Media wagons circle around Bush -WH calls AWOL charges "outrageous"

[NewYorkerfromMass]

So this is the story flooding the new lines now:

White House says criticism of Bush military record "outrageous"

Press secretary Scott McClellan said the attacks represent "the worst of election-year politics."

Some Democrats have suggested Bush shirked his Vietnam-era duty by finding a slot in the Texas Air National Guard. And Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe has charged Bush was even absent without leave from that service, or AWOL, referring to incomplete records from the time.

The service issue has emerged as Democrats compare Bush to their front-runner, John Kerry, and to retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Both are decorated Vietnam War veterans.

But McClellan said Bush "fulfilled his duties" in the National Guard unit -- which is why he received an honorable discharge.

Be sure to take the poll at this link

[dsc]

1. I am loathe to defend the media

but I fail to see a problem in what you quoted here. It is hardly surprising that the white house spokesman would say this and it is news when the white house spokesman defends Bush on this charge. IMO it actually helps us in that we are finally getting this charge some much needed airtime.

[oasis]

2. Thanks for including the poll link.

[underpants]

3. 55% (132 votes) say yes 11% need more info

Oh would you like some more information? Still talking about it?

[Atman]

4. It is still good news.

It puts the question out there for all to see. No longer to be dismissed as crazy crap someone said on the internet. Bill Hemmer was actually surprisingly firm with some RNC spokesgoober this morning, interupting when the guy's answer started to veer off into Bush campaign speak, asking him pointedly if he can prove the charges false. It will cause many fence-sitters to finally jump off. I don't think it will rally people around poor George...those days are done.

[a_random_joel]

5. Did you read the Washington Post article today?

Not a bad start, IMO...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer

[hlthe2b]

6. No, the article says the WH calls AWOL charges "outrageous"

I've certainly seen more objective articles on this today than ever in the past. Both WP and NYT have reasonable pieces; WP includes a columnist review of what evidence via websites is out there. While ABC made the unfortunate premature assessment that it was unfounded, the rest of the media largely seems to be taking a wait and see approach (see if the other media outlets pick it up) or they are at least presenting the basic known facts and letting the reader draw their own conclusion. Getting it out there more and more is helpful to making people at least "think." And, if it continues to pickup steam, Bush may well get confronted on it...

[bushisanidiot]

7. Damned Good! Keep The AWOL/Deserter Story In The News!

I hope it keeps getting brought up over and over and over.. There was hardly a blip of this story in the media in 2000.

[BOSSHOG]

8. Scott McClellan - Telling the truth - outrageous

No WMD - outrageous
Outing a CIA operative - outrageous
Profiting from insider trading - outrageous
deficits don't matter - outrageous
One man, one vote - outrageous
No bid contracts for cheney's firm - outrageous

This is one wacky outrageous administration. Spread the word.

[maddezmom]

9. 312 56% Yes -181 33% NO

Choice Votes Percentage of 555 Votes
Yes. 312 56%
No. 181 33%
I'd need more info to decide. 62 11%

[annxburns]

10. Whoo- hooo ...

.... Google "Bush and AWOL". Finally.

[evil_orange_cat]

11. Monica, whitewater, etc... represent the worst in politics...

not legitimate concerns about the AWOL status of our chickenhawk president...

hey scotty... deez nutz...:mad:

[dae]

12. 56% Yes (524), 31% No (295), 13% (119) Need more info.

[nolabels]

35. I am trying to find them people in the 13% that need more info.

http://www.awolbush.com/
On the net I send them here, but on for the less computer savvy there seems to be a little bit of black hole. I fill it in whenever possible, but hope this thing to goes full tilt in a month or two.

Putting them bumper stickers on is was a benefit they never told me about when I got my DD214

[bigtree]

13. Dig that poll

Go man go!

[ChiefJoseph]

14. I'm new to DU

One of the things that has surprised me since joining is the resonance of the AWOL charge. What gives? Why does this issue seem to fire up DUers so much?

Personally, I don't see it as a winner for us. Many Dems -- including Kerry -- were emphatic that Vietnam service was not a must for Presidents of the Boomer generation when Clinton was running. Bush avoided Vietnam by hiding out in the National Guard. So did lots of people in his generation. How is Bush's avoidance of active service any different from Clinton's avoidance of active service?

Is it worse to have joined the National Guard and then failed to show up for drills or to have refused to join the military in any form altogether?

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I think it's more about

the hypocracy than about anything else. I don't know if you remember how Clinton was raked over the coals for not serving in a war which he opposed, by getting legal student defferments (like Dick Cheney).

First of all, Bush, Cheney and most of the rest of the Chickenhawk Republicans were in favor of the Vietnam war, but still were unwilling to fight in it. Many of us see this as a far greater moral lapse than what Clinton did.

Secondly, when you are actually signed on with the National Guard, you have an actual duty which you are legally obligated to fulfill. GWB apparently failed to fulfill his legal duty, and got away with it because his daddy was powerful. Most other people who did what he did would have simply been shipped off to Vietnam, or else thrown in prison.

Thirdly, whether right or wrong, many people have a strong visceral reaction to people who failed to serve in combat when they had the opportunity, and now have absolutely no problem sending other peoples sons and daughters to die, in something they saw themselves as too good to dirty their hands with.

You may or may not find these issues compelling. I myself find them very compelling.

[ChiefJoseph]

18. Still think it's a bad idea.

Your first point is relatively fair. Michael Kinsley addressed this issue at some length.

Your second point doesn't do anything for me. Technically you're right, but my point is this: Clinton didn't serve at all. Bush served a little and then bailed out to go do whatever. A lot of people would say that serving a little, if imperfectly, is better than not serving at all.

Your third point is also a no-go. Lots of presidents who had the opportunity to serve in combat, but didn't, have sent our troops into harm's way.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. So basically what you are saying

is that it is far more egregious to use legal means to avoid military service, than it is to sign up for military service, go AWOL, and then escape any consequences through your family's influence. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

For what it's worth, I have far greater respect for Cheney's use of legal loopholes to get out of service than I have for Bush's signing on for service and then going AWOL. In my opinion, that is just about as low as you can go, and people have been given the death penalty for doing what Bush did.

However, that's just my opinion as a crazy radical, I'm probably completely in the wrong.

By the way, what is your opinion of Bush being grounded from flying because he refused to take a physical that included drug testing? Does he get a pass on that one as well?

By the way, welcome to DU. It sounds as though you may find many of the opinions expressed here rather offensive to your sensibilities, but you have my respect if you can actually stick it out.

[iowapeacechief]

17. There's all the difference in the world between GW's failing to show up...

...for guard drills (especially when the appointment was such a cronyism deal in the first place) and those members of the Vietnam generation (myself included) who did, in fact, refuse to join the military in any form. Your question surprises me.

Welcome to DU!

[BootinUp]

19. The new emphasis on National Security

after 9/11 is driving it. The Democrats are going to put forth a candidate with strong Foreign policy credentials, and dare the Bushies to make that a campaign focus, at least thats what I want the Democrats to do.

[bigtree]

20. hey, ChiefJoseph (my favorite famous chief)

Welcome to DU!

I think what most of us want is for Bush to come clean on anything.

I dunno. What was the point in joining if you didn't intend to serve? This was at the time that many, including two of the candidates, were over there fighting to survive. Conservatives like Bush and Cheney apparently were in full agreement with Nixon's bloody war but did little to help those who actually fought and died.

There is an arrogance in his flaunting of our military in manufactured mercenary conflicts and in his hunger to conquer and dominate others with our awesome force. I believe humility would come with a full explanation of what he actually did while the pride of his generation fought and bled.

[ChiefJoseph]

21. Thanks, I like CJ, too.

"What was the point in joining if you didn't intend to serve?"

To dodge the draft, of course. Look, I agree it was a shitty thing to do, no question about it. Cowardly even, if you truly supported the war, but couldn't bring yourself to fight in it.

I'm just saying that after screaming till we were blue in the face that Clinton's active avoidance of military service didn't compromise his ability to be commander in chief, which it didn't, it looks kind of strange to be hitting Bush for being a draft dodger.
I felt the same thing when everyone was slamming Arnold for groping chicks. Hello?

Also, don't forget it was Johnson's bloody war, too.

[Dhalgren]

23. To me it boils down to this.

Did Georgie break the law? If he went AWOL for any length of time, he broke the law. Now, if his Daddy got him out of it (as it appears he got him out of several law-breaking episodes), then everyone should know this. It is completely legitimate to question any politician on the possibility of his/her having broken the law - at any time in their past.

[ChiefJoseph]

24. I see what you're saying.

If we go forward with this, I just hope everyone sees it that way. And I have a feeling they won't.

[Dhalgren]

28. Anyone, who looks at the world today and out situation in it

and says that they give Bush a pass on having broken the law and gone AWOL while avoiding service in Vietnam are lost causes, anyway. If someone is so blinded by their abject love of Bush and his blood-soaked policies that they cannot see the connection between his behavior when asked to serve and the fact that he is asking youngsters to serve and die, today, then they can remain firmly in the shadow of their leader - it's o.k.

[bigtree]

34. Yeah, Johnson. What a large character he was. Like John Wayne

He's the reason I've loved McGovern all these years. Not that, in looking back, I wouldn't have wanted Humphrey to beat Nixon. Hard to say if I would have gone for the promise to 'end the war'. He sure lied about that though. Turns out he wanted peace, just as soon as he won that war.

I tend to think Bush will hang himself with it anyway. It's probably true that we shouldn't get our prints on it. Good to push the poll though . .

[maggrwaggr]

27. I agree with you, Chief

I think this issue, if harped on before the general election, will backfire.

It will backfire the same way that the Gropinator charges against Schwarwzenegger did.

That being said, NOW is the perfect time to make the american public aware of them!!

But we need to drop it before the election.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Took the poll

It's funny how no one got their panties in a wad when Bill Clinton was persistently referred to as a draft dodger because of getting student defferments (like Dick Cheney). The hypocracy is absolutely astounding.

I'm really glad that this information is finally getting some coverage, even if it's in sputtering indignation.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

22. Q for doubters: Are there NG in Iraq right now?

Then it's an issue.

[Dhalgren]

25. Damned excellent point!

[rucky]

26. Eggcellent. We all know what "outrageous" means.

I don't wanna talk about it

[dumpster_baby]

30. here is my analysis of this story

I started a thread on it in General Discussion:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1081694#1081766

Here is my post from that thread:
Look at this amazing example of how the Bushco Media Propaganda Machine is able to propagate language so very close to what they want. I am referring a TV news script that is being repeated VERBATIM on TV news stations all over America today.

Here is the script http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=1628112 (pulled from google). See http://news.google.com/news?q=White+House+says+criticism+of+Bush+milit... to see how many TV news stations are playing this script right now.

I myself know very well how this game works, having written TV news scripts myself. The script is almost certainly a newswire story "ripped" from the AP newswire. And because this particular one is so short and succinct, it will likely go out on the TV news just as it is.

Let's take a look at how the script writer uses language, in particular, how he/she assumes facts that are actually in dispute:

White House-AP -- The White House says Democratic criticism of President Bush's military service record is "outrageous and baseless."



The writer got his main points out there right away. And because of the brevity of that first sentence, "outrageous and baseless" stands out.



Some Democrats have suggested Bush shirked his Vietnam-era duty by finding a slot in the Texas Air National Guard. And Democratic party chairman Terry McAuliffe has charged Bush was even "AWOL" from that service. He points to incomplete records from the time.


Actually, as most of us here know, it is NOT the incomplete documents that are the most damning, it is that fact that he was suspended from duty, and was a document in the record said he was NOT observed on the post where he was supposed to be. So the script avoids the most damning charges. A strawman has thus been constructed.


But McClellan says Bush "fulfilled his duties" in the National Guard unit -- which is why he received an honorable discharge.


Now the above is the real killer for this script: the writer saves his/her strongest point for last, and even made it stand out more by seperating it from the rest of the sentence with a dash. And most of all, by NOT quoting McClellan, but instead placing "which is why he received an honorable discharge" at the end of the sentence WITHOUT quotes, the WRITER -- NOT MCClellan -- is making the argument that Bush did not not go AWOL. So in a sense the writer is subtextually ASSUMING a fact in dispute, namely, that Bush did not go AWOL, because he was honorably discharged.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. Add this article to your research:

Boston Writer on the AWOL Story That First Broke in 2000

[NewYorkerfromMass]

32. Everyone read the above link: AWOL LIVES!!!!

".... Robinson said the timing and atmosphere in the 2000 campaign was different from today and may have played a part in the lack of follow-up to his story at the time. "Bush was running to replace a president who had taken steps to actively avoid -- and some would say evade -- military service," he pointed out. "Whatever Bush's sin was, he wasn't the first president to shirk his military duty, Clinton was."

The Globe writer, himself a Vietnam War veteran, also said the fact that his story ran in May of that year, at a time when Bush had the nomination pretty well sewn up and the political conventions just months away, might have made it easier to avoid. "I don't know if the editors (at other papers) even saw the story in 2000, or if they understood it," Robinson said. "Bush's people fogged it over a bit and they are very good at that."

Robinson would not say if the Globe planned to revisit the story, but said he believed it should be looked at again during this election cycle. "If any paper has a responsibility to remind people what was reported in 2000, we should," he said.

Baron also declined to say if a follow-up would occur. "We don't discuss our coverage in advance," he said.

[nolabels]

33. Showing them cards a little early, are we?

Could help Clark? Kerry/Clark or Clark/Kerry?
I am not jumping on any band wagon yet and don't like wars, but one or both is what seems to be what's going on here.

[oasis]

36. RNC chair,Ed Gillespie, was in pretended outrage on "Inside Politics".

He tole Judy Woodruff "we've got his "honorable discharge" papers to prove he did his duty" yada yada. Gillespie does not go into the missing months that Chimpy was on the roster, yet never returned to duty.

The "roster" record vs. "honorable" discharge.

[oasis]

37. Ann Lewis told Wolf Blitzer "Democrats will push back." She went on to say

In essence, if Ed Gillespie and Rove want to smear John Kerry's creds on defending our country, then it's fair game to attack Bush on AWOL.

She was careful not to make the charges herself.

Look for a Rove/media strategy to prompt Kerry to repudiate the charges against Bunnypants.