Burnt Orange Report

I've gotcha covered, Byron. From the Birmingham News:

Bush recalled in Guard unit
Ex-officer says Texan read training manuals

02/14/04

STAN BAILEY and TOM GORDON
News staff writers

John B. "Bill" Calhoun, a former member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group, said Bush, a pilot with the Texas Air National Guard, spent his time reading flight safety reports and training manuals because the 187th did not have the aircraft in which he had trained to fly.

"When he first came in, he came in and reported to me .. He hung out in my office. When he was making his drills, he was up at my office," Calhoun said.

[...]

Calhoun said he and Bush would have a meal together "every now and then."

"I felt like he was a good fighter pilot," said Calhoun. "He was dedicated to the Guard, to what he was doing in the Guard. We talked about flying mostly ... . But I did ask him if he was going to be a politician, and he said, 'I don't know. Probably.' It was very nonchalant."

the 187th did not have the aircraft in which he had trained to fly.

Now that's interesting because previously we learned that the Flightsuit-in-Chief was grounded because he failed to show up for a physical, not because there was a shortage of aircraft.

For years there have been rewards of thousands of dollars to be given to anyone who can provide proof that he or she saw George Dubya on duty with the Guard during the period in question. This one was reported by the same paper mentioned by Owen C.
http://web.archive.org/web/20001205003400/http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Oct2000/14-e414023b.html

One would think that with all the people impoverished by the administration's massive transfer of wealth to the filthy rich, that somebody would have tried to recoup a few of those dollars by attempting to prove they saw Lt. Bush on duty during that period.
But in fact, there have been more Elvis sightings in Alabama since the 2000 campaign season than people coming forward to claim to have seen Bush performing his Guard duties.

Tim Z,

Now that's interesting because previously we learned that the Flightsuit-in-Chief was grounded because he failed to show up for a physical, not because there was a shortage of aircraft.

Actually, he wasn't flying because they didn't have the aircraft he was qualified to fly, and so there absolutely was no point in him having a physical to avoid being grounded. To wit, he was already effectively grounded.

You're being illogical, confusing an effect with a cause. The cause was the base not having F-102s, and the effects were that he couldn't fly, and that he skipped his physical because it only mattered to take the physical if he was flying. You act as if he should've taken the physical for the hell of it, and that's just silly. The physical was a means to an end, not a patriotic duty in and of itself.

He wasn't flying, and he was going to leave the Air National Guard soon, so he decided to skip his physical. Big whoop, Tim.

One would think that with all the people impoverished by the administration's massive transfer of wealth to the filthy rich, that somebody would have tried to recoup a few of those dollars by attempting to prove they saw Lt. Bush on duty during that period.

Well, Bill Calhoun came forth without any financial motivations, and has verified that Bush did indeed serve. Considering that he wasn't flying, it doesn't exactly shock me that he wasn't well-known to the other pilots on the base.

That's the end of the story, Tim. It's been proven Bush was there, and so all that's left for the Dems is to piss and moan and demand more evidence. Political desperation -- that's all you're left with.

Well, given that Calhoun recalls seeing Bush in the summer and fall of 1972, and the papers released by the WH show that the Alabama transfer wasn't even approved until September 1972, I'd say Calhoun's credibility is a bit weak, and that this issue is very much alive.

The cause was the base not having F-102s, and the effects were that he couldn't fly

Then it probably took a lot of clout to get himself transferred to a base where he knew there would be little for him to do. This shows how the military establishment of that era paid more attention to the needs of the pampered and the well connected than to its own requirements. By all right he should have been stationed somewhere which did have aircraft he was cleared to fly. It's not likely that junior officers from more modest backgrounds would be allowed to pick and choose where they wanted to serve.
There are tens of thousands of National Guard troops in Iraq right now who would probably prefer to serve in California or even Alabama if they had the same options given to Lt. Bush in the early 70s. It would be rather interesting if a National Guard lieutenant in Iraq did request a transfer to a base in Massachusetts so he/she could work on the presidential campaign of decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry.

You act as if he should've taken the physical for the hell of it, and that's just silly.

If he were ordered to have a physical, it's not up to him to decide whether it's a good idea or not. Again, what if our troops began to decide on their own which orders to follow, which to ignore, and which to modify?
We're talking about the military, not Club Med.

Tim,

Then it probably took a lot of clout to get himself transferred to a base where he knew there would be little for him to do.

That's just idle speculation. In truth, the National Guard is fairly flexible, considering that it needs to cater somehwhat to the needs of its servicemembers who must have private jobs. It isn't full-time duty.

It would be rather interesting if a National Guard lieutenant in Iraq did request a transfer to a base in Massachusetts so he/she could work on the presidential campaign of decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry.

That's not a valid comparison. Bush wasn't a part of a foreign deployment; he was merely requesting a transfer so that he could take a job two states over. I wouldn't be surprised if a National Guardsman was allowed to transfer from Maine to Massachusetts because they secured a position with the Kerry campaign. It wouldn't shock me at all.

If he were ordered to have a physical, it's not up to him to decide whether it's a good idea or not.

He wasn't 'ordered.' It was a regularly scheduled physical. As another one of Bush's comrades, Retired Colonel William Campenni, noted in a letter to the editor:

"[T]here is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly, the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical."

Get your facts straight.

Smurphy,

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Read the article:

"Friday, Bush released hundreds of pages of documents detailing his more than five years of Air Guard service in Texas and in Alabama, where he worked in the late Winton "Red" Blount's 1972 campaign for the U.S. Senate. Bush arrived in Alabama in May 1972.

Calhoun, a 69-year-old Atlanta-area resident, said Bush checked in with him in May or June 1972 and spent weekend drill duty with the unit at its headquarters at Dannelly Field in Montgomery. He did not specify when Bush came for drills."

The facts match up perfectly. This is also backed up by the Seattle Times:

"[I]n May 1972 [Bush] requested and received a temporary assignment with the Alabama National Guard so he could serve as political director on the Senate campaign of Winton "Red" Blount, a family friend."

Where did you get your information?

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical.
Using that logic, if a pilot never completes the physical, he/she never has to fly. What a great loophole! Even a dim bulb like George Dubya didn't have too much trouble figuring that one out.

That's not a valid comparison.
On the contrary, the "war on terrorism" has no borders. And frankly, Massachusetts is the place where the Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked the planes which destroyed the World Trade Center. Although many in the administration like to muddy the water on this, there is still no evidence that Saddam was involved with Al Qaeda.
So Massachusetts has a greater need for protection against Al Qaeda than Iraq. There was little or no known Al Qaeda activity in Iraq until Bush sent US troops to occupy that country. So a transfer from Baghdad to Boston would be quite sensible and justified for a Guard member. It could easily be justified on national security grounds.

As for Dubya's alibi witness, he and Scott McClellan are having trouble keeping their stories straight, as reported in the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42735-2004Feb14.html
Only one person has vivid recollections of serving with Bush at Dannelly field. John B. "Bill" Calhoun, 69 -- whose name was provided by a Republican ally of Bush's -- said he saw Bush sign in at the 187th eight to 10 times for about eight hours each from May to October 1972.

But Calhoun remembers seeing Bush at Dannelly at times in mid-1972 when the White House acknowledges Bush was not pulling Guard duty in Alabama yet; his first drills were in October, according to the White House. White House press secretary Scott McClellan on Friday was at a loss to reconcile the discrepancy.

Tim Z,

On the contrary, the "war on terrorism" has no borders. And frankly, Massachusetts is the place where the Al Qaeda terrorists hijacked the planes which destroyed the World Trade Center.

You're a fool if you see no distinction between and overseas deployment and simply being in the National Guard stateside. Of course they still give more lee-way to those who haven't been sent overseas, your willful ignorance of this fact notwithstanding.

It's still not a valid comparison.

As for Dubya's alibi witness, he and Scott McClellan are having trouble keeping their stories straight, as reported in the Washington Post.

That's a more valid point, although the fact that Calhoun can't remember the precise months correctly these thirty-odd years later doesn't disprove his story. All it proves is that after more than thirty years people won't necessarily remember exact dates.

But if you want to invoke this as evidence of some grand conspiracy to exonerate Bush, go on ahead. You haven't any evidence that he didn't fulfill his duties. It's political desperation at its worst. Pathetic.

Typical liberal smear campaign. You don't get an Honorable Discharge if you're AWOL.

I am so amused at the hypocrisy of the GOP calling this a smear campaign. This is a legitimate issue going to Bush's character & credibility. There are unanswered issues that the facts so far have not answered. And yes, the shoe fits on the other side too. If Ted Kennedy were running for Prez, Chappaquiddic would be fair game as it goes to the man's character and credibility.

It is so hypocritical to cry foul, when Bush's minions (Drudge, Rush "drug addict" Limbaugh, etc.) smear Kerry with an absolutely FALSE, UNFOUNDED rumor of marital infidelity, let alone accusing Clinton of being a murder, etc., etc., etc.

In the end, to make a school yard analogy, the GOP are a bunch of pussies - they can dish it out but can't take it. The Truth really hurts, and the GOP knows it.

Hey Gravy Pan or is it Bed Pan
Typical liberal smear campaign.
How does this compare with the Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracy theories that radical conservatives enjoyed circulating during the Clinton administration?
At least this has basis in reality and reflects on the character of the occupant of the Oval Office.

You don't get an Honorable Discharge if you're AWOL.
You can get almost anything if your daddy has enough clout. In 1973, Papi was head of the RNC, making excuses for Nixon's illegal actions during the Watergate scandal.
Dubya wasn't supposed to skip to the front of the line, ahead of 500 less well connected Texans, when he applied to join the Texas Air National Guard just weeks before his college exemption from the draft was due to expire. Gee, wasn't Papi a congressman at that time?

You know, Democrats would probably be giving this issue less attention if the Republicans had acted in a more civil manner during the Clinton years.
But the eight year non-stop barrage of right wing conspiracy theories, personal disparagement, and just plain filth, makes Republicans look like TOTAL hypocrites when they complain about this.
Just as the GOP is attempting to dig up dirt (even as I write this) about Sen. Kerry, Democrats will deeply examine the actions of every major member of the current administration.

Republicans are used to Democrats not fighting back. This year, they're in for a big shock.

WhoMe?

I am so amused at the hypocrisy of the GOP calling this a smear campaign. This is a legitimate issue going to Bush's character & credibility. There are unanswered issues that the facts so far have not answered.

What 'unanswered issues?' Bush put in the required hours to the Air National Guard and received an honorable discharge. What issues are left?

It is so hypocritical to cry foul, when Bush's minions (Drudge, Rush "drug addict" Limbaugh, etc.) smear Kerry with an absolutely FALSE, UNFOUNDED rumor of marital infidelity, let alone accusing Clinton of being a murder, etc., etc., etc.

I'm reserving judgment on the issue of Kerry's alleged infidelity. I don't know much of the issue, and the facts are still vague. As to Clinton being a 'murderer,' that's crap, and I've consistently identified it as crap (and the same goes for Clinton being a 'rapist'). I don't condone far-out accusations.

However, you seem to believe that two wrongs make a right, and so if Republicans have levied far-out, unsubstantiated accusations in the past, then it must be fair game for you to do so as well. However, that's bad ethics.

That goes for you too, Tim.

However, you seem to believe that two wrongs make a right,

What we do believe is that the best defense is a good offense.

BTW, please don't lecture us on ethics. We know that bringing up matters that have relevant substance will trump Republican scandal mongering. It's just good electoral sense.
The 1998 election results were a kick in the balls to the Republicans over their preoccupation with Monica Lewinsky. I can't imagine any responsible Democrat bringing up a Bush or Cheney sex scandal. Contrary to what the fundies think, most people just do not care.
However every action, decision, or statement by a member of this administration of a non-personal nature is fair game. And that goes back to when they were 18.

Tim Z,

You practice that which you condemn... You may not like being lectured on that, but it's a fact you ought to consider.

Tim Z,

You practice that which you condemn... You may not like being lectured on that, but it's a fact you ought to consider.

I do not believe that two wrongs make a right (but three lefts do).

The questions of Bush's service are legitimate and not the kind of unfounded scandal mongering that we have seen from the Right. The military documents should have been released a long time ago. Their contents have answered little and raised other questions. The simple fact that he received an honorable discharge means little when after the last election it was admitted that his father pulled strings to get him into the Guard in the first instance. If strings were pulled to get him in, strings may have been (perhaps even probably) pulled to get him out with an honorable discharge.

We know that he left Texas for Alabama before it was approved (anyone else would have been charged for leaving post). A great number of people present at the Alabama facility at the time never recall him being at the facility, the entire file is still in archives in Colorado, and, among other problems, he failed to take a required physical that is a sine qua non of an aviator's training by the required flight surgeon, and his rather lame excuse is that his personal doctor was in Houston, ignoring the fact that the physical must be administered by a flight surgeon.

He has never outright denied cocaine use, despite the open secret that he used cocaine in his younger days. It is a legitimate question whether he refused to take a physical for fear of failing a drug test.

This is not unfounded rumor mongering. This is a legitimate asking of questions to try to get at an issue that has some clear corroboration and go to the core of his credibility. Any Prez's credibility is always at issue, especially this ones when it appears he lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq, as corroborated by a substantial membership the US intelligence community as well as one of his own cabinet members. I reserve judgment until all the facts are released, but pressing for the facts is hardly mud-slinging.

WhoMe?

The questions of Bush's service are legitimate and not the kind of unfounded scandal mongering that we have seen from the Right. The military documents should have been released a long time ago. Their contents have answered little and raised other questions.

WHAT QUESTIONS. This is what I've been asking all along. The documents prove that Bush did indeed show up for duty in Alabama; he served out his duty. It's not just that he received an honorable discharge; it's that documents prove that he exceeded the number of drilling hours required. He did his duty, and the documents prove it. Period.

Saying that "other questions" were raised is a thinly-veiled way of saying "oops, we got nothin'."

The simple fact that he received an honorable discharge means little when after the last election it was admitted that his father pulled strings to get him into the Guard in the first instance.

Source? I've never heard George H.W. Bush 'admit' that he pulled strings, and the base commander denies it as well. Who claims strings were pulled, and what is the proof?

If strings were pulled to get him in, strings may have been (perhaps even probably) pulled to get him out with an honorable discharge.

Are you alleging that documents were forged? Do you have any actual evidence of this, or this insane conspiracy-mongering? Geez, you are no different from right-wing weirdos who say that Clinton killed Vince Foster.

We know that he left Texas for Alabama before it was approved (anyone else would have been charged for leaving post).

No, anybody else would not have been charged for leaving post. Prove otherwise.

A great number of people present at the Alabama facility at the time never recall him being at the facility...

This is understandable, because he wasn't flying. And as I've noted, Calhoun does indeed remember seeing him. Others just plain don't remember either way, which is itself evidence of nothing.

...the entire file is still in archives in Colorado, and, among other problems, he failed to take a required physical that is a sine qua non of an aviator's training by the required flight surgeon, and his rather lame excuse is that his personal doctor was in Houston, ignoring the fact that the physical must be administered by a flight surgeon.

He wasn't flying at all because the Alabama base didn't have F-102s. Since he was already effectively grounded, the physical was pointless, and so he skipped it. Bush has already explained this, and the facts back him up.

He has never outright denied cocaine use, despite the open secret that he used cocaine in his younger days. It is a legitimate question whether he refused to take a physical for fear of failing a drug test.

Wrong.

"[T]he formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5"

Ergo, there was no drug test performed during the physical. There still isn't today; drug testing is done randomly.

This is not unfounded rumor mongering.

Yes it is, and you're pathetic for engaging in it. You're the same as all those Clinton-haters who yelled about him being a murdering rapist. Being in denial doesn't change that. It only makes you appear desperate and pathetic.

Owen,

"Yes it is, and you're pathetic for engaging in it. You're the same as all those Clinton-haters who yelled about him being a murdering rapist. Being in denial doesn't change that. It only makes you appear desperate and pathetic."

The ad hominem attack is the weakest rhetorical device. It only shows that I am correct.

To respond to your posts in seriatim:

1. The documents do not confirm what you allege. I refer you to the numerous articles in the Boston Globe for details.

2. Concerning the admission that strings were pulled. While George H.W. Bush has not admitted as much, it was reported widely in the press about a year ago, that the people involved in the decision admitted that it was a politcal decision. In fact, it is quite naive to think otherwise given the nature of the times.

3. The documents released are unrefuted in that Bush left for Alabama before it was approved, a fact that you ignore and simply argue that others would not be charged with the same dereliction of duty. "Everybody else does it and does not get in trouble," is hardly a justification for leaving post before permission is granted. As far as others being charged, in all candor I do not have the time to research the history of such charges to provide specific examples. However, it is common knowledge that the Guard was so damn hard to get into that any derelction of duty got one in trouble at the time.

4. As far as no one seeing him, so what if was not flying (which raised other issues)? He still had to report, and most people would recognize a celebrity (son of a Congressman). Calhoun's account is suspect (see same Globe articles), and is heavily outnumbered by the other witnesses.

5. The physical was still required and the President's excuse that his family physician was in Houston insults the intelligence of any aviator. (If his excuse was the same as yours, why did he just say the physical was not necessary instead of lie the reasons he missed it. In addition, part of the official paperwork cites his failure to take a physical as improper).

6. Failure to take the physical out fear for drug results. First, I take with a grain of salt the comment of a Bush partisan was the policy of the time. Where is an official declaration of drug testing policy at the time? Would an aviator be aware that drug testing was not done? Finally, even if drug testing were not done, there is nothing wrong with asking the questions given: (i) it was required (as per the orders from his file) and he failed to do so; (ii) his false reason for
failure to do so ("doctor in Houston"); and (iii) to this date, he has never denied cocaine use despite the open secret that he did use cocaine at this time. Again, the purpose of the investigation is to uncover facts. If the facts reveal no testing was done at the time, fine, but that is not intuitive, and the questioning to uncover facts, while reserving judgment, is legitimate.

7. As far as your ad-hominem attacks, it realy says more about you, and well, the TRUTH does hurt, doesn't it?

You practice that which you condemn... You may not like being lectured on that, but it's a fact you ought to consider.

Is that the best you can do?

I know that Republicans look back with great nostalgia to the campaigns of 1972, 1984, and 1988. In those years you could engage in dirty tricks, unleash invective, and mislead the public while senior Democrats did little more than say, "Tsk, tsk. You naughty Republicans shouldn't be so mean. I'm gonna tell my mommy on you!"

That just ain't gonna happen this year.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong about something. Above, I implied that the Flightsuit-in-Chief could have been honorably discharged in spite of being AWOL only because his daddy was a very important person at the time.
Well, it turns out that the National Guard is actually very forgiving. You can do a lot of bad stuff and still get an honorable discharge. Isn't that sweet of them?!
Check out this excerpt from The New Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=benson021204
Perhaps more striking is how often serious questions of misconduct have been flat-out ignored. John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985.

Not only that, but he was allowed to transfer from the Louisiana National Guard to the Oregon National Guard, the same way Dubya transferred from Texas to Alabama.
Only in an egalitarian society like ours can a serial killer and the president have so much in common.
What a country!

WhoMe?

The ad hominem attack is the weakest rhetorical device. It only shows that I am correct.

First of all, that's illogical. If somebody uses an ad hominem against you, it does not show that you are correct. Furthermore, given that you said "the GOP are a bunch of pussies," you have no business calling me down on insults. By doing so, you are only proving my point that you are a pathetic hypocrite.

Secondly, that you are pathetic was a conclusion of my argument, not a part of it, so it wasn't an ad hominem fallacy. I wasn't saying "you're wrong because you're pathetic," I was saying "you're wrong AND you're pathetic." Subtle difference there, but an important one.

1. The documents do not confirm what you allege. I refer you to the numerous articles in the Boston Globe for details.

That's a source, not a citiation. I want text and a link. I will not take your word.

What I know for a fact is that the documents show that Bush exceeded the prerequisite hours needed to get an honorable discharge. His pay records prove this. Your accusations, then, are incompatible with the facts.

2. Concerning the admission that strings were pulled. While George H.W. Bush has not admitted as much...

Then you lied.

...it was reported widely in the press about a year ago, that the people involved in the decision admitted that it was a politcal decision. In fact, it is quite naive to think otherwise given the nature of the times.

Give me a citiation. I was no aware of anybody admitting that strings were pulled on behalf of Bush. If you cannot cite any evidence, then you have no basis whatsoever for making such an accusation.

3. The documents released are unrefuted in that Bush left for Alabama before it was approved, a fact that you ignore and simply argue that others would not be charged with the same dereliction of duty.

How is it "dereliction of duty?" Was he ordered to report? Give me a citiation.

[I]t is common knowledge that the Guard was so damn hard to get into that any derelction of duty got one in trouble at the time.

Whose common knowledge? Do you have a citiation?

4. As far as no one seeing him, so what if was not flying (which raised other issues)? He still had to report, and most people would recognize a celebrity (son of a Congressman). Calhoun's account is suspect (see same Globe articles), and is heavily outnumbered by the other witnesses.

The fact that he was not flying raises no other issues. The base had no F-102s, which was the only plane he was qualified to fly. That's the end of the story.

As for the rest, that's not evidence at all. So people don't remember seeing him. I've got news for you -- that's not evidence. If he was stuck on base reading training manuals, it's unlikely many people would have noticed him. Calhoun has come forward, and although the months he remembers seeing Bush are wrong, it's not altogether unsurprising considering that this occurred 32 years ago, and the man is 69. That he remembers seeing Bush is enough.

5. The physical was still required and the President's excuse that his family physician was in Houston insults the intelligence of any aviator...In addition, part of the official paperwork cites his failure to take a physical as improper.

So what? He couldn't fly. There was no point. Furthermore, Bush's people have indeed cited the lack of F-102s on base as a reason for skipping the physical. And what part of the paperwork says that his failure to appear for a routine physical was 'improper?' It merited an explanation, certainly, but Bush definitely had one at the time.

6. Failure to take the physical out fear for drug results. First, I take with a grain of salt the comment of a Bush partisan was the policy of the time. Where is an official declaration of drug testing policy at the time? Would an aviator be aware that drug testing was not done?

A 'Bush partisan?' He's a former Air Force Colonel. Show some damned respect; he knows what the policy was. But just to pacify you, here's another source showing than drug testing wasn't begun until 1981. And another.

As to whether or not Bush knew that there was no drug testing, there's good reason to believe he did (he would have learned military policy on such matters in training) and no reason to believe he didn't. Remember, it isn't enough for you to have bizarre partisan suspicions. You actually need to have some evidence on your side, and you don't here.

7. As far as your ad-hominem attacks, it realy says more about you, and well, the TRUTH does hurt, doesn't it?

But you don't have any truth on your side. That's the point. I called you pathetic because you are lobbing mud without any evidence to back yourself up. You just say "there are still questions" in spite of overwhelming evidence which shows that Bush fulfilled his duties to the Air National Guard.

Then again, though, I'm not the one who said "the GOP are a bunch of pussies" and then began preaching about ad hominem attacks. I may have insulted you, but at least I'm not being a dirty stinking hypocrite about it, am I? Next time scroll up before hitting the keyboard. You'll save yourself a great deal of embarassment.

Tim Z,

You jokingly refer to the similarities between Bish and a serial murderer. Maybe this is a litle philosophical, but here goes.

GW starts a war for the declared reasons of an imminent threat of WMDs. We know now that the threat is untrue, and all but Bush lovers realize that Bush knew that the WMD claim was bogus. (As per a substantial portion of the Intelligence community and one of his own former cabinet members, among others). We know that it is obvious that several young americans soldiers will die in this war. Did Bush intend (i.e. his aim and purpose) for them to die? Of course not. Did he KNOW that many of them will die? Absolutely. The Model Penal Code (a "uniform" penal code drafted by academics on which most states have modeled their own penal codes) refers to this culpable mental state, as "knowing." Finally, was the knowing killing "justified," i.e. was it part of a legitimate purpose for going to war which is a generally accepted principal by the league of civilized nations? Probably not. International treaties to which the US belongs and which are therefore part of US law, indicate that the rationale for invading Iraq were quite possibly illegal.

John Muhammed intended for those he shot to die. It was his purpose and goal. The Model Penal Code refers to this culpable mental state, as "purposeful."

Homicide (a "catch-all" term used to define the mere taking of life, regardless of the culpable mental state) is punished differently based on the level of culpable mental state. For example, (i) no crime - self defense, state sanctioned exeution, justified killing in a legal war; (ii) misdemeanor - with the culpable mental state of "negligence" (failure to use the ordinary standard of care of a reasonably prudent person, e.g. a hunting accident), etc. Most Penal Codes, including that of the Prez's home state (and I believe the Model one as well), make no distinction between a "purposeful" killing and a "knowing" killing - both are 1st degree murder. Thus we have a moral foundation, rooted in our penal codes, that makes no distinction between the two instances.

Maybe the two have more in common than an honorable discharge?

Tim Z,

"Ends justify the means, blah, blah blah..."

Have fun in the sewer, because thats where gutter politics are played.

WhoMe?

Are you trying to prove my point? Comparing President Bush to John Muhammed?

You are *no different* from those radical Republicans who accused Clinton of murder and rape. No different at all. In refusing to admit this, you become all the more a pathetic hypocrite.

Have fun in the sewer, because thats where gutter politics are played.

It's pretty crowded in this sewer because there are so many Republicans here. Some of the Watergate dirty tricksters are rather entertaining, but Karl Rove is really boring. Though he did attempt to convince me that Max Cleland lost three limbs in a Jeep accident.
Everybody misses the late Lee Atwater. He was the mastermind of the infamous 1988 Willie Horton ad which implied that it was the policy of Gov. Michael Dukakis to let murderers go free.

¡Hasta la victoria espléndida del Partido Democratico!

Owen,

You are the one who has his facts wrong. Bush requested and was denied permission to relocate to Alabama in May of '72; he was not given permission until September. IF he was in Alabama in May and after, it was in direct violation of his orders.

Also your suggestion that Bush would allow his flight status to be revoked solely because there weren't any planes available at that moment is a joke. Fliers - and remember, he claims that he was an avid, serious flier - consider a deep shame to be grounded, for whatever reason. And the idea that a qualified pilot would be allowed to simply "choose" not to take a physical during wartime, after expensive training by the military, is also a joke.

Smurph,

I would give up. Trying to reason with Owen is like dealing with a child. No matter how much you present the evidence he throws a tantrum.

I would give up. Trying to reason with Owen is like dealing with a child. No matter how much you present the evidence he throws a tantrum.

Uh, Owen's got you on this one. He's actually provided links to sources about his assertions. All I've seen you do is make vague allusions about sources and grandiose appeals to popular knowledge. If you want to make your argument look like a serious one, please post references to news sources (and credible ones at that, not some wanker's anti-Bush website or an advocacy group's press releases). Right now, the only one with evidence in this debate is Owen.

The best take on this comes from the most respected member of the administration:

"I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that war. The policies - determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live - were an anti-democratic disgrace. I can never forgive a leadership that said in effect: These young men - poorer, less educated, less privileged - are expendable (someone described them as economic cannon fodder), but the rest are too good to risk. I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed and so many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country."
• Secy. of State Colin Powell from his autobiography, My American Journey

As Gen. Powell implies, the real issues here are fairness and privilege.
The Republicans are trying to turn this into a battle over petty details, but they even fall short there.