POLL: Poll: The Importance of Military Service in a Leader

Remove all ads!

This is also to invite discussion on the relevance of President Bush's year or more he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard, at the height of the Viet Nam war.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/05/national_guard/index.html

Was he AWOL or wasn't he? Is he covering it up? Does it matter?

Poll Information
This poll contains 3 question(s). 36 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The Importance of Military Service in a Leader (36 votes.)

The Importance of Military Service in a Leader (Choose 1)
* Essential - 3% (1)
* Honorable, but not required - 67% (24)
* Harmful - 8% (3)
* Irrelevant - 22% (8)

The Importance of Military Service in a Leader Waging Pre-Emptive War (Choose 1)
* Essential - 44% (16)
* Honorable, but not required - 28% (10)
* Harmful - 6% (2)
* Irrelevant - 22% (8)

Your Opinion on Bush's Military Service (Choose 8)
* He served his country admirably. He was honorably discharged. - 8% (3)
* He used his family connections to avoid Viet Nam. - 50% (18)
* He's a deserter. - 25% (9)
* He's a hypocrite for sending volunteer soldiers to die in a war when he himself avoided a draft. - 42% (15)
* Avoiding Viet Nam isn't a big deal. Many others did. - 11% (4)
* His critics are playing petty politics in an election year. - 11% (4)
* He should at least account for the discrepancy in his record. - 42% (15)
* No opinion. - 19% (7)

 

I don’t think we know enough yet to pass final judgement on Bush, but he sure has some ‘splaining to do.

As for whether military service is important, I said honourable in both cases. However, in Canada at least, not having any military service doesn’t matter one bit; however, if a Prime Minister did have military service, and lied about some important aspect of it, then that’s a different story, but it would have more to do with credibility in general than the military.

 

Splunge - Gotta like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/images/macleans.jpg

Way to go, Canada!

 

@ Chandros LOL!

Anyway, I think it is honorable but in no way essential (generally speaking) to have military service as a leader. However, I do think it is essential to have some military service if you plan on sending the boys off to a war that your really don't have to fight. Unless you are fully aware of the danger you are placing our troops in, you should only send them as a last resort. Perhaps if Bush had military service in Vietnam he would have been less likely to go to war in Iraq. Of course maybe he still would - we can only speculate. But for me, I like to old saying, "Don't ask someone else to do something you wouldn't do yourself." Bush didn't go over to foreign shores to fight, yet he expects U.S. soldier to do so now.

 

@ Chandos:
The story behind the picture

 

I had trouble with question 2. I just can't imagine an American president who has served in a combat zone ever launching a preemptive war...at least not under the same circumstances as in Iraq.

Although I'll be the first to say that Bush has a lot to answer for, I disagree with what this statement implies. Should a president who has never served in a combat zone fail to send troops where national security is at stake? (Understand I'm not talking about Iraq.) After 9/11, I'm certain even Ralph Nader would have sent troops to Afghanistan.

It's not 1968 anymore. The army is comprised entirely of volunteers. Sure, on the one hand Bush exhorts us to support the troops while cutting veterans' benefits, hazardous duty pay, separation allowance and salaries with the other, but they signed up for this.

That said, I don't know who decided after WWII that it was no longer up to the U.S. Congress to declare war. I can see them wriggling out of it for Korea, and even Vietnam at a stretch, but when you ride into another nation's capital with the express intent of removing its rulers and setting up a new government, that's a war. Not a police action, a war, in every sense. I think it would do the world of good if we started respecting that particular clause of the constitution.

 

I wonder what John Kerry would think of this? Oh, wait, we don't have to wonder - because he confronted a similar issue vis-a-vis a draft-dodging Bill Clinton in '92. As Bob Dole writes in today's Wall Street Journal:

That said, if it turns out that Bush really did betray his military service, then double shame on him. It would be, to use the worst word I can think of, honorless. But we already know - by his own admission - that he was an alcoholic slouch before finding God and losing the bottle. But no one doubts his religious zeal or asceticism today - in fact, it's one of the major criticisms of him! So, too, if we find out that in his youth he took his military service for granted, only to later realize its value - and then some.

I, for one, had no problem with a draft-dodging Clinton unleashing military force - not any more than I had problems with him signing welfare reform even though he'd never been on welfare.

 

The silliness continues!

I personally don't care if he served or not. What I DO care about is the fact that he obviously is guilty of what he's being accused of and just won't come clean about it. Scott McClellan said the other day that any attempt to bring this matter to light is "gutter politics," insinuating that Bush has been completely honest and forthcoming about his service.

BULLSH*T.

Someone please answer the following question for me, the misguided citizen.

If Bush proudly served and met his requirement, honorably, and this is such a non-issue, why not release his entire records? Shut up his critics? The other day they released pay stubs as "concrete proof" that Bush served. "End of discussion!" Well, ok...but all this proves is that he served in the Guard, and was paid, which no one denies. It doesn't account for the gap in the record from 1972 to 73 or the fact that not ONE person Bush served with can confirm that Bush served with them. In fact, his former superiors have stated repeatedly that he WAS NOT there. McClellan says "That was 30 years ago!" So what? Does the human memory only go back 29 years? Grandpa begs to differ. Do you honestly think his fellow servicemen wouldn't have been aware they were serving with the son of a powerful Congressman? Or that they wouldn't recognize him 30 years later when he became the most powerful man on earth?

Then they come out today with dental records. THIS SETTLES IT! Bush has TEETH, therefore he served. Um, ok...but this doesn't prove..."End of discussion!" What's next...a napkin? "This proves Bush ate at the mess hall in Alabama at that time, therefore he served honorably. End of discussion!"

Never an M-80 to stick in your nose when you need one.

@ Grey

I agree - but the difference between Bush's service and Clinton's is that Clinton never claimed he proudly served his country in the military and then refused to show people the proper and complete records to back it up. Bush is.

 

Number of Lexis-Nexis hits on Clinton and Vietnam: 13,000+

Number of Lexis-Nexis hits on Bush and Vietnam: 49

The "liberal" media, hard at work...

 

Yeah, Death Rabbit, it's very suspicious. I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but...

Then again, I've been unable to confirm much of my own work history - supervisors change, offices close, files are mislaid. I can swear up and down that I worked at Toys 'R' Us years ago, but the place there has no idea. All I have to prove my work history are...my pay stubs. So it's possible that Bush is lying through his (file-recorded) teeth, but also possible that there really isn't any more proof available.

But the situation is murky and merits closer examination.

 

From personal experience, when I'm trying to determine exactly when someone worked for a company in the past I order a Social Security Earning Report (SSPO for short). Sometime in the 70's the SSPO's stopped with their quarterly breakdown and went to a yearly report but I'm not sure what the exact date was. Either way, the SSPO would reflect whether Bush worked for the military in 1972-1973 - or at least, whether he was paid by the military for work. I would order the SSPO and see if it corresponds with the pay-stub report previously released. I bring this up because reporters wanted his tax returns. Tax returns aren't as certain in my experience as a SSPO.

Now, obviously, proving someone was paid by the military doesn't equate to proving someone was actually working for the military. There could have been a scheme to get him paid while he was sipping margarittas in Mexico - it is possible. However, it seems to me that by showing he was paid by the military beyond a shadow of a doubt (which a SSPO would do moreso than more easily doctored payroll stubs) I would think the burden should shift to those saying something shady was going on. Your mileage may vary.

 

Just to add another wrinkle. I don't think people in the military contribute to the social security system. Federal workers contribute to their own plan. The same is true for most state workers (school teachers, firemen, etc.)

 

Isnt this whole controversy that he was supposed to have been in guard but wasnt? If he spent most of the time he was supposed to be there being elsewhere without being unregistered then records such as pay stubs and what you said would have him listed. I thought one part of the scandal was that he was registered for a military service and unit it is claimed he didnt spend much time in.

 

@ joaquin

The issue is there's a gap in his record from 72-73 that he can't account for. If he really did serve, then he should have no problem releasing his complete military record to silence his critics (which he promised he would do the other day on "Meet the Press"). Instead, the only evidence presented so far from the white house is "The President recalls serving...he was honorably discharged," a pay record showing that he was paid, and a dental record - all of which only serve to create more questions than they answer.

Both Clark and Kerry were asked to submit their full military service records to the press, and they did. If Bush is being so honest and forthcoming about this, he should do the same. Otherwise we are forced to draw the obvious conclusion...that he has something to hide.

 

Whether Bush served or not is irrelevant.

After 9-11, Bush displayed the mental "toughness" and hardness required to be a good President. Even though is social politics are the pinacle of conservative moral absolutism, his foreign policies and actions have been exemplary.

On a side note, I am a member of the Democratic Party.

 

What!?!

Could you please eleborate on this for me Blackhawk? No offense, but "exemplary" is about the last word I would ever use to describe Bush's foreign policy, especially when compared to even his father. Bush has done more to weaken our international image than any President I can think of. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

 

Well...it looks like someone remebers him serving....

http://preview.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040210090609990004

 

Here is another link that is public:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4251208/

He has released all of his military records. He has released his medical records. And there is someone saying:

According to the article, he received his complete record, 800 pages, today and released it today. Now, I don't know how this entire thing will play out but if this turns out to be nothing but a smear campaign... I just guess it is starting early.

I suspect though that there is virtually nothing that he could do to convince a lot of people. The whole thing is still fishy but I'd like a campaign without one side yelling "deserter" and the other yelling "cheater" ($1 to Sullivan) but I don't know that it will happen.

[ February 14, 2004, 02:31: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

It may be hearsay, but according to some, the records were altered, with some lines blacked-out. The same kind of thing happened with Shrub's offical application when he ran for governor here in Texas. I saw a copy of it on the front page of the Chronicle with the lines about having been arrested blanked. It seems we may have the same thing here, since there may be somemore tidbits of info about Shrub's jailbird days buried in these "offical documnets."

Perhaps they can get Richard Nixon's old secretary to help with some editing. If she's still around.

[ February 15, 2004, 04:15: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

When dealing with different parts of the world, one must take into account different cultural aspects. In particular, those aspects that effect how information is conveyed.

When two people talk, the standards for what mannerisms and words are "meaningful" differs. The Middle East is a "high context" society, which means that body posture, hand gestures, ando other non-verbal ques play an important roll in communication - especially emotion. If you are angry, you show it.

Northern Europe, Canada, the US, are "low context". The emphasis is on the words themselves.

This was part of the breakdown between the U.S. and Iraq in '91. When Baker met with Aziz and Saddam's brother, he told them that if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait there would be war. Pretty cut and dry, right? Nope. When they returned to Iraq, Saddam's brother told Saddam that the Americans were not serious. From his perspective we were not mad - Baker did not yell or shake his fists.

If the United States is to convince the Middle East to oppose terrorism, an aggressive posture is required. Otherwise, the United States looks like a "paper tiger".