Mise en perspective interessante et assez drole, O.

Le plus drole etant d'imaginer tes railleries anti-militaristes envers le GI-Joe de service si les roles avaient ete inverses. Rhetorique quand tu nous tiens...

Mis à jour par boq le 11 février 2004 à 13:17

TEMPETE DANS UN VERRE D'EAU

Mr. President, this campaign is fully engaged. The chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Terence McAuliffe, said this last week: "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard. He didn't show up when he should have showed up…"

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: How do you respond?

President Bush: Political season is here. I was — I served in the National Guard. I flew F-102 aircraft. I got an honorable discharge. I've heard this — I've heard this ever since I started running for office. I — I put in my time, proudly so.

I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.

Russert: The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of the records and said there’s no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972.

President Bush: Yeah, they’re — they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don't just say "I did something" without there being verification. Military doesn't work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.

Russert: You did — were allowed to leave eight months before your term expired. Was there a reason?

President Bush: Right. Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.

Russert: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

President Bush: Yeah. Listen, these files — I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well. Probably you were. And — absolutely. I mean, I —

Russert: But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

President Bush: Yeah. If we still have them, but I — you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it. What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is — is — may not be a true service.

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way. (c'est moi qui souligne)

Russert: Were you favor of the war in Vietnam?

President Bush: I supported my government. I did. And would have gone had my unit been called up, by the way.

Russert: But you didn't volunteer or enlist to go.

President Bush: No, I didn't. You're right. I served. I flew fighters and enjoyed it, and provided a service to our country. In those days we had what was called "air defense command," and it was a part of the air defense command system.

The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me as I look back was it was a political war. We had politicians making military decisions, and it is lessons that any president must learn, and that is to the set the goal and the objective and allow the military to come up with the plans to achieve that objective. And those are essential lessons to be learned from the Vietnam War.

Le reste est ici.

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 13:20

Boq, abstiens-toi d'essayer de prédire mes réactions. Même moi j'ai du mal.

Zara, je vais résumer ton intervention

- X: vous avez déserté
- Bush : non
- Merci monsieur le président.

Alors maintenant fais une petite recherche: pendant la période où il était pilote pour le air command je sais plus quoi, Simplet était en même temps employé par un élu républicain pour sa campagne, et *personne* n'est capable de prouver, ni même à fortiori de *se souvenir* de lui sur la base aérienne en question pendant 8 mois.

Tu as un accès à internet, je suppose ? Sers-t'en.

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 14:45

Je suis trop bon, moi, ça me perdra :

- ici
- ou là.

Je continue ?

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 14:53

Merci pour ta générosité.
Malheureusement, il n'y a rien de décisif dans les deux articles que tu mentionnes:
- le Village Voice nous parle du côté "macho" de Bush.
- Reuters essaie de créer du scoop avec du vent. Dans une ligne, ils parlent de "gaps", et la ligne suivante - ô miracle ! - ils les comblent.
Cela s'appelle du journalisme : créer du sensationnel en opposant deux thèses qui, en fait, se complètent.

Mais c'est moi, le naïf...

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 15:37

Non, tu es au mieux illétré. Je mettrai des liens en Français la prochaine fois.

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 16:03

Une ligne :
The documents show long gaps in Bush's Guard service, from May through late October 1972, and mid-January through early April 1973

Ligne suivante:
Bush spent part of the fall of 1972 working on a political campaign in Alabama, but he performed "equivalent duty" while out of Texas, McClellan said.
--------------------------------------------------
Une autre ligne:
They also could not explain the gap in 1973.

Deux paragraphes plus bas:
Bush left, with an honorable discharge, eight months shy of the obligatory six years' service on Oct. 1, 1973, to attend Harvard Business School.

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 16:37

Ouiiii...

Où est la contradiction ? A moins que faire campagne pour un sénateur républicain en Alabama fasse partie de "duty" d'un pilote de la garde nationale. On attend encore, c'est tout l'objet du débat, et la partie que tu n'as pas comprise, visiblement, que quelqu'un explique ce qu'est ce "equivalent duty" dont personne n'a la moindre trace.

Quant à l'évidente "contradiction" qui consiste à boucher un trou de janvier à avril 1973 en expliquant qu'il a prématurément quitté en octobre 73 un service qu'il aurait du quitter en mars *de l'année suivante*, il va falloir que tu fasses un effort.

Apprends à lire. Et surtout pas entre les lignes, hein, t'es bien assez cruche en restant dans le concret.

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 16:50

"Où est la contradiction ? A moins que faire campagne pour un sénateur républicain en Alabama fasse partie de "duty" d'un pilote de la garde nationale."
Il n'y a pas contradiction, il y a juste tempête dans un verre d'eau puisque "President Bush was absent for long periods of his final two years of National Guard duty BUT MET SERVICE REQUIREMENTS"

Et pour répondre à tes autres préoccupations (car je rappelle que le sujet est DE LA PLUS HAUTE IMPORTANCE), à savoir le trou de 1973 et l'"equivalent duty" :

"In 1972, Mr. Bush left Texas to work on the Senate campaign and transferred to a squadron in the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing in Montgomery. He apparently missed drills during the election campaign, and that is why he returned later in November.
He would have held a desk job at the 187th because he was not qualified on the wing's reconnaissance jets. "It's quite common for a pilot and other Guard members to go to another unit in another state," Mr. Campenni said. "We can 'pull drills' there and get credit for your duty in your state."

"It has been standard procedure for many years for National Guard units to excuse members from scheduled drills for employment reasons, with the stipulation that missed drill time be made up"

Source: Washington Times qui, bizarrement, avait l'autre morceau du puzzle de Reuters. Strange, isn't it ?

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 17:30

Sauf qu'à l'unité en question, personne ne l'a jamais vu. Mais bon, si un journal aussi estimable que le Washington Times le dit... à part le Sun, je ne vois pas de meilleure caution.

He missed drills. AWOL, ça s'appelle, et c'est justement la question. AWOL ou pas.

Mais pourquoi je perds mon temps avec ce gland, moi ?

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 18:21

"Sauf qu'à l'unité en question, personne ne l'a jamais vu" C'est ce qu'on va voir dans les jours à venir. Political season is here !

"si un journal aussi estimable que le Washington Times le dit... à part le Sun, je ne vois pas de meilleure caution."
Ce n'est pas très gentil. Alors que j'ai fait l'effort de ne pas dénigrer le pourtant très-très-à-gauche Village Voice, pour ne prendre que les données de l'article...

"He missed drills." That is why he returned later. Tempête dans un verre d'eau, épisode 132.

"Mais pourquoi je perds mon temps avec ce gland, moi ?" Je ne sais pas. Political season ?

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 18:58

Pour conclure :

Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe - who himself never served, and for whom military service was never an issue when Bill Clinton inhabited the White House - has accused the president of having been "AWOL" for part of his service.

Happily, the records prove otherwise.

No, Bush's record in the National Guard doesn't compare with Sen. John Kerry's service in Vietnam.

But the question of whether and how Bush served really isn't relevant in 2004, after four years as commander in chief - just as Clinton's record was no longer considered relevant by voters as he sought a second term (against WWII hero Bob Dole) eight years ago.

It was Kerry (oui !!! ton John Kerry à toi) who, during the 1992 controversy over Bill Clinton's efforts to evade the draft, declared: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how."

It's advice that Kerry and his bitterly partisan surrogates should recall today.

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 19:23

Zara-- Si tu as autant de conneries a dire, cree ton propre blog, et n'envahit pas celui ci... C'est bien de debattre, et d'argumenter mais il faut savoir quand s'arreter et quand admettre qu'on a tort.

O.--ZEN... J'ai l'impression que tu es sur le point de craquer... guarde ton calme, fait un peu de yoga ce soir, et ca ira mieux!!!

Mis à jour par lectrice le 11 février 2004 à 21:46

:o)

Non, tu es au mieux illétré. Je mettrai des liens en Français la prochaine fois.

C'est méchant pour les non-anglophones qui font de rudes efforts pourtant! ;)

Plaisanterie mise à part, la lectrice a bien raison, il faudrait voir à argumenter Zara, et argumenter pertinemment.

Mais où était George pendant cet hiver? :)

Mis à jour par aqb le 11 février 2004 à 22:04

Rien à voir avec les non anglophones. Zara *prétend* comprendre l'anglais.

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 23:11

Note qu'il prétend comprendre aussi le français. Vu sous cet angle...

Mis à jour par O. le 11 février 2004 à 23:27

A MA LECTRICE BIEN-AIMEE
"Si tu as autant de conneries a dire, cree ton propre blog, et n'envahit pas celui ci..." Impossible pour le moment. Je suis encore à l'état de virus. J'AI BESOIN DE VOUS !! Je vais vous phagocyter tout cru !! I'm the Boogeyman !

"C'est bien de debattre, et d'argumenter mais il faut savoir quand s'arreter et quand admettre qu'on a tort." Mais c'est super intéressant de débattre sur la rubrique People de CCN. Pourquoi m'en priverais-je ? Et puis, de toute façon, I made my point sur ce sujet. Donc... je m'éclipse.

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 11 février 2004 à 23:51

Un vague air de déjà vu...

Mis à jour par O. le 12 février 2004 à 00:00

En fait... je vais laisser le dernier mot à la magnifique (spiritually & physically) Ann Coulter:

Former Sen. Max Cleland is the Democrats' designated hysteric about George Bush's National Guard service. A triple amputee and Vietnam veteran, Cleland is making the rounds on talk TV, basking in the affection of liberals who have suddenly become jock-sniffers for war veterans and working himself into a lather about President Bush's military service. Citing such renowned military experts as Molly Ivins, Cleland indignantly demands further investigation into Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush's National Guard service is the most thoroughly investigated event since the Kennedy assassination. But the Democrats will accept only two possible conclusions to their baseless accusations: (1) Bush was "AWOL," or (2) the matter needs further investigation.

Thirty years ago, Bush was granted an honorable discharge from the National Guard, which would seem to put the matter to rest. But liberals want proof that Bush actually deserved his honorable discharge. (Since when did the party of Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd get so obsessed with honor?)

On "Hardball" Monday night, Cleland demanded to see Bush's pay stubs for the disputed period of time, May 1972 to May 1973. "If he was getting paid for his weekend warrior work," Cleland said, "he should have some pay stubs to show it."

The next day, the White House produced the pay stubs. This confirmed what has been confirmed 1 million times before: After taking the summer off, Bush reported for duty nine times between Nov. 29, 1972, and May 24, 1973 – more than enough times to fulfill his Guard duties. (And nine times more than Bill Clinton, Barney Frank or Chuck Schumer did during the same period.)

All this has been reported – with documentation – many times by many news organizations. George magazine had Bush's National Guard records 3 1/2 years ago.

All available evidence keeps confirming Bush's honorable service with the Guard, which leads liberals to conclude ... further investigation is needed! No evidence will ever be enough evidence. That Bush skipped out on his National Guard service is one of liberals' many nondisprovable beliefs, like global warming.

Cleland also expressed outrage that Bush left the National Guard nine months early in 1973 to go to Harvard Business School. On "Hardball," Cleland testily remarked: "I just know a whole lot of veterans who would have loved to have worked things out with the military and adjusted their tour of duty." (Cleland already knows one – Al Gore!)

When Bush left the National Guard in 1973 to go to business school, the war was over. It might as well have been 1986. Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had already lost the war, and President Nixon had ended it with the Paris peace accords in January. If Bush had demanded active combat, there was no war to send him to.

To put this in perspective, by 1973, John Kerry had already accused American soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam, thrown someone else's medals to the ground in an anti-war demonstration, and married his first heiress. Bill Clinton had just finished three years of law school and was about to embark upon a political career – which would include campaign events with Max Cleland.

VOILA. Comme nous le prouve une fois de plus les hystériques Démocrates US : Political season is here.

Pour le service de Dubya, voir ici.

Mis à jour par Zarathoustra le 12 février 2004 à 14:55

J'ai tout à coup une irrésistible envie de m'écouter "blah blah blah" de l'iguane...

Mis à jour par aqb le 12 février 2004 à 16:46

Moi, toutes les attaques à l'encontre de Bush me laissent songeur... Il a peut-être été pistonné pour devenir pilote de chasse, il n'a peut-être pas servi au Viet-Nam, il a peut-être disparu quelques mois ici ou là... mais il a quand même plusieurs centaines d'heures de vol sur F-102 et F-101 à son actif. Je pense que beaucoup de ses détracteurs n'auraient même pas les couilles de faire un vol comme passager sur jet de combat...

Mis à jour par Pierre-Alain le 27 septembre 2004 à 18:30