Wednesday, February 11, 2004

 

 

Any damn fool can be complicated....it takes a genius to attain simplicity

                                                                            ~ Woody Guthrie

 

Well, anyway....Explanations are offered and we're all supposed to say, "O.K., very good".  But the explanations are never cut & dry.  They always seem to leave some aspect dangling out there someplace.  All too often questions are left unasked due to their simplicity.  But there's really something to be said for simplicity.  The answers to many of our questions are right before our eyes, if we just don't take the little details for granted. 

 

White House releases Bush's military pay records; Spokesman says he fulfilled his duties

 

"These documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served," said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan. 

 

~*~  Excuse me here a moment....doesn't that just indicate he was PAID?  Perhaps he should also be charged with defrauding the federal government?

 

Washington Post columnist, Richard Cohen, also seved in The Guard during the Vietnam campaign and offers his personal experiences as what is probably the most viable explanation.  (May require sign-in for Washington Post)

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, February 10, 2004; Page A23  

Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn't.</ 

Nothing about Bush during that period -- not his drinking, not his partying -- suggests that he was a consistently conscientious member of the Texas or Alabama Air National Guard.

John Kerry did not duck the war.</  But George Bush did. He did so by joining the National Guard. Bush now wants to drape the Vietnam-era Guard with the bloodied flag of today's Iraq-serving Guard -- "I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard," Bush warned during his interview with Russert -- but the fact remained that back then the Guard was where you went if you did not want to fight. That was the case with me. I opposed the war in Vietnam and had no desire to fight it. Bush, on the other hand, says he supported the war -- as long, it seems, as someone else fought it.

~*~  Here comes the viable explanation: 

In my case, it was something similar -- although (darn!) I was not rich. I was, though, lucky enough to get into a National Guard unit in the nick of time, about a day before I was drafted. I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed.</NITF> 

~*~  Even by their own self-set standards, questions persist:

Bush was not paid for any service during a five-month period in 1972, from May through September, according to the records released with Bush's approval Tuesday.

He was paid for two days in October and four days in November and none in December 1972. He was not paid for February or March 1973. The records do not indicate what duty Bush performed or where he was.

Nevertheless, spokesman McClellan repeatedly held up the 13-page packet his office had released, and he declared in his televised briefing, "I think these documents show that he fulfilled his duties."

~*~  It so obviously does NOT, that it's laughable.  Certainly, his staunch supporters will accept this crock-o-crap with little doubt expressed.  Case in point:

Debra J. Saunders 

As White House spokesman Ken Lisaius noted, "The facts are that the president was honorably discharged for fulfilling his obligations" -- which ought to settle the bogus AWOL charge.

But no. Now critics are demanding that Bush prove that 30-odd years ago, he always showed up when he was supposed to. Also, Bush should prove something that can't be proven, that he didn't receive special treatment when he was let out of the National Guard early to attend Harvard Business School.

~*~  Then of course, we must have the inevitable comparison to Bill Clinton, or whichever Democrat fits into their derogatory argument:

....That said, Kerry looks ridiculous lumping Bush's National Guard duty in with other "choices," such as "avoiding the draft" and "going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector." That wasn't the menu during the eight years Kerry spent in apparent harmony with Clinton's lack of military service. 

Oh, I forgot. It's different for Dubya because he sent American troops to Iraq. (This argument is best used by people who don't remember that Clinton sent U.S. troops to the former Yugoslavia, and are unaware that Clinton was commander-in-chief when U.S. planes dropped bombs in foreign lands.) 

~*~  Are you friggin' kidding me...?  You're comparing the invasion of Iraq with ANY other military action in recent times...?  Even George SR.'s Iraq invasion isn't comparable!  Besides, Clinton's surgical strikes on Iraq in 1998 is being given credit as a possible reason no WMDs have been found there!  By Bush's own declaration when he was pushing his "Patriot Act" legislation, we've entered a different time now.  We MUST demand more accountability from our leaders and their actions now.

Let's explore another simple question:

The official line now is; even if Saddam had NO WMDs, we still rid the world of a horrible scumbag who tortured his own people and MAY be connected to terrorists.  But we're discovering that Lybia HAD many of the capabilities we claimed Iraq had (but apparently didn't).  Certainly Qadaffi would qualify for the "mad dictator" role.... with the added influence of his DEFINATE connection and support of terrorists, like the perpatrators of the Lockerbie Scotland air disaster.  The question this begs is SO simple, I cannot properly phrase it!  Furthermore...I don't think I have to.  It's THAT evident!

However....somehow, Bush & Co. always seem to be able to slip between the cracks.  Are these concepts TOO simple for our esteemed representatives in Washington or the working press?  Here's another dissapointing example of blind partisan loyalty:

Sept. 11 panel compromises with White House on access to memos 
 

.....Under the agreement, the entire commission were allowed to read versions of the summaries that were edited by the White House. 

The materials in question are the presidential daily briefings prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency. They include a memorandum dated one month before the 2001 attacks that discusses the possibility of airline hijackings by al-Qaida terrorists.

 Some commissioners wanted to subpoena the unedited versions but that idea failed on a vote Tuesday by the full panel. Commissioners declined to disclose the vote count.

"I'm disappointed," said commissioner Bob Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska who voted for a subpoena. "The White House, I believe, did not keep its word. The agreement narrows the scope of the report."

Commissioner Slade Gorton, a lawyer former Republican senator from Washington, said he was satisfied that the briefings were sufficient. 

"My point of view is that I felt we got enough detail and enough substance from the report so that I can make an intelligent judgment," he said.

~*~ An intellegent judgement....but by whose standards?

 "It sends a dangerous signal to all future presidents if 3,000 people die on your watch, you can still stonewall, prevent a full investigation and escape any accountability or responsibility," said Kristen Breitweiser of New Jersey, a member of the Sept. 11 commission's Family Steering Committee. Her husband Ronald died in the World Trade Center.

~*~  Another good question concerns the Pakistani Nuke dealer.  This guy is ACTUALLY DOING what we said we feared Saddam might do if he could.  This was considered serious enough to convince people of  the neccesity of WAR!  Why the hell is our government taking this so lightly from the Islamic country of Pakistan?  He gave nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran and Libya...!

OK boys & girls.... I have to cash in early tonight since I'm taking a blood test tomorrow and I HAVE to study.  Actually, the reason is that it's a 12 hour fasting requirement for this test and when I stay up late I have a tendancy to gather brainwave strength by fueling the body.  I have timed my last fueling for a 10:30 appearance at the lab Wednesday morning by eating a bowl of cereal.  I hate showing up at the more conventional time for this test since it's crowded with cranky people waiting for the same test before they can eat.  Even at 10:30 they'll be some.  Perhaps I should suggest we all go out for breakfast together!

But it's hard to resist one of my favorite pastimes by reprinting some.....

Letters to the Editor - The people speak...

Editor -- I am a proud Bush supporter and I look forward to celebrating his victory in November. I don't feel any of the Democratic candidates have a chance at victory. However, to make things fair and a little more interesting, perhaps Sen. John Kerry can get Al Gore to promise not to endorse him? It's no fun when it's a landslide.

BETH FEHR

Alamo

~*~  Beth, you ignorant slut.  It's an attitude like your's that acts as incentive to defeat your evil empire of smug-faced douchbags.  The FEW times I've seen a Bush spokesman confronted with a posible inflamatoty question, they've responded with a condscending smirk as if the question is SO ridiculous it doesn't deserve a proper response.  Bush himself showed this tendancy during his Meet the Press interview.  He seemed SO pleased with himself when he stated that "He was a war President".  He actually seemed happy! 

 

Editor -- I usually dive for the remote whenever George W. Bush appears on the screen, but I forced myself to watch his interview with Tim Russert Sunday morning. I found that I was saddened and embarrassed by this man, and frightened that he is in a position to chart the future course of this nation.

PATRICIA A. BRICKER

Mountain View

~*~  Patricia, Bubby....I'm afraid a large part of the problem is the occasionally overwhelming tendancy to "dive for the remote whenever George W. Bush appears on the screen".  We who give a damn must soak up every word so as to demand the loose ends be given a proper explanation.  These guys coined the term...and apparently mastered the philosophy of "fuzzy logic".  He IS embarrasing as the leader of our country and something MUST be done about it.

Speaking of fuzzy logic....get a load of this NEXT one:

McNamara on war

Editor -- I read in the paper that Robert McNamara, Berkeley's hated war criminal, has been welcomed there because: (1) He now believes the Vietnam War was wrong, and (2), He thinks the war in Iraq is wrong. Of course, the great minds of Berkeley agree with him on both counts ("McNamara speaks Berkeley's language," Feb. 6).

I suspect that a majority of Americans feel that we never should have become involved militarily in Vietnam, but is that true? We lost the war, much as we accepted a tie in Korea, but was nothing achieved? Were 58,000 American and 2 million Vietnamese lives wasted? I'm not sure. What would be the state of things in East Asia now if we had not challenged the communists of Hanoi? Would Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia be communist countries today?

In preventing the communization of East Asia, our intervention in Vietnam may have saved many millions of lives, far more than the number lost.

So what about point (2)? Well, if McNamara was wrong on point (1), there is just as good a possibility he is wrong on point (2). Let's follow through on the program in Iraq, and we may find out that we really did it right this time; better in fact than we did in either Korea or Vietnam.

HOWARD MAUTHE

Watsonville

~*~  The only problem with your convoluted argument Mr. Mauthe, is the assumption of positive answers to the questions you've posed.  You say yourself that we "lost the war" and then question what would have been if we hadn't fought it.  I'm afraid the only thing that would be different would be 58,000 live Americans as well as 58,000 estatic families.  Not to mention the copious amount of casualties!   And of course, the two million Vietnamese that I'm sure you really give a crap about.

To accept your premise on point 2, we have to take a giant leap of faith and accept your unfounded beliefs in point 1.  BUZZZZ! Sorry!  No can do.

 

So...I'm heading off now... with a cloud of dust and a hearty Hi-O Silver....AWAY...

IBYGN

~Brahma*

posted by ~Brahma 2:04 AM