Truth coming out about service.

[DKW 86 7,727]

Link

Bush Adm answering questions about his service.

The Left just seems to not be able to let this go but I know certain Guard and Reserve Folks that are getting tired of being equated with cowards and draft dodgers like Clintopn and Dean. That they should be compared to those two is just unfair. The Dems will likely keep it up in their all out attempt at "Operation Hate Bush."

[Tiger Al 0]

The Left just seems to not be able to let this go but I know certain Guard and Reserve Folks that are getting tired of being equated with cowards and draft dodgers like Clintopn and Dean. That they should be compared to those two is just unfair. The Dems will likely keep it up in their all out attempt at "Operation Hate Bush."

It's interesting that you should blame the perception of the guard during Vietnam on Democrats, but I've grown to expect those simplifications from you. It's easier to blame us and go about your way, smug in your confidence, than to actually check it out for yourself.

When I went through basic training in 1982, there were initial questions we asked of each other to get to know one another better. Where someone was from, what MOS (military occupational specialty) they were going to get and, sooner or later, were they guard, reserves or active duty. And always, without fail, the guardsmen and reservists would answer, "I'm just guard/reserve." Just guard or just reserve. There was a general concensus among all, part-timers included, that to be national guard or reserve wasn't full-time service and was not considered the same. It wasn't less important service but it was perceived to be lesser because it was only part-time and usually being used as a way to finance college.

Remember, this was 1982 and the active duty military was big because of the USSR/Cold War threat. Reservist's and guardsmen's primary responsibility was to cover for units in the U.S. if they were deployed overseas and assuming state functions like disaster relief and other security duties. They were rarely, if ever, called to long-term active duty. There was no need for it.

It's different now. Since the Cold War ended the active duty numbers declined because we were no longer planning for a war of attrition where the one with the most available to die would win. As a result, the guard and reserves grew in popularity and strategic and fiscal necessity. Desert Storm saw many guard units being called into active duty to go to the Gulf. The war in Iraq and in Afghanistan has many guard and reserve units participating. During Vietnam, however, this was extremely rare and to try to compare the role the guard played then with the one it plays now is wrong.

David, the answer to your rant came, ironically, from the article you linked to. This is an excerpt from it:

Vietnam revealed a negative aspect of relying on reservists. For largely domestic political reasons, President Johnson chose not to mobilize most of the nation's reserve forces. The 1968 callups were only token affairs. Johnson's decision to avoid a major reserve mobilization was opposed by the senior leadership of both the active duty military establishment and the reserve forces, but to no avail. The Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men. Military leaders questioned the wisdom of depending on reserve forces that might not be available except in dire emergencies.

This comes straight from the Air National Guard's website. So, when we say that Bush, as a result of his daddy's influence, joined the ANG to avoid the draft it could very well be that making that statement is void of vitriol and simply calling a spade a spade.

But what's really funny is that you yourself poo poo'd Al Gore's service IN VIETNAM as less than worthy because he was a reporter instead of a SEAL or a Ranger or a Green Beret or even an infantryman. My point now is as it was before and that is that Al Gore did go, although I'm sure his daddy could've gotten bumped to the front of the line in Tennessee, and his chances of being killed by the Viet Cong were infinitely greater than Dubya's were flying around Texas or avoiding his obligation in Alabama.

[DKW 86 7,727]

But what's really funny is that you yourself poo poo'd Al Gore's service IN VIETNAM as less than worthy because he was a reporter instead of a SEAL or a Ranger or a Green Beret or even an infantryman. My point now is as it was before and that is that Al Gore did go, although I'm sure his daddy could've gotten bumped to the front of the line in Tennessee, and his chances of being killed by the Viet Cong were infinitely greater than Dubya's were flying around Texas or avoiding his obligation in Alabama

As usual you are so wrong Al. I poo pooed Slumlord Al's record because he went around Vietnam with his own personal bodyguards, straight from the horse's mouth. Got to hear one of the Sargeants that wasted his tour walking around as Al's personal escort.

I still refuse to equate guardsmen and reservists as somehow cowardly and yellow like Clinton and Dean. I just dont buy that at all. I have friends and family that were in the guard and reserves and they had ZERO pull, and I truly mean ZERO.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Al, the issue that most conservatives had with Al Gore's service was not the service itself, but the issue that Gore tried to make of it in the campaign. He made a couple of somewhat snide remarks trumping up how he went to Vietnam and Bush didn't. But I would venture to say that what Gore actually did over there was a far cry from what most people think of when someone says "I served in Vietnam." Hell, it's a far cry from what it means when Kerry says, "I served in Vietnam."

It was all about the perception that he tried to put out there of his service versus Bush's.

[Tiger Al 0]

Al, the issue that most conservatives had with Al Gore's service was not the service itself, but the issue that Gore tried to make of it in the campaign. He made a couple of somewhat snide remarks trumping up how he went to Vietnam and Bush didn't. But I would venture to say that what Gore actually did over there was a far cry from what most people think of when someone says "I served in Vietnam." Hell, it's a far cry from what it means when Kerry says, "I served in Vietnam."

It was all about the perception that he tried to put out there of his service versus Bush's.

But, if the opposition is going to make military service an issue, especially after the bruhaha that was made about Clinton, why should Gore not have used it? He never said he was anything other than what he was which was a reporter. He never claimed feats of heroism or bravery. Bush made a point of his TANG experience and how that had forged his leadership ability. If Gore felt that his actually going to Vietnam, albeit as a reporter, trumped Bush's ANG experience in people's eyes then why shouldn't he have been proud of it and used it as a talking point? And, if you're going to denigrate Gore's service as less than admirable because he was "only" a reporter or not a hero like Kerry, then I don't think you can't call a foul for someone's belief that Bush "parked" himself in the TANG to avoid going to Vietnam.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I'm not doing that Al. I don't denigrate Gore's service compared to Kerry's unless it gets tossed about like their experience was the same. And from what I recall of my reaction to Gore at the time, that's the impression that it left. He gave the impression that he was out there fighting on the front lines or something and he wasn't. It was more about what he didn't say. Gore was making a comparison to Bush as if his own service was somehow far more dangerous and required more bravery than Bush's did. But given what he did, that wasn't the case, IMO. Both are to be lauded for their service. But if you're going to play that card, be ready for the comparison on a detailed level.

[channonc 466]

Ok, my dad was a Vietnam Vet. I know how painful it is for him still to talk about it. I know I am probably too young to really totally understand that era. I have compassion for each and every vietnam vet. I know even if you were Al Gore with body guards or whatever, you still had to have seen some horrible things. Those I am sure live with you forever. I know that this in a sense identifies a generation.

However, that being said, I think military service is important to have when you are President, you are now also Commander in Chief. But, honestly, I think all of this is becoming tedious. During the campaign, I want to hear ideas, how you are going to fix things. I want Bush to discuss why he made some contraversial decisions. I want Kerry (if that's who the nominee is) to tell us why he should be President, ideas he has for the war on terror, etc. Let's stick to the issues. Let things like that be in the past. That time was hard enough, I really don't want the country to relive it. Let's stick to the real issues. The issue is today and tomorrow.

[tejasjack 0]

Al, the issue that most conservatives had with Al Gore's service was not the service itself, but the issue that Gore tried to make of it in the campaign.  He made a couple of somewhat snide remarks trumping up how he went to Vietnam and Bush didn't.  But I would venture to say that what Gore actually did over there was a far cry from what most people think of when someone says "I served in Vietnam."  Hell, it's a far cry from what it means when Kerry says, "I served in Vietnam."

It was all about the perception that he tried to put out there of his service versus Bush's.

But, if the opposition is going to make military service an issue, especially after the bruhaha that was made about Clinton, why should Gore not have used it? He never said he was anything other than what he was which was a reporter. He never claimed feats of heroism or bravery. Bush made a point of his TANG experience and how that had forged his leadership ability. If Gore felt that his actually going to Vietnam, albeit as a reporter, trumped Bush's ANG experience in people's eyes then why shouldn't he have been proud of it and used it as a talking point? And, if you're going to denigrate Gore's service as less than admirable because he was "only" a reporter or not a hero like Kerry, then I don't think you can't call a foul for someone's belief that Bush "parked" himself in the TANG to avoid going to Vietnam.

The issue around Clinton was not much about his lack of service, but rather was the fact that he was protesting the US involvement in Vietnam while at Oxford (England)...not quite Hanoi Jane, but it was still troubling to many. Even at a young age...if that is what most people were doing or thinking, there was Clinton following the "polls"

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Channel 11 here in Houston had an interview last night with a guy who flew with GWB in the training that according to certain pinkos never occurred. He said that they most certainly did occur, and that while he doesn't have an explanation for the CO's alleged failure to remember GWB, that everyone else does. He also pointed out the pay stub issue - that you actually had to show up to be paid, and that if nothing else was by the book, the payroll stuff absolutely was! Ergo, if GWB has pay stubs, he was there.

I too recall my issue with Al Gore being that he tried to make it sound like his Vietnam experience as a JOURNALIST was the equivalent of hand-to-hand combat with a K-Bar knife between his teeth.

And I am like channon - I am SO HOPING that this will be the last election where Vietnam is an issue. This year, in Edwards, we have a candidate that was simply too young to have gone to Vietnam - nothing wrong with that. Next time, what if we have a female candidate? Doesn't matter HOW old she was - she couldn't have gone any way unless she volunteered as a nurse or something. Would she be held to that standard? I really do think it is stupid.

[War Eagle 96 10]

I want Kerry (if that's who the nominee is) to tell us why he should be President, ideas he has for the war on terror, etc.

Kerry's idea for the war on terror is similar to Clinton's. It is a diplomatic problem that should be dealt with by the UN. And only if the UN sanctions it, should the US ever act in pusuit of the animals that would commit terrorist acts against us.

The only candidate in the upcoming election that will lead for a "war against terror" is GWB. Hopefully, Democrats will not come up on the wrong side of history once again...

Al, you know you were beat up a lot as a kid, don't lie.

[AUJarhead 70]

And always, without fail, the guardsmen and reservists would answer, "I'm just guard/reserve." Just guard or just reserve. There was a general concensus among all, part-timers included, that to be national guard or reserve wasn't full-time service and was not considered the same. It wasn't less important service but it was perceived to be lesser because it was only part-time and usually being used as a way to finance college.

Al, first, thank you for serving. Second, I agree with you about the division between Active and Reserve. This still happens, as recent as the early 90s. I enlisted in the Marines as a reservist right out of high school. When I went through boot camp in Aug 1991, before every meal, the platoon had to provide a number of active duty Marines and another number of reservist Marines. One drill instructor would take the reservists outside once or twice a week for "motivational" training. Several times during boot camp, I was pulled before the company commander who tried to "sell" me on going active instead of a reservist.

When I went through MOS school, there was a definite division between Active and Reservists. With our standard comeback being "Call me what you want, but call me at home."

My biggest fear is that somehow this race will evolve into an "Active Vs Reservist" fight, with people slinging mud at Bush for not going active. I do not agree with this, having done exactly what Bush did. I needed money for college, and the reserves, to me, anyway, was an excellent way to get it (and yes, a good bit of that money ended up at the Supper Club). I'm not saying that I think Kerry will make this an issue, I think the man is way to smart for that. However, I wouldn't put it past people like Michael Moore or the current head of the DNC (I can't remember his name right now, but these two have been the most vocal in the past week).

Just my 2 cents...

WDE!

[War Eagle 96 10]

the current head of the DNC (I can't remember his name right now, but these two have been the most vocal in the past week).

Terry McCaulife.

[stoic-one 1,557]

Oh geez, you guys are way too smart for me. I remember being way to busy working my butt off to worry about someone else's terms of service.

If this issue has that much weight, then I must be living in the wrong country (NOT). Only geeks and dweebs have enough time on their hands to make this much over nothing........

Question - Did you serve your country??

Answer 1 (yes) - OK, Thanks!!

Answer 2 (no) - OK, Thanks!!

[EXPLAYER14 0]

As a 24 year veteran of the Alabama National Guard, I want to weigh in on several topics.

First, I've had the pleasure of serving with several soldiers who were in the guard during Vietnam. These men are far from cowards. I joined each of them in conflicts in Panama, Desert Storm, and our current conflict in Iraq. They served their country well.

Secondly, the division between active and reserve components is closing. Part of my unit is presently serving time in Germany supporting the Iraq conflict. The remainder of my unit has been back since late fall. This is a multi-component force and the Sgt Maj. is from the National Guard.

Let me say this as well, like many of our state and government branches, the military is in dire need of knowledgeable leaders. Today's reservist can bridge that gap and provide the knowledge and expertise lacking in numerous areas. We consist of lawyers, doctors, CEO's, IT Managers, engineers, etc. When compared to what is readily entering the ranks of our military today, you should be proud and grateful to have the Guardsmen and Reservist of the world supporting you.

God Bless America!!!