Bush's Service Record
coil
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<div class="IPBDescription">Documents... an interesting story</div> The following is an account of G.W. Bush's 6 years of service in the US military, as shown by scans of documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act.
All scans were taken from <a href='http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html' target='_blank'>http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html</a>
<u>Figure 1: Form 712 Master Personnel Record for G.W. Bush</u>
<img src='http://www.calpundit.com/blogphotos/Blog_Bush_Service_712.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
A someone confusing explanation of "points" can be found <a href='http://www.glcq.com/understanding_points.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>. I'll get into it a bit more later on, but the important part for now is that up until 1972, a soldier in the ANG was awarded 1 Active Duty Point for each day of service.
Now, on this record, note the Active Duty Points and Total Points given to Bush for each year of service:
Year 1: 253 points, including 226 days of active duty.
Year 2: 340 points, including 313 days of active duty.
Year 3: 137 points, including 46 days of active duty.
Year 4: 112 points, including 22 days of active duty.
That's the end of this record... the last date on the sheet is 26 May 1972.
<u>Figure 2: Acknowledgement of disciplinary warning signed by G.W. Bush</u>
<img src='http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
As best I can make out:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->j. I have been XXXX this XXXX regarding the provisions of DOD Directive 1215.15, ## February 1967. I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation as presently defined in Chapter 41, AFM 25-3. Further, I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, and have an unfulfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver, Colorado, and subect to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months considering all previous active duty and active duty for training tours."
k. "However, I also understand that the provisions for invoking the 45 day tour for a member who has a satisfactory attendance record but has failed to progress in specialty training will remain in effect. (Paragraph 42.7a, AFM 35-3.)"
Signed George Walker Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush acknowledges that he has been warned for unsatisfactory attendance, which may result in his reassignment to a disciplinary ARF post, where he may be called for active duty, for a period of as long as 2 years.
Interestingly, section k seems to me to suggest that Bush was already disciplined for "failing to progress in specialty training." Sadly, this document is undated.
<u>Figure 3: Record of disciplinary action for G.W. Bush, 29 Sept. 1972</u>
<img src='http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Check out Point #6. 1 Aug 1972, Bush was suspended from flying for either missing or refusing to take a medical exam (in July). It should be noted that the previous record ends on May 26th and this one is dated Sept 29, because the first date on the next document is October 28. I haven't been able to find any documents that explain Bush's whereabouts between the end of May and the end of October.
<u>Figure 4a: ARF Service Record for G.W. Bush, 1972-1973.</u>
<img src='http://www.calpundit.com/blogphotos/Blog_Bush_Service_Untorn_Doc.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<u>Figure 4b: ARF Service Record for G.W. Bush, 1973-1974.</u>
<a href='http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc16.gif' target='_blank'>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc16.gif</a>
It's big, so I won't link it directly. It is the same type of document as the above image.
TD stands for "Type of Duty" - 1 is active, 2 is inactive. Note that the header is "ARF" - this is not a Texas or Alabama document. ARF stands for "Air Reserve Forces," to which ANG soldiers were sometimes sent as a disciplinary action. The above-linked site asked Bob Rogers, a retired ANG pilot, for his interpretation of the events:
<!--QuoteBegin-Calpundit.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Calpundit.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons... ...He was apparently transferred to ARF [after being suspended] and began accumulating ARF points in October.
ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.
To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush's 1973-74 ARF record — but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period [as my second, linked scan shows].<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The short version is that Bush served 3 strong years in the ANG, served 1 thoroughly mediocre year, and then seems to have skipped out - for which he was disciplined by being sent to the no-attendence-required ARF. If you look back up to Figure 1, you'll notice no record of these last two years; that's because the Texas NG does not consider the ARF to be "official duty."
A final quote from Calpundit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Retired NG pilot] Bob [Rogers] says that although harsher punishment is sometimes meted out, being "ARF'd" is fairly common for people who don't show up for drill. Apparently the guard isn't really excited about tossing people in jail for stuff like this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
________
Did Bush go AWOL? Technically, no. Did he serve his country with distinction? Sure... for about three years, it seems like.
All scans were taken from <a href='http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html' target='_blank'>http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html</a>
<u>Figure 1: Form 712 Master Personnel Record for G.W. Bush</u>
<img src='http://www.calpundit.com/blogphotos/Blog_Bush_Service_712.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
A someone confusing explanation of "points" can be found <a href='http://www.glcq.com/understanding_points.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>. I'll get into it a bit more later on, but the important part for now is that up until 1972, a soldier in the ANG was awarded 1 Active Duty Point for each day of service.
Now, on this record, note the Active Duty Points and Total Points given to Bush for each year of service:
Year 1: 253 points, including 226 days of active duty.
Year 2: 340 points, including 313 days of active duty.
Year 3: 137 points, including 46 days of active duty.
Year 4: 112 points, including 22 days of active duty.
That's the end of this record... the last date on the sheet is 26 May 1972.
<u>Figure 2: Acknowledgement of disciplinary warning signed by G.W. Bush</u>
<img src='http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
As best I can make out:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->j. I have been XXXX this XXXX regarding the provisions of DOD Directive 1215.15, ## February 1967. I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation as presently defined in Chapter 41, AFM 25-3. Further, I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, and have an unfulfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver, Colorado, and subect to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months considering all previous active duty and active duty for training tours."
k. "However, I also understand that the provisions for invoking the 45 day tour for a member who has a satisfactory attendance record but has failed to progress in specialty training will remain in effect. (Paragraph 42.7a, AFM 35-3.)"
Signed George Walker Bush.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush acknowledges that he has been warned for unsatisfactory attendance, which may result in his reassignment to a disciplinary ARF post, where he may be called for active duty, for a period of as long as 2 years.
Interestingly, section k seems to me to suggest that Bush was already disciplined for "failing to progress in specialty training." Sadly, this document is undated.
<u>Figure 3: Record of disciplinary action for G.W. Bush, 29 Sept. 1972</u>
<img src='http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Check out Point #6. 1 Aug 1972, Bush was suspended from flying for either missing or refusing to take a medical exam (in July). It should be noted that the previous record ends on May 26th and this one is dated Sept 29, because the first date on the next document is October 28. I haven't been able to find any documents that explain Bush's whereabouts between the end of May and the end of October.
<u>Figure 4a: ARF Service Record for G.W. Bush, 1972-1973.</u>
<img src='http://www.calpundit.com/blogphotos/Blog_Bush_Service_Untorn_Doc.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<u>Figure 4b: ARF Service Record for G.W. Bush, 1973-1974.</u>
<a href='http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc16.gif' target='_blank'>http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc16.gif</a>
It's big, so I won't link it directly. It is the same type of document as the above image.
TD stands for "Type of Duty" - 1 is active, 2 is inactive. Note that the header is "ARF" - this is not a Texas or Alabama document. ARF stands for "Air Reserve Forces," to which ANG soldiers were sometimes sent as a disciplinary action. The above-linked site asked Bob Rogers, a retired ANG pilot, for his interpretation of the events:
<!--QuoteBegin-Calpundit.com+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Calpundit.com)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons... ...He was apparently transferred to ARF [after being suspended] and began accumulating ARF points in October.
ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.
To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush's 1973-74 ARF record — but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period [as my second, linked scan shows].<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The short version is that Bush served 3 strong years in the ANG, served 1 thoroughly mediocre year, and then seems to have skipped out - for which he was disciplined by being sent to the no-attendence-required ARF. If you look back up to Figure 1, you'll notice no record of these last two years; that's because the Texas NG does not consider the ARF to be "official duty."
A final quote from Calpundit:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Retired NG pilot] Bob [Rogers] says that although harsher punishment is sometimes meted out, being "ARF'd" is fairly common for people who don't show up for drill. Apparently the guard isn't really excited about tossing people in jail for stuff like this.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
________
Did Bush go AWOL? Technically, no. Did he serve his country with distinction? Sure... for about three years, it seems like.
Comments
It's a depressing double standard... I'm just trying to get the news on the table, since most of these documents are confusing as hell to read. Took me about an hour to figure out what I was looking at and compose this post.
Full story<a href='http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/493kldgc.asp?pg=2' target='_blank'>here</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But now Republican activists are forcing on the campaign obsessions of their?
own--almost a mirror image of the Democrats' desperate overcompensation. The dissonance and frustration this year's election rouses in the mind of the dedicated Republican cannot be underestimated. Conservatives actually do revere the military, without reservation. It is not their inclination to debunk combat heroes. Some Republicans, when they drink enough beer, really do wonder whether civilian control of the military is such a great idea. For them, it was never plausible that our boys in Vietnam had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads . . . cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians," and so on, as young John Kerry testified they did.
Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.
Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.
Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I'm not sure about the 'Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing' part (I know enough conservatives who are either solid in their support of Bush, or completely unimpressed by Kerry) it raises some interesting points.
So perhaps we can use this thread as a springboard to discuss the future of military service and its role in measuring our political candidates. Its importance in this election can't be understated, and it may be the sole reason that Kerry won his party's nomination. Is this just the manifestation of obvious post September 11th symbolism, or will it lead to an evolution of the standards by which we judge our potential leaders? Will we begin to see a new brand of Democrat-- more akin to their 1970s predecessors-- or will we just see some meaningless lip service?
Just some thoughts. Not trying to hijack the thread, just playing with the scope a little.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush had a horribly unorganized military career, and was honorably discharged. Big deal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's a depressing double standard... I'm just trying to get the news on the table, since most of these documents are confusing as hell to read. Took me about an hour to figure out what I was looking at and compose this post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no double-standard here, after all Kerry chose to make his vietnam service an issue, Republicans are only bringing on the dirt because Kerry chose this issue, not the other way around.
Bush isn't make an issue out of his military record, so there's no reason to focus on it. There was no reason to nessesarly wonder about Kerry's record either, untill he makes a huge campaign point and his theme at the Democratic convention.
"Reporting for duty!'
Please... there is no double standard. If bush wanted to make a huge issue out of his military record he'd be critized to hell for it too.
Future candidates. Let's say 12 years from now we get a fresh batch of candidates for the presidential election. One particular individual begins to rise through the ranks and eventually wins the primaries and becomes the party nominee.
This individual was 25 years old in 1991 and a member of the US Armed Forces. The candidate was active on the front lines during the Gulf War. After serving, they returned home and began a career in State politics eventually reaching the level of Governor/Senator.
Does this person's involvement in the war to stop Saddam from conquering Kuwait influence our votes for them to lead the nation and therefore be Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces?
I suppose it doesn't hurt to have first hand military experience. But, having not been in the military myself, I can't be too sure what the other candidates do or don't know otherwise. Likewise, if the other party's candidate also served but was never activated to go over seas, does that make them less experienced with leadership and military matters? What about their military rank? Should that really matter?
I'm skeptical that post Cold-War politics really requires this kind of thinking. For me, the ability to assess a situation and stand by a decision along with clarity in policy matters more. Can this person effectively define their POV and convince others through negotiations that they have the better plan?-this befits the leadership role. And while the decision to utilize the military falls squarely on the shoulders of the President, there are countless others with far more direct/first hand experience in the minutia who guide the President to that decision.
As for Kerry and Bush, I've said before that neither of their military backgrounds have influence in my vote. Their abilities to make decisions, however, is another story.
--Scythe--
Seeing as Kerry is the "new guy" and he is choosing to make his "military service" an issue, it serves him right to have it hashed around in the media.
As for my vote - military service doesn't have a lot to do with it. Just because someone served doesn't mean they are fit for command. It just means that they are familiar with a military command structure.
Neither does one DWI at an early age - in fact, the streingth of character needed to give up the bottle is more impressive to me.
As much as I am agianst flaiming one party or the other, I am also against attempts to stop said flaming. If words are to be spoken and things are to be said, the bigger person will call off the dogs first and not throw the next stone.
(yeay for mixed metaphors)
Please... there is no double standard. If bush wanted to make a huge issue out of his military record he'd be critized to hell for it too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush in a flight suit with a "mission accomplished" message says otherwise.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush had a horribly unorganized military career, and was honorably discharged. Big deal.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's a depressing double standard... I'm just trying to get the news on the table, since most of these documents are confusing as hell to read. Took me about an hour to figure out what I was looking at and compose this post.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no double-standard here, after all Kerry chose to make his vietnam service an issue, Republicans are only bringing on the dirt because Kerry chose this issue, not the other way around.
Bush isn't make an issue out of his military record, so there's no reason to focus on it. There was no reason to nessesarly wonder about Kerry's record either, untill he makes a huge campaign point and his theme at the Democratic convention.
"Reporting for duty!'
Please... there is no double standard. If bush wanted to make a huge issue out of his military record he'd be critized to hell for it too. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
One of these people went to a foreign country, one stayed safely within the borders of the United States. One of these people shot, and killed other people, one shot at targets. Ones of these people was being shot at, one wasn't.
I can keep on going but I think you get the point, Kerry has a much better ability to make his going to Vietnam a big deal, unlike Bush who can say very little about his service.
I was in the Air Force and left on a medical discharge. One would imagine that it would be quite easy to verify this.
An investigator with the DoD, who is processing my security clearances has been having a terribly difficult time verifying that I was ever in the military. I have the proof (pay stubs/misc docs) but the military seems to have no record of it.
Sometimes records are not kept as they should and people fall through the cracks.
I do gripe about Kerry and Vietnam. Not because he served but because he is running on his military service when he started his political career by smearing those still in the service. I cannot wait a few more years until noone running for president will have been old enough to serve in Vietnam. And we do not have to hear this anymore.
There is a reason we have civilian control of the military. Soldiers serve best as soldiers. Military service should not be a prerequisite for political office.
Please... there is no double standard. If bush wanted to make a huge issue out of his military record he'd be critized to hell for it too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush in a flight suit with a "mission accomplished" message says otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was to focus not on his military record, but his ability to wage war. Two different subjects.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a very biased way of putting it-- you should at least mention that his goal in coming forth about the atrocities was to get the government to put an end to the war. In his view, soldiers were dying because our government stubbornly insisted on remaining in the war simply because they were Hellbent on 'winning' it (or, more precisely, not 'losing' it), regardless of how strategically important that victory would be.
I agree that he could have done it differently, in a way that wouldn't bring ill will upon the very people he was trying to aid. However, to say that he simply came back and 'smeared' vets is incredibly narrow and short sighted.
I think he summed it up best when he asked, 'How can you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?'
Edit: Actually, here's his speech, from 1971. Read it and draw your own conclusions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thank you very much, Senator Fulbright, Senator Javits, Senator Symington and Senator Pell.
I would like to say for the record, and also for the men sitting behind me who are also wearing the uniforms and their medals, that my sitting here is really symbolic. I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of a group of 1,000, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table, they would be here and have the same kind of testimony. I would simply like to speak in general terms. I apologize if my statement is general because I received notification [only] yesterday that you would hear me, and, I am afraid, because of the injunction I was up most of the night and haven't had a great deal of chance to prepare.
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam,in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
We call this investigation the Winter Soldier Investigation. The term "winter soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine's in 1776, when he spoke of the "sunshine patriots," and "summertime soldiers" who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country, we could be quiet, we could hold our silence, we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel, because of what threatens this country, not the reds, but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.
I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.
As a veteran and one who felt this anger, I would like to talk about it. We are angry because we feel we have been used it the worst fashion by the administration of this country.
In 1970, at West Point, Vice President Agnew said, "some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse," and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam.
But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion. Hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country, because those he calls misfits were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, because so many of those best men have returned as quadriplegics and amputees, and they lie forgotten in Veterans' Administration hospitals in this country which fly the flag which so many have chosen as their own personal symbol. And we cannot consider ourselves America's best men when we are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia.
In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but, also, we found that the Vietnamese, whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image, were hard-put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.
We found also that, all too often, American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search-and-destroy missions as well as by Viet Cong terrorism, - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai, and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free-fire zones--shooting anything that moves--and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while, month after month, we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings" with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using, were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and, after losing one platoon, or two platoons, they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of "Vietnamizing" the Vietnamese.
Each day, to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam, someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying, as human beings, to communicate to people in this country--the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions, such as the use of weapons: the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free-fire zones; harassment-interdiction fire, search-and-destroy missions; the bombings; the torture of prisoners; all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.
An American Indian friend of mine who lives in the Indian Nation of Alcatraz put it to me very succinctly: He told me how, as a boy on an Indian reservation, he had watched television, and he used to cheer the cowboys when they came in and shot the Indians, and then suddenly one day he stopped in Vietnam and he said, "my God, I am doing to these people the very same thing that was done to my people," and he stopped. And that is what we are trying to say, that we think this thing has to end.
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country....
We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done, and all that they can do by this denial, is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission: To search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war; to pacify our own hearts; to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more. And more. And so, when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That was to focus not on his military record, but his ability to wage war. Two different subjects.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A Warrior Chief usually builds his reputation by being a warrior first . . .
And while the situations aren't entirely analagous, how many great sports coaches never participated in the sports they coach? Probably a few, but there <i>is</i> something to be said for low level experience. Of course, a coach is much more involved in the operation and strategy of a sports team than a president is of the military, but it's a point that isn't <i>entirely</i> without merit.
Please... there is no double standard. If bush wanted to make a huge issue out of his military record he'd be critized to hell for it too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush in a flight suit with a "mission accomplished" message says otherwise. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was to focus not on his military record, but his ability to wage war. Two different subjects. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I had to wear a flight suit before and I was never a pilot while in the AF.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a very biased way of putting it-- you should at least mention that his goal in coming forth about the atrocities was to get the government to put an end to the war. In his view, soldiers were dying because our government stubbornly insisted on remaining in the war simply because they were Hellbent on 'winning' it (or, more precisely, not 'losing' it), regardless of how strategically important that victory would be.
I agree that he could have done it differently, in a way that wouldn't bring ill will opon the very people he was trying to aid. However, to say that he simply came back and 'smeared' vets is incredibly narrow and short sighted.
... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you believe something you see occuring is wrong then it is your personal duty to make an effort to stop it when and where you see it.
Kerry has recently admitted that he did not witness such atrocities occuring but rather was retelling what he heard from others who were there. He neglected to mention that during his testimony before congress. There were terrible things happening but you shouldnt use second hand reports to boost your political career.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the <b>full awareness of officers at all levels of command</b>....
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am not defending the vietnam war nor any described atrocites but those are powerful words to use when describing 'daily' activities that you were not there to witness.
I'm confused. If he didn't witness any of this himself, why is everyone and their cousin airing Kerry's appearance on <a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030' target='_blank'>Meet the Press on April 18, 2004</a>?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam. You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and come back and talk about it:
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):
MR. KERRY (Vietnam Veterans Against the War): <b>There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free-fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search-and-destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare. All of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free-fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.</b>
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: You committed atrocities.
SEN. KERRY: Where did all that dark hair go, Tim? That's a big question for me. You know, I
thought a lot, for a long time, about that period of time, the things we said, and I think the word is a bad word. I think it's an inappropriate word. I mean, if you wanted to ask me have you ever made mistakes in your life, sure. I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive.
MR. RUSSERT: You used the word "war criminals."
SEN. KERRY: Well, let me just finish. Let me must finish. It was, I think, a reflection of the kind of times we found ourselves in and I don't like it when I hear it today. I don't like it, but I want you to notice that at the end, I wasn't talking about the soldiers and the soldiers' blame, and my great regret is, I hope no soldier--I mean, I think some soldiers were angry at me for that, and I understand that and I regret that, because I love them. But the words were honest but on the other hand, they were a little bit over the top. And I think that there were breaches of the Geneva Conventions. There were policies in place that were not acceptable according to the laws of warfare, and everybody knows that. I mean, books have chronicled that, so I'm not going to walk away from that. But I wish I had found a way to say it in a less abrasive way.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, when you testified before the Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had observed at the winter soldiers meeting and you said that people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited, and in hindsight was your testimony...
SEN. KERRY: Actually, a lot of them have been documented.
MR. RUSSERT: So you stand by that?
SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that I'm supposed to accept the fact the Kerry was standing up against "The Man" and disregard his methodology. The End justifies The Means I suppose.
I'm confused. If he didn't witness any of this himself, why is everyone and their cousin airing Kerry's appearance on <a href='http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4772030' target='_blank'>Meet the Press on April 18, 2004</a>?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->MR. RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to talk about Vietnam. You are a decorated war hero of Vietnam, prominently used in your advertising. You first appeared on MEET THE PRESS back in 1971, your first appearance. I want to roll what you told the country then and come back and talk about it:
(Videotape, MEET THE PRESS, April 18, 1971):
...
SEN. KERRY: A lot of those stories have been documented. Have some been discredited? Sure, they have, Tim. The problem is that's not where the focus should have been. And, you know, when you're angry about something and you're young, you know, you're perfectly capable of not--I mean, if I had the kind of experience and time behind me that I have today, I'd have framed some of that differently. Needless to say, I'm proud that I stood up. I don't want anybody to think twice about it. I'm proud that I took the position that I took to oppose it. I think we saved lives, and I'm proud that I stood up at a time when it was important to stand up, but I'm not going to quibble, you know, 35 years later that I might not have phrased things more artfully at times.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems that I'm supposed to accept the fact the Kerry was standing up against "The Man" and disregard his methodology. The End justifies The Means I suppose. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the link to the article. I couldn't remember where I saw it before.
That is my biggest beef with Kerry. That he will say such things without regard to the people he hurt and misled. He got his message across and his agenda advanced. If he had a deeper message it was cheapened or lost because of his actions.
Yes they are. (mostly)
All of what we know about political candidates have been released personally. Therefore everything that gets released will show only the side they want us to see.
Neither Bush nor Kerry have released their full records.
HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told names. Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading candidate for the Democrats.
FRANKS: I don't know. I -- um, I think Vietnam was uh-- I think Vietnam was, uh, was a bad time. I think that what I've learned in my life, Sean, is that it's a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and, uh, take responsibility for the actions, um, of a unit or for -- or for your ... your own actions.
And so, um, I don't -- I don't like what I saw, uh, but at the same time, I would -- I wouldn't say that ... [pause] the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I ...I ... I'm ... I think that .. I think that things didn't go right in -- in Vietnam. And so...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
General Tommy Franks, on Hannity and Colmes.
I haven't seen Kerry completely back off his claims of atrocities-- I <i>have</i> seen him try to soften his language in recent years. I’m not definitively saying he <i>hasn’t</i>, of course, so if anyone has links they’d be appreciated.
Either way, I think it's presumptuous and simplistic to state that whatever Kerry did, it wasn't in genuine protest or sincerity, but done out of blatant political motivation. If so, then it’s possibly the worst strategy I’ve yet to see-- you tend to find very few people who launch successful political careers immediately after publicly admitting to atrocities. Just ask Bob Kerrey how that goes over with the general public, especially with Presidential ambitions. . .
If anything, I'd say he was a bit overzealous in his attempts at sincerity back then, and doing the cheap politicizing with his backpedaling these days.