reservists. For largely domestic political reasons, President Johnson chose not to mobilize most of the nation's reserve forces. The 1968 callups were only token affairs. Johnson's decision to avoid a major reserve mobilization was opposed by the senior leadership of both the active duty military establishment and the reserve forces, but to no avail. The Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men. Military leaders questioned the wisdom of depending on reserve forces that might not be available except in dire emergencies.

Race had emerged as another major issue with flowering of the American civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. For over a decade after the active duty military establishment had begun to integrate its ranks during the Korean War, the National Guard had remained an almost exclusively white organization. Discrimination varied, but ten states with large black populations and understaffed Guard units still had no black Guardsmen in their ranks as late as 1961. Secretary of Defense McNamara had tried to encourage voluntary integration in the early 1960s, with little success. The NGB had disputed his legal authority to force integration while the Guard was under state control. It had also argued that integration would be political suicide for some governors and would hurt the military capabilities of their units.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-11-04 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. but, but that was then ... and 911 happened ...
and, life changed after 40 and he got Billy Graham to Born him Again ... and and and ... arghhhhhh ...

when I was college c. 1968-->
we were divided back then ... the Vietnam War ... civil right movements (gee ... both still going on ... seems reflective of the progress which seems to be anchored and obstructed ... since RFK died)

I know the Bush-types who were my counter-parts on campus ...

he's such a smirk ... he embodies that "mindset" ... the considered
pro-Administration types ... readers of the Administration-issued school paper, not the easy accessible alternative press ... he's their poster boy, and deserves full-effect of the what goes around syndrome

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, 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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