QandO

Lautenberg should, repeat SHOULD be ashamed of himself. But he won't be. I guess he's too "Old" to be aware of nexus searching and would get hoisted on his own petard.

Posted by: gmroper at April 30, 2004 07:00 AM

One should probably understand the meaning of the term "chickenhawk" before opining others are or aren't chickenhawks.

One cannot, in any sense, deem our last democratically-elected President a chickenhawk. To be sure, he dodged the draft in VietNam. But he also did not support that war and believed no one should have fought in that war. A chickenhawk, OTOH, is one that supports a particular war--but only so long as others are placed in harm's way. Like Dick Cheney who received 5 deferments, like Newt Gingrich who, like Cheney, "had other priorities."

Like George Junior who used family connections to get him into a "champagne unit."

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 07:35 AM

Please show me the evidence - positive evidnce - that Bush used family connections to get into a unit.

Please tell me why Cheney's deferments were not legitimate. Also, explain why Cheney asking for a deferment is "bad", but Kerry's request for a deferment is not.

The chickenhawk argument is ad hominem.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 07:45 AM

Under penalty of perjury, Ben Barnes (former TX Speaker of the House nd Bush family friend) testified in a sworn deposition that he sought a position for Junior.

From the Boston Globe (Walter V. Robinson) 5/23/00:

The ease of Bush's entry into the Air Guard was widely reported last year. At a time when such billets were coveted and his father was a Houston congressman, Bush vaulted to the top of a waiting list of 500. Bush and his father have denied that he received any preferential treatment. But last year, Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House in 1968, said in a sworn deposition in a civil lawsuit that he called Guard officials seeking a Guard slot for Bush after a friend of Bush's father asked him to do so.

Nobody said a deferment is bad or wrong. But if you're saying you support a war but just aren't willing to fight that war yourself, it is hypocritical. It's a matter of character.

Sure, chickenhawk is an ad hominem--but it's also accurate. It describes a certain type of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 08:42 AM

And since neither Bush, nor his family, sought a recommendation from Barnes - in fact, per Barnes testimony, they did not - I think that proves my point.

I've dealt with your "500 person waiting list" nonsense elsewhere.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 08:55 AM

Actually, it's not been proven the Bush family didn't seek the help. Bush Senior was asked whether he asked for the help and his reply was that he didn't recall that he did.

But does it matter? The fact has now been established Bush got into the Guard using political pull. Additionally, Junior, himself, admits to lobbying the head of the TANG unit, COL Staudt. This fact is also corroborated by Karen Hughes.

As for your claim that you've dealt with the issue of Junior jumping to the head of the line--no, you haven't. You have quoted Bill Hobbs who has no military experience and no knowledge of the matter.

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 09:22 AM

So, JadeGold, your point, if I understand it correctly, is that anyone (overage, physically unqualified, etc.), MUST, if they don't want to be called a hypocrit, volunteer for any war they support?

Notice to all 60 year olds ... sign up or shut up.

There are many ways to serve, and not all of them are found in the military. The line of thinking which says, "if you haven't served in the military, you have no right to criticise or support a war" is BS on a stick.

The right to do both is inherent in your citizenship.

It requires no special service in the military or elsewhere.

The only responsibility you bear is to criticize or support your position responsibly (something, btw, Kerry did NOT do).

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 09:25 AM

"it's not been proven the Bush family didn't seek the help"

- - -Ahem. Note that I didn't say it was "proven". I simply said that nobody involved was making that particular charge. You claimed Ben Barnes said the Bush family had sought his help....you were wrong.

"The fact has now been established Bush got into the Guard using political pull."

- - -I'm not so sure you know what the word "fact" means, Jade. Somebody put in a good word for Bush. That does not mean Bush got in DUE to their good word...and the Col Staudt you cite claims he did not.

Also, I didn't quote Bill Hobbs. I quoted CNN - which cited the Dallas Morning News, which researched the topic and went to a NG historian for data.

Now, back to that request I've made a couple times. You still have not presented positive evidence of the AWOL charge.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 09:29 AM

Actually, it's not been proven the Bush family didn't seek the help. Bush Senior was asked whether he asked for the help and his reply was that he didn't recall that he did.

Actually its the burden of proof isn't on the Bush family ... its on you. You've asserted its true but have offered absolutely no proof.

So ...But does it matter? The fact has now been established Bush got into the Guard using political pull. Additionally, Junior, himself, admits to lobbying the head of the TANG unit, COL Staudt. This fact is also corroborated by Karen Hughes. ... if this is all true, you'll have no problem producing the "facts".

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 09:34 AM

Sheesh, still fighting the chicken-hawk war? Look, this is easy, Bush enlisted with a multi year commitment to active duty. He flew a jet reknown for it's instability and one that was phased out. Straping any jet on your back is not an act of cowardice.

As to having pull getting in, so what, he did NOTHING that others didn't do.

As for John F. "Do you know who I am" Kerry "volunteering" for combat, that is nonsense, he volunteered for what he thought was coastal patrol a relatively "safe" slot, and only after he was "assigned" did they move the swift boats into the rivers and increase his "danger."

While not discounting his "bravery" (yes, the damn scare quotes are entirely appropriate) he also asked to be relieved of his service in RVN after three scratches, only one of which required any off duty. I can think of a number of others who had serious wounds (though not critical) that stayed, an acquaintence of mine received 6 Purple Hearts, all of which left deep scars and served his full combat tour in the boats.

Name 5 river boat officers that asked to be sent home early after 3 minor wounds. This is a faux argument and as Kerry himself said "We should not bring service in Vietnam into politics" when lambasting Bob Kerrey for tauting his service.

I too received a couple of deferments while in college, got drafted 30 days after graduation and opted to enlist instead. I never was assigned to combat, I spent my entire 6 year commitment stateside (active and reserve)but I supported that war and this one too. Does that make me a chicken-hawk? If you think so, you can kiss my a--!
Notice to Kerry supporters: Your guy has nothing to brag about; and Bush has nothing to be ashamed of.

Posted by: gmroper at April 30, 2004 09:44 AM

Jon. McQ- I can't believe you're even dealing with foolsgold over this issue again, after it was well and truly debunked here and elsewhere...

Posted by: shark at April 30, 2004 09:54 AM

Shark: There are people out there who believe the world is flat as well. Its always interesting to see what they have to support their belief. JG has been mannerly in his dissent and I, for one, have no problem revisiting some of this.

Its obvious, at least to me, that he's either not been exposed to some facts or he's just not absorbed them.

You should also remember that others who may not be convinced also read this.

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 10:09 AM

Notice to all 60 year olds ... sign up or shut up.

Of course not. But Cheney wasn't 60 years old in 1967. Nor was George Bush.

And it's not as if 60 year olds can't serve; they can--in different ways. For example, they could volunteer in VA hospitals. Navy and Army Relief are always looking for people to help them out. DAV won't turn away any free help. There are many other fine service organizations and groups that need help.

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 10:12 AM

I'm well aware what a fact is. And the fact is the former Speaker of the TX House, Ben Barnes, testified under oath that he greased the wheels for Bush.

That is a fact.

if this is all true, you'll have no problem producing the "facts".

Of course. Washington Post (george Lardner Jr.) 9/21/99:

Bush has said that he met Staudt in late 1967, during Christmas vacation of his senior year at Yale, called him later, and by Bush's account, "found out what it took to apply."

Asked recently how it was that Bush came to call Staudt, Bush's communications director, Karen Hughes, has said he heard "from friends while he was home over the Christmas break that the Guard was looking for pilots and that Colonel Staudt was the person to contact."

She said Bush did not recall who those "friends" were.

Jake Johnson, a former legislator, said Rose once told him that " 'I got that Republican congressman's son from Houston into the Guard.' " Johnson, a close friend and ally of Rose's, was chairman of the House Veterans and Military Affairs Committee in Austin in the late 1960s. He said Rose made the remark at one of their frequent meetings about bureaucratic infighting in the Texas Guard.

Asked about Rose's claim, Staudt said: "Lots of people like to take credit. I'm the guy he [Bush] came to see. . . . I don't care who said who called who. . . . We ran the unit." Staudt said that "nobody called me using influence, including Rose," but when asked if Rose mentioned George W. to him at all, Staudt said: "I don't know."

Staudt praised Bush as someone who "volunteered to serve his country" when many others didn't. But the unit he joined offered Bush a chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas and was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age. "It was sometimes called Air Canada," Johnson said. "What that meant was you didn't have to go to Canada to stay out of Vietnam."

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 10:20 AM

Of course not. But Cheney wasn't 60 years old in 1967. Nor was George Bush.

Bush served his country in the Air Guard flying F-102s instead of hanging out in a VA hospital ... so what's your point?

As for Cheney, its been pointed out that he was beyond draft age. He's since served very ably in government. So again, what's your point?

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 10:39 AM

"found out what it took to apply. ... the Guard was looking for pilots and that Colonel Staudt was the person to contact."

Wow ... that's damning. He called someone who'd have the knowledge he needed to apply and ask him what it took.

Sorry JG, so far no proof of anything.

Staudt praised Bush as someone who "volunteered to serve his country" when many others didn't. But the unit he joined offered Bush a chance to fulfill his military commitment at a base in Texas and was seen as an escape route from Vietnam by many men his age. "It was sometimes called Air Canada," Johnson said. "What that meant was you didn't have to go to Canada to stay out of Vietnam."

LOL ... was seen as ... or was sometimes called are opinions, JG. They are NOT proof. In fact you've not provided any proof yet. Show me proof that Bush used influence to get his slot. Not that he made a phone call to the right guy ... that's not proof of anything but doing what any normal human being would do when seeking a job.

FACTS JG: facts that influence was used to get Bush his slot. Not opinion. Not assertion. Not inuendo.

Facts.

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 10:47 AM

Let's see, McQ. I produce evidence which has those involved claiming Bush contacted them, that friends of the Bush family contacted them, and they themselves boasting they got Bush in. We even have Bush family friends and advisors corroborating these stories. Some of this was even given under oath.

Yet, you say there's no evidence. Well, that's your story and it's all you have. It's like marion Barry once said: "Who are you going to believe? Me or the videotape?"

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 11:10 AM

Evidence JadeGold? You produced STATEMENTS. Evidence is corroborated. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to produce the corroboration to those statements.

The statements you produced have a person claim they did something which no one else corroborates, or if you do have corroboration it is about some very innocent events ... like Bush calling Staudt to see what it took to apply. Or that friends told him the Guard was looking for pilots?

My goodness .. if that's your "smoking gun", you'd best just put the cork back in and go home.

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 11:36 AM

You people are waaaaaay to easily distracted.

Exactly what does any of this crap about Clinton or Bush have to do with the fact that Lautenberg is a hypocrite for criticizing others for being chickenhawks when he called for military action against Iraq after not serving a lick of time himself?

Also, I'd like to know why Kerry/Lautenberg are criticising Bush/Cheney for this crap when the ones who actually "challenged his service" (not really, but that's their story) are Cunningham and Johnson? If Kerry/Lautenberg are just retaliating for the "attacks" on Kerry's service, then why aren't the calling THEM chickenhawks.

Oh yeah, I forgot. They can't. If we're going by Vietnam service record, then both of those guys are ~1000 times the guy Kerry is.

Posted by: Terry at April 30, 2004 06:34 PM

Lautenberg served.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 07:52 PM