I am not a big Bush supporter but I think the man deserves a break.
AWOL means prison time not an Honorable Discharge that bush recieved. If the military had a problem with Bush they would have charged him or repremanded him. They did not. If his employer, the United States military, did not have a problem with Bush then why do you?
Please - No DADDY responces. "Bush's daddy this, Bush's daddy that." When you use this line of reasoning it looks plain silly because you can't prove it. I can prove that he got an Honorable discharge. Anybody can look that up! You have to go to the conspiracy web sites to get "info" on Bush being AWOL.
Also RIGHTIES, Kerry deserved his medals that he got in Vietnam. How do I know? Because the US Military said he did. Just like they said Bush served Honorably.
Please stop with the nonsense that you can't prove. Let's stick with things we can!
2007-08-02 11:41:49 · 20 answers · asked by PNAC ~ Penelope 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because Bush has been A.W.O.L.,----America's -Wonderful -Old- Leader.
2007-08-02 11:51:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
I don't think there has been a president of the USA in its history more attacked than our present one. There seem to be no limits to what he will be attacked for. I keep thinking that if the Congress has time to start up over 200 separate investigations into things done legally and legitimately by the Bush administration, they can make time to work on fixing the problems that the American public actually care about. Those investigations are just as worthless as all the hype about Monica and her blue dress.
I think the claims that he was AWOL are an attempt of left thinking people to attack their way out of the Swift Boat Vets stories. They couldn't convince the public (including me) that Kerry served honorably so they tried to claim that Bush did not serve honorably. This is the first I've heard it mentioned in several months. These things tend to circulate through in cycles.
I know you are wondering what proof I have that Kerry did not serve honorably. I've seen the video of his testimony before congress in which he said that he and his fellow soldiers committed war crimes. I think that he is either a war criminal or a liar. Either way I don't want him in the white house. I suspect that he was meant to lose in order to pave the way for Clinton in 2008. Her chances of winning are much better in 2008 than they would have been in 2004.
The way of politics today is that the claims go back and forth and get more outrageous each cycle. Nothing useful gets done and everyone can say that the side they don't agree with is making arguements that are obviously fabricated.
2007-08-02 12:24:52 · answer #2 · answered by Automation Wizard 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
You are confusing AWOL and desertion. Bush was AWOL--absent without leave. meaning he wasn't where he was supposed to be wen he was supposed to be there. When that happens, it is a violaiton of military regulations--and can get mild punishmnent or a reprimand.
Desertion means deliberately leaving--and staying gone. Sepcifically, soeone who is AWOL for more than 30 days is considered a deserter. And that DOES mean jail time.
So--Bush was AWOL--but its a minor infraction--about all it shows is his lack of responsibility (big surprise!). But he wasn't a deserteer. No reason for it--he had a nice cushy spot and that suited him, since he didn't have the guts to actually go to Vietnam and get shot at--like real patriots such as John Kerry!
2007-08-02 11:56:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What do you recommend AWOL, he's getting to the situation that he could attend to for the time of his final 30 days in place of work. Packing and paying for and furnishing a house for him to stay in via January 20, 2009. while he will become a former President, plus he has to grant the secret provider sufficient time to proper guard the place of abode and the community.
2016-12-15 04:05:52 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of the lack of people coming forward to say that they knew him, saw him, worked near him or any other corroborating evidence that he served the time that was later recorded for him.
His time toward the end of his service is a total blank, although he should have been on base.
2007-08-02 12:10:39 · answer #5 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He failed to show up when requierd to do so. Absent Without Official Leave. Then he avoided the rest of his obligation so he could go to work on a political campaign in a neighboring state, showing where his true interest resides.
2007-08-02 11:51:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
you can't be AWOL in the guard unless your unit is activated, W's unit was never activated, thus he was never AWOL.
as far as kerry is concerned: all those who served under him support him and agreed with his awards. Only those who spent a couple days with him and/or didn't know him dispute his medals. Having upper command hate you is typically the sign of a good officer.
2007-08-02 11:47:56 · answer #7 · answered by PD 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
He failed to report to duty. That's AWOL. Do you honestly think the military always does the right thing? Look at the coverup of Pat Tillman's death. Look at the Mai Lai Massacre.
2007-08-02 11:49:38 · answer #8 · answered by gilliegrrrl 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
maybe deep down they are really bummed at Bill Clinton's service.... and Bush did serve in some capacity that most Y/A left posters never would step up to do.
http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm
2007-08-02 11:47:21 · answer #9 · answered by garyb1616 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
why do you feel you must defend a criminal? if you don't think the family had anything to do with it you've just got blinders on.
2007-08-02 11:53:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Regardless of any prior service, President Bush has served faithfully for 8 years in the military as its commander in chief.
2007-08-02 11:48:29 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 8⤋