Democratic service
By Page W. H. Brousseau IV
Recently, the Democrats have attacked Bush's service the Air Guard. Well, many liberals have attacked him since 2000, but it takes liberal ideas a while to warrant attention, then even longer for them to go away.
The president released a stack of some 700 pages of his military record. Everything from his medical history to his pay dates showed that during the period in question, 1972-1973, Bush had a near six-month gap in guard duty. The president explained that he had permission from his commanding officer and he made up the drills later. As a member of the Army Reserve, I can assure that is precisely what happens. Now the Democrats want the permission slip, and who knows what is to come.
The left attacked the president for not offering any witnesses two have since stepped forward. Now they want more witnesses.
The president said he had permission to leave service early to attend Harvard, a practice still in effect, Democrats respond with, "Liar." If the truth gets in the way just ignore it. Michael Moore alleged, "Just because you got paid doesn't mean you were there." Is he serious? Oh, sadly, he is.
Jumping ahead of this debate you can see why we are having this debate. Democrats believe it is wrong to question someone's military service, unless that person is for the use of force.
Can you think of the last time a Republican attacked a Democrat for simply not serving? The Democrats say, "Kerry served, he was a war hero, and that gives him the right to condemn the war." Republicans never say, "You must serve to speak out," during the build up to Gulf II, Republicans never said, "You can't protest, you never served, Sean Penn." All Americans have the right to speak out. Only Democrats believe service entitles you to say or, in Kerry's case, do any idiotic thing in which you can think.
General Wesley Clark was the same, he served and he commanded, that gives him more authority to criticize the war than Governor Howard Dean. Poor Dean, he had the anti-war vote all to himself until Clark popped up. Once on the campaign trial, Clark slowly deflated Dean's anti-war message. Now, somehow, Kerry is now the anti-war candidate even after his vote for it. However, he did serve and earned his right to flip-flop.
The left is quick to point out those Republicans that never served. They call them "Chickenhawks." Never mind Sec. Powell, Sen. McCain, Sen. Hagle, and Sec. Ridge all served in Vietnam. Many other members Congress served as well. Republicans never said, "Democrat 'A' is a coward for not serving." So why do Democrats do this? They act like five year olds, they ignore elements that disprove their points of view, and define the debate in such a way the only conclusion that can is reached is in their favor.
Democratic logic is absent when it comes to all matters of the military. Reps. Charlie Rangle and John Conyers tried to pass a bill in 2003 implementing the draft because their belief was that Republican members of Congress would gladly send other sons to war but not their own. Are they serious? Oh, sadly, they are, and they are "leaders" of their party.
Here is a party that defends anyone's right to do anything, except when it comes to Republicans, they need to pass qualifications before they support war. The ruckus over Bush's service is all about Democratic insecurities about being the party of pacifism for the past 40 years. They will try to prove that when President Kerry abandons the Global War on Terror because he, as a veteran, is entitled and President Bush as Commander in Chief had no right to order Operation Iraqi Freedom because he was "AWOL" six months from Air Guard service in 1972. Debate the merits of the GWOT? Nah, not when we have a war hero turned anti-war hero as our nominee, and a Guardsman turned war hawk as president. Are they serious? Oh, sadly, they are.
© The Michigan Partisan 2004
