AWOL BUSH (no it doesn't say A-HOLE, lol)

[pisces2473]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030411.html

Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record. Why the disparity? We'll get to that. First the basics: Yes, it's true, Bush didn't report to his guard unit for an extended period--17 months, by one account. It wasn't considered that serious an offense at the time, and if circumstances were different now I'd be inclined to write it off as youthful irresponsibility. However, given the none-too-subtle suggestion by the Bush administration that opponents of our Iraqi excursion lack martial valor, I have to say: You guys should talk.

Here's the story as generally agreed upon: In January 1968, with the Vietnam war in full swing, Bush was due to graduate from Yale. Knowing he'd soon be eligible for the draft, he took an air force officers' test hoping to secure a billet with the Texas Air National Guard, which would allow him to do his military service at home. Bush didn't do particularly well on the test--on the pilot aptitude section, he scored in the 25th percentile, the lowest possible passing grade. But Bush's father, George H.W., was then a U.S. congressman from Houston, and strings were pulled. The younger Bush vaulted to the head of a long waiting list--a year and a half long, by some estimates--and in May of '68 he was inducted into the guard.

By all accounts Bush was an excellent pilot, but apparently his enthusiasm cooled. In 1972, four years into his six-year guard commitment, he was asked to work for the campaign of Bush family friend Winton Blount, who was running for the U.S. Senate in Alabama. In May Bush requested a transfer to an Alabama Air National Guard unit with no planes and minimal duties. Bush's immediate superiors approved the transfer, but higher-ups said no. The matter was delayed for months. In August Bush missed his annual flight physical and was grounded. (Some have speculated that he was worried about failing a drug test--the Pentagon had instituted random screening in April.) In September he was ordered to report to a different unit of the Alabama guard, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery. Bush says he did so, but his nominal superiors say they never saw the guy, there's no documentation he ever showed up, and not one of the six or seven hundred soldiers then in the unit has stepped forward to corroborate Bush's story.

After the November election Bush returned to Texas, but apparently didn't notify his old Texas guard unit for quite a while, if ever. The Boston Globe initially reported that he started putting in some serious duty time in May, June, and July of 1973 to make up for what he'd missed. But according to a piece in the New Republic, there's no evidence Bush did even that. Whatever the case, even though his superiors knew he'd blown off his duties, they never disciplined him. (No one's ever been shot at dawn for missing a weekend guard drill, but policy at the time was to put shirkers on active duty.) Indeed, when Bush decided to go to business school at Harvard in the fall of 1973, he requested and got an honorable discharge--eight months before his service was scheduled to end.

Bush's enemies say all this proves he was a cowardly deserter. Nonsense. He was a pampered rich kid who took advantage. Why wasn't he called on it in a serious way during the 2000 election? Probably because Democrats figured they'd get Clinton's draft-dodging thing thrown back at them. Not that it matters. If history judges Bush harshly--and it probably will--it won't be for screwing up as a young smart aleck, but for getting us into this damn fool war.

[thejoesays]

Which would you consider worse? The fact that Bill Clinton not only ran from military service, but protested against this country when he did it and the fact that Al Gore was purposefully directed away from any military action because of his extremely powerful father, a senator from Tennessee or the fact that GWB served in a combat unit of the National Guard and was possiblly AWOL.

I'd take the former.

[pisces2473]

No no...I don't think you get it. Yes, Gore was supposedly directed away from service by HIS powerful father...but at least he's come clean about it. And so has Clinton.

The fact is--Bush continues to LIE about his involvement, when there is plenty of proof to show that he never showed up for his military duties. He wasn't possibly AWOL--HE WAS.

Bush is evil, so is Cheney and Rummy. It's an ol' boy network and when the rest of the country wakes up and sees this, it will be a new dawn in America. The axis of evil, my friends, is right in this country.

[jku]

Anyone know the song "FORTUNATE SON" by Creedence Clearwater? It was written about people like Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Gore too (actually Gore went because his Dad was a Senator and they didn't want to look like he got special treatment), but if I'm not mistaken Gore was involved in combat, albeit as a Stars And Stripes Army Newspaper reporter.

There was also a book,written in 1999, going through Bush's record with a fine tooth comb.
It's called FORTUNATE SON, and it's an excellent read. It even discussed Bush's links with the Bin Laden family well before 9/11 - when Bin Laden was a minor public figure.

There's a documentary out now about the book and the controversy that happened when it came out. The Bush backers were scared that the facts from the book would derail his campaign, so the first Bush war was waged.
http://www.hornsandhalos.com

In just world, McCain deserved that nomination.
I have respect for a man who served his country and has REAL conviction.

http://half.ebay.com/cat/buy/prod.cgi?cpid=1118362113&domain_id=1856&meta_id=1

[thejoesays]

Not supposely directed away, was directed away from combat. No senator's son saw combat in the Vietnam War. As the CCR song says, "It ain't me, I ain't no SENATOR'S son." It wasn't written about Bush but about people like Gore. Gore only came clean about it after it was exposed. Before that he claimed he was actually in combat, the liberal media never bother to check that.

This brings me to Bush. If Bush did go AWOL, the liberal news media would have forced it down our throats like they tried to do with the whole coccaine thing. Guess what, they couldn't do it because there wasn't anything behind those charges. If there was something behind them, you can be assured that the New York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and PBS would have been reporting this till we got so sick of it.

The question that I keep wondering about is why do you hate George Bush so much. I can understand why conservatives don't like Bill Clinton because there were alot of reasons. But, I can see a reason for the massive amount of hatred of Bush.

[pisces2473]

Why conservatives hate Clinton is on the same line of reasoning that liberals hate Bush. I don't think you really need to ask that question--the answer is so simple. It's about ideologies, policy decisions, etc.

[pisces2473]

About the media--the media is not as independent or as liberal as we think it is. Media is owned by large corporations--GE owns NBC, for instance. It's the underground, independent news sources that are doing the reporting...only they don't have the ad revues to give them large budgets. So you have to do your own research and find sources that are trying to report the truth.

But then again, to some people, truth is relative.

[thejoesays]

Reporters are the ones who report the news, not the corporations. If I'm correct a poll found that about 75% of reporters were democrats and about 10% were Republicans. Many of those people come out of journalism school with the intent to change the world. That is completely the wrong idea to have. Their job is to objectavly report the news. They don't do that. A great book to read about this is "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. He's not a Republican my any means but he has seen this media bias first hand.

The reason I asked the question about why liberals hate George Bush is because it seems without reason. Like I said, conservatives had reasons backed up with facts why we didn't like Clinton. Most of what I hear about Bush doesn't have facts behind them. I just what to know specifically why liberals dislike Bush so much

[jku]

I've worked in the "liberal" news media long enough to come to the conclusion that Goldberg is wrong and there is no "liberal" bias. I'll tell you why - the primary goal of the MEDIA in America is not to be objective, or to promote an agenda - its to make MONEY. News and Children's Programming are ubiquitous and appeal to a variety of audiences.
To have wide appeal, you're almost forced to be overly cautious. Thus "objective."
The best reporting comes from indy and alternative media. They were all over the NIGER Uranium story in the Fall. They've been ahead of the pack on a lot of things.
You can tell there is no bias in the media (and don't believe those bastards trying to SELL BOOKS THEJOE. When they have an indefensible argument, they reflex and 'kill the messenger.') when conservatives and liberals are angry. Cons say they're too liberal - Liberals say they're owned by GE and too conservative. That's the perfect balance.
Al Jazeera recently had the same problem. During the Iraq war, they were criticized by the US as Pro-Iraqi, and the Iraqis were criticizing Al Jazeera for being a "western tool." Same goes with BBC (the BBC is the best I think because they don't have to make money, the PUBLIC funds them so they can report the facts and not worry about losing sponsors).
Does this make sense?

Bush represents everything this country is not.
Elitism, priveledge, and special treatment. He's inarticulate, lacks curiosity, HATES reading - that's the not the sign of a quality President, is it?

[thejoesays]

Interesting you bring up money because that was one of Goldberg's points. He believed that it was a bad thing that the news division would have to be money makers. As for the alternative media, I have no problem with them. I think the Drudge Report and Blogs are revolutionising the way the liberal NEWS media does buisness. I think we can both agree that the bias goes beyond what's reported into what is not reported as well. This is the greatness of Fox News, they are willing to report the tough issues that the other outlets won't. Now yes, I will admit they have a slight conservative bias, but their bias is signifacantly less than what is found on the other networks.

[coll214]

There are many valid reasons why liberals dislike Bush so much. Like pisces said; his policy decisions for one. Not even your basic environmentalist is going to have a nice thing to say about someone who supports oil drilling in Alaska, increased pollution levels for large corportations, among others.

Not to mention what jku said about being inarticulate...and he's a good ole boy to top it off.

[jku]

thejoe - take a "WILD" guess what media outfit I work with?

Now in re to bias - FNC is CLEAR-CUT bias. They proudly claim it. Many of the people who work there are actually quite independent/liberal leaning. Roger Ailes, the chief at FNC, was a formerly Reagan Admin. That is a CLEAR CUT bias.
What they point fingers at is often times organizations doing their journalistic duty.

Of course people who work in the media have OPINIONS. I heard Goldberg's contention that minority liberal types have minority liberal friends, etc. DUH! White conservative CEO types have white conservative CEO buddies. Certain industries attract certain types of people.
Opinions have a place. That's what editorials, and places like QLC are for. But when you write news, you give both sides EQUAL points. That's where your opinion stops and objectivity begins.
If ever my personal opinion creeped into my news writing, I'd get yelled at by a producer. No matter what I believe to be true, I owe each side a fair shake in telling their side of the story.

FNC does NOT do that. To use them as your source for NEWS does not serve anybody but the people behind the scenes who make money off their audience's ignorance.

My reccomendations:
BBC, NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, The Economist, and LA Times.

[pisces2473]

So Jku, where do you work? J/K ;)

Would you rather work for the places you listed as sources for TheJoe to check out? Just wondering if you have any ethical crises due to your job :D

[pisces2473]

I just reread the posts on this thread and I realized something.

TheJoe misused the lyrics from that CCR song. If you listen to it further, you can see it doesn't apply to senator's sons. Yes, the lyrics went, "It aint me, it aint me, I aint no Senator's son..." BUT.... they also went, "It aint me, it aint me, I aint no millionaire's son..." and also "It aint me, it aint me, I aint no military son..."

The band was talking about all the types of sons who got excused from the draft:

Senators sons: Gore
Millionaires sons: Bush
Military sons: Oh look! Bush again

[thejoesays]

Like I said before FNC is somewhat biased. But, to say that NPR, the New York Times, the BBC and several of the others mentioned are clearly liberally biased. The BBC is in crisis now for it's reporting in Britian right now. NPR is the most blatently biased news in the country. And the New York Times hasn't endorsed a Republican presidential canadate since Eisenhower.

As for former administration officals working for news agencies, lets go over a few more that Roger Alies. Geogre Stephenopolus worked for the Clinton administration and is now in a objective news reporting position for ABC News and is the host of This Week. Tim Russert worked for Mario Cuomo and Danial Moynihan. Brain Williams, the man NBC wants to replace Tom Browkow, worked for the Carter Administration. I could go on and on with the connections many reporters have with Democratic administrations. There is clearly many more people who worked for the Democrats and now work in the news media than Republicans in the same boat.

You are right jku, opinion have a place and it's not in the news. However, my contention is that those opinions clearly cover all of the news that is reported and even those things that aren't reported. Would the whole Monica thing ever happened if Matt Drudge hadn't done the job of Newsweek in reporting it.

I honestly don't know who you work for, but I would like to ask if you have read Bernard Goldberg's book. He says alot of things in there that are very interesting and make sense.

[coll214]

Nice catch jen with the CCR song...i just listened to it now and you're right :cool:

[pisces2473]

Thank you Coll!!! :cool:

TheJoe--it's only fair that the liberals have control over the TV news, since conservatives are ALL over the talk radio stations.

[seren1411]

It's not exactly true to claim that the BBC is in crisis for it's reporting over here.

What's going on is a particularly vicious row between the government and the (GOVERNMENT-FUNDED) BBC over allegations that the govt 'sexed up' it's dossier on Iraqi WMD.

After the powers that be took the decision to publish the name of the man suspected of having made the allegation re the WMD dossier (Dr David Kelly) and then to interrogate him before the Commons, Kelly died in questionable circumstances.

Blair's approval rating has now dipped to it's lowest ever, forcing him to truncate his (& Cherie's) world tour of singing cover versions of Beatles tracks. I'd say don't give up your day job, but...

The BBC in crisis? I think that honour goes to the PM.

[jku]

Hi TheJoe - BTW, I enjoy these civil discussions, and you do a great job of intelligently and cogently making your points.

In re to the ANCHORS that work for various stations. These people are anchors - they are often times charming, funny, witty, but have no REAL say on what happens in a news outfit. Its the Producers and News Director. Trust me, Roger Ailes has more power at FNC, only Murdoch trumps him.
The network was created to tap into a demographic like you, who believe this ridiculous myth of "liberal bias." Our goal in TV is to present a product - which is the audience. The purchaser of our product are corporations that need to brainwash people into buying their products. The NYT may endorse a candidate, but they do so in their EDITORIAL section, where it belongs.

And why don't you trust news people? - we're exposed to the daily machinations of politics, culture, and policy - and made a pledge to present BOTH sides of an argument. Thus we have a much more INFORMED opinion on issues that impact the lives of Americans, and thus write editorials on what we believe is best for America based on that opinion. People CHOOSE to trust those opinions or not.

Seren had a point a while ago about Adverts and War.
That is what concerns me now, is that we are using coercive sales practices to push through dangerous foreign policy, and the American public seems to believe it. Do you remember the Grant Hill Sprite commercial "Image is nothing, Thirst is Everything" - people are so discerning about their soft drinks, but when it comes to their politicians they seem to believe them blindly.

When a movie with DeNiro comes out, like Analyze That 2, and he says he believes in the art of psychiatry and how this movie shows connections between the mob and medicine. Do you believe that?
He did the movie because its easy money.

Same with Bush (whose GRANDFATHER was Prescott Bush, a SENATOR from Conneticut) - of course he has a SLOGAN and a BRAND - but the STATED goal is NOT the goal. The stated goal is there so that you will comply. The real goal is what we need to look at.

Trust Bush et.al, that's your right, but I believe its at the peril of all that we as Americans CLAIM to hold dear.