Was Bush a Deserter?

Congratulations; you've managed to completely ignore my point. And Caitlyn's very well-researched post, I might add. You're conveniently ignoring straightforward data from those in and around such institutions, offering only a personal slant on some AP stories in response.


You've actually yet to prove that Bush was AWOL at all. You're taking abscence of proof one way or another, and merely filling in the blanks.


All evidence we have indicates that Bush made a mistake, and did not simply "lie." Frankly, the idea that he knowingly played up an angle he knew well to be a lie just before election season is completely implausible.


How did he profit, let alone "greatly"? And if your only answer is "Halliburton," you don't have any case.

Face it: you're given one step, and you build the rest of the path yourself.

Uh, no. Yoda's context was relating to the battlefield...not a few weekend drills.

You also offered no counterpoint to Caitlyn's post. You're just repeating yourself in lieu of an argument.


How does serving in one state as opposed to another have any effect on the likelihood of whether or not he'll be called to duty? People generally are assigned to places convenient to them. That's the whole point of the National Guard; to give people an easy, convenient way to train for duty in the event that additional units are needed.


Having a DUI record is by no means a definitive indication that a person is "spoiled," though it should be noted that he became a born-again Christian and gave up alcohol after the incident in question. As for partying: you've got no leg to stand on, as you've boasted about alleged parties in Los Angeles many times, even going so far as to mock those who you've concluded probably don't attend many.

You're taking tiny bits of data and spinning elaborate conclusions based on them.


Anything's possible, but seeing as how you have no evidence of this happening whatsoever, it's pretty out of place. This thread, I'd have thought, was about reality, and the facts. Instead, it's quickly become a place for you to detail elaborate, paranoid suspicions that you ultimately have no evidence of.

Caitlyn's post is a well-researched eyewash. Some things are so obvious that they stare you in the face and all the technical jargon in the world cannot whitewash them out of existence. All I'm offering is the layman's perspective. The facts are staring you in the face, but your standard response is to dig up obscure nonsense in an attempt to confuse the issue.

I don't have to prove it. The facts are out there. There are no attendance records for months on end. What does that tell you?

A mistake... yeah right! Some mistake! I wonder, if Hitler had said that the Holocaust was a mistake, you'd probably believe him, wouldn't you?

Oh, please! I have an entire thread devoted to this subject! Halliburton is the merest tip of the iceberg! You have to be tremendously naive to swallow the official line wherever it is presented, when there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the fishiest of circumstances.

Yoda, what can I say? If you believe half of the things you claim in this forum, you would have to be the most naive individual in the world! Otherwise, you're just a slick Republican covering up the embarassing facts with your hollow and extremely unconvincing version of the truth.

Well, as it happens, there was a certain little war going on at the time, to which the youth of America were routinely being drafted and shipped to the battlefront. It was called the "Vietnam War".

Well, I don't see the relevance of Caitlyn's claims, well researched though they might be. Nothing she has said counters the fact that Bush was AWOL for months on end during wartime, which, in effect, makes him a deserter.

My God, you are blind! If "Texas" and "Alabama" don't say anything to you, you are completely out of it!

Well, the fact of the matter is that Bush was an alcoholic and was engaged in a college lifestyle that, by any standards, qualifies as the college lifestyle of a spoiled rich kid. By contrast, I went to university on a full scholarship and graduated in the top 5% of my class, magna cum laude. I did party, I don't deny that, and still do. But I was certainly not an alcoholic and have never done drugs. Nor do I have a DUI on my record. Also, I am a baptized Christian... in the Episcopal church. Bush claims to be a Christian, yet:
a) He was a wartime deserter
b) Has a DUI on record and a history of alcoholism
c) Lied to initiate the Iraq war
d) Profits shamelessly from endangering innocent lives

That's what you and Caitlyn do all the time. And no, that is definitely not what I am doing.

The evidence is all out there. Your blinkered approach in no way contradicts the mountain of factual evidence available to one and all.

God Django, you act as though you're better than everyone. I'm NO BUSH SUPPORTER, but at least he served his country (perhaps not fully), but he did. I have too. Have you? No? Why not? Is it because you don't believe in the war in Iraq? Why don't you enlist? Trust me, if the draft were still in place your ASS would be over there in a heartbeat--then what would you do?Or are you just better than every soldier over there now because you're so well educated, wealthy and handsome.

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

Well, training in the use of a basically obsolete plane (i.e. never going to see service abroad) does reinforce this idea that many people claim - that the NG at the time was a way of avoiding the draft. I haven't seen enough anecdotal evidence to "prove" it certainly, but the implication is that if you wanted to avoid fighting, that was one way of doing it. (and i just have a low opinion of the Bush clan, so i'm totally ready to believe they'd take that course . Not that they had any influence on him skipping past the queue and getting in with low entrance score etc. No no )

(EDIT: Even Colin Powell believes this idea about NG-action-dodging it seems
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...l=chi-news-col

- like i say, many people suggest that i could be used in that way. And there are reasons to believe that's how Bush used it. Like the way it seems he ..."enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard 12 days before he was to lose his student deferment in 1968"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb14.html
...and mysteriously jumped passed that big queue)


I must admit i assumed Bush would have supported the war from his political orientation, and because those who were against it were normally pretty vocal. If he was vocally against it we would have heard about it by now you'd imagine (and he wouldn't be using bland terminology like "political" , unless he was refusing to talk about his past again )

EDIT: Guess stuff like this snuck into my subconscious when i read it :

"he said he had backed the government and would have gone if his unit was called up."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3477833.stm

Which is marvellous - only, again, the plane he was trained in was never going to be "called up". It had a role already apparently - defending the US from enemy bombers (damn those vietnamese bombing runs), and was basically phased out of offensive duties.

I defend Moore (to an extent) on two counts: One is that he's been accused of lying in multiple ways that have proved to be false. The other is that he does occasionally turn up interesting little "facts" - the point is, in this spin-seeped world we live in, it's everyone's duty to judge the bias in everything we watch and take it all with a big pinch of salt. (and believe me, i chew over Moore's "facts" a lot, until they're a more swallowable shape )

My memories of the Heston interview are that he makes Heston look uncomfortable, and contextually - bad (aren't the directing tricks you're talking about standard practice in near every single doc-interview?? - tho i agree how they're used is important). Moore is childish for doing this, yes. Negatively-spinning one man's life is bad yes - But within the spectrum of Moore's "achievements" (one of which is provoking debate), i'm willing to let it go.

Which bits/facts/arrangements of the "wonderful world" segment do you particularly object to?
(i agree on this one to an extent - but again, the pinch of salt comes in. Just as it should when a newscaster or official claims everything's hunky-dorey in Iraq )

You seem to think there's a big list of these "lies". Can you bring out some more concrete examples?

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I don't think I'm better than everyone. Bush did not serve his country, in real terms... what he did was take a shortcut out of the Vietnam war thanks to the money and influence of his family. About me... no, I don't support the Iraq war... never did. And I have voiced my position on this time and again in here. At least I'm not the hypocrite that Bush is... pretending to support the war and ducking out of it. Secondly, as I am currently in the process of becoming a permanent resident, I would not be eligible for the draft in any case. But if I was drafted, I wouldn't shirk from doing my duty. If it meant going into combat, and risking my life, I'd do it, if my country called me into action. Like I said, I don't claim to be better than anyone. The interests I am voicing in here happen to be the interests of the common man on the street... the average guy who doesn't have his parent's money or influence or privilege to duck behind when he gets drafted into a war that he does not support or believe in. I'm just calling attention to Bush's obvious lies and hypocrisy--the fact that he comes from a long line of war-mongers and lacks the courage to place his own life on the line for his country when called upon to do so.

I can't believe you people.
You've completely fallen apart.

The failure of the Mass Ignore says something so very, very sad about this place.

It's dying.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

This isn't a retort. You're dismissing her post without even attempting any justification, beyond some vague allusion to "technical jargon." Meanwhile, her points remain unanswered.


The problem is that you offer a layman's perspective without a laymen's humility. You come charging into a subject you don't know much about, but become MORE -- not less -- opinionated when people who have some familiarity with the subject weigh in. That's childish and ignorant.


Given that one can clearly see that the National Guard was more than a little disorganized at the time, and that several officers claim to have seen him there, it tells me that they're not very good at handling paperwork. He got paid for that time period and given an honorable discharge: what does that tell you? The answer is that it only tells you whatever lines up with what you already think of the man. Period.

We have blanks, and you're filling them in with what you want. Fine...you're perfectly welcome to disbelieve Bush when he says he did his duty. But seeing as how we lack conclusive proof in either direction, you're in no position whatsoever to treat your personal beliefs on the matter as established fact.


It's a mistake because everyone thought Saddam had weapons. Several other countries, and virtually every major political figure who spoke on the matter, all agreed that he did. The last administration was quite firm in the belief that Saddam was stockpiling banned weapons, as well. And, as I've already stated SEVERAL times (without any attempt at a response on your part), it's positively ludicrous to believe that Bush would knowingly harp on and make a big issue out of something he knew all along to be a lie. It doesn't make any sense, unless you believe he has a political death wish.

If all you have in response is sarcasm and sensationalism, then you've nothing to contribute to the discussion. If you can't answer the issues I've raised, then you shouldn't be participating.


Wow, congratulations, you found the "new thread" button. As you might remember, of course, the thread is filled with contentions and arguments against your claims. You need to realize something: just because you say something is so, it doesn't make it an established fact. Least of all when it's repeatedly (and rightfully) challenged.


If the alternative to my alleged naivete is your extreme paranoia and kneejerk suspicion, I'll take it without hesitation.

If Bush were AWOL after being called into battle, or had he dodged the draft, you'd have a good point, but neither took place.


The burden of proof lies with the accuser. You're assuming a "guilty until proven innocent" philosophy.


You didn't answer the question: How does serving in one state as opposed to another have any effect on the likelihood of whether or not he'll be called to duty?

Moreover, if Bush were trying to avoid the war, why did he enlist when it was nearly over? You also never answered my question about how unlikely National Guard Air Force units were to be called into Vietnam. Doesn't say much about you that you routinely ignore such straightforward questions.


Repeat: a DUI and partying in college in no way make someone a spoiled brat. I've met many young people who are not particularly well off, yet use recreational drugs and attend parties on a regular basis in college. These things are in no way an indication of wealth or privilege...they're available to all, and therefore do nothing to support the idea that he was spoiled. Hence, it is your own personal belief on the matter, unsubstantiated by verifiable evidence. It also smacks of personal distaste, rather than objective contention.


A, C, and D have all been contended with on this forum, and until you an actually supply something in the way of counterarguments to those contentions, you have no grounds from which to declare them as fact, as you have just done. Also, B in no way conflicts with Christianity, given that those incidents took place before his conversion. Demonstrating that Bush sinned, in other words, does not distinguish him from other Christians.


We provide evidence (and sometimes outright proof) every step of the way. All you're offering are dimissive comments and contradictions. Case in point: the statement above is nothing more than a contradiction, either.

Take a step back and look for a moment: Caitlyn put together what you admit is a well-researched post on the matter, and you dismissed it without any retort. You simply said it was wrong, without even attempting to back your words with any sort of case. Or the issue of Bush's alleged desertion: we have nothing resembling proof in either direction, yet you act as if you've got a smoking gun. This is a completely blatant, undeniable example of the thing you just denied doing.


Mountain of factual evidence? Uh, you mean the fact that we're missing some records? Sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

To quote Ah-nuld... "Ah'll be bahk!"

I understand what you're saying, and it's my fault (the one who called for it to begin with) because he was gaining speed with his damn conspiracy ranting. I wish I would have just continued with not responding.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Consider me not responding anymore.

But the whole idea of the Ignore was that no-one was listening!

I don't care anymore, I really don't. I'm just going to come here, post in the Movie Tab, make a few threads now and then and withdraw from everything else until the sun starts shining again.

This place has moved down a few hundred notches from "country club" to "playground," in my opinion. And while Django was the catalyst, it takes two or more to tango.

Call me when things start looking up.
I'll be in the shower if anybody needs me.

Yeah, I'm with Silver...

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

...not in the shower though.

I understand that nobody was supposed to be listening. However, there were a couple of people that couldn't resist stirring the coals in order to get the fire rolling again, though that frustrated me, I ignored that too. But then, after all my work to discredit Django and all of his accusations, he started up again trying to make light of my proof. I let my frustration turn to anger and decided that I would slam his accusations in his face with more evidence against his claims. That was a bad idea, and knew that all I was doing was giving him what he wanted; not to be ignored. That also brought in two or three others that had ignored him back into the fray.

I'm sorry that I'm a contributor to the 'playground' mentality that plagues this forum nowadays, it is embarrassing to me. I have tried to make this place a better one by posting lots of reviews and trying to encourage others to do the same. I also did my best to keep some general discussions about movies afloat by resurrecting them and voicing newer insights, but in the end, all I did was sink back into the morass of ego's against ego's. I've put Django back on ignore and will post some new reviews shortly.

One thing I don’t agree with concerning your post, is that you shouldn’t just bail on the forum like you’re claiming to do. If you want MoFo to be like it used to be, then you should contribute more instead of backing off. Maybe joining more discussions and commenting on other peoples reviews (making them want to contribute more of them), we can all lend a hand at bringing this forum back from the brink that it has been teetering on. Just giving up is not a good solution to the problem at all. I’ve always responded to your posts because I find them thought provoking and insightful, perhaps you could do the same for other members as well. I would hate it if you left.

Again, I’m sorry.

SB, you're imagining things! This place was never a country club. It's a movie forum, and that's all it has ever been. If you want to go to a country club, then go to a friggin' country club! On the other hand, if you want to discuss movies and listen to a bunch of adolescents ranting and raving about how so-and-so and such-and-such I am, then welcome to Movie Forums, USA!

Yoda, I commend you on your lengthy, drawn-out replies addressing every syllable, not to mention punctuation mark, I have posted. Some day, when I find the time, I'll get round to replying to your arguments. Don't wait up on me, though! I have too many better things to be doing till then!

Everyone who's been here as long as Silver has knows exactly what he's referring to; a time when discourse here was insightful, high-minded, and focused on cinema. In what I'm sure is a total coincidence, this time period took place before you showed up.


Funny how one moment you feel compelled to stay in the midst of rampant unpopularity so that you can fight for the truth (or in the name of some other dramatic cliche), but when faced with incontrovertible evidence you suddenly have better things to do.

All in a day's work for the community punching bag.