Bush's Guard Duty

I don't have a strong opinion (and don't much care) about exactly how many months George W. Bush served in the National Guard, but his response to Tim Russert's question regarding the president's military records (quoted in yesterday's New York Times) strikes me as odd. After saying he'd be happy to release the records, Bush added:

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it.

Isn't the issue Bush's actions (or nonactions), as opposed to his motives? It's not as if the Democrats are saying, "Yeah, he fulfilled all of the Guard's requirements, but he didn't have the right attitude."

Comments

[Mark Anderson]

I also like how Bush tried to make it appear as if Democrats were attacking the guard: "I won't answer your question, Tim, but I will call Democrats anti-military once again."

[Craig]

Bush has, in fact, been accused of using Guard service to duck Viet Nam; so his motives for being in the guard have been questioned.

[Dan]

Isn't the issue Bush's actions (or nonactions), as opposed to his motives? It's not as if the Democrats are saying, "Yeah, he fulfilled all of the Guard's requirements, but he didn't have the right attitude."

The requirements issue is the opening gambit; the motives issue is the real game. If Democrats can establish in the public mind that Bush was a less-than-adequate member of the Guard, they can begin to attack his motives for joining the Guard in the first place.

The issue of whether Bush met his Guard requirements is completely uninteresting, removed from the context of motives for being in the Guard in the first place. Can you picture attacking a candidate for his work attendance record at a job he held over 30 years ago? Small potatos; the media would ignore such a story. But when the media thinks the only reason for the job was to dodge the draft... well, suddenly it's interesting. 🙂

[Shannon Love]

I think it's a mistake to try to parse what Bush says to finely. It will only confuse you.

[Critic]

The toxic legacy of Viet Nam.
Individuals with perfectly valid reasons to dodge the draft (involuntary servitude being one of many) are still, to this day, forced to lie about it.

[Chad P.]

I figured by saying that it was "politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me" Bush was touching on various criticisms he has recieved: he attacked Afghanistan/Iraq "only for the oil" or proffered immigration reform "only for the Latino vote" etc.

[Andrew]

Obviously Bush did not wish to serve in Viet Nam. At the time I imagine he didn't believe either he or his father would ever become President, or even try for the office.

Although I know next to nothing about it, I wonder why Kerry wanted to serve...it puzzles me on the face of it, as I have a hard time picturing him as ever being a supporter of the war, and I have some real problems with a guy who would calculate a move like that-- it was to me the most distasteful aspect of Clinton's Viet Nam era manouvering.

RE the post below (the fawning piece from NPR): Kerry has always been running for President? Hm...I don't like that, so much.

[rst]

It's a fallback of the left, that when your opponent does something you wish you could agree with, you marginalize it by saying it was done for an unwholesome reason. It makes you feel better about being an idiot. Most of us know that Bush is not dancing a jig whenever a Muslim dies, and most certainly didn't go into Iraq thinking, wow, duh, I'm gonna get some oil. One is best to leave that reasoning to the dumbasses.

[Gene Berkman]

There are several issues involved in the story of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard.

During the Vietnam War, joining the National Guard was a way of getting out of the draft. The Republicans spent a lot of time attacking Bill Clinton for what he did to stay out of the service. Now the Republicans claim Democrats are hypocrites for defending Clinton and attacking Bush on the issue of Vietnam era service. True, but aren't the Republicans hypocrites also?

Indeed, the Republicans are now attacking Vietnam Vet John Kerry because he came to oppose the Vietnam War, as most Americans did. So Bush supported the war, but made sure he never faced danger. That is the kind of "bravery" we have come to expect from the upper class Republicans who are so gung ho to get us into wars.

There is also the question of Bush having the benefit of an influential father, who got him into the Guard ahead of others on the waiting list. But that would not be as much an issue if Rush Limbaugh and Tom Delay had not spent almost every day of the Clinton years calling Bill Clinton a draft dodger.

[Gene Berkman]

Andrew says:

"I wonder why Kerry wanted to serve...I have some real problems with a guy who would calculate a move like that..."

Really, you think someone would put himself into harm's way, earn three purple hearts and a silver star, just to prepare for a political career?

I have met more Vietnam vets at antiwar protests than at Republican conventions. So Andrew, if someone said that John McCain got himself captured so that his record as a POW would help his vote getting, how would you respond to such a partisan attack?

[thoreau]

Gene-

To play devil's advocate here, one could argue that the difference between avoiding war via the national guard and avoiding war via, well, not serving through one means or another, is that the guy in the guard at least performed a public service. Yes, it was a less risky and rigorous service, but it was a service.

Not that I think a guy who defended TX from an invasion of Okies should thump his chest or anything, but the argument can be made.

Better criticisms of Bush's national guard service would be

1) He got it via his father's influence, hence suggesting a double standard.
2) He failed to perform his required duties in the national guard, hence squandering a spot that could have gone to somebody else who was more serious about his duties but equally determined to not go to war.

[Mark Anderson]

rst,
And it is the strategy of the right to claim the left is ignoring terrorism and feels the problem will just go away if they don't agree with this war.

[some guy]

Andrew,

It may very well be that after Kerry tried to go to France and failed, he simply thought, "Well, if I'm gonna be stuck in Vietnam, I might as well do the job". That it would turn out later to be a political asset was probably not on his mind (at least, initially).

[Andrew]

Gene

Do I think someone can be a glory-hound? Oh yeah!

The first was Geo. Washington...who frankly admitted it (rather joked about it) later in life. (He was referring to excursions against French and Indians.)

I would guess any number of guys who distinguished themselves in WWI and WWII were seeking celebrity, both for its own rewards, and as a career starter.

But didn't most of them at least believe in the war? Kerry later denounced the war he served in as essentially a crime against humanity...and you might suspect this was something he would have been prepared to say before he even enlisted.

It is all so weirdly Post-Modernist to script all this. Living your life for TV.

[Ignorant Law Student]

re: Bush's potential double-standard

Does anyone actually know what President Bush thought about the war in Vietnam? I sure haven't heard him say as much as a single word about it.

Given everything else that was going on in his life at that time, it's quite possible he didn't have an opinion either way. Didn't Clarence Thomas say he never discussed Roe v. Wade, even though it was decided while he was in law school?

I don't know if that makes his actions, both admitted and alleged, more or less scandalous. But it seems odd to me that people just assume that Bush Jr. had some sort of general approval for the Vietnam war because of who he is now.

[JAG]

"Really, you think someone would put himself into harm's way, earn three purple hearts and a silver star, just to prepare for a political career?"

Why do you think Joseph Kennedy Jr. took a plane full of explosives up in what has been widely reported as an incredibly risky mission? His brother JFK had just become a hero and he needed to shine.

[Jim Walsh]

Just like gay marriage, this is yet another non-issue, something to divert our attention while the Ship Of State goes under. Bread and circuses for the poor folk in steerage. Break out the Welsh hymns...

[that slacker again]

"And it is the strategy of the right to claim the left is ignoring terrorism and feels the problem will just go away if they don't agree with this war."

I don't consider myself to be among "the right", but I'd say you have a pretty accurate description of the left. Their solutions seem to center around what their own country has done wrong (not just U.S. leftists, any leftists) and how can their own country should bend over to appease the fascists of the day (because you certainly wouldn't want to confront your enemy or worse yet, resort to violence). How would you categorize the leftist response to, for example, the growth of the Soviet empire? Note that I'm talking "leftists" here, not moderates or even Democrats (categoricaly anyway).

[Dan]

Indeed, the Republicans are now attacking Vietnam Vet John Kerry because he came to oppose the Vietnam War, as most Americans did.

John Kerry didn't "come to oppose the war"; he opposed it both before and after he fought in it.

Furthermore, it's inaccurate to lump Kerry in with "most Americans" with regard to his feelings about Vietnam. John Kerry believed American troops were murderers and that the USSR was no threat to us; these were, and are, fringe-left sentiments, and not reflective of what "most Americans" believe.

What "most Americans" came to believe was just that we had no good reason to be fighting the Vietnam war.

Really, you think someone would put himself into harm's way, earn three purple hearts and a silver star, just to prepare for a political career?

I doubt the enlistment paperwork said "you will be shot three times" in the fine print. The correct way to phrase that question is "Do you think someone would put himself into harm's way just to prepare for a political career?" The answer to *that* question, as anyone with even the slightest familiarity with history could tell you, is "yes". For that matter, Bill Clinton himself, when he decided to submit to the draft, wrote that he was doing so because he anticipated going into politics later -- so there is, indeed, precident.

You are welcome to construct alternative theories as to why an outspoken opponent of the war would choose to fight in it (enthusiastically, judging from his service record), then return to oppose it again.

I have met more Vietnam vets at antiwar protests than at Republican conventions.

Imagine that. You met ex-military folks at a military-related event -- but didn't meet as many at a political event. What a shocking turn of events. 🙂

This is assuming, of course, that you've actually attended Republican conventions and made an attempt to determine the military status of the folks you spoke to -- highly doubtful, in my opinion.

[thoreau]

Dan-

Can you provide evidence that Kerry opposed the war before serving in it? All I know is that he served his country in war, earned medals for it, and after completing his service he announced that his first-hand experiences in that war showed him that his country's leaders were making a mistake. So he tried to get his country's leaders to change their actions via lawful and peaceful methods.

Now, maybe you disagree with his conclusions. That's fine. I might disagree with your conclusions. But I don't see anything dishonorable about what he did.

Here's something that may be shocking to some Hit and Run posters: It is possible to disagree with a person, even profoundly disagree on matters of great import, and still think that he acted honorably and patriotically. Believe it or not, reasonable people can disagree.

I'll pause while some heads explode :=)

[thoreau]

Dan-

Maybe a better question is, why should I care what Kerry thought of the Vietnam war before serving? Uncle Sam didn't care what anybody thought of the war, people simply got drafted. My understanding is that Kerry did in fact volunteer, but the point is that if Uncle Sam didn't care back then what people's opinions were, why should I care?

All I know is that he served in Vietnam, so I'd say he's qualified to comment on the war. Incidentally, I campaigned for John McCain in 2000, a man who served in Vietnam and believes it was right to fight that war. So don't assume I'm only giving Kerry's opinion credence because it might coincide with my own. I respect an experienced veteran's opinion of a war regardless of that veteran's stances. An experienced veteran of any political stripe is more qualified to comment than I am.

[Hydroman]

Me thinks Kerry wanted to be just like JFK so
he volinteered for patrol boat duty.

[Andrew]

Thoreau

Yeah. He did. Documentation from a blogger named Kaus, via Instapundit...you CAN'T be surprised?

He came back saying the war featured atrocities (interesting to see that one play now) and at least created the impression that his service involved a courageous personal conversion...which made him the darling of anti-war rallies, and neatly launched his career.

Eerie. Don't you think?

[kevrob]

That John Forbes Kerry, once he was told that spending a year in France wouldn't be cool with his local draft board, decided to emulate his hero, the earlier JFK, strikes me as plausible. Where it gets squirmy is discovering at what point Kerry had qualms about the war. In one regard, to take the attitude "I don't like this war, but if I go CO, or snake my way into a safe billet, Uncle Sam will just grab some other schmoe and put him in my place, so I'll go," is arguably admirable. Slate points out that he ostensibly volunteered for these reasons, but also lawyered his way into a shortened tour. http://slate.msn.com/id/2087214/
I've never faced live fire, let alone been wounded, so I'll refrain from judging him on that score. There might be a hint of ambition in Kerry's bio. At the tail end of conscription, I knew several ROTC collegemates of mine whose attitude was "If I'm going to have to join up, it's gonna be as a offasah!" Remember these old Clinton comments: "The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason: to maintain my political viability within the system."

http://www.objector.org/conscription/clinton1969ltr.html

So, ambitious young men do sometimes think like that.

Don't forget why JFK (1940's version) got into PT boats. His Dad was furious that he had been having an affair with Danish journalist Inga Arvad, who some suspected of Nazi sympathies.
See Nigel Hamilton's "JFK: Reckless Youth." Jack was transferred out of Naval Intelligence and down to the Carolinas to learn how to drive a boat, and get a combat assignment.

Kevin

[dj of raleigh]

Bush did more time in the guard than most,
more time than required whether or not he went to Alabama.
Six months of active duty and five two week summer terms.
That's the maximum 8 months active duty time required,
but Bush did 21 months, so we are back square one.

Square one is that the WAR WAS WRONG,
we shouldn't have gone, but it's good Saddam is gone.

The Democrats say:
The war did a good thing, but did it teh wrong way.
Bush did more time in the guard than required,
but did it the wrong way.

The Democrats might not realize that 100's of thousands
of reservists and guard members over the last 30 years
have missed meetings, skipped out of meetings,
and done things at meetings that were not 'issue.'

This shotgun, all at once, scattered shooting at Bush
is like listening to James Carville rattle off his attacks.

I don't know if it will work, don't know if it will backfire,
but I know it isn't reaching me as a vet.

[dj of raleigh]

Kerry did a strange thing by doing TWO TERMS in Nam,
then coming back and becoming a V-Vet agin the war,
writing a book about it, tossing medals over the wall,
and testifying before the Senate of horrors and atrocities
having been committed by US servicemen in Nam.

The war was right when he did it for two terms,
but wrong when he got home...he was the Universal Soldier.

[joe]

I don't think it's appropriate to slam Kerry for volunteering for a war he was less than fully supportive of. As a 22 year old guy, he didn't get to decide whether or not American men were going to kill or die in Vietnam. Given his status, he only got to decide whether or not he was going to be one of them. I didn't make up that whole "Even if you're against the war, you should support the troops" thing from last spring, did I?

Supporting the war, going to war - respectable (McCain)

Opposing the war, going to war - respectable or very respectable (Kerry, Gore)

Opposing the war, resisting the war - respectable or very respectable (No national political figures - so much for the right's "hippies have taken over" theory)

Opposing the war, avoiding the war - neutral (Clinton)

Supporting the war, avoiding the war - sleazy (DeLay, Cheney, Quayle*, Bush*)

The only thing I really look down on is advocating for young men to go into a war zone, while making sure it's OTHER young men.

*Open ended question about making sure you get a safe military position.

[Dan]

Can you provide evidence that Kerry opposed the war before serving in it?

Look here.

Also, look here.

don't see anything dishonorable about what he did.

He volunteered to fight in a war he thought we were wrong to be fighting. The *best* spin you can put on that is that he was willing to do the wrong thing for the sake of patriotism, an excuse that wasn't admirable when folks like Gordon Liddy and Oliver North used it and isn't any more admirable today. But of course Kerry isn't really holding that stance, anyway; his stance is that the Vietnam war was evil and wrong, and the men who fought it were murderers, but *he* should be considered a war hero. He's either a moral idiot or an amoral politico; either way I don't like or trust the man.

And don't get me started on the outright lies he told, and dishonest tactics he engaged in, while a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War...

[Dan]

Opposing the war, going to war - respectable or very respectable (Kerry, Gore)

How is it respectable to say "it's wrong that we're shooting these people, but I'd like to volunteer to help"?

There's nothing respectable about it. It's "I was only following orders" territory, morally and ethically. Do we want a President who thinks "my country wanted me to kill, so I killed" is valid reasoning? By his OWN moral standards, Kerry volunteered to participate in mass murder. What possible ethically and morally defensible reason can he have for that?

The only respectable thing to do, when faced with the prospect of fighting a war you believe is wrong, is to refuse to fight in it.

[Andrew]

I (myself anyway) don't have a "conspiracy theory" about either of these guys-- both stories are largely matters of public record, drawn from a time when likely neither of them was aware of how much scrutiny their actions would someday draw...and that of course is the point.

Both stories ARE revealing of the character of these two (young) men-- Bush was a shallow and careless son of priveledge,

and Kerry was (one hopes a responsible officer/his men appear to think so now) a very enthusiastic junior officer, who returned unscarred form his service...and although he had previously held anti-war opinions common in his age group, was not at first particularly exercised about the issue, according to many who knew him.

Very probably he thought the war was winding down as a real political issue in American life with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.

And he would have been right...save that Richard Nixon fulfilled a campaign promise (note the FAIRNESS of this Joe) to end college student deferments for the draft.

For the next four years-- although the number of troops comitted and the battlefield casualties steadily declined-- antiwar protest on college campuses becan incandesecent.

And John Kerry permitted himself to being used in the hysterical Winter Soldier campaign, repeating reckless charges of common-place atrocities, representing himself as an emotionally scarred survivor in his congressional testimony, and famously returning his medals...which cuts against the notion that he viewed his own service as honarable.

The history of how he was approached and scripted (his congressional testimony was written for him, and rehearsed), while not exactly common knowledge then or now, is a matter of public record.

He was a publicity-hound-- earning the medals, throwing them away, and touting them now are all of a piece.

You can think what you like of him-- I don't think there is much to him. I would have said the same of Bush BEFORE he became president...although he seemed OK as govenor of Texas. But any sensible person will try to judge Bush by his first term in office...why peer in his past?

About Kerry there is no choice-- he has never held an executive office in his life, and his career in the Senate consist largely of straddling, positioning and evasion.

[Horst Graben]

Kerry wins on street cred v. Bush. No doubt about it. Assignment of Kerry's motives vis a vis his service appears cowardly.

Both guys are government parasites. Bush wins on CIC experience.

Do combat vets tend to be left-leaning peace-nicks in their gray years as is alledged? Don't know, but my brother fits that moniker.

All those that are encouraging your children to volunteer for the war on terror, raise your hand.

[Jean Bart]

Andrew,

Your nutball conspiracy theories are interesting in that demonstrate that you are willing to bend and take a cricket bat up the ass in order to smear Democrats.

Dan,

Its not a particularly fringe idea that the war in SE Asia was a waste of U.S. effort and in the end neither "saved" SE Asia nor lessened the power of the USSR (indeed, the USSR came out of the war stronger internationally and diplomatically than the U.S. did). Then again, to paraphrase Pol Pot, without U.S. (read Kissinger and Nixon) efforts to overthrow Prince Sihanouk and replace him with the corrupt and unpopular Lon Nol regime, there would have been no popular Khmer Rouge movement to create the Cambodian killing fields. To be completely blunt, America's efforts in SE Asia did more harm than good; and wasted a great deal of America's good will in the process.

[Jean Bart]

Dan,

The man was conscripted (Socrates could have fled, yet he chose to take the poison).

I am a former French marine; some of our deployments in Africa I did not personally agree with; but there is loyalty to the corps and the men one serves with to consider as well.

[Dan]

Its not a particularly fringe idea that the war in SE Asia was a waste of U.S. effort and in the end neither "saved" SE Asia nor lessened the power of the USSR

That's nice, Jean. I never said that was a fringe idea. I said that John Kerry's beliefs that (a) the USSR was no threat to America and (b) that American troops were murderers, were fringe beliefs.

I have never said it was a good idea to fight the Vietnam War, particularly the way we fought it (although blaming the Cambodian genocide on the US entry into the war is, of course, laughably ignorant).

[Dan]

Dan, I'm very sympathetic to your hippie pacifist longhair acid head point of view on this

All humor aside, it's pretty much a standard libertarian belief that wars should only be fought by people willing to fight them. And certainly there's something distinctly odd, no matter what your beliefs may be, about opting to do something you think involves murder; this is why you don't meet many Quaker Army snipers, "pro-life" abortion doctors, or PETA-member slaughterhouse employees.

If Liddy and North had left well enough alone, the crimes would never have been committed. If John Kerry had refused to serve, the Vietnam War would still have happened.

If Liddy and North had obeyed the law, the *specific* crimes they committed would probably never have been committed. But by the same token, if Kerry had done what he thought was the right thing to do, the people he later "murdered" would probably still be alive.

Sure, you can argue that some other guy would have killed other people, in Kerry's place. Probably so. But some other crooks would have burglarized the Democrats, or cut arms deals to fund the Contras, too.

You can't justify amoral acts with the statement "someone else would have done it if I didn't". That excuse doesn't work when you steal the money in a wallet someone accidentally dropped on the sidewalk; it certainly doesn't work in war. For one thing, the only reason the statement "If I don't do it, someone else will" holds true is because of assholes who think things like "if I don't do it, someone else will". If nobody did the wrong thing, the wrong thing wouldn't happen at all.

[joe]

"The only respectable thing to do, when faced with the prospect of fighting a war you believe is wrong, is to refuse to fight in it."

Dan, I'm very sympathetic to your hippie pacifist longhair acid head point of view on this 😉

But I can see the other side, as well. There is a difference between what Liddy and North did, and what Kerry did. If Liddy and North had left well enough alone, the crimes would never have been committed. If John Kerry had refused to serve, the Vietnam War would still have happened. There just would have been one less rich Brahman going through it, and one more working class stiff from Cleveland.

Furthermore, I am living proof that one can consider a decision about war to be a close call, and decide that a certain war is unwise and uncalled for, without your opposition rising to the level of wanting your country to lose.

[dj of raleigh]

> Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity.