Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (29417)	2/13/2004 2:06:07 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 793897

SERIOUSNESS OF DEMOCRAT ACCUSATIONS OF AWOL AND DESERTION DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe Called President Bush “AWOL.” “I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. George Bush never served in our military and our country. He didn’t show up when he should have showed up, and there’s John Kerry on the stage with a chest full of medals that he earned by saving lives of American soldiers.” (DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe On ABC’s “This Week,” 2/1/04) AWOL Can Be Felony Punished By Over Year In Prison. Under Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, absence without leave (AWOL) can be a felony punishable by over a year in prison. (UCMJ Art. 86) At An Event For Wesley Clark, Michael Moore Said, “The General Vs. The Deserter! That’s The Debate!” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 1/25/04) Desertion Is Felony Punishable By Death. Under Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, desertion is a felony punishable by dishonorable discharge, up to five years in prison, or even execution. (UCMJ Art. 85) PRESIDENT BUSH’S FULL DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL GUARD SERVICE Newly Released Documents Indicate President Bush Fulfilled His Commitment In National Guard. The White House “released payroll and personnel records indicating that Bush put in enough time in the Air National Guard during 1972 and 1973 to qualify for the honorable discharge he received.” (Bob Kemper, “Bush Releases Military Records,” Chicago Tribune, 2/11/04) Released Memo: President Bush Had “Satisfactory Years” Which “Proves That He Completed His Military Obligation.” “In a memo included in the packet of payroll and other records, retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr., former personnel director of the Texas Air National Guard, stood behind Bush’s service record. He wrote that the records show Bush had ‘satisfactory years’ for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74 ‘which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner.’” (Deb Riechmann, “Democrats Seek More Proof Of Bush Service,” The Associated Press, 2/11/04) Other Documents Released Indicate President Bush Earned Adequate Number Of Points For An Honorable Discharge. “The records released Tuesday show that Bush earned 56 points for his duty from May 1972 to May 1973 and another 56 points from May 1973 to May 1974, putting him over the 50-point minimum a Guard member had to acquire each year to qualify for an honorable discharge.” (Bob Kemper, “Bush Releases Military Records,” Chicago Tribune, 2/11/04) President Bush Received An Honorable Discharge On October 1, 1973. (“Timeline Of The President’s National Guard Service,” The Associated Press, 2/10/04) Senator McCain: President Bush Served Honorably. “I know that President Bush has a record of honorable service during the Vietnam War in the National Guard, where he also went through pilot training and flew a rather difficult airplane to fly, and did well.” (Mike Allen, “Bush’s Military Record Defended,” The Washington Post, 2/4/04) gop.com

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (29417)	2/13/2004 2:53:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793897

Trap sprung. I asked Peter for the evidence supporting the allegations that Bush was a "deserter" or "AWOL", allegations that he and the TNR staff have been rolling about in for days. I've seen this comparison mentioned a couple of times today. I don't think it's a valid one. The deserter/AWOL business is a matter of hyperbolic labels applied to the spotty record of Bush's attendance. The allegation is that he did not attend the requisite drills. So we have an allegation, which is being investigated, and a labeling. Acts and the extreme characterization of those acts are two different things. The characterization is to be condemned if it is to be repeated at all. There is substance to the act; it is worthy of investigation. In Kerry's case, the alleged act is also worthy of investigation and it is being investigated. Both acts are being treated the same, best I can tell. News media are investigating and are reporting or will be reporting what substance they find. You can't fairly compare the treatment of an act with the treatment of a characterization. If the media fail to report what they find as they investigate Kerry, then you have a complaint.