the Globe~Bush's service record criticized

[maddezmom]

Bush's service record criticized
By Patrick Healy, Globe Staff, 1/31/2004

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- Presidential candidate John F. Kerry yesterday took aim at Republicans for questioning Democrats' patriotism, and several fellow military veterans blasted President Bush as a failed commander in chief who once dodged military service and suffers from never having learned the lessons of war.


Speaking to about 250 veterans and South Carolina voters at a town-hall-style forum, four days before the state's primary, former US senator Max Cleland of Georgia introduced Kerry as a combat leader with the caring touch of Shakespeare's Henry V, while accusing Bush of shirking his military duty during the Vietnam era.

"We need somebody who has felt the sting of battle, not someone who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the Guard," said Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, in a reference to allegations that Bush, who stopped flying with the Texas Air National Guard in 1972, did not fulfill the last two years of his military obligation.

Kerry did not comment on Cleland's remarks, which echoed filmmaker Michael Moore's recent denunciation of Bush as a "deserter" and caused some embarrassment for candidate Wesley K. Clark, whom Moore is backing. Instead the Massachusetts senator offered his own retort to nationalGOP leaders who have recently criticized him as weak on national security because he has sometimes opposed higher defense spending, among other military proposals.
~snip~

more:http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/01/31/bushs_service_record_criticized/

Bush is getting it from both Clark and Kerry about his missing service records....wonder if the media will do an investigation? doubt it, but message of AWOL/deserter bush* is still getting out.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. At least this time the story is getting out well in advance

of the election. People didn't hear it, or disregarded it, coming so close to the 2000 election, just like the DUI story.

I think the stories may get some notice this year.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

2. one certainty. if kerry wins he will appoint cleland to some high level

cabinate position

[Leilani]

3. Will Senator Kerry be criticized by the media

for not denouncing Max Cleland's remarks, as General Clark was pilloried for refusing to denounce Michael Moore's remarks?

Is it OK for the Kerry campaign to use this issue, but Clark can be pounded every which way when they use this issue?

We'll see if the national media treats the candidates equally.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. The difference is Cleland was accurate.

Bush didn't desert. He failed to show up for a year. That's why Micheal Moore is a filmmaker, not a politician, because a politician has to know how to be precise with language.

[krkaufman]

11. Wrong, a politician....

Wrong, a politician has to know how to be vague with language; and their votes.

[Strelnikov_]

12. Better Check Your UCMJ

"Danielsen, provost marshal at Fort Bragg, wants possible deserters to imagine being on the run for the rest of their lives.

"They should turn themselves in because eventually they'll be caught," Danielsen said. "That federal warrant remains valid for 40 years."

"That federal warrant" is issued the moment a soldier crosses the line between absent without leave and desertion. A soldier who does not show up for duty is classified as AWOL for 30 days. After that, he or she becomes an official deserter. During a time of war, the 30-day grace period disappears, she said."

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_3714.shtml

Sounds like he was pretty precise to me.

[isbister]

7. There is a difference

because Moore used the term deserter. Deserter cannot be proven at this point because bush did return to the Guard.

[TomNickell]

10. Max Cleland + Michael Moore

Michael Moore can be 'over-the-top'. That's what he does. He got a lot of attention.

Don't know whether it was good for Gen. Clark to have him say that at -his- rally, but shit happens.

Max Cleland has credibility. If he makes a precise charge, it has to be taken seriously.

The combination is more than either alone.

[tishaLA]

4. Will Clark take Kerry's line

and call these comments "over the top"? Of course not. But Kerry did it to him when Moore did it.

[BeyondGeography]

6. Yes, many of us Clark supporters won't forget that

Will we?

I guess Kerry's political weather vane (which has been known to point in several directions) wasn't pointing our way on Crossfire that day.

But Kerry supporters will say, "It wasn't safe to back up Clark at that time, because the media's knives were out for anyone who gave credence to Moore. Now they're actually looking into Bush/AWOL, so it's alright for a surrogate like Cleland to make these comments. This proves Kerry is a savvier politican than Clark."

We know. We weren't born yesterday. We just see the potential for a greater President when we look at Clark, because we trust him to choose principle over politics.

[isbister]

8. Kerry supporters will say

There is a big difference between deserter and AWOL.

Cleland said:

We need somebody who has felt the sting of battle, not someone who didn't even complete his tour stateside in the Guard"

On one hand the period bush was AWOL is very much in question. In addition to that bush was excused from the time commitment of his service to go to Harvard.

But he was excused after having made all of his points during some make-up time.

If we dismiss the AWOL charge (which I believe he was), then Cleland was wrong, bush got an honorable discharge.

If Cleland and Moore could get on the page and use the correct term to describe bush's missing time... then bush has questions to answer.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. First,

first, Kerry was just answering a question -- he didn't raise the issue. And Kerry just said the rhetoric was over the top - which it was because it was imprecise. When we make dumb mistakes like leveling the wrong charge it just weakens our position.

[maxr4clark]

14. What would you have done

in Clark's position? I would have done what he did: defended Moore's first amendment rights, and focus on Bush's mistakes while in office.

What would you want the President to do, if Canada's Prime Minister made a snide remark about the Saudi head of state when at the White House? Because that's the same situation if Clark were President: an ally making a remark about someone who is important to us, but not really on our team. I'd want him to say that the Canadian Prime Minister is entitled to his opinion, but that opinion is irrelevant to our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

We're trying to pick a President, not a leader of the debate team.

[mikehiggins]

13. Except of course that the media blasted Clark for it.

When Kerry talked with Gebala and Novak about it he nuanced his way out of it pretty clearly, leaving Clark holding the bag along with Terry MacCauliff.

Even now its his surrogates talking about it, not him.

"Kerry did not comment on Cleland's remarks"

Hardly surprising.