Barnes 'ashamed' of getting Bush in Guard

[Rooster71]

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/9529199.htm

By Bobby Ross Jr.

The Associated Press


Former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes said he is "more ashamed at myself than I've ever been" because he helped President Bush and the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas National Guard so they could avoid serving in the Vietnam War.

"I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard ... and I'm not necessarily proud of that, but I did it," Barnes, a Democrat, said in a video clip recorded May 27 before a group of John Kerry supporters in Austin.

Barnes, who was Texas House speaker when Bush entered the Guard, later became lieutenant governor.

The video was posted June 25 on the Web site www.austin4kerry.org (http://www.austin4kerry.org), but it didn't get much attention until Friday, when Jim Moore, an Austin-based author of books critical of Bush, sent out e-mail calling attention to it.

Bush joined the National Guard in 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, and served until 1973.

Barnes said he became ashamed after walking through the Vietnam Memorial and looking at the names of the dead.

"I became more ashamed of myself than I've ever been because it was the worst thing I did -- help a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get in the National Guard," he said.

"I'm very sorry of that and I'm very ashamed of it, and I apologize to the voters of Texas for that."

Barnes told The Associated Press in a brief telephone interview Saturday that the video "just speaks for itself." He declined to answer specific questions about what role he had in helping Bush, but he said he may have more to say next week.

Both Bush and his father, the former president, have said they did not ask for help in finding the Guard opening.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Saturday of Barnes' comments: "It is not surprising coming from a longtime partisan Democrat."

[Rooster71]

I like the quote at the end: "White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Saturday of Barnes' comments: 'It is not surprising coming from a longtime partisan Democrat.'"

Well Scotty doesn't rebut anything. This issue has been festering for a very long time. Barnes previously denied getting Georgie into the National Guard. But now he decides to come clean. If this is some sort of partisan attack, then why is Barnes just now admitting this? Why didn't he do it in 2000?

Of course the "liberal media" doesn't harp on stories of this type. To the conspirators in the "liberal media" it is more important to talk about smear groups who want to discredit someone who actually went to Vietnam and was actually wounded.

[Rooster71]

"Barnes said he became ashamed after walking through the Vietnam Memorial and looking at the names of the dead." I don't really care if this statement is true or not. But it makes me think about just how backwards someone really has to be in order to support someone who dodged the draft (like Bush did) but then smear someone who actually served in a combat role, all the while claiming to be "patriotic."

I don't care to hear any arguments about how Kerry's anti-war comments were "hurtful" or "not nice."

[adios]

Kerry joined the Navy without any expectation of serving in combat. When's the last time the Navy served as infantry? As I posted a few days ago, Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty believing that they would not be involved in hazerdous combat duty. The Swift Boat mission changed after Kerry volunteered. It's a well known fact that John F. Kennedy is Kerry's political role model. Kerry wanted to command a vessel like his role model. If Bush could have joined the Navy but he chose the Air National Guard.

[adios]

He enlisted in the Navy. Bush in the Air National Guard. Bush chose the National Guard over the Navy. Yeah Bush probably had strings pulled to get into the National Guard but that doesn't preclude the fact that he could have joined the Navy as well. The Navy serves on ships, does special forces activities, and flys planes to name a few. How often does the navy serve as infantry?

[nicky g]

Isn't string pulling the issue here though?

[ThaSaltCracka]

hehe, nice one.

[adios]

The Democrats have stated that Bush skirted his military obligation more or less by joining the Air National Guard and avoided combat by doing so. During the Viet Nam war when facing the possibility of being drafted, if one wanted to avoid combat duty, one didn't join the Army or the Marines. If memory serves me correctly it was much easier to get into the Navy with a college degree like Bush and Kerry had. The National Guard and the Navy were reasonable alternatives to being drafted. The catch was that the term of service was much longer. Yes getting strings pulled is an issue but the Navy option that Kerry took was a viable one for Bush as well. It's not like either Bush had to serve in combat or go to the Air National Guard. The way the Democrats are selling it Kerry joined the Navy to serve his country by fighting in Viet Nam on the ground. That's ridiculous.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry joined the Navy without any expectation of serving in combat. When's the last time the Navy served as infantry? As I posted a few days ago, Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty believing that they would not be involved in hazerdous combat duty. The Swift Boat mission changed after Kerry volunteered. It's a well known fact that John F. Kennedy is Kerry's political role model. Kerry wanted to command a vessel like his role model. If Bush could have joined the Navy but he chose the Air National Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]
JFK saw battles at sea and was injured. What does the fact that JFK was Kerry's role model have to do with anything?

"Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty believing that they would not be involved in hazerdous combat duty. The Swift Boat mission changed after Kerry volunteered." How do you know what Kerry believed? And how does it matter anyway? How is this the same as Bush serving stateside in a cushy unit filled with the sons of prominent politicians?

Bush also could have joing the Marine Corps and volunteered for infantry but he chose the National Guard, so what's your point about saying "Bush could have joined the Navy?"

[elwoodblues]

You are really stretching with this whole line of argument.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
He enlisted in the Navy. Bush in the Air National Guard. Bush chose the National Guard over the Navy. Yeah Bush probably had strings pulled to get into the National Guard but that doesn't preclude the fact that he could have joined the Navy as well. The Navy serves on ships, does special forces activities, and flys planes to name a few. How often does the navy serve as infantry?

[/ QUOTE ]
He was in a swift boat. The last time I checked a boat floats on water, which is pretty brings us to the whole purpose of the Navy: To fight on water or fight based out of watercraft.

"Bush chose the National Guard over the Navy. Yeah Bush probably had strings pulled to get into the National Guard but that doesn't preclude the fact that he could have joined the Navy as well." This is very interesting logic. Following your line of reasoning, Joe Public could have entered the WSOP main event this year, but he chose to enter a $100 buy-in tourney in Tunica. Since Joe Public participated in a tourney, he is therefore on the same level as those who placed in the WSOP because he chose to play the lower buy-in tourney.

By the way, the title of your response "Kerry Dodged the Draft Too By Your Definition" does not correlate to the content of your post.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
You are really stretching with this whole line of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. This is the biggest stretch I have seen anyone try to make in this forum. I am assuming he is serious and not joking around, but his response did seem serious.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't string pulling the issue here though?

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought so.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
The way the Democrats are selling it Kerry joined the Navy to serve his country by fighting in Viet Nam on the ground. That's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]
With logic like this it is easy to see why there are so many chickenhawk war-mongering Republicans in power who have never been anywhere near combat of any type.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the biggest stretch I have seen anyone try to make in this forum

[/ QUOTE ]

With regard to this issues, no question about it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You are really stretching with this whole line of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true I can point to at least one Kerry interview that states that he volunteered for Swift Boat duty believing that he would not see combat activity like he did. The Swift Boat mission changed after Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty. This is acknowledge by Kerry himself. When Kerry joined the Navy his first tour was on a frigate patrolling waters on the open sea around Viet Nam.

At the time of the Viet Nam war enlisting in the Navy and the Air Force were alternatives to lessen the possibility of serving in combat. As stated earlier the catch was that people's time of obligation was much longer. This was also true of the National Guard. In the same interview with Kerry that I referred to previously, Kerry states that when he joined the Navy he did not expect to see combat duty.

I'm not stretching anything, the Navy doesn't serve in the infantry. Special forces like the Seals I believe were utilized by the Navy in Nam and of course Navy pilots flew missions over Nam. But until the Swift Boat missions, that was basically it. I believe most of the Navy KIA's in Nam were from those on the Swift Boats. However, as stated earlier, Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty before their mission changed to the much more hazerdous mission that Kerry participated in. John F. Kennedy was Kerry's political role model and Kerry wanted to command a boat just like Kennedy did.

Also I checked into the availability of the Air Force and the Navy for Bush as an alternative to Air Natuonal Guard duty in 1968 and they both were available to him. So although Bush probably had strings pulled to get into the National Guard, Bush certainly had the Navy and Air Force as alternatives to being drafted.

If you guys believe that draft eligible men didn't enlist in the Navy to avoid combat in Viet Nam you're wrong.

[adios]

............

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
If Bush could have joined the Navy but he chose the Air National Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the two was more likely to be sent to a foreign war?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Bush could have joined the Navy but he chose the Air National Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the two was more likely to be sent to a foreign war?

[/ QUOTE ]

A qualified jet pilot was more likely to see action than an officer in the Navy.

By the time I was qualified, the air war was beginning to wind down - many Guard pilots before me were sent.

On the other hand, when Kerry requested Swift boat duty, they were involved mostly in non-combat missions. That changed suddenly and Kerry found himself in combat that he had tried to avoid.

Something to think about.

[sfer]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (since I've played at the 2+2 table with you /images/graemlins/wink.gif), but I'm really suspicious about the accuracy of that claim.

[nicky g]

The issue is that Bush pulled strings to get into a local outfit (and appears not to have bothered to complete his service, which if true presumably relied again on political contacts; I doubt the average Joe could get away with this). Should someone who thinks power should be used to perform illegitimate favours for friends be trusted as the most powerful friend in the world?

[elwoodblues]

The critique of Bush is not that Bush was a chicken for not signing up for infantry duty (which you implicitly suggest.) The critique is that he pulled strings instead of doing what others had to do and either legitimately enlist or risk being drafted. Further the criticism is that today he is very hawkish, but when it was his turn to serve he chose a very dove-like route. This suggests a complete willingness to risk others lives when you have shown an unwillingness to risk your own.

That is part of the reason why you are stretching with this line of argument.

[GWB]

Should someone who thinks that betraying and accusing your fellow soldiers of atrocities is a viable start on the path to a political career be trusted in the Office of the Presidency?

[elwoodblues]

Nope. If you have any evidence that this was Kerry's motivation, as opposed to an incidental benefit, I'm all ears.

[nicky g]

I see you don't deny the charge.

Kerry was right to denounce the war and atrocities being committed there. That he's backtracked on that for political reasons is lamentable and I don't like him at all, but it's not as serious as the misuse of influence that the Air Guard episode demonstrates, which continues to characterise the GWB presidency.

[sfer]

That doesn't answer Nicky at all.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If Bush could have joined the Navy but he chose the Air National Guard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of the two was more likely to be sent to a foreign war?

[/ QUOTE ]

A qualified jet pilot was more likely to see action than an officer in the Navy.

By the time I was qualified, the air war was beginning to wind down - many Guard pilots before me were sent.

On the other hand, when Kerry requested Swift boat duty, they were involved mostly in non-combat missions. That changed suddenly and Kerry found himself in combat that he had tried to avoid.

Something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]
As stated many, many times before, by Bush had 0% chance of seeing any war activities when he signed up for the Guard. This is due to 2 reasons: 1) he was trained on equipment that was obsolete, but most importantly 2) his unit was filled with sons of wealthy politicians who knew they were there to say the "served their country" but not actually have to be in danger.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Should someone who thinks that betraying and accusing your fellow soldiers of atrocities is a viable start on the path to a political career be trusted in the Office of the Presidency?

[/ QUOTE ]
This issue has been beat to death. People on this board are not morons, for the most part. I'm sure your statement above would go over well at the RNC, but to any thinking person it's just dumb. "Betraying"...that's a strong word. Please refrain from ridiculous statements such as those without any valid support of such accusation.

[Rooster71]

If you consider the truth as an "ad hominen" attack, then so be it. If you really wanted to respond with a sensible argument instead of taking the "you're a meanie" route, then you would provide examples that refute my statement.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The critique of Bush is not that Bush was a chicken for not signing up for infantry duty (which you implicitly suggest.)

[/ QUOTE ]

No I didn't implicity suggest that Bush is a chicken for not signing up for infantry duty in Nam. Neither did I implicity suggest that John Kerry is a chicken for not signing up for infantry duty in Nam.

[ QUOTE ]
The critique is that he pulled strings instead of doing what others had to do and either legitimately enlist or risk being drafted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice that I fully acknowledge that Bush probably had strings pulled to get into the National Guard. It's not because of what Barnes stated or having to concede something. I acknowledge it because I lived through the Viet Nam war period, I was eligible for the draft myself and thus I know what the situation was regarding the National Guard generally speaking. I can't be sure of every state but I do know as the Viet Nam war became more unpopular the National Guard as an alternative form of military service became very poplular, so popular that there were waiting lists. I knew people that were serving in the National Guard and I know that they got in before the Viet Nam war became very unpopular and that that option wasn't available to me for instance.

My point is this, for draft eligible men in the present and in the future during the Nam period there were many options. The Navy was an option available that was very often chosen as a way to serve the United States but avoid combat in Viet Nam. The National Guard was an option available that was very often chosen as a way to serve the United States but avoid combat in Viet Nam. Both options served the same purpose and I submit that a big part of the reason Kerry joined the Navy was to serve the U.S. but avoid combat in Nam. I have no problem with that whatsoever. By 1968 those that wanted to serve the U.S. but avoid combat in Nam had the National Guard option more or less not available. At least that's my recollection. However, the Navy was available in 1968. In George Bush having strings pulled to get into the National Guard that's a black mark. However, serving in the Air National Guard is as a legitimate way to serve the U.S. as was the Navy. Basically the record is that Bush was an accomplished and competant pilot of the F-102's. Pilots from Bush's National Guard unit actually flew missions in Nam btw. There are also accounts that Bush signed up to fly missions in Nam in the "Palice Alert" program of the Texas Air National Guard but was turned down. Bush was trained as an F-102 fighter pilot and my understanding is that as the war wound down the F-102's were phased out.

One thing that you guys don't acknowledge is the chronology of the war and how it affected Kerry and Bush. Kerry basically joined and served as the U.S. escalated it's commitment in Nam to the max. Bush joined at the beginning of the U.S. de-escalation of it's presence in Nam.


There are many accounts that state that Bush was a competant pilot and I submit that his service in the Air National Guard was just as legitimate as serving in the Navy. What the Democrats are implying is that Bush had no other options available to him than the draft or the Air National Guard and apparently that the Air National Guard is somehow not legitimate, at least not as legitimate as serving in the Navy. That's simply not true. Furthermore Kerry and Bush made the committment they made for the same basic reason, they wanted to serve the U.S. but avoid combat duty. True Bush probably had strings pulled for selfish reasons, he preferred flying planes than serving on a ship. Kerry preferred the Navy because Kennedy was his role model and Kerry's role model had a distinguished Naval career.

As far as any kind the litmus test of not wanting to serve in combat during Viet Nam as late teen, precluding someone from using autherized military force as president, that's wacky.

Also again, how Navy personal do you know that served in the infantry?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is that Bush pulled strings to get into a local outfit (and appears not to have bothered to complete his service, which if true presumably relied again on political contacts; I doubt the average Joe could get away with this).

[/ QUOTE ]

Was George Bush at the very least competant in flying the planes he was trained to fly (some even say the training is dangerous in itself and George Bush was a very good pilot)? Was George Bush honorably discharged? Is serving in the Air National Guard commendable service to the U.S.? Could George Bush have enlisted in the Navy? Is serving the Air National Guard as legitimate as serving in the Navy?

[ QUOTE ]
Should someone who thinks power should be used to perform illegitimate favours for friends be trusted as the most powerful friend in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Should someone who served their country honorably and legitimately who avoided combat in Viet Nam be trusted as the most powerful friend in the world?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing that you guys don't acknowledge is the chronology of the war and how it affected Kerry and Bush. Kerry basically joined and served as the U.S. escalated it's commitment in Nam to the max. Bush joined at the beginning of the U.S. de-escalation of it's presence in Nam.


There are many accounts that state that Bush was a competant pilot and I submit that his service in the Air National Guard was just as legitimate as serving in the Navy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The age issue is a very good point. Kerry is older than I am, something over which I have no control.

Wasn't it Kerry who criticized Edwards during the primaries for "being in diapers" while he was in Vietnam?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Should someone who thinks power should be used to perform illegitimate favours for friends be trusted as the most powerful friend in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't even tried to refute anything in my argument.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
his unit was filled with sons of wealthy politicians who knew they were there to say the "served their country" but not actually have to be in danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely wrong. The Texas Air National Guard did fly missions in Viet Nam.

[nicky g]

Tom,
I really don't care that he didn't go to Vietnam; good for him, it was a dumbarse war that wasn't worth risking getting yourself killed for. It's the pulling strings to do it I have a problem with. The fact that he had alternatives to pulling strings or did well in the subsequent activities doesn't make it better. You acknowledge that he probably used his father's influence to do this; doesn't that at least add credibility to other cases where it's been suggested/it looks like he used influence to get out of pickles? Doesn't it give the wrong impression about how Bush goes about his Presidency?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
but it's not as serious as the misuse of influence that the Air Guard episode demonstrates, which continues to characterise the GWB presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this so serios?

[GWB]

All about pulling strings, huh?

A lot of the complaints about Kerry's medals were that he was pulling strings and manipulating facts (e.g. self inflicted -or- combat?) to get his medals.

What say you about this?

[nicky g]

It's a clear abuse of power for personal ends. It's not "so" serious; it's not the mark of evil incarnate. But as you say it's a black mark and makes you wonder if such an individual can be trusted with all the power that goes with being US President.

[adios]

I can only reiterate what I stated earlier:

There are many accounts that state that Bush was a competant pilot and I submit that his service in the Air National Guard was just as legitimate as serving in the Navy. What the Democrats are implying is that Bush had no other options available to him than the draft or the Air National Guard and apparently that the Air National Guard is somehow not legitimate, at least not as legitimate as serving in the Navy. That's simply not true. Furthermore Kerry and Bush made the committment they made for the same basic reason, they wanted to serve the U.S. but avoid combat duty. True Bush probably had strings pulled for selfish reasons, he preferred flying planes than serving on a ship. Kerry preferred the Navy because Kennedy was his role model and Kerry's role model had a distinguished Naval career.

Bush employed a selfish preference as a late teen in the way he chose to serve the U.S. in an honorable and legitimate way.

What would you guys be saying if Bush was in the draft lottery and his number was enough such that he didn't have to serve at all.

[nicky g]

I've not heard of him using influence to get medals. If it becomes clear he lied to get them that's bad, and pretty pathetic, too. As I've said before, it's a piss poor choice between the two of them.

[nicky g]

"I can only reiterate what I stated earlier: "

I'm sorry but I don;t understand how that's a response to the misue of influence accusation.


"What the Democrats are implying"
is not what I'm saying.

Anyway that's enough of this thread for me.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Kerry preferred the Navy because Kennedy was his role model and Kerry's role model had a distinguished Naval career.

Bush employed a selfish preference as a late teen in the way he chose to serve the U.S. in an honorable and legitimate way.


[/ QUOTE ]

My Dad was a pilot and was shot down during WWII. Aren't I allowed to become a pilot with him as a role model?

Or can only Kerry follow in the footsteps of a role model?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/thebuzz/Friends.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
But as you say it's a black mark and makes you wonder if such an individual can be trusted with all the power that goes with being US President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fair enough but my problem is with Democratic spin doctoring and how the anybody but Bush faction has bought into it hook, line and sinker. They sure didn't see a problem with Clinton and they didn't seem very impressed with Bob Dole's military service as being important credentials for being president.

[adios]

But yes I understand about your daddy. Also your daddy wasn't too gung ho on the Viet Nam war himself in 1967 but that didn't preclude him from waging the Gulf War.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I don;t understand how that's a response to the misue of influence

[/ QUOTE ]

I responde to the misuse of influence. It was selfish and it's a black mark what more do you want me to say. He did provide legitimate and distinguished military service nonetheless.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
Wasn't it Kerry who criticized Edwards during the primaries for "being in diapers" while he was in Vietnam?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're correct. And it was George W. Bush who criticized Edwards for his lack of experience in government. Edwards has 6 years in the Senate, Bush had 6 years as Governor when he was appointed to the presidency.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
his unit was filled with sons of wealthy politicians who knew they were there to say the "served their country" but not actually have to be in danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely wrong. The Texas Air National Guard did fly missions in Viet Nam.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you should read my statement above again. My statement above is 100% correct. His unit was never in Vietnam.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
All about pulling strings, huh?

A lot of the complaints about Kerry's medals were that he was pulling strings and manipulating facts (e.g. self inflicted -or- combat?) to get his medals.

What say you about this?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you want to know what everyone here thinks about this, then go look at previous threads. This issue has been beat to death.

But if you want to argue anyway, please explain how you can inflict an injury upon yourself with a grenade without inflicting extremely serious injury or death.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
There are many accounts that state that Bush was a competant pilot.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are also many accounts that indicate his whereabouts were unaccounted for.

[ QUOTE ]
What would you guys be saying if Bush was in the draft lottery and his number was enough such that he didn't have to serve at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
What does this have to do with anything? The whole point is that strings were pulled to get him a cushy Guard appointment.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
He did provide legitimate and distinguished military service nonetheless.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's debatable.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kerry preferred the Navy because Kennedy was his role model and Kerry's role model had a distinguished Naval career.

Bush employed a selfish preference as a late teen in the way he chose to serve the U.S. in an honorable and legitimate way.


[/ QUOTE ]

My Dad was a pilot and was shot down during WWII. Aren't I allowed to become a pilot with him as a role model?

Or can only Kerry follow in the footsteps of a role model?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v54/thebuzz/Friends.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said Bush couldn't have a role model? Nice job of getting off topic. Anyway, I don't think that pulling strings to get a cushy appointment then flying an obsolete plane with no chance of seeing combat would be considered "following his role model." The elder Bush was actually in a unit that fought the enemy. I don't know if Prescott got him that position or not.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should someone who thinks power should be used to perform illegitimate favours for friends be trusted as the most powerful friend in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

You haven't even tried to refute anything in my argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Adios, who are you talking to? I have refuted everything in your argument that made enough sense to refute.

[adios]

No you haven't.

I stated that Kerry joined the Navy in 1966 with the expectation of not seeing combat in Nam. Furthermore that men facing the draft chose the Navy as an alternative to serving in combat. How many people do you know that serve in the infantry that are in the Navy?

I stated that Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty believing that it would be relatively safe. The Swift Boat mission changed after Kerry volunteered for Swift Boat duty.
BTW Kerry left the Navy early.

I stated that in 1968 when George Bush was eligible for the draft he had the option to enlist in the Navy and the Air Force. Typically draft eligible men chose the Navy, the Air Force, or the National Guard to avoid doing combat duty in Viet Nam. Therefore his choices were not limited to entering the draft, joining the Texas Air National Guard, or not serving in any military capacity at all as the Democratic spin doctoring implies.

I stated that his service in the Air National Guard was as legitimate as serving in the Navy. Certainly in the view of the U.S. government this was true. If you belief that Air National Guard service is not legitimate service, I invite you to seek out an Air National Guardsman from Bush's unit and tell them to their face. Bush was trained as a fighter pilot and accounts are that Bush was an accomplished and capable fighter pilot. I stated that Bush's Air National Guard unit did fly missions over Viet Nam. I also stated that some report that Bush volunteered for the "Palace Alert" program which was the program involving the Texas Air National Guard serving missions in Nam. I also stated that the climate involving Viet Nam was much different when Kerry enlisted in February of 1966 then when Bush joined the Air National Guard in May of 1968. Basically Kerry joined and served while the U.S. escalated it's presence in Viet Nam and Bush joined while the U.S. was de-escalating it's presence in Nam.

I'm going to add something else. The draft itself was a patently unfair process. Basically if one and the financial means and the connections to attend college in the late 60's one could obtain a deferrment. For the poor and disenfranchised this option was not available to a lot of them. When someone completed their undergraduate work they basically had more and better options available regarding military service. So by your definition anyone who received a student deferrment is a draft dodger. In 1970 the basic unfairness of the draft had been publicised and debated resulting in a draft lottery. If someone received a high enough number where they weren't called their obligation was over after being 1 year as 1-A. I assume that your viewpoint is that anyone who's lottery number was high enough that didn't serve is also a draft dodger.

I stated that Bush probably had strings pulled to get into the National Guard. I stated that I believed this was true from my experience as a draft eligible man and my recollection of the National Guard option at the time. I stated that since Bush had other options avialable from which he could avoid combat duty, he chose the Air National Guard duty for selfish reasons. I stated that this was a black mark on Bush's record. Btw George H. W. Bush came out yesterday and denied using his influence to get Bush in the National Guard. But again I believe he probably did.


I stated that if Bush is a draft dodger for joining the Air National Guard then Kerry is a draft dodger for joining the Navy.


You haven't refuted one of my statements. I expect that either in 24 hours that you'll post that you did and hope the thread gets buried or that it will produce another ad hominem attack.