“Desertion is whatever the hell I say it is, and if you prove me wrong, I will just say that things are ‘unclear.'”
I used to respect Neiwert, but it is clear he is nothing more than a pompous, partisan blowhard.
** Update **
Damnit- I spelled his name wrong again. Why do I keep wanting to spell it Niewert instead of Neiwert?
You’re one up on me. You respected him at one time.
I guess once you disrespect someone, you don’t even both to spell their name correctly.
BTW, tghat’s a pretty persuasive marshalling of facts in your counterargument there, John.
I don’t think respect has anything to do with it, since people that I’m reasonably sure respect me still spell my name wrong.
“Why do I keep wanting to spell it Niewert instead of Neiwert?”
Because his name doesn’t follow “i before e, except after c.”
That’s okay — I can spell your name, Neiwert, but you’re still an idiot.
Shorter Right-Wing-Punditry: “The statement ‘Bush is a deserter,’ depends on what the definition of is is.”
No, Hipocrite. It depends on what the definition of “deserter” is. It’s you that appears to be hung up on “is”.
Gary, you omitted the balance of that rule. It’s “i before e, except after c, or pronounced as long A, as in neighbor and weigh.” I learned that watching “Bacholer Father”. Furthermore, Germanic last names also get “e before i”.
Triticale, you’re off on one thing there: Germanic names may have either ‘ei’ or ‘ie’. Those digraphs have disinct and specific sounds — long ‘e’ (eee) vs long ‘i’ (aye).
Sounds like you righties are having an allergy attack as a result of exposure to that deadly substance (to the American-hating Right)–Truth!!
This is not going to go away.
This is starting to get fun.
OK, OK..forget “deserter”..AWOL will do just fine…..
And as Neiwert points out, we shouldn’t hear any more references to Clinton as a “draft dodger” from the now semantically correct right wing anymore…..
Except that charge has been debunked too, hermit.
Do you seriously think that lack of anything resembling factual grounds is going to put a stop to this, Robin? Idjits will be idjits.
So everyone seems to agree:
I’m glad we all see eye to eye on this.
You evade the point with commendable agility, Gryn. Training, or natural ability?
Gryn: It’s “President”.
Evading the point eh Startibartfast? Glad to see projection is alive and well.
What exactly is your point then. Do you care to elucidate me?
Just because he ain’t a convicted deserter doesn’t mean he’s not guilty of desertion.
And the facts, although certainly not conclusive, weigh heavily in favor of the latter.
Elucidate you? And before we’ve been properly introduced?
Look, if you think that there’s an iota of evidence that Bush has been AWOL, then take a look at it. Then read this, follow the links, and let us know what new and revolutionary bit of factoid you have that hasn’t been beaten to a bloody pulp countless times already.
***Just because he ain’t a convicted deserter doesn’t mean he’s not guilty of desertion.***
And just because Howard Dean hasn’t been convicted of beating his wife doesn’t mean he’s not guilty.
Where was that attitude during the Clinton administration years, again? (oh yeah, fighting the ‘witch hunts’ of false allegations that couldn’t be proven….)
Yes in fact I slogged through those links.
The defense rests on wishful thinking about NG being bad at paperwork, a couple of campaign buddies being pretty sure they remembered him leaving for “drills” (ha ha! and my uncle likes to go “fishing” a lot too!), and the “factesque” assertion that you get to blow off commitments if you do extra duty during the first few years in the NG.
I don’t recall any real documents cited, nor a substantial refuting of the two main points.
This is being as generous as possible to Bush’s defenders line of argumentation! Which a thorough review of FOIA docs, signed statements, witness testimony and newspaper clippings at the time push for an even more damning conviction to the objective observer.
How ever, I don’t want to trouble your feable mind with such annoying things like facts. Please continue your little Bush cheerleader dance.
That would be ‘feeble’ mind, thank you.
Thank you for taking the bait…
Grammar nazi = the last resort of the rhetorically challenged!
My, such touching concern for semantics! I guess the right wing really does regret calling Clinton a draft dodger.
Any word on whether they also regret the terms “rapist” and “murderer”?
“My, such touching concern for semantics! I guess the right wing really does regret calling Clinton a draft dodger.
Any word on whether they also regret the terms “rapist” and “murderer”?”
I dunno. Tell me who they are, and I’ll ask them. Or better yet, ask them yourself.
Gryn, you need to provide a link. And no, I’m not going to accept something Weinert has unattributed on his blog as evidence.
That wouldn’t be Dave “all Repbulicans are neo-Nazis and I can prove it by quoting local Southern democrats when they make racist statements that are obviously the fault of Repbulicans” Neiwart would it? I know, I know his argument is much more subtle .
Shocking! I had no idea he had such a long middle name.
Ugh, I first looked at this and thought to myself “Great! now I have to reproduce whole other websites for the pleasure of a guy who most likely will casually dismiss it anyways.” First I said “Screw that!”, but I’m a stubborn bastard. So here you go – Part 1 of 2
Ok, so let’s start with Bush shirking his physical.
Bush suspended from flying on Aug 1st (memo is dated Sep 29th, ’72) – Major General Francis Greenleaf, then Chief of the National Guard Bureau in Washington DC, confirmed the suspension of 1st Lt. George W. Bush from flying status. This written confirmation cites an earlier August 1, 1972 verbal order of the TX 147th Group’s Commanding Officer that suspended and grounded Bush from flying duty for “his failure to accomplish annual medical examination.” It cites the reason “Failure to accomplish annual medical examination”. Interestingly this could be for one of two reasons. 1) He blew it off OR 2) He failed it (most likely due to the new drug testing policyinstitued a couple months before).
One excuse tossed out earlier was that there weren’t flight surgeons available at TANG. This has been proved false by The Boston Globe.
Expensively trained pilots are not casually suspended! It was estimated that nearly a million dollars (in modern day currency) had been sunk into his training. Here is Bush stating that “flying is a lifetime pursuit”.
In either case there is normally a Flight Inquiry Board:
This absence of a Flight Inquiry Board is of particular interest to veteran pilots. The implication is that Bush’s misconduct was handled like everything else in his military service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections.
Phew, that was freakin’ exhausting. I haven’t done anything original here. Just condensed what’s already at Neiwert and most stuff from http://www.awolbush.com.
part 2 (Bush AWOL for equal to or greater than 7 months) will have to be a while I have to do some real work for today…
Wow Sebastian! You rolled together both an ad-hominem and straw-man attack in a single sentence. Not only that but you made the whole premise unprovable since it’s “subtle ” (therefore I can’t really explain it to anyone).
You get 1000 GOP Team Leader points for that little bit of mendacity my boy!
You really don’t want to get into a link pasting war with me because I will *own* you. I (unlike you) have actually read all the rhetoric people on both sides of the issue have put up.
My post was a regurgitation of what I found to be the few more compelling pieces of evidence. I now see that this was a waste of my time (predictably), I will hold off on part 2 of 2 until I see someone actually reading and responding (in their own words) to my part 1 of 2 post.