Where was George?

[Tuor of Gondolin]

The Republicans seem to be stumbling around in the U.S. trying to avoid answering questions about where President Bush was for over a year when he was supposed to be serving in the Texas National Guard. Indications are he was campaigning for a Republican for the senate in Alabama. Republican spinsters continually dodge answering "Where was George?". All they keep saying is "He was honorably discharged." In the National Guard of the 1960s and 1970s that was about as hard to do as walking and chewing gum at the same time.

There seem to be only two possibilities, either he was effectively A.W.O.L. (speculatively, via some sort of political pull allowed to not have to do the drill, etc. other National Guradsmen did at the time) or he was serving in the National Guard. If the latter, simply provide proof.
Remember, his c.o. at the time never recalls seeing him even once.

And for anyone not familiar with the times, the National Guard at the time was a way, especially for people with connections, to avoid going to Viet Nam, unlike those who went there, such as John Kerry, Wesley Clark, John McCain, and Max Cleland.

[jerseydevil]

As was pointed out on the news - there was an investigation on this during the 2000 elections. It seems as if the democrats just want to bring this all back up because they know what short memories people have.

As for avoiding Vietnam - the other way was to run off to Europe as Clinton did or Canada. So it's gone back to Bush is a draft dodger - even though he was in the National Guard - but the democrats defended Clinton - even though he PURPOSELY went to Oxford to avoid the draft.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

JerseyDevil does about as good a job above as is possible with the weak case handed him by the Republicans regarding George W's curious history in the Texas National Guard, but the above seems mostly only a continuation of the Republicans embarassed effort at avoiding the question:
"Where was George?"

It would be refreshing if George W. defenders would do other then try to distract attention from questions they feel unable to answer by tactics such as using the "L" word or mentioning President Clinton (an infinitely better president, obviously excepting his personal failings, then George II).
The Republicans desperate continued attacks on the Clintons rather remind you of the post civil war Republican tactic of "waving the bloody flag" in efforts to get votes.

One of Al Gore's failings in the 2000 general election was his being un-Republican and overgentlemenly in not discussing George II's apparent use of favoritism and political influence when in the National Guard. Contrast that with the dispicable savaging by the Republican establishment of Viet Nam war heroes John McCain in 2000 and Max Cleland in 2002.

Again, where was George?"

[jerseydevil]

You can think what you want - I wasn't avoiding it or shoving it under the rug. As I pointed out - this was already investigated by the democrats and the media in 2000. Here we are in an election year and they are dragging it up again - after it had been investigated already. And they didn't find anything they could use against him or anything he did wrong. I guess they didn't like the answers.

As for where is George - maybe you should look for the past results of the investigation.

[edit]Please tell me where I used the "L" word. As for Clinton - his draft dodging - that is a documented fact. Clinton wans't a better president - he just was a "by the polls president" - other wise he would have gone after bin Ladin after our embassies were bombed and the USS Cole - both acts of war. Instead he didn't follow bin Ladin because of public opinion - instead we got 9/11 9 months into Bushes presidency. Most of Bushes presidency has been a result of 9/11 - it's impossible to compare the two presidencies - other than the fact the Clinton COULD have and SHOULD have gone after bin Ladin.

[jerseydevil]

In response to your Gore comment and him being too "gentlemanly". He wasn't being gentlemanly - the reason Gore couldn't use that to attack Bush was because he enjoyed the same privileges. His father was a long time senator.

[Tuor of Gondolin]

JerseyDevil:
About the "L" word reference above. I meant that to be an observation on general Republican tendencies to bring it up as an almost reflex reaction, not to you specifically. But you're quite right, the reference can be read that way. Sorry, unclear writing on my part.

As for the general use of "Liberal" as a generic charge hurled by Republicans, two points:
1) Especially if John Edwards is the Democratic vice presidential candidate, trust me, it will be used ad nauseum by the RNC.
2) As a student of history (college major) I've always seen the Western tradition encompassing two great traditions: Conservatism and Liberalism, somewhat like a yin and yang. A great example is the classic duel between Disraeli and Gladstone in 19th Century Britain. That's why I find so objectionable the decades long effort by Republican theoreticians and strategists to sneer at "Liberal" in order to gain electoral advantage. I think this causes long range damage to the health and viablility of democratic traditions.
Personally, while on balance I'm somewhat "liberal" in politics I also have "conservative"views (ex. on subjects like abortion and a balanced budget) and would no particular problem with an independent, principled, mainstream conservative president like John McCain or Joe Lieberman, people unbeholden to special interests and radical neoconservative philosophies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
JerseyDevil:
About the "L" word reference above. I meant that to be an observation on general Republican tendencies to bring it up as an almost reflex reaction, not to you specifically. But you're quite right, the reference can be read that way. Sorry, unclear writing on my part.

Okay. Misunderstanding then.

As for the general use of "Liberal" as a generic charge hurled by Republicans, two points:
1) Especially if John Edwards is the Democratic vice presidential candidate, trust me, it will be used ad nauseum by the RNC.
2) As a student of history (college major) I've always seen the Western tradition encompassing two great traditions: Conservatism and Liberalism, somewhat like a yin and yang. A great example is the classic duel between Disraeli and Gladstone in 19th Century Britain. That's why I find so objectionable the decades long effort by Republican theoreticians and strategists to sneer at "Liberal" in order to gain electoral advantage. I think this causes long range damage to the health and viablility of democratic traditions.
Personally, while on balance I'm somewhat "liberal" in politics I also have "conservative"views (ex. on subjects like abortion and a balanced budget) and would no particular problem with an independent, principled, mainstream conservative president like John McCain or Joe Lieberman, people unbeholden to special interests and radical neoconservative philosophies.

But you see - you do the same thing you claimed Republicans do. Liberals use the word neo-consevative in the same manner that republicans use the word liberal. You can not deny that the democrats are just as guilty at the negative labeling as the republicans.

Also - I had wanted McCain to win the 2000 Republican nomination. I had and have wanted Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice to run and out of the democrats - I could probably vote for Lieberman (except he's Jewish and it would not be good for trying to deal with Middle Eastern affairs). I'm a moderate Republican and Bush is too far to the right for me in a lot of respects.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Tuor of Gondolin
JerseyDevil:
About the "L" word reference above. I meant that to be an observation on general Republican tendencies to bring it up as an almost reflex reaction, not to you specifically. But you're quite right, the reference can be read that way. Sorry, unclear writing on my part.

As for the general use of "Liberal" as a generic charge hurled by Republicans, two points:
1) Especially if John Edwards is the Democratic vice presidential candidate, trust me, it will be used ad nauseum by the RNC.
2) As a student of history (college major) I've always seen the Western tradition encompassing two great traditions: Conservatism and Liberalism, somewhat like a yin and yang. A great example is the classic duel between Disraeli and Gladstone in 19th Century Britain. That's why I find so objectionable the decades long effort by Republican theoreticians and strategists to sneer at "Liberal" in order to gain electoral advantage. I think this causes long range damage to the health and viablility of democratic traditions.
Personally, while on balance I'm somewhat "liberal" in politics I also have "conservative"views (ex. on subjects like abortion and a balanced budget) and would no particular problem with an independent, principled, mainstream conservative president like John McCain or Joe Lieberman, people unbeholden to special interests and radical neoconservative philosophies.

Well Tuor, the mudslinging is really on both sides, so we can't make it sound like it's all one-sided, ya know? Also, while Edwards, if the candidate, may be labeled and called "liberal", he is probably the only true chance to win the white house. I say this, because he is a new face who doesn't come across as being fake. He actually appears to be a true and honest person, who mind you was self-made, which 95% of the candidates cannot say. If Edwards gets the nomination, I will consider voting Democratic again, as I did in 2000. But if anyone else gets the nomination, I prefer Bush...

hehe, guess I went off on a bit of a tangent there

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
As for avoiding Vietnam - the other way was to run off to Europe as Clinton did or Canada. So it's gone back to Bush is a draft dodger - even though he was in the National Guard - but the democrats defended Clinton - even though he PURPOSELY went to Oxford to avoid the draft.

I don't blame anyone for avoiding Vietnam, not Bush, Clinton, or anyone.

I believe Clinton was a Rhode Scholar. Isn't that where you get a scholarship to Oxford? Only really brilliant people get that. Rex Murphy (really smart Canadian newscaster) is also a Rhode Scholar. That's not an opportinuty you would want to pass up.

(Pure chance, I'm listening to Dixie Chicks - Travelling Soldier)