Remember when?

I'm not one to generally lament the passing of "the good old days", as I think we tend to glamorize the past in light of our current discontent in ways that rarely measure up to the reality of those earlier times. That said, I do lament the death of "public shame". These days, a president or congressman or Supreme Court justice can behave in ways that are ethically suspect without any sense of conscience or shame whatsoever. If Bill Clinton's chosen theme song for his administration was "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow", then George W. Bush's song should be "Shameless".

But how dare we fault a man whose whole life has been a story of being bailed out of every difficulty by rich and powerful friends of his father? Here is a guy who sent businesses he was supposed to be in charge of into bankruptcy while personally profiting from those businesses. Here is a guy, who regardless of his protestations to the contrary, lied about his service in the National Guard, not just now, but in his autobiography, where he claims to have flown figher jets during a period he was grounded because he refused or failed to take a required medical physical. No shame whatsoever about lying about his National Guard service or the lack thereof. No shame over the fact that our government spends a large sum of money to train fighter pilots, but Bush wouldn't take the physical exam so he could do what he was trained to do. Now why would that be? Was he afraid of flying, afraid of dying, afraid of the potential results of a urine test? We can only guess what the answer was, but Dubya doesn't have to guess.......he knows, and he's not going to tell you the truth. Here's a guy, when confronted with questions about his absence from Guard duty, just repeats a mantra......I was there, I served, I got a honorably discharge. The records he has finally released have actually raised new and troubling questions more than they put things to rest, but Dubya keeps thinking if he repeats the mantra long enough, the gullible public will believe him.

Today, these guys don't give a flying fuck how something appears, because they believe they are above the law, It is hard for me to fathom that Antonin Scalia can act offended that anyone would question the propriety of his duck hunting ventures with buddy Dick Cheney at the very time a case is pending before the high court that involves perhaps the very political survival of his old pal. Scalia says he has no plans to recuse himself from the "energy case". Big fucking surprise! At an earlier point in our history, a good judge would have never "chummed up" with a litigant, but not these days. Propriety has gone the way of the pet rock and "pure gall" is in.

Dubya has spent his whole life getting bailed out by others, and never having to accept responsibility for his failures. Will this ever change? Will the public be hoodwinked again, by this "all hat and no cattle" cowboy, who fears horses? Only time will tell.

>I'm not one to generally lament the passing of "the good old

>days", as I think we tend to glamorize the past in light of

>our current discontent in ways that rarely measure up to the

>reality of those earlier times.

Therefore, you go and spew an endless post where you do nothing but that.

>That said, I do lament the

>death of "public shame".

A liberal lamenting the "death of public shame" - fucking precious!!

Would the death of public shame be reflected by a President who serially violates his vow of monogomy by repeatedly cheating on his wife; having sex with tawdry underlings at the work place; commiting the felony of perjury by lying under oath in a sexual harrassment suit; and yet still being held up as a man of character by Democrats? Does that exemplify the "death of public shame"?

How about letting a terrorist group sit in a foreign country unmolested and train to attack our country? Would it constitute the "death of public shame" for a President to do that and still be supported after those same terrorists attack our country in an unimaginably fatal attack?

Or how about campaigning on a platform of "throwing out the special interests" - even though the candidate doing so has colleceted more money from special interests lobbyists than any other Senator ever - is that an example of the "death of shame"?

Or how about a Senator who supports gay marriage when he has to get elected in Massachuessetes, but then, when he's running for President, strongly opposes gay marriage and even suggests he would support amending the Constitution to make marriage opposite-sex-only? Would that constitute a good example of the "death of shame"?

Or how about a man who marries an heiress worth hundreds of millions of dollars; dumps her when she becomes depressed; dates Hollywood starlets; and then marries the grieving widow of his dead Senate colleague who, oh, by the way, also happens to NOW have hundreds of millions of dollars? How is that for the "Death of shame"? Pretty good example, huh?

>Was he afraid of flying, afraid

>of dying, afraid of the potential results of a urine test?

Are you talking about Bill Clinton here? What was he doing during the Vietnam War? Funny how that wasn't a relevant question in 1992 and 1996 - now suddenly, it's the question which reigns supreme. Gee, what could explain that inconsistency?

With the support of most Democrats, Draft-dodging Bill Clinton TWICE ran against, and defeated, bona fide war heroes. Back then, a candidate's activity during war didn't matter. Now suddenly, it does. I wonder why?

>Today, these guys don't give a flying fuck how something

>appears, because they believe they are above the law,

"Above the law" - you mean like perjury laws? Is that "the law" which "these guys" think they are above?

>Big fucking

>surprise! At an earlier point in our history, a good judge

>would have never "chummed up" with a litigant, but not these

>days. Propriety has gone the way of the pet rock and "pure

>gall" is in.

Actually, this is exactly wrong. Supreme Court Justices have, throughout history, chummed it up with Presidents and other members of the Executive Branch while deciding cases involving them. This was most prevelant during the FDR Administration.

>Dubya has spent his whole life getting bailed out by others,

>and never having to accept responsibility for his failures.

>Will this ever change? Will the public be hoodwinked again,

>by this "all hat and no cattle" cowboy, who fears horses?

>Only time will tell.

Shorter version of Bucky's post: "Politicians I hate should be held to one standard; politicians I like should be held to another. Anyone who disagrees with my political preferences is a drooling imbecile who is brainwashed."

>

>Therefore, you go and spew an endless post where you do

>nothing but that.

If you find his post so inappropriate, why don't you take the same advice you've given others many times in the past and ignore it?

>A liberal lamenting the "death of public shame" - fucking

>precious!!

Does using obscene, vulgar language in your posts mean that you're getting desperate? As I recall you once said that of me.

>Would the death of public shame be reflected by a President

>who serially violates his vow of monogomy by repeatedly

>cheating on his wife; having sex with tawdry underlings at the

>work place; commiting the felony of perjury by lying under

>oath in a sexual harrassment suit; and yet still being held up

>as a man of character by Democrats? Does that exemplify the

>"death of public shame"?

I can't think who you could be talking about. Bill Clinton's history of infidelity was well known to voters long before he even became the Democratic nominee in 1992, so when did Democrats ever hold him up as a "man of character"? Either you are forgetting the whole Gennifer Flowers scandal in 92 or you are writing to us from an alternate universe with a history different from ours.

>How about letting a terrorist group sit in a foreign country

>unmolested and train to attack our country? Would it

>constitute the "death of public shame" for a President to do

>that and still be supported after those same terrorists attack

>our country in an unimaginably fatal attack?

Am I missing something here -- during the 1996 or 2000 campaigns did the Republican candidate in either case advocate attacking Afghanistan in order to root out the terrorists there? Funny, I watched the entire 90-minute foreign policy debate between Bush and Gore in 2000 and I could swear Bush never even mentioned that. Why not?

I could also swear that in February 2001 Colin Powell gave a speech stating that our policy of containing Saddam with sanctions was working just fine. Was that a dream, or did that really happen?

>Or how about a Senator who supports gay marriage when he has

>to get elected in Massachuessetes, but then, when he's running

>for President, strongly opposes gay marriage and even suggests

>he would support amending the Constitution to make marriage

>opposite-sex-only? Would that constitute a good example of

>the "death of shame"?

No more than a Republican like G.H.W. Bush supporting abortion rights up until the moment when he was offered the vice presidential nomination by Reagan, at which point he suddenly "changed his mind" on the issue.

>Or how about a man who marries an heiress worth hundreds of

>millions of dollars; dumps her when she becomes depressed;

>dates Hollywood starlets; and then marries the grieving widow

>of his dead Senate colleague who, oh, by the way, also happens

>to NOW have hundreds of millions of dollars? How is that for

>the "Death of shame"? Pretty good example, huh?

I'm not sure what you think is shameful about getting divorced, about dating actresses or about marrying a wealthy widow. If those events are over your shame threshhold, you must be pretty uncomfortable visiting a website where male prostitutes brag about taking money to help married men cheat on their wives.

>Are you talking about Bill Clinton here? What was he doing

>during the Vietnam War?

He was out protesting, which is what an opponent of the war should be doing. Unlike certain Republican "chicken hawks" who supported the war but did everything they could to avoid fighting.

>Funny how that wasn't a relevant

>question in 1992 and 1996 - now suddenly, it's the question

>which reigns supreme. Gee, what could explain that

>inconsistency?

I think it's explained by your amnesia. Only someone with amnesia could fail to remember how Republicans cried "draft dodger" over and over again in 92 and 96. Then in 2000 they passed up a war hero and nominated two draft dodgers for the top spots on their ticket.

>With the support of most Democrats, Draft-dodging Bill Clinton

>TWICE ran against, and defeated, bona fide war heroes. Back

>then, a candidate's activity during war didn't matter. Now

>suddenly, it does. I wonder why?

I guess the difference is that Clinton didn't tell people he served when the truth is that he did all he could to avoid serving. What about Bush?

>"Above the law" - you mean like perjury laws? Is that "the

>law" which "these guys" think they are above?

I think he is referring to the laws requiring that if you join the National Guard, you must actually show up for duty now and then.

>Actually, this is exactly wrong. Supreme Court Justices have,

>throughout history, chummed it up with Presidents and other

>members of the Executive Branch while deciding cases involving

>them. This was most prevelant during the FDR Administration.

Tell me -- was the FRCP standard for judicial recusal the same during the FDR administration as it is now?

>Shorter version of Bucky's post: "Politicians I hate should

>be held to one standard; politicians I like should be held to

>another.

Shorter version of your post: "I hate liberals." Next time just spare us the unnecessary verbiage and post those three words.

Good job, woodlawn!

Many thanks, Woodlawn!

I've been away from my computer most of the day, and when I saw the response from Whistlebritches69, I was getting ready to respond. After reading your response to him, I will save my typing fingers the effort. You did if for me, brilliantly.

As to hypocrisy, remember when Doogie said he was going to be better behaved here? I guess he just can't help himself. Lying and distortion comes so naturally to him, as it does to his great Republican heroes.

>

>Actually, this is exactly wrong. Supreme Court Justices have,

>throughout history, chummed it up with Presidents and other

>members of the Executive Branch while deciding cases involving

>them. This was most prevelant during the FDR Administration.

How about naming of few of them for us, instead of using your typical ploy of asserting something without substantiation? Oh yeah, I know, you're not going to to our research for us. Typical Doug horseshit.

>

>Shorter version of Bucky's post: "Politicians I hate should

>be held to one standard; politicians I like should be held to

>another. Anyone who disagrees with my political preferences

>is a drooling imbecile who is brainwashed."

No, I only consider you a drooling imbecile who is brainwashed. I have many Republican friends, who, though misguided, are quite sane and reasonably rational.

It is a delight, however, to see that my post has brought you back into the fray so that I can get your bowels all stirred up and Woodlawn can hand you your head. You are so boringly predictable, and fun to mess with.

I thought Daddy put up anti-troll devices?

>I thought Daddy put up anti-troll devices?

The fact that you wanted this is hardly surprising. Liberals want and need a daddy to help and protect them - and especially to eliminate ideas and opinions which they hate.

Go grovel to the thing you call "Daddy" some more and beg him to protect you from the things that upset you.

>Good job, woodlawn!

Good to see the cheerleading section hasn't gone anywhere.

For anyone who doesn't yet know, this is how the politics forum works here: the liberal dwarfs run around mouthing liberal platitudes to each other. They tell each other how right they are whenever they preach to each other.

Then, when someone comes and contradicts or challenges those liberal platitudes, the liberal dwarfs don't know how to respond or what to say or do. The dwarfs on this level only know how to spew the liberal cliche they read, not respond to dissent.

So when a liberal dwarf on the next higher level than these bottom-dwelling dwarfs (e.g. Woodlawn) comes along and responds to the posts which deviate from liberal dogma, the liberal dwarfs dance around and cheer for him and say what a good job he did - because they're grateful that he responded when they didn't know what to do, and grateful that he protected them, and they want him to keep doing it, so they cheer and tell him how right and brilliant he is. And then the target of this praise puffs out his chest and tells himself how great he is because his ideological comrades said they agree with him.

And because they echo each other and keep telling each other how right they are, they believe that they've been proven right.

For a shorter explanation of this phenomenon with illustrations, check out the link which Deej provided which details the various types of characters which occupy Internet fora, and look under "Swarm" and "Sycophant." That summarizes this behavior perfectly.

>For a shorter explanation with illustrations, check out the

>link Deej provided which detail the various types of

>characters who occupy Internet fora, and look under "Swarm"

>and "Sycophant."

Here's the excellent link provided by Deej - http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html.

To learn more about the Hero to the Liberal Dwarfs, check out Archivist, Pinko, and Tireless Rebutter, among others.

>If you find his post so inappropriate, why don't you take the

>same advice you've given others many times in the past and

>ignore it?

You're confused. I suggest to those posters who urge others to stop discussing a certain topic or who call for the suppression of certian opinions to simply skip over those discussions and opinions instead.

Urging suppression of a discussion is not the same as criticizing an opinion. In fact, it's the opposite. "Just ignore it" is appropriate advice given to someone who engages in the former (suppression of discussions), but not the latter (criticism of an opinion).

I trust this painfully basic distinction no longer eludes you.

>I can't think who you could be talking about. Bill Clinton's

>history of infidelity was well known to voters long before he

>even became the Democratic nominee in 1992, so when did

>Democrats ever hold him up as a "man of character"?

Yes, Bill Clinton's violation with Gennifer Flowers of his vows to his wife -- conduct which previously generated great shame -- was well-known to voters, who elected him anyway. That exemplifies the "Death of Shame" which Bucky was attributing to George Bush. Get the point now?

Moreover, while Clinton's SINGLE marital infidelity with Gennifer Flowers was known, he went on 60 Minutes and said how sorry he was and promised not to do it again. A more insincere and DISHONEST interview is impossible to find. Yet people nonetheless re-elected him. That's the "Death of Shame."

Then, beyond that, he committed a felony while serving as President, but Democrats still supported him. If supporting a President who admittedly committed a felony isn't the Death of Shame, what is?

>>Or how about a Senator who supports gay marriage when he has

>>to get elected in Massachuessetes, but then, when he's

>running

>>for President, strongly opposes gay marriage and even

>suggests

>>he would support amending the Constitution to make marriage

>>opposite-sex-only? Would that constitute a good example of

>>the "death of shame"?

>

>No more than a Republican like G.H.W. Bush supporting abortion

>rights up until the moment when he was offered the vice

>presidential nomination by Reagan, at which point he suddenly

>"changed his mind" on the issue.

I agree that both Democrats and Republicans change their positions not based on what they believe, but based upon political calculations to get elected. Therefore, Bucky's "point" that the Death of Shame is uniquely exemplified by George Bush is stupid. For you to say "the GOP does it, too" doesn't support your minion's point; it undermines it.

>I'm not sure what you think is shameful about getting

>divorced, about dating actresses or about marrying a wealthy

>widow.

What about the part where he dumped his wife when she became depressed? Why did you leave that out?

And if you don't think there's anything wrong with swooping in on the grieving widow of a co-worker after he dies in a plane crash is shameful, then that only proves the point that the Death of Shame hardly began with George W. Bush.

>>Are you talking about Bill Clinton here? What was he doing

>>during the Vietnam War?

>

>He was out protesting, which is what an opponent of the war

>should be doing. Unlike certain Republican "chicken hawks"

>who supported the war but did everything they could to avoid

>fighting.

LOL!! A Democrat who evades military service altogether is heroic. A Republican who flies fighter jets is a coward. That makes sense.

>>Actually, this is exactly wrong. Supreme Court Justices

>have,

>>throughout history, chummed it up with Presidents and other

>>members of the Executive Branch while deciding cases

>involving

>>them. This was most prevelant during the FDR Administration.

>

>

>Tell me -- was the FRCP standard for judicial recusal the same

>during the FDR administration as it is now?

It has been the case long before FDR that judges are required to recuse themselves whenever their impartiality is in question. Nonetheless, multiple Supreme Court Justices were extremely chummy with FDR high officials, even while they were deciding cases involving those officials. The fact that the FRCP standard has changed is irrelevant; if it was OK for Supreme Court Justices to do with FDR, then it's ok for them to do it with Bush. That's called consistency, the opposite of the double standard you want to apply.

>>I thought Daddy put up anti-troll devices?

>

>The fact that you wanted this is hardly surprising. Liberals

>want and need a daddy to help and protect them - and

>especially to eliminate ideas and opinions which they hate.

>

>Go grovel to the thing you call "Daddy" some more and beg him

>to protect you from the things that upset you.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the post where I asked for anti-troll devices. As for you upsetting me, well, I'd have to give a shit about you first for you to upset me.

Despite all your postings and the apparent intellect, you are nothing but a 2 trick pony:

1. You always go for the personal insult and then try to say someone else started it.

2. You claim to be independent, but your views always reveal you to be a mouthpiece for the Reborglican party. Someone brings up Bush's failings, you bring up Clinton. It's almost a preprogrammed response.

>>If you find his post so inappropriate, why don't you take

>the

>>same advice you've given others many times in the past and

>>ignore it?

>Urging suppression of a discussion is not the same as

>criticizing an opinion. In fact, it's the opposite.

Not really. We've had plenty of posters state that they avoid this message board because of the vitriol that you, among others, produce here. You are well aware of this. Pouring acid on the opinions you don't like while saying you have no desire to suppress them is incredibly disingenuous, to say the least.

>I trust this painfully basic distinction no longer eludes

>you.

The distinction is meaningless in your case, as I've just pointed out.

>Yes, Bill Clinton's violation with Gennifer Flowers of his

>vows to his wife -- conduct which previously generated great

>shame -- was well-known to voters, who elected him anyway.

>That exemplifies the "Death of Shame" which Bucky was

>attributing to George Bush. Get the point now?

That isn't the point he was making, as you know quite well.

>Moreover, while Clinton's SINGLE marital infidelity with

>Gennifer Flowers was known, he went on 60 Minutes and said how

>sorry he was and promised not to do it again. A more

>insincere and DISHONEST interview is impossible to find. Yet

>people nonetheless re-elected him. That's the "Death of

>Shame."

I don't recall him saying any such thing. I do recall a series of interviews he did with his wife in which they acknowledged unspecified marital problems and stated they had surmounted these problems. That's not quite the same thing, as those of us who have some familiarity with the English language are aware.

>If supporting a

>President who admittedly committed a felony isn't the Death of

>Shame, what is?

I'm glad you asked that question. In my opinion the most shameful moment in this country's history since the Vietnam War occurred in 1991, when President Bush urged the Iraqi Shiites to rise against Saddam, then ordered our forces to stand by and do nothing while Saddam massacred them. That is a shame and a disgrace for our country that can NEVER be expiated.

>I agree that both Democrats and Republicans change their

>positions not based on what they believe, but based upon

>political calculations to get elected. Therefore, Bucky's

>"point" that the Death of Shame is uniquely exemplified by

>George Bush is stupid. For you to say "the GOP does it, too"

>doesn't support your minion's point; it undermines it.

I think you've mischaracterized both what he said and what I said. But of course that's nothing new.

>>I'm not sure what you think is shameful about getting

>>divorced, about dating actresses or about marrying a wealthy

>>widow.

>What about the part where he dumped his wife when she became

>depressed? Why did you leave that out?

Is there some rule that says you can't get divorced if your wife is depressed? If so, Gingrich hadn't heard about it when he went to see his first wife in her hospital room where she was being treated for -- cancer, was it? -- and told her he was leaving her. I guess McCain hadn't heard about it either when he divorced his first wife, who had stuck by him during his years as a POW and had just recovered from major surgery after being seriously injured in a car accident, so that he could marry a younger, wealthier woman.

>And if you don't think there's anything wrong with swooping in

>on the grieving widow of a co-worker after he dies in a plane

>crash is shameful, then that only proves the point that the

>Death of Shame hardly began with George W. Bush.

I might think it was shameful if we were talking about a timid, mousy little woman who was incapable of making her own decisions. But as we all know Kerry's current wife is the exact opposite of that.

>LOL!! A Democrat who evades military service altogether is

>heroic. A Republican who flies fighter jets is a coward.

>That makes sense.

Yes, Dubya wanted to fly fighter aircraft just like his dad. The only difference is he wanted to do it where no one would be shooting at him. What a brave fellow!

>>Tell me -- was the FRCP standard for judicial recusal the

>same

>>during the FDR administration as it is now?

>The fact that the

>FRCP standard has changed is irrelevant;

What nonsense. We are talking about regulations for the governance of the federal courts that have the force of law. How can the issue

of what they allow and forbid possibly be "irrelevant"? But then it is part of your pattern to insist that any argument you can't refute is "irrelevant."

>>>Are you talking about Bill Clinton here? What was he doing

>>>during the Vietnam War?

>>

>>He was out protesting, which is what an opponent of the war

>>should be doing. Unlike certain Republican "chicken hawks"

>>who supported the war but did everything they could to avoid

>>fighting.

>

>LOL!! A Democrat who evades military service altogether is

>heroic. A Republican who flies fighter jets is a coward.

>That makes sense.

Correction - A Democrat (in this case Bill Clinton) felt strongly about the Vietnam War and protested, thereby acting on his conscience. A Republican (George Bush) received taxpayer funded flight training, didn't show up for a physical, thereby revoking his authority to fly, won't explain the mysterious absence from the National Guard, and presents himself as a war hero.

The comparison is a Democrat who took a stand for what he believes in versus a Republican who took no responsibility and is trying to rewrite history to state he's a war hero. George Bush opened the discussion of his past military history when he landed on a ship in a flight suit.

> George

>Bush opened the discussion of his past military history when

>he landed on a ship in a flight suit.

This is just plain dishonest - a transparent ruse to justify base character smears.

The Democrats made an issue of Bush's National Guard service in the 2000 election, when Bush was running against Bill Clinton's Vice President, and more than 2 years PRIOR to the flight suit incident. How can you sit there and lie and say that "Bush opened the discussion of his past military history" with that incident, when the Democrats "opened" the discussion long before then?

And what proof do you have that Bush didn't serve honorably? He was honorably discharged. The former Guardsman who claimed his record were "cleansed" was exposed today by the Boston Globe as being a chronic liar. This whole accusation is based on nothing but a toxic mix of innuendo and desire, built on a sickening foundation of your willingness to smear someone's character without any evidence or proof as long as it advances your political agenda.

>And what proof do you have that Bush didn't serve honorably?

>He was honorably discharged. The former Guardsman who

>claimed his record were "cleansed" was exposed today by the

>Boston Globe as being a chronic liar. This whole accusation

>is based on nothing but a toxic mix of innuendo and desire,

>built on a sickening foundation of your willingness to smear

>someone's character without any evidence or proof as long as

>it advances your political agenda.

If his fulfilled his National Guard service agreement, why are there gaps (some months long) in his pay records indicating he received no pay? At the time of his enlistment, every National Guard member had to serve for a two week term once a year and report for one weekend every year.

Why is there not a single individual who remembers seeing him at Guard duty in Alabama?

Why do officers who were on Duty in Alabama not remember seeing him? (These are people in addition to the person who said GWB's records were cleansed.)

Why did he miss his physical, which was a requirement to keep flying?

I'll probably never change your mind, and I doubt you'll change my mind, but, to me, there is evidence from a substantial number of sources that indicate GWB didn't totally fulfill his National Guard requirement. Of course, that leaves the question, how did he get an honorable discharge? Probably the same way he managed to get into a National Guard unit full of sons of people with money and connections.

DannyNYC:

Doogie is, as usual, in serious denial. Any moment now I expect he'll be telling us that Bush was justified in everything he does, for one simple reason: Bill Clinton. Every time someone raises an issue about Bush, Doogie, in typical lock-step, goose-stepping, Scott McClelland fashion, either calls it a smear tactic, or says it's Bill Clinton's fault. Earthquake in California? Blame Bill Clinton. Joblessness in America? Again, must be Bill Clinton's fault. I'm surprised Bush didn't include Bill Clinton in his "axis of evil".

Read my lips, Doug. George W. Bush is immoral scum. Now prove me wrong, or get over it. The evidence of his immorality is overwhelming. Now insist that I cite some examples. I'm more than happy to oblige.

>How can you sit there and lie and say

>that "Bush opened the discussion of his past military history"

>with that incident, when the Democrats "opened" the discussion

>long before then?

I don't think Danny intended to convey that this is the first time anyone has ever brought up Bush's record, and I think you know that and are merely casting about for some way of insulting him. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

As we all know, Bush staged that carrier ceremony in such a way as to create the maximum identification in the minds of the public between himself and our heroic troops. He could easily have worn a business suit and flown there by helicopter. He did it the way he did it in order to remind people of his own military background. He can't complain now if people take a close look at that background.

>And what proof do you have that Bush didn't serve honorably?

There are two issues here. One is that Bush, although he claimed to support the war, made a deliberate choice to avoid serving in Vietnam. The unit he joined was one specifically detailed for home defense -- so his only chance to see combat would have come if Vietnam had attacked Texas.

The other issue is that the choices he made while serving show no particular interest in or zeal for the duty he was supposed to be doing. He left the Texas unit, which had aircraft he was qualified to fly, for a unit in Alabama which did not, so that he could work on a political campaign. He didn't bother to do what was necessary to keep his flight status current. His attendance in Alabama seems to have been sporadic at best.

The Constitution does not have any requirement that someone running for president must have served in the military. But if a candidate did serve, I see nothing wrong with looking at his service record in an effort to learn what it tells about his character. Bush's record is consistent with the story of a man who has gotten special privileges all his life because he is the scion of a wealthy and powerful family.