Bush AWOL Talking Point

[mbali]

I don't question President Bush's service in the Air National Guard. I'm sure that when he showed up, he performed admirably. I honor that service.

But there are legitimate questions about whether Bush fulfilled his commitment to the United States government during a time of war, after the government invested more than a million dollars to train him to serve stateside in return for not being sent into combat.

And there are also serious questions about whether President Bush has been straight with the American people about his service. To this day, he has not come clean about what he did, where he was, and where he wasn't. It's no longer enough for him to say, "I served. I got an honorable discharge." It's time for some answers.

[JohnnyCougar]

1. good point

Focus on the lies and the coverup more than the actual act itself. The lies and coverup can't be dismissed as "in the past."

[Bluebear]

2. I'm not sure that when he showed up he served admirably.

Frankly.

[mbali]

4. That's too subjective and doesn't matter - besides, that gets into the

Swift Boat tactic. Waste of time since no one knows what he did when he was there and what constitutes "admirable" service when one is actually on duty in the National Guard and how do you prove that, when he was there, Bush's did not so perform? Too complicated and not the point.

Better to just concede that his service - what there was of it - isn't being questioned, but point out that it was way too few and far between and that his lies and distortions about his record are much more telling.

[John_H]

7. LOL! i know. The point is that he didn't serve admirably because he

failed to report for important duties. They're mutually exclusive.

[mbali]

14. "Oh, YEAH? But I waxed TAIL on those six days I showed up!!!"

[dmr]

3. I question his honor and committment

Let's look at what we do know about Bush's* military record that is available and in which he admits is true.

It is something that has been bothering me for a long time ...

Is it normal to allow someone in the military, at a time of war when other young men are being drafted and dying, to get time off to leave their assignment (TANG) to work on a political campaign in another state?

It seems incredibly wrong to me that the military would allow an officer to take a leave to work on a political campaign. I find this frivolous and offensive when young men are being drafted, sent off to war and are dying by great numbers.

I don't care if his name is George Bush or John Doe; what connections he had, or if he thought he was entitled. Are there not vets out there in America who are offended by this?

If I were that officer I would be ashamed to admit this lack of committment!

This is unforgivable to me - the least he could have done was make his entitled military service look like he was fulfilling his obligation while countless young men came home in coffins, or so badly shot up that their lives were shattered! My older brother served two tours. Both tours he was wounded. The second tour he was so badly wounded that he is disabled and mentally not all there. He has wounds that traveled from his legs, up and around his torso, his arms, face and in his head is a steel plate. My brother left as a sweet 18 year old boy, and came home a shattered 19 year old disabled vet of America.

Bush* is willing to admit this frivolous cold calculating period in his military career? Americans are willing to overlook it? No one questions his throwing away, thus wasted, expensive training he received while at TANG?

As Commander-in-Chief and self-proclaimed "war-time president" - he is proud of this?

Sorry, I question his honor.

[mbali]

15. Another ? - is it appropriate for an officer to decide on his own that

his services are no longer needed and thus, fail to show up for his flight physical.

[dmr]

16. That's another thing I don't understand

I always thought that the military 'owned' you. My brothers use to say that they were "property of the US Government".

If the Air Force required that you take a physical, then you take a physical. No if, ands, butts about it. How did Bush* and his buddy, Bath, get away with not taking a physical? The government invested millions of dollars between the two. I don't care about Bath, he isn't president. But, Bush* is. He is running again as a War President Commander-in-Chief.

Bush* is no example for anyone within the military to emulate.

How can anyone in the military or otherwise, respect Bush's* actions or inactions, especially when they were made during a conscripted war?

[John_H]

5. Mine are direct, hard hitting, and totally true.

1) George Bush stood by as Republicans lied about John Kerry's heroism. Now there's proof that he hasn't come clean about his own service. Here's what the pentagon's records prove: George Bush disappeared not appear for 7 months, failed to report for a mission to protect America from surprise attack, and skipped a drug test.

2)It's the height of hypocrisy to say nothing while your friends slime a legitimate hero, knowing full well that you failed to report for important duties during time of war.

3)It's time for the commander in chief to do the right thing: Apologias for letting his republican friends slime John Kerry's heroism and come clean with the American people about his own military records.

4)The American people can decide for themselves why the records that prove George Bush failed to appear for duty suddenly showed up at the pentagon after and not before the republicans' swift boat smear campaign in over.

Or the short version for inserting into answers to other questions.

"The republicans can lie all they want. Here's what the pentagon's records prove: John Kerry reported for duty. Volunteered to go to Viet Nam, and won five medals for combat heroism. George Bush George Bush checked the "do-not-volunteer for Viet Nam" box,and then skipped important duties.

What a hypocrite. George bush needs to apologize for letting his friends slime John Kerry, and he needs to come clean with the American people about his own failure to appear for duty during time of war."

[maine_raptor]

6. Simple and to the Point is the way to go

Did President Bush fulfill his military commitment to the US?

PERIOD, end of question!

The premise is simple; Bush's cronies, including the VP, have smeared the service record of his opponent and TURNABOUT IS FAIR PLAY.

Something everybody agrees with, and easy to understand.

[librechik]

8. I would change the first line.

Simply because Bush is president, and is running again, it is imperative that citizens question his service again and again, until we are satisfied. And it is un American to try and make us stop implying there is some special protected status in the presidency. This is not a monarch, he's an employee and we are the bosses!

[mememe]

9. Sounds exactly what Rove would want to hear...

That talking point sounds good........ good to Karl Rove. I'm sure he is hoping to hear something like that from the Kerry campaign. How would the Bush campaign answer it?

How about something like this: "We understand that people have questions. That's why President Bush, unlike Senator Kerry, has authorized the release of all his records by signing the Form 180. If Senator Kerry wants to make this campaign about Vietnam, he is free to do so. We would rather focus on the future than the past."

Or to put it another way, why serve up softballs so the other guy can hit them out of the park?

[maine_raptor]

10. Oh Good one, looks like you got us there.....

NOT!!!!!!

Just the fact that the AP had to go to COURT to shake loose the DOCUMENTED proof the President Bush DID NOT complete his military obligation belies your "we signed and you didn't" claptrap.

Be gone troll!!!

[mememe]

11. not trolling, just realistic

Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not trolling; I'm just being realistic. Look carefully at my post. I put in quotes what I would anticipate as Bush talking points to counter the proposed talking points. Would you honestly expect Rove's talking points to be, "Hey, I guess you got us there!" Of course not!

I think the Bush campaign would come back with something very close to what I suggested. That doesn't mean I find it credible or even honest - it just means that it should be expected. The points would serve to confuse the issue and make it look like Bush has done full disclosure while Kerry has not.

Trying to anticipate what the other side would do does not make one a member of the other side. To the contrary one should never propose a course of action without putting some thought to the expected counter action. It would be folly to do otherwise.

[maine_raptor]

12. Sorry if I offended, it just sounded like a typical troll post, but to

answer your last:

The issue of Bush's service is what is at stake here, not what Kerry did or did not do. And, IMHO, it is not something Kerry himself should address until the first Face-to-Face debate. Let the surrogates do it, but the point you brought up is valid only to a point, then it can be brushed off quite easily. (on edit: See Post #10)

What appears to be happening is that the AP and other media outlets are picking up the story, and when 60 minutes comes out tonight....... well, stand back.

However WHAT THIS SAYS ABOUT BUSH'S CHARACTER is what is important; He shirked his duty in 72, and it appears he shirked his duty in Aug of 2001 (by not paying attention the 08/06/01 PDB), in the run-up to war (by not listening to the Brass), and many other cases. He is a SHIRKER.

As far as the Kerry camp anticipating "what the other side would do", I'm sure they are on that even as I type.

[mememe]

13. no offense taken

And I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say in your latest post. I guess the point I was trying to make is that election campaigns are not things where one side is required to sit back and keep silence when the other side advances a message. It gets to be quite tiring to see so many "here's what we should say" posts that seem to implicitly refuse to consider the possibility that a contrary side may actually say something in reply. Thus it is important to properly structure a message in order to minimize the chances of having one's argument twisted into something that works against you. I probably did a clumsy job of making that point.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. "I flew with them for a few more years" is a lie

His Daddy pulled strings to get him a coveted position, taxpayers footed the bill for his training, and he skipped out on his part of the bargain. He went AWOL to avoid drug testing, didn't do his substitute duty, didn't do it again in Massachusetts, and lied about his service repeatedly. Having used pictures of himself in uniform, he opens up the issue.

It's about character: he's a pampered Mama's boy whose family used influence to keep him from harm's way, and he didn't even have the character to not do drugs and fulfill his service. The lies and cover-ups just show him to be a deeply selfish liar with no regard for others. He should be criminally prosecuted: once his unit was activated to be on 24-hour patrol of the border, that should technically make it a war zone, and being AWOL more than 30 days in a war zone is desertion; I don't believe there's a statute of limitations for that.