I realize that it is embarrassing for the party of macho war-mongering to have a guy who shirked his military duties at the top of the ticket, and probably the best spin that can be put on this pathetic scenario is this one from Steve Bainbridge (UCLA Law):
"Candidly, I don't see what the big deal is. If you asked me, would I want the George Bush of 1972-ish as my President, the answer would be an emphatic no! By Bush's own admission, he had a serious problem with alcohol up until he went cold turkey at age 40 in 1986. Bush has also implied that he may have used drugs prior to 1974, which may explain any missed national guard physicals. But so what? #1: We knew all this in 2000. #2. The question is not whether I want the George Bush of 1972-ish as President; the question is whether I want the George Bush of 2004 as President. The question for me is whether his track record since 2000 on national security and the economy justifies voting for his reelection. The national guard business is just a partisan red herring designed to divert attention from the real issues."
Partisanship is in handsome supply all around, so let's drop that silliness. I agree that Bush should be judged fundamentally on his "track record," and on that basis he should at a minimum not be re-elected. But voters, correctly or not, focus on issues of "character," and being a young man who, first, dodged army service at a time when such service was life-threatening (as it is now, thanks to that same fellow), and then, second, failed to fulfill his other military duties, has some bearing on figuring out who the man is today. Certainly when juxtaposed with his lifelong career of mediocre accomplishment, professional failures, and special breaks, it suggests a lack of maturity, responsibility, and competence--attributes that might, perhaps, be deemed relevant in an election. And since it is of a piece with so much that came after, I can see no reason to consign these character traits to 1972.
Let's be candid. Should we really not care that a guy who himself dodged the army draft has been entrusted with the power to put the lives of those in the army at risk? If you are a parent, and especially if you are the parent of children who are in or might be in the military, wouldn't you feel more confident if the person making the judgment about risking the lives of your children were someone who had, in his own life, confronted the dangers of military service directly and responsibly? Such a person would know, firsthand, what war means, what its consequences are, what its costs are. Surely such a person is more trustworthy on life-and-death military decisions than someone who ran from war, who even ran from the National Guard. Such a person is irresponsible, not serious, not worldly; such a person might not be your top choice to decide the fate of your children.
Or so a voter, or a parent, might think.
UPDATE: These guys get it. Herbert:
"This issue remains pertinent because it foreshadowed Mr. Bush's behavior as a politician and officeholder: the lack of engagement, the irresponsibility, and the casual and blatantly unfair exploitation of rank and privilege.
"Mr. Bush favored the war in Vietnam, but he had the necessary clout to ensure that he wouldn't have to serve there. He entered the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the war in 1968 by leaping ahead of 500 other applicants who were on a waiting list.
"Mr. Bush was eventually assigned to the 147th Fighter Group (later to become part of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Group), which Mr. Moore described in his book as a "champagne" outfit. "The ranks," he said, "were filled with the progeny of the wealthy and politically influential."
"So here's the thing: After strolling to the head of the line, and putting the Guard to the considerable expense of training him as a pilot, Lieutenant Bush didn't even bother to take his duties seriously. He breezed off to Alabama to work on a political campaign. He never showed up as required to take his annual flight physical in 1972, and because of that was suspended from flying.
"This cavalier treatment of his duties as a Guardsman occurred as thousands of others were being killed and wounded in Vietnam.... Having escaped the horror of the war himself, one might have expected Lieutenant Bush to at least take his duties in the National Guard seriously."
And Krugman:
"[W]hen administration officials are challenged about the blatant deceptions in their budgets — or, for that matter, about the use of prewar intelligence — their response, almost always, is to fall back on the president's character. How dare you question Mr. Bush's honesty, they ask, when he is a man of such unimpeachable integrity? And that leaves critics with no choice: they must point out that the man inside the flight suit bears little resemblance to the official image.
"There is, as far as I can tell, no positive evidence that Mr. Bush is a man of exceptional uprightness. When has he even accepted responsibility for something that went wrong? On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that he is willing to cut corners when it's to his personal advantage. His business career was full of questionable deals, and whatever the full truth about his National Guard service, it was certainly not glorious."
And of course Michael Moore:
"You have sent large numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" – while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled.
"That is what makes this whole business of you being AWOL so despicable, and makes the grief-stricken relatives want to turn away from you in disgust. The reason your skipping-out on your enlistment didn't matter in the 2000 election was because we were not at war. Being stuck in a deadly, daily quagmire now in 2004 makes your military history-fiction and your fly-boy costume very relevant."
2/14 UPDATE: Bush was still AWOL.
AND MORE: From The Memphis Flyer.
Recent Comments