 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! February 3, 2004 AWOL AgainBy GreyhawkThe new old canard, this time from DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe, speaking on military issues on which he is either patently clueless or unforgivably slanderous. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe began the latest verbal spat, by saying on ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" that he relished debate over military service if John F. Kerry became the party's nominee for president. The Massachusetts senator is a decorated Vietnam War veteran who has made his military service a centerpiece of his campaign. Later McAuliffe stated "Call it AWOL, call it what you will..." Actually no. Once again the frightening implication that in the Democrat mind crime is a matter of opinion. General Clark was thrashed for similar claims not two weeks ago; will the press excoriate McAuliffe? Or does he get a pass? Kerry, like Clark before him, denies all knowledge of his opponent's military record, but did stop short of claiming to not know who the president is. (More to come on Kerry's flip flop and that and other issues.) I've had the unenjoyable task of escorting chained prisoners from confinement to trial to prison. Their crimes? Desertion. In (relative) peace time. AWOL is not an opinion. AWOL is a crime. It is punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And if the Democrats insist that the president is/was guilty of such a crime they should establish that fact beyond slanderous unsupported accusation. But they should read this first. And perhaps this:
Update: Book is a link. Hat tip: Jen Martinez. See also here and here. Posted by Greyhawk / February 3, 2004 7:00 PM | Permalink 3 TrackBacksbaldilocks talks about the difference between AWOL and excused abscences in regards to the Dimocrats taking on Bush's military service: And, on top of that, if the member wants to take an extended period of absence from his/her duty for... Read More George Walker Bush got an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard on October 1, 1973. Some Bush-haters are saying that it doesn't prove Bush wasn't "AWOL" because it states that Bush had "a six year service obligation...and has... Read More Now more than ever the grassroots need to do their part as the Democrats have been pounding the press with debunked lie after debunked lie. As the Bush campaign has been saying all along, this campaign is going to be... Read More 15 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
How can Kerry have a chestful of medals? Didn't we see him standing at the White House fence throwing them? Oh yeah, he just pretended he was throwing his medals away, didn't he? And how did he get out of the Navy early for political reasons? Was he AWOL?
Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the United States...
JFK, JFK, both rode boats into war, Kennedy wrote profiles in courage and Kerry wrote that.
Kerry got 3 purple hearts for minor injuries. He then requested to be discharged and started his career of protesting.
Maybe the Air Farce is different, but my old branch did not hand out Honorable Discharges for AWOL. Matter of fact if one was UA for a solid year the charge was Desertion.
Does anyone know what Kerry's injuries/wounds were? i'd love to know.
This was an interesting letter at NRO:
The problem with the Bush AWOL story is not Bush's completion of his service. That part of the story may have been successfully debunked. The problem for Bush is the overall meta comparison of Bush with Kerry. One graduated from Yale and volunteered for combat duty, despite his privelidged background. He served and was wounded three times, returning with bronze and silver stars for heroism. The other Yale graduate, faced with the same choices, jumped the line to get into a coveted Texas Guard unit that was highly unlikely to be called up. He then requested a transfer to another unit so that he could work on a political campaign, and completed his service later, at a more personally convenient time. None of these basic facts seems in doubt.
The question isn't going to be about whether all the T's were crossed and all the I's were dotted in the service records. The question is going to be: who had [more guts]? In the larger meta narrative, Bush could be the loser here, and it would seem to me that the White House ought to change the subject quickly.
Kerry's military service was an effort to mold himself after the JFK (see link via book above) a rather noble effort to be sure, and from many accounts he served with distinction.
But I contend that on return, political expedience of the day led him to pursue a different track into politics - a track that led to tossing medals onto the white house lawn, amongst other things.
I would condemn neither action, serving or protesting, per se; one is a duty, one is a right - and Vietnam was a period where right and wrong were blurred.
But Kerry's motives for both are questionable. And in the mind of most vets his protest actions are unforgivable, regardless of what he accomplished on the PT-109.
A longer post on this topic will follow.
One comment only. Every single Presidential nominee from the Republicans and the Democrats since WWII have RELEASED THEIR MILITARY RECORDS.
EXCEPT for our current President, George W. Bush.
There are pay record, attendance records, retirement points, income tax records and the DD 214. this will go away, and Bush may well be vindicated.
It's the secrecy that's driving this.
Speaking of records, how about the 1992 Congressional record?
I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.
What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.
What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.
What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.
What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a Presidential primary.
-John Kerry
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071592/posts
Jeff McRae: You quote an NRO letter as "Jumped the line to get into a coveted Texas Guard unit that was highly unlikely to be called up".
Unfortunately, the facts are different. Did GWB advance ahead of others who were on the list?: Yes, because he VOLUNTEERED for immediate induction and training. Was his unit "highly unlikely" to be activated?: Elements of this unit of the Texas Air National Guard were, at the time of GWB's enlistment, flying COMBAT missions in Viet Nam - in F-102's (the aircraft he VOLUNTEERED to learn to fly).
Let's look at this again: I want to stay out of Viet Nam and I don't want to do anything that could get me killed. So, I volunteer to learn to fly F-102's (not one of the most stable aircraft in the inventory), in a unit that has elements in Viet Nam at precisely the moment that I join up. Boy, I've got it covered just fine, don't I?
By the way, does anyone want to remind me what happened to another ANG fighter jock from a privileged family: A guy named Dino who flew an F-100 from March AFB? Boy, those ANG guys sure had it soft.
This is simple. Bush does what every other presidential candidate has done and releases his military records.
The Republican spin that those who question W's service is a slap at all of those who served in the National Guard sounds desperate and is off point. No one has smeared the Guard. They have, however, looked at the evidence and it appears, from all the evidence in, that Bush was missing for a significant amount of time.
I'm a veteran, 1969-1971, and I'd like to know if Bush was or was not performing his sworn duty.
As I said, this is simple. He should release his records. If Bush is telling the truth, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
What records do people keep talking about. If someone asked me about my records, I would produce my DD-214 and hope that would suffice. It is the only thing I have left, I had my military license but my wife washed my jeans with my wallet in it. 15 years I have kept it, gone.
And if I had to produce names, I remember two people in my time in the military. I went to basic and AIT with them, and then by chance we all ended up in Bamberg in the same unit. So it is hella easier to remember their names. 15 years from now, I may not remember that. I best not ever run for the Presidency.
James,
The records refer not to the records you have, such as your DD214, but records the military has that include pay documents and other proof that you were where you said you were, doing what you said you were doing.
I'd be hard pressed to name more than a handful of the men I served with, too, but I would remember serving with a Texas flyboy whose father was a Congressman/UN Ambassador. In 2000, a group of vets offered $3500 to anyone who would step forward and say that served with Bush in the Alabama Guard. No one claimed the money. No one.
So, while every other candidate has released his military records, Bush has not. Even John McCain released his to counter Bush campaign smears that McCain had suffered emotional and mental distress due to his imprisonment in Hanoi. His records showed no such impairment.
Now, Bush could simply ask the DoD to release his records to prove he was not AWOL. It's simple. It makes you wonder why not.
His dad was a one term Senator at the time in Texas. Would anyone care about a one term senator from Texas in Alabama?
Uh, no, and unless Bush went around spouting, "Do you know who I am", which he does not seem the kind of person to do, than no one would know.
I read a report somewhere once where he did some work with underpriviledged kids in Texas. They say he drove a beat up car and no one knew he had any money. They just remember him being a good guy with the kids.
Does that sound like someone spouting off, "Do you know who I am?"
Of course not.
Maybe people came forward, but not with the stories the group of vets wanted to hear.
Did T. McAuliffe ever serve in the military and if he did not, who is he to challenge any body any were in this nation.
SGM--US Army