Phil Carter makes the point that I have been making for two weeks. This "scandal" was never really about proving Bush was AWOL. It was about trying to provide a contrast between Bush & Kerry.

Personally, I don't think this issue will have any traction come November. But the contrast was useful in the Democratic primary to convince Democratic voters that John Kerry could beat Bush. It made John Kerry look more electable. And so far, it has accrued to John Kerry's benefit.

That was the only "legitimate" reason to push the story at all. Michael Moore tried to make it "The General vs. the Deserter." That didn't fly. But Kerry has successfully stolen Dean's message, and Clark's scandal mongering to advance his candidacy within his party. So Kerry is at least shrewd, if opportunistic.

Scott, I disagree with part of your analysis. The "Bush was AWOL" crap was all about neutralizing the Bush campaign WRT Kerry's post-Vietnam activities. Remember, this issue didn't reach critical mass until after Kerry had shot to the head of the Dem pack. If the Dem partisans could find some dirt in the President's ANG service record, they could, in effect, shield Kerry from a lot of the scrutiny that will now surely (and deservedly) come his way. Now that they have sowed the wind, they shall reap the whilwind.
I would be very surprized to learn if any of the dirt-diggers ever actually thought that LT Bush had been AWOL/UA; in an extremely cynical and disingenuous manner, they exploited the issue for whatever political advantage that they could extract from it.

Uh. I think the AWOL story still has some legs.

Operation PULL - community service
community service
Bush
cocaine

try searching this out.

The AWOL story may just be a set up for the second round.

The article you pointed to by Phillip Carter was interesting. In principle I concur with his assessment but I found one part odd.

The part that intrigued me was the yardstick that Carter set out for measuring a President. If I was part of an armed service I would want my immediate command structure to have people that didn't ask more than they were willing to give and that had my welfare in mind. However, is this a reasonable yardstick for measuring a civilian commander? Are the characteristics of a battlefield commander useful in a civilian military leader?

I have not served, but even if I had I'm not sure that this would be an important criteria for me. I think that chief among my concerns for a president ( or equivalent in any other civilian lead military ) would be his ability to assess the risks of action vs inaction, and then set up the "rules" to ensure that the military could be successful.

I don't think I would care one wit whether he had flaky attendance ( I'm not saying Bush did just that I wouldn't care ) as a lad or whether he was allowed an early out because he was superfluous.

As for using influence to ones advantage, that hardly seems like a valid criticism. It is a systemic issue with all governments and all forms of government. You cannot rise to positions of influence, private or public, unless you can create relationships of trust and use those relationships to further your cause. This is not a criticism this is a description of human interaction.

What an amazingly wrongheaded argument! Am I the only one struck by this massive contradiction?

“But the Air Force discharged him early, largely because it had a glut of pilots at the Vietnam War's end and it wasn't about to keep a guardsman in that it didn't need if he wanted to get out. Everything about this early discharge looks legitimate."

Okay, so the situation is this: a bloated military is looking to reduce its size. A pilot who has already fulfilled his requirement for days and whose contract is due to expire asks and gets an early out.

Why does he get an early out? Because it is cheaper than paying him to do nothing. HE ISN’T NEEDED.

If “service” now means “punching a card and collecting a paycheck for doing nothing in particular,” we could use LESS of it, not more. I mean, explain the moral authority one gains by sitting around simply to fill out a contract that the MILITARY doesn’t want to see filled.

Does this mean workers who take an early retirement are somehow "shirking" their obligations? Insanity.

What makes this worse is that it’s followed by this:

“Nonetheless, this early discharge sends a symbolic message to today's reservist, for whom such an early discharge isn't an option. “

Hmmm, and why isn’t an early out an option? Would that be because they are NEEDED?

So you’ve got two circumstances:

1973: Military reducing headcount and consolidating. Offers certain people (based on job qualifications) early outs so that it doesn’t have to kick out people who want to stay in.

2004: Military building up strength and waging global war. Military extends enlistments for certain mission-critical people.

Does anyone else see a world of difference?

If Bush had left his squadron on the eve of a combat deployment, you might have something. He didn’t do anything close to that. He was offered an early out because his skills were no longer in demand and the cost of retraining him was prohibitive. On top of this, he had already served the requisite number of days his contract required.

In short, he fully met his commitment. Why can’t some people accept that?

Oh, and as a side note, the military is discharging people, it simply depends on the qualifications. Yes, folks, even in 2004. If you are in the wrong career field, you will get kicked out. Are those people shirkers? Or merely people who put in their time and now want to get on with their lives?

Re: Alec

This line explains this Bush AWOL meme: There are none so bline as those who will not see.

Right on Alec. I think that also shows a lack of true understanding within the Democratic party of the military mindset. The one that says "never stand when you can sit, never sit when you can lie down and never stay awake when you can sleep."

We all have a turn in the barrel. You work like a dog when you have to and take it easy when you can. The question should be, would Lt. W stay in and deploy if he was a F-16 pilot today? My guess is yes.

I have a lot of trouble taking criticism of Kerry for gaming his career over what he did in Vietnam, what he said before, what he said after.

Look, if he made a calculated decision to go to Vietnam to improve his political viablity, that was a decision that put his body, his living breathing body of which he has only one in the trajectory of live bullets.

And I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole from my swivel chair. If you want to criticise Kerry for inconsistency or calculation there's plenty of other stuff to choose from. The accusation a la Roger Simon of 'he risked his life in 'nam but it was only to give him votes later' just.. doesn't have much traction with me!

And I'm no fan of Kerry; I prefer Edwards.

Alec:
You, unlike Phil Carter, have put LT Bush's "early-out" in it's proper context. Both he and his particular job skill were in excess, so his request for early separation was both well-received and expeditiously granted.
As a Navy Master Chief with 26 yrs of service (still on ACDU), I've witnesses more than a few early-out programs during my career. Hell, we had a massive early-sep program for most of the 1990s in the aftermath of the Cold War. How many people know that we (the USN)paid out five-figure bonuses so that some of our surplus personnel would be enticed to leave?
Nobody "in the know" (this excludes almost ALL of the "Bush was AWOL" crowd) EVER thought that the recipients of these early separation program were either shirkers or non-hackers. Most rabid Dems appear to be utterly clueless on both the substance and the details of military service.

Ben Keen -

I'm more than happy to touch that one; simply put (and by someone who today is fairly unrpeentant about my opposition to the war in Vietnam), I knew people who strongly opposed the war - as Kerry did at Yale - who were drafted, and who either a) went to jail; b) went to Canada; c) enlisted as CO's and were given noncombat positions; d) enlisted and did their time.

What I find suspect in Kerry's position is the series of neat reversals; antiwar student leader; prowar Navy officer; sea-lawyer; Pentagon aide who resigns his commission so he can run for Congress; antiwar protester.

Yes, he went to war and got shot at, which makes him better than, say LBJ, who managed a Silver Star.

But one some basic level, it's not unreasonable to expect a person's actions to map to their beliefs, which progress in some kind of a coherent narrative.

A.L.

I think "Kerry on Vietnam" is relevant to his candidacy (and not only because he mentions it practically every other sentence). The problem is, his position LOOKS inconsistent, and if you check the rest of his record, Kerry is all over the map on most issues. Sure, you can come up with a suitably massaged reasoning process that gets him through the Vietnam question, but when everything else about Kerry screams "political opportunist" to a degree unusual even in a politician, why bother? Occam's Razor says that Kerry's viewpoint on the Vietnam War was primarily motivated by opportunism, because that fits the same pattern as the rest of his political biography.

What's missing from this discussion is what until recently I assumed was a "liberal" principle - that is, civilian control of the military.

Given that sometimes it seems as if 90% of other nations problems involves an overzealous and notoriously independent military (I'm looking at you, Pakistan) I'm always been rather baffled by the recent tendency of my fellow Democrats to start up these bizarre military credibility arguments.

First, it was chickenhawks - Clinton meets the definition and I can't start caring less. Now it's the bizarre insistance that Kerry is "electable" - presumable because he was in the shit, and Bush - AWOL or not - was no where near it.

Overall, this seems completely contrived - an attempt by militarily ignorant liberals (which I am) to grab some wierd pseudo-patriotic currency in the upcoming election. And just as this ignorance of all things military leads to ridiculous conspiracy mongering culminating in throwing around accusations of desertion, that same ignorance that is catapulting Kerry to a nomination he's sure to lose.

I was going to write up some long winded piece, but instead I’ll just direct everyone to a piece by Byron York, that I happened upon at the Volokh Consirpacy. Byron says it a whole lot better than I could.

I will excerpt this paragraph, though.

Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story.

This entire thread is an example of why players rise to the top and gamesmanship wins. People allow themselves to be drawn into the minutae and forget the big picture. The big picture is who would make a better President of the United States of America.

Debates about war participation thirty years ago are at best periphial and at worst cause a degeneration in the dialogue. Does anyone here truly believe that John Kerry's Vietnam war service when weighed against his record since is somehow indicative that he would make a better President? Does anyone here believe that if Bush showed up and zealously participated in the National Guard that his made him any less than a privileged scion gaming the system and mitigates his record so far as a President?

Both Kerry AND Bush43 are players, and by no means does this suggest that the oldman is against political players. To think to succeed in life without some political sensibility and sensibility is to ignore human nature. However what is bad is when political and bureacratic maneuvering replace genuine dialogue, discussion, and communication.

Excellent comment Alec!

My father was one who actually returned from Vietnam and went into the 111th FIS as a Whizzo for the F-101. He was there with Bush. I asked him about this subject in 2000, and his answer was identical to yours.

It was personal to me in 1993 when I was starting my second year of AFROTC. I had excellent AFOQT scores, but my eye sight then and now is poor. If I took a contract, I was told to expect something in the Engineering or Logistics. The peace-dividend was the mantra of the time and LOGCAP was recently awarded. My officer's left me no doubt that I would probably be offered an early out with 2 - 4 years (as many were during that year).

I expected something that is happening to Bush (and Kerry for that matter), how many veterans would accept an early "honorable" discharge with no injuries and only 2 years of service? I didn't take a contract, although I wanted to serve.

Unfortunately, things changed quickly after my decision. Friends of mine were sent to Bosnia, served in Haiti, North and South Iraq no-fly zones, Afghanistan, and Iraqi Freedom. But being stretched thin, they need more people like me who were essentially turned away (not literally, but certainly well convinced) in the early 90's. The people serving today are paying the peace-dividend. Few listened to the counter mantra "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".