Michael Moore vs. Dubya

Stark_

Diabloii.Net Member
I've heard the story before, but that's the first time I've seen anything resembling evidence to back it up. Reasons #650-663 why Bush shouldn't be allowed to run anything bigger than a sandbox.
 

Ash Housewares

Diabloii.Net Member
I don't see anything leftist about Moore, he just complains, thats his routine, it will appeal to some group at any given time, it doesn't matter who as long as they have money
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Inconclusive, at best. But don't let that stop all you conspiracy theorists.

And btw, the "not observed at this post" does not mean he was AWOL. It actually means "Was not present for evaluation", which is exactly what they put on the evaluation form when you're transferred during an evaluation period. And furthermore, the place he was transferred to flew a different type of plane than he was trained to fly, and thus he couldn't fly them. Would you take a physical if you knew you wouldn't be flying anyway? I'm not sure about you, but pissing in a cup is not my idea of a good time. But hey, everyone's different . . .

Only one thing is certain: Bush used his family influence to jump ahead of 100,000 other applicants in line for the National Guard.

Not a distinguished military career to be sure, but not AWOL either.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
If I were in the military and they told me to show up and take a physical, I would. The military kinda likes it when you follow orders, or so I've heard.

It looks to me like Bush just didn't show up for a year and disobeyed at least one direct order, according to the documents from llad's first link. Is not showing up being AWOL? Seems like it, but I'd defer to someone with more knowledge in the matter.

Nice to know that such a gung-ho, kick 'em in the nuts sort of fellow was once as oppposed to actually serving in the military as I am.
 

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
such a gung-ho, kick 'em in the nuts sort of fellow
that description only applies when he can order other people with guns to do the nut-kicking.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Sure, Moore is about as fair and balanced as Fox News or Sean Hannity. But is it really OK just to show up for duty whenever you feel like it?

It's not a good precedent for a guy who is all about law, order, following through on committments, and oppressing the people. Come to think of it, neither is dodging the drug issue. Bush twists and turns like some sort of twisty, turny thing.
 

Rocks_Off

Diabloii.Net Member
maccool said:
Sure, Moore is about as fair and balanced as Fox News or Sean Hannity. But is it really OK just to show up for duty whenever you feel like it?

It's not a good precedent for a guy who is all about law, order, following through on committments, and oppressing the people. Come to think of it, neither is dodging the drug issue. Bush twists and turns like some sort of twisty, turny thing.
Or this one: http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107495313186595111
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
Ah, so it's just semantics. Silly me, it's alright now folks! He didn't desert, they just stopped looking for him! Whew.

I'm also wondering what Clark needs to backtrack from
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
Damascus said:
I'm also wondering what Clark needs to backtrack from
Doesn't matter. Just the fact that he will be backtracking on something, and currently appears to be nothing but fluff will drive him off the campaign trail. His "win"* in Oklahoma is meaningless.

*It was a virtual tie with Edwards, who didn't spend much time at all in the state. Clark will be out of the race within a month.
 

maccool

Diabloii.Net Member
Rocks, I'm not calling Bush a deserter or AWOL. I'm questioning why he got to show up at his discretion after a 7 month break and why no one seemed to know what he was doing. That's not what I'd expect from the military. Do they just lose track of people so easily?

from factcheck linky said:
The New York Times reported Nov. 3, 2000:

But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those concerns (about Bush’s absence) may be unfounded . . . . A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973.
Yeah, I know; ellipses. :p

edit: Quick thought before this goes down the crapper. Moore is biased and there are a myriad of reasons not to vote for Bush besides the military service issue.
 

Damascus

Diabloii.Net Member
Rocks_Off said:
LOL, Damascus, way to read my friend.

Alright, here we go!

Cause the more I'm reading this, the more it makes me smile.

First, Jennings was quite correct to point out that the accusation of George W. Bush's presumed absences is "a reckless charge not supported by the facts."
Facts which he then promptly refuses to give. Instead, he decides to define desertion later on.


Second, Clark, a retired four-star general, admits he is entirely unconcerned that an ideologue celebrity has made this most serious, unfounded charge against the commander in chief.
We must have missed the "thought police" swearing in ceremony. Why Clark is supposed to give a rat's behind about what Moore said about Bush I'll never know.

In fact, he strongly implies that he is not bothered at all that the charge was made. He admits he is not interested in the facts.
Firstly, he is apparently like everyone else in this country and "is not bothered at all" with the charge. Secondly, he didn't say he wasn't interested in the facts, he said they weren't material. That's like me telling you I have ten toes, and when you ask me what it has to do with this conversation I tell you you're not interested in the facts.

Third, practically no civilian actually knows what desertion really is, Mark A. Kleiman, for example.
After which the author then goes to to explain that desertion is basically a conviction. "Desertion is a prosecutorial finding after the absent service member has been returned to military control."

He then goes on to make fun of Kleiman for saying "Just because you aren't convicted of desertion doesn't mean you didn't desert" Afterwards he goes to tell us that you can leave for years (as long as you keep your uniform) and not be a deserter. But since Bush never told anyone he might leave forever, it's ok. No harm no foul?

There's two main points here. Did Bush stay like he said, or did he leave like it's been accused. Two, why do Moore's statements reflect on Clark? Because he doesn't lynch him?
 

Underseer

Diabloii.Net Member
You guys don't really think laws were meant to apply to the super-rich and privledged, do you?

I've heard all the propaganda and lies about how Bush didn't go AWOL, didn't snort coke, didn't get caught driving drunk, didn't deceive shareholders, etc., etc.

All those protestations might hold water except that they went after Clinton with millions of taxpayers' dollars on far less evidence than exists regarding Bush' transgressions, and they did it over "crimes" far lesser than what Bush has obviously done.

Besides, Moore isn't a leftist. He just looks leftist to right-wing extremists.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Besides, Moore isn't a leftist. He just looks leftist to right-wing extremists.
Yeah, and Ann Coulter isn't rightwing, she just appears that way to left-wing extremists, right? :lol:
 

advil

Diabloii.Net Member
who cares if moore's a leftist?

should we forgive bush his 7 month "unexcused absence" or whatever ya want to call it because the only reason it's in the news again is just because some fringe political comedian revived the issue?

the messenger's irrelevant.
 
Top