http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:23:24 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260147 Perhaps the point of the post has been missed. Regardless of what one thinks they see in Sgt. Benderman's writings (or project onto them), and taking into account the well-worn "contractual" argument, does it not shock the conscience that our servicemen and women are forced to serve time under these conditions? More importantly, it is difficult to believe that anyone can overlook the fact that Sgt. Benderman is serving 15 months for refusing a second tour while a Captain who took much-needed Body Armor and converted it for his own profit received only 45 days. That is a tough one to explain. Especially to the potential widows, widowers, and/or children who may lose a loved one in Iraq as a result of this extremely base, yet easy to identify, war profiteering. After all, Sgt. Benderman simply refused to participate in any more killing. The Captain who took the Body Armor doesn't seem to care who gets killed- even our own soldiers. 260147@blogcritics.org Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:23:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260083 Yes, MCH, we all know that some claim he didn't report in, while others claim that he did. No one has definitive proof one way or the other that I've seen. And not reporting for training and doing it later isn't exactly the same as desertion by any stretch of the imagination. As a general rule you're not a deserter unless you get charged and tried as a deserter. Show me the transcripts of Bush's trial and his dishonorable discharge or maybe find something less pointless to do with your time. But good job, you've derailed another discussion with total irrelevancies. Dave 260083@blogcritics.org Mon, 24 Oct 2005 04:00:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260057 Dave, every military person knows orders are orders. You follow them to the letter. That's why they are called orders. George W. knew what he was doing 260057@blogcritics.org Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:30:51 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260025 WRONG, Nalle. When Bush was permitted to transfer to Dannelly AFB to work on Winton Blount's campaign, his orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, read: "Lieutenant Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnispeed, DCO, to perform equivalent training." www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc11.gif By your own words (and several other officers involved) he didn't show up. So either you're a liar, or you're just ignorant. No wonder you failed as a history teacher. 260025@blogcritics.org Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:33:29 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260018 Actually, it was politics, MCH. He took his leave of absence with what he believed to be permission from his superiors in order to work on a political campaign. BTW, MCH. Howcome you didn't file as a CO during your 4 years in the navy? Dave 260018@blogcritics.org Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:08:23 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260016 Attn: Dave (I had other priorites during Desert Storm) Nalle; Since you claim to know what motivates people to do things...was politics the reason GW Bush deserted the Guards his last two years of meetings, or was it because of his lack of moral fiber and his addiction to cocaine? 260016@blogcritics.org Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:06:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php#comment-260004 Isn't it generally impossible to get CO status in the middle of a war which you've already participated in? He didn't suddenly develop a conscience, he just changed his politics. I read his essay and it's pretty clear that he's motivated more by politics than by pure conscience. I feel for Benderman and his family, and the prison sounds like it ought to be investigated, but at the same time it sure sounds like he put himself where he is. That said, there really ought to be better ways to handle this sort of situation. What harm would it have done to reassign him to non-combat duties? Dave 260004@blogcritics.org Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:32:57 EDT