Another excellent piece by Will. Go to the actual site for all kinds of hyperlinked background. http://slate.com/id/2106833/ Do As I Say Bush lets down his Guard. By William Saletan Posted Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004, at 10:42 PM PT This week, President Bush and Sen. John Kerry addressed the annual conference of the National Guard Association. Neither man talked about Bush's service in the Guard, and the officers in attendance made clear that they wanted to hear about Iraq, not Vietnam. But one issue leads to the other. Bush's abuse of the Guard in Iraq is what makes his abuse of the Guard during Vietnam an important consideration in this election. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968. The move was well-chosen and well-timed. Only four Air National Guard squadrons were sent to Vietnam, and none was sent after Bush enlisted. All he had to do was fulfill a "statement of understanding" in which he promised to attend 24 days of weekend duty and 15 days of active duty each year. He failed to do so. Four years into his six-year commitment, Bush "changed his mind" and decided "he preferred to be in politics." That description doesn't come from some phony memo. It comes from retired Col. Rufus Martin, Bush's then-personnel officer, in an interview with the Washington Post. Bush got permission to go to Alabama to help a family friend run for the Senate. A Boston Globe review of Bush's Guard records confirms that he "performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973." The Globe's investigative team, echoing investigators from other publications, reports that "no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973." U.S. News & World Report notes that the "military service obligation" Bush signed in 1968 required him to attend 44 inactive-duty training drills every fiscal year for six years. He did not fulfill that requirement. Furthermore, when Bush took off for Harvard Business School in 1973, he signed a form pledging "to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position." He never did so. In fairness to Bush, Vietnam was a lousy war. And lots of guys who joined the Guard in those days lost interest in their duties once the penalty they feared—assignment to active duty in Vietnam—expired with the war. Maybe we should cut Bush some slack. But before we do, let's look at how much slack he's cutting the folks who serve in the Guard today. The Guard's primary purpose has traditionally been homeland security. "When you become a member of the Guard, you serve where you live," says the Guard's recruitment Web site. "You can join a unit right in your hometown or wherever you want to live." According to the site, "Initially, soldiers can serve for as little as three years," and since "you'll normally train part-time … you can go to college or work full-time." There's just one hitch: "During national emergencies, however, the President reserves the right to mobilize the National Guard, putting them in federal duty status." That's the language Bush has invoked to mobilize half the Guard's 450,000 troops. On Sept. 14, 2001, he proclaimed that "a national emergency exists by reason of the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center … and the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States." He authorized the Secretary of Defense to put the Guard and Reserves on active duty "to respond to the continuing and immediate threat of further terrorist attacks on the United States." Based on this authorization, the Army has sent thousands of guardsmen overseas and has instituted a "stop-loss" policy that prevents them from being released when their active duty commitments expire. But these Guard troops aren't being sent to fight the people who attacked the United States in September 2001. They're being sent to—and locked in—Iraq. Some 40,000 members of the Guard are in Iraq today—six times the number of guardsmen sent to Vietnam. Already, more Guard troops have died in Iraq than in Vietnam. What does Iraq have to do with the "national emergency" declared by Bush in 2001? Nothing. The 9/11 commission found "no evidence" of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida. Four days ago, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell reaffirmed, "I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorists who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime." In short, Bush has pulled Guard troops away from their homeland security duties to fight and die in a war unrelated to the service for which they enlisted. A guardsman who did less than he signed up for is coercing other guardsmen to do more than they signed up for. One guardsman is doing something about it. After serving nine years in the Marines and the Army, including combat duty in Iraq, he enlisted last fall in the Guard. The bait he swallowed was the "Try One" program, which supposedly lets veterans sample a year of Guard service before making a longer commitment. Two months ago, invoking its "stop-loss" policy, the Army called up the guardsman's unit for duty in Iraq and changed his one-year commitment to three years. He sued to void the policy, noting that its application to Iraq "bears no relation to the threat of terrorism against the United States." Most Guard officers, however, refuse to admit that their institution is being abused. They gave Bush standing ovations on Tuesday when he told them that "you're fighting terrorist enemies in Iraq" and that the war was "necessary to defend America." Kerry brought them a different message. "Far too many of you have been on the ground for far too long, much longer than was expected or promised," he reminded them Thursday. "Many of you are our first responders here at home: fire fighters, police officers, and emergency medical technicians. To take you out of your communities is to take down our critical first line of defense. That's no way to protect America." What response did Kerry get? Silence. Those brave, loyal, hoodwinked guardsmen. They think Bush is one of them. They don't understand that the only presidential candidate who's done the job they're doing now—risking life and shedding blood—is the guy on the other side.
It seems as though Will has become increasingly venomous after Bush catapulted into the lead in this race. This article is just a hate piece. Why does Will think the Guardsmen can't make the right decision for themselves? I find this condescending to these Patriots.
And again Jorge dodges every single meaningful issue in the piece in favor of trashing the writer. Are your posts automatically generated these days, Jorge? I mean Jesus dude, you're not even trying.
it’s hard not to become venomous when that big business **** box, also known as our president, continues misleading the people into thinking that he gives one damn about them. he is a w**** and a liar and it upsets me that people just can’t or won’t see it. kerry and company are having a hard time navigating through all the right-wing spin but it’s time to bring out the hammer. I would love kerry to call bush a liar to his face, challenge his service to the country and invite him to step outside. Seems it’s come down to this.
And I didn't "ridicule" treeman. What are these 'warnings' all about anyway? Are you an admin now or are you just threatening to tattle again?
Trader_Jorge's Dictionary of Words and Stuff, Abridged Ed. Catapulted: Launched to an unimaginable height. Ex. When a sitting, war time, President jumps to an astounding 11-13% lead in some polls but sits a dead even in most others... His numbers have catapulted.
I almost started a thread about this, and probably should have, but I prefer to post in established threads that can be pertinent to my post, to avoid "thread clutter." Anyway, I first heard about this on Lou Dobbs Tonight, last night, and almost fell out of my chair. Dobbs is talking to retired Brig. General David Grange, retired, about the situation in Iraq. Here is a bit of the transcript, where the story that blew my mind popped up: "DOBBS: I want to read to you one line on another matter reported by "The Rocky Mountain News," soldiers from Fort Carson saying that they have been issued an ultimatum to reenlist for three more years or be transferred to other units that will be deployed to Iraq, soldiers from the 3rd Brigade combat team presented with that ultimatum and a reenlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday. What is your reaction? GRANGE: My reaction would be, Wow. I'm surprised to hear that. Usually, there's choices given, usually not an ultimatum unless you're a unit that's supposed to deployed somewhere and you're already in that unit. So you know, I'm not sure where that came from, what type of leadership, but it does surprise me. DOBBS: Would you say to the point that it would be entirely inappropriate? GRANGE: Most likely, it's inappropriate. DOBBS: General David Grange, as always, thank you for being here. GRANGE: My pleasure." http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/16/ldt.00.html And here's the story from The Rocky Mountain News. I could have "bolded" parts of it, or excerpted parts, but I think people should read the whole thing. It will just take a minute: GIs claim threat by Army Soldiers say they were told to re-enlist or face deployment to Iraq By Dick Foster, Rocky Mountain News September 16, 2004 COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq. Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity. The effort is part of a restructuring of the Army into smaller, more flexible forces that can deploy rapidly around the world. A Fort Carson spokesman confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way and one of the soldiers provided the form to the Rocky Mountain News. An Army spokesmen denied, however, that soldiers who don't re-enlist with the brigade were threatened. The form, if signed, would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007. The two soldiers said they were told that those who did not sign would be transferred out of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team. "They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant. The second soldier, an enlisted man who was interviewed separately, essentially echoed that view. "They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not," he said. The brigade's presentation outraged many soldiers who are close to fulfilling their obligation and are looking forward to civilian life, the sergeant said. "We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said. A Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with Iraq duty. "I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who gave that explanation before being told later to direct all inquiries to the Pentagon. Sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment remaining "would not be taken lightly," Lt. Col. Gerard Healy said from the Pentagon Wednesday. "We realize that we deal with people and with families, and that's got to be a factor," he said. "There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires. But I don't want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that might deploy," said Healy. Under current Army practice, members of Iraq-bound units are "stop-lossed," meaning they could be retained in the unit for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires. A recruiter told the sergeant that the Army would keep them "as long as they needed us." Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs for only three or four years of active duty. The 3rd Brigade recruiting effort is part of the Army's plan to restructure large divisions of more than 10,000 soldiers into smaller, more flexible, more numerous brigade- sized "Units of Action" of about 3,500 soldiers each. The Army envisions building each unit into a cohesive whole and staffing them with soldiers who will stay with the unit for longer periods of time, said John Pike, head of the defense analysis think tank Global Security. "They want these units to fight together and train together. They're basically trying to keep these brigades together throughout training and deployment, so I can understand why they would want to shed anybody who was not going to be there for the whole cycle," Pike said. But some soldiers presented with the re-enlistment message last week believe they've already done their duty and should not be penalized for choosing to leave. They deployed to Iraq for a year with the 3rd Brigade last April. "I don't want to go back to Iraq," said the sergeant. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people.'' The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him troubled, unable to sleep and "filled with dread." "For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said. Soldiers' choice at Fort Carson WHAT THE FORM SAID • "Elect not to extend or re-enlist and understand that the soldier will be reassigned IAW (in accordance with) the needs of the Army by Department of the Army HRC (Human Resources Command) . . . or Fort Carson G1 (Personnel Office).'' WHAT IT MEANS • Soldiers who sign the letter are bound to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team until Dec. 31, 2007. • Soldiers who do not sign the letter might be transferred out of the brigade and possibly to Iraq. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html If this is true, and it certainly had the ring of truth to it as far as I'm concerned, then things are even worse than I thought regarding the strain on our force structure caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Now this may be the actions of one commander, but the unit is well known, and well thought of, and I find it hard to believe, should this be true, that people higher up the military food chain wouldn't be aware of, or encouraged, the most extreme measures to retain troops for the Iraqi conflict. My opinion, of course.
Hehe. I tend to agree with this. Will has come down to basically screaming not to vote for Bush.. Reminds me of that comic strip "BoonDocks" where the kid keeps getting more and more pissed off as Bush keeps climbing in the polls. And y'all are going to hate this, but Conservatives aren't trying because we don't have to. This contest is over. It has been ever since the RNC with the lunatic protesters. They did more for this campaign than any ad could.
Would it be too much trouble to respond at all to any of the substance of Will's article, rather than deciding that since he's arguing against your candidate he's just a hater? It would, wouldn't it? Yeah, I guess so. I guess it would.
You know what BJ? You are right. I skimmed the article. The fact that he has written at least three of these in the last week was my point. There's only so much you can take before it becomes old and repetitive. I know there are undecided candidates that need and should read Will's articles as well as the other sides. Unfortunately, there aren't enough of them to sway this anymore. As well written as Will's things are, he's ultimately just spinning his wheels. Its time for him to focus on something else. The election has been decided for a month now. And with that, I'm off to the Men's club. See you soon!
Fatty: The election's more than a month away and every major poll but one has this thing tied within the margin of error. Will hasn't repeated himself at all and he's doing anything but spinning his wheels. His takes on this election are the freshest, best written, most thoughtful ones I've read. And it's instructive to note he supported the war before the WMD case blew up. The fact that you're not listening doesn't mean other people aren't. But it is useful to know you're not reading about the election or paying attention anymore. I'll keep that in mind when I read your posts about it.
