Ex-Honcho: I Got Bush Into Guard
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 08-28-2004 - 12:52pm |
(CBS/AP) In a video posted on the Internet, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, says he is ashamed that he helped President Bush and the sons of other wealthy families get into the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 so they could avoid serving in Vietnam.
"I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas, and I'm not necessarily proud of that, but I did it," Barnes said in the 45-second video, which was recorded May 27 at a meeting of John Kerry supporters in Austin.
Barnes, who was House speaker when Mr. Bush entered the Guard, later became lieutenant governor.
He said he became ashamed after walking through the Vietnam Memorial and looking at the names of people who died.
"I became more ashamed of myself than I've ever been because the worst thing I did was get a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance into the Guard and I'm very sorry about that and I apologize to you and the voters of Texas," Barnes said.
President Bush has denied that family influence got him into the Guard.
"With controversy swirling around Kerry's service as a swift boat commander in Vietnam, Barnes' latest statements renew questions about (Mr.) Bush's military record, but also about Barnes' motivation for telling his story," the Houston Chronicle says in its Saturday editions.
"It is no surprise that a partisan Democrat is making these statements," Bush spokeswoman Claire Buchan told the Chronicle. "This was addressed five years ago, and there's nothing new."
The video was posted June 25 on the Web site www.austin4kerry.org, but didn't get much attention until Friday, when Jim Moore, an Austin-based author of books about Mr. Bush, sent out e-mail messages calling attention to it, The New York Times reported in its Saturday editions.
It was the first time Barnes, a Kerry supporter, has discussed at length his role in getting Mr. Bush into the Guard. In 1999, he said he recommended Mr. Bush for a pilot's position at the request of a Bush family friend.
"I got a lot of other people in the National Guard because I thought that's what people should do when you're in office: You help a lot of rich people," Barnes said.
© MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Pages
Like I said, I don't think it's right, if true, but I wouldn't call it horrid behavior, nor would I refer to it as a tainted past. I suppose you don't think Clinton was fit to serve as President either, as I'm sure you will recall this letter Clinton himself wrote thanking HIS connections for helping him avoid the draft:
"Clinton's ROTC Letter
As Entered in Congressional Record (Page: H5550) 7/30/93
Dear Col. Holmes,
I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say.
First, I want to thank you, not only for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing that made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC.
Let me try to explain. As you know, I worked in a very minor position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I did it for the experience and the salary but also for the opportunity, however small, of working every day against a war I opposed and despised with a depth of feeling I had reserved solely for racism in America before Vietnam. I did not take the matter lightly but studied it carefully, and there was a time when not many people had more information about Vietnam at hand than I did.
I have written and spoken and marched against the war. One of the national organizers of the Vietnam Moratorium is a close friend of mine. After I left Arkansas last summer, I went to Washington to work in the national headquarters of the Moratorium, then to England to organize the Americans here for demonstrations October 15 and November 16.
Interlocked with the war is the draft issue, which I did not begin to consider separately until early 1968. For a law seminar at Georgetown I wrote a paper on the legal arguments for and against allowing, within the Selective Service System, the classification of selective conscientious objection, for those opposed to participation in a particular war, not simply to "participation in war in any form."
From my work, I came to believe that the draft system itself is illegitimate. No government really rooted in limited, parliamentary democracy should have the power to make its citizens fight and kill and die in a war they may oppose, a war which even possibly may be wrong, a war, which in any case, does not involve immediately the peace and freedom of the nation. The draft was justified in World War II because the life of the people collectively was at stake.
Individuals had to fight, if the nation was to survive, for the lives of their country and their way of life. Vietnam is no such case. Nor was Korea an example where, in my opinion, certain military action was justified but the draft was not, for the reasons stated above.
Because of my opposition to the draft and the war, I am in great sympathy with those who are not willing to fight, kill, and maybe die for their country (i.e. the particular policy of a particular government) right or wrong. Two of my friends at Oxford are conscientious objectors. I wrote a letter of recommendation for one of them to his Mississippi draft board, a letter I am more proud of than anything else I wrote at Oxford last year. One of my roommates is a draft resister who is possibly under indictment and may never be able to go home again. He is one of the bravest, best men I know. His country needs men like him more than they know. That he is considered a criminal is an obscenity.
The decision not to be a resister and the related subsequent decisions were the most difficult of my life. I decided to accept the draft in spite of my beliefs for one reason only, to maintain my political viability within the system. For years I have worked to prepare myself for a political life characterized by both practical political ability and concern for rapid social progress. It is a life I still feel compelled to try to lead. I do not think our system of government is by definition corrupt, however dangerous and inadequate it has been in recent years. (The society may be corrupt, but that is not the same thing, and if that is true we are all finished anyway.)
When the draft came, despite political convictions, I was having a hard time facing the prospect of fighting a war I had been fighting against, and that is why I contacted you. ROTC was the one way in which I could possibly, but not positively, avoid both Vietnam and the resistance. Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC. I am back here, and would have been at Arkansas Law School because there is nothing else I can do. I would like to have been able to take a year out perhaps to teach in a small college or work on some community action project and in the process to decide whether to attend law school or graduate school and how to begin putting what I have learned to use.
But the particulars of my personal life are not near as important to me as the principles involved. After I signed the ROTC letter of intent I began to wonder whether the compromise I had made with myself was not more objectionable than the draft would have been, because I had no interest in the ROTC program itself and all I seem to have done was to protect myself from physical harm. Also, I had begun to think that I had deceived you, not by lies--there were none--but by failing to tell you all of the things I'm telling you now. I doubt I had the mental coherence to articulate them then.
Page 2.
At that time, after we had made our agreement and you had sent my 1D deferment to my draft board, the anguish and loss of my self regard and self confidence really set in. I hardly slept for weeks and kept going by eating compulsively and reading until exhaustion brought sleep. Finally, on September 12 I stayed up all night writing a letter to the chairman of my draft board, saying basically what is in the preceding paragraph, thanking him for trying to help in a case where he really couldn't, and stating that I couldn't do the ROTC after all and would he please draft me as soon as possible.
I never mailed the letter, but I did carry it with me every day until I got on the plane to return to England. I didn't mail the letter because I didn't see, in the end, how my going in the army and maybe going to Vietnam would achieve anything except a feeling that I had punished myself and gotten what I deserved. So I came back to England to try to make something of the second year of my Rhodes scholarship.
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes and the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is dis-service, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.
Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton"
Smear away-we all knew about his admitted alcohol problems in years past and the American people still saw fit to elect him-your spousal abuse charge is completely baseless and really quite despicable.
Look, I understand his testimony perfectly-I am fully aware that he was speaking in general and not specific terms in that instance-he did, however state in other venues that he himself committed war crimes, that's a fact. He had every right to say what he did, I've never questioned that. So too do other Vietnam vets have a right to THEIR opinion, and THEIR interpretation of his comments, and to dispute his testimony as they did back then and should be free to do today. What I've said is that if he is going to attempt to glorify his military career after villifying so many others' (in their eyes) he ought to have expected this kind of scrutiny. My own opinion is that the truth of a lot of these matters probably falls somewhere between Kerry's version and the SBVT's. They obviously have an ax to grind with him, so in that sense their opinion has to be taken with a grain of salt. But that is certainly not proof that they are all a bunch of liars-at the very least Kerry has changed his own version of events on at least two points-the Christmas in Cambodia story that was "seared into his memory" supposedly, and the fact that one of his wounds was self-inflicted, when he originally stated it was the result of enemy fire.
I personally don't think any of it is relevant to whether Kerry is qualified to be president or not, but Kerry is the one who has MADE it relevant, not only by bringing up the subject but then by trying to silence the other vets who have every right to dispute Kerry's version of events. In my mind the only thing relevant is not how honorably he served, because I defer to his record on that. What is relevant to me is whether or not he has lied about his record-and on at least a couple of points, it appear to me that he has.
Edited 8/30/2004 8:40 am ET ET by liveanew
A) Like it or not, the American People did not ELECT HIM. In case you forgot, Bush did not win the electorial vote, but instead won the electorial college. To win the election itself you have to carry the majority of the voters submitting ballots, and Bush can never make that claim.
B) You claim my charge of hidden episodes of abuse is false and despicable...can you prove it, is said allegation on my part any different than the Swift Boat folks claims that are clearly not supported by the documentation?
Now, lets look further...somehow, these average every day American vets come into contact with a very rich and liberal financial supporter of President Bush, and said Bush supporter writes them out a check for a cool half of a million dollars. I would think any one with the least bit of intelligence would look at this and be far more than just a little bit suspicious. Then, this average middle income group of Swift Boat Veterans suddenly are able to retain a WORLD CLASS lawyer that charges well in excess of $500 an hour for his services who conveniently happens to be the Bush Camps chief legal advisor. Am I the only one so far beginning to smell the stench of dead fish here.
Additionally, one of the Swift Boaters it turns out WORKS for the Bush Camp, and on several occassion was actually sent to deliver speeches by proxy at several Bush fung raising events. Now, conveniently on the Friday before the first ad was to appear he calls the National Headquarters, speaks to the Bush legal team and wonders if he should step down to avoid any appearence of inproprity....hmmmmm.....seems just a tad bit too neat and suspicious to me.
Bush wants to act like the Swift Boat situation is on a par with all the other 527's and their advertisements, but they are not. Bush chief complaints and reference point is the MoveOn.org camp....well, the reality is, these folks were in business and speaking out against Bush and his policies LONG BEFORE the Democrats even had their primary race, long before Kerry was the chosen banner carrier for the Democratic Party.
I have no problems with negative advertisements, it is a part and parcel of elections. I do though have serious issues with colusion and illegal activities, and my gut is telling me here that there is far more to this Swift Boat issue than we are being told right now, and I think if it gets to a point of an independent counsel being named to investigate it, that we are looking at a scandel far bigger than Watergate ever was.
Not even going to get into that one. By every test imaginable, George W. Bush is the legally elected president of the United States. We have an electoral college for a reason, but I've explained that many times here so I don't feel like doing it again.
You want me to prove Bush DIDN'T abuse his wife? Thought people were innocent until proven guilty in this country-like I said, I have not made the judgement that what the SBVTs are accusing is all true or all false. But given that Kerry himself has changed his story on a couple of issues, I can only assume that ONE of his versions of these events was untrue. Some of the ads show nothing more than Kerry speaking in his own words-regardless of what Kerry intended by those words, the vets have a right to THEIR interpretation of them. So yes, I will say that your allegation is much more despicable than theirs, which are based on their personal eyewitness accounts that, documentation or not, I am not prepared to dismiss as lies. They were there, they are decorated veterans, they have SOME credibility with regard to the issue, if you have some credibility to accuse the president of abusing his wife I haven't seen it yet.
I can't speak to the motivation of all of these men-some have said publicly that they were unaware until it was pointed out to them that Kerry has been less than truthful. As I said, I take it all with a grain of salt but I also give all veterans, including John Kerry, the benefit of the doubt. It's what Kerry himself has said and done that has made it an issue in my eyes, not what they have.
There is no law against a Bush supporter funding these ads-ALL 527's are funded by those who support or oppose a candidate-that's obvious, isn't it? The aims of all of these groups are to get their candidate elected.
Yes, one of them volunteered at one point for Bush's campaign-again, nothing illegal about that. It's no secret these men are out to elect President Bush. That doesn't make them liars, and it doesn't make what they're doing illegal.
So what? Do you think there are no people within the Democratic party establishment who are even remotely involved in moveon.org? Why does the millions from a Bush supporter bother you, but the millions from a Bush opponent (Soros) is perfectly ok with you?
Once again, nothing you have posted is any evidence of any illegal activity. I suppose all the people funding moveon.org are completely neutral?
Sorry, I gotta say keep dreaming. President Bush is actually the one working to end the 527's-Kerry won't join him-why? Because 87% of 527 money is going to help elect Kerry. I highly doubt Bush would be looking to eliminate something he in fact had a hand in creating, particulary when it seems to be helping his campaign so much.
As for the SwiftBoat issue...they came out of nowhere, and yet OVERNIGHT had access to someone that would donate a half a million dollars to their cause. Come on, you know life and big money does not work like that. There had to be something going on, introductions being made for a very wealthy man to add that many zeros to a donation check.
Sure, you are ALLOWED to air any opinion you like-if you state it as a fact and it is false you can be sued for libel. If you state it as an opinion and you have nothing to back it up then you probably won't be able to be sued, but your opinion will doubtless be seen as the baseless smear that it is and will quickly be dismissed by anyone with half a brain. Apparently a lot of folks do give these vets some credibility. Again, if they're lying that's illegal and Kerry is free to sue them for libel.
Pages