Bush a moron

1. My comments on your contemptuous statements toward the President of the United States are in no way meant to be an attack.

2. It would be extraordinary for you to be charged under the UCMJ, but the courts have found that retired persons are subject to the UCMJ. This comment from the U.S. v. Hooper, below sums up the point that I am trying to make: "retired personnel are a part of the land or naval forces." The military retiree, then, is not simply a civilian".

"Person v. Bloss, 28 MJ 376 (CMA 1989). In Pearson, court-martial jurisdiction was found to exist over a retired enlisted accused for offenses he committed both while on active duty and while in a retired status. A retired member of the Regular Armed Forces may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time (10 USC Section 688). Therefore, Article 2(a)(4), UCMJ, which provides that, "[retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay]" are subject to the UCMJ is constitutional.

In U.S. V. Hooper, 26 CMR 417 (CMA, 1958), a retired Naval rear admiral was court-martialed for sodomy and conduct unbecoming an officer. The court explained that "retired personnel are a part of the land or naval forces." The military retiree, then, is not simply a civilian. The court held that the admiral was "a part of the military forces of this country." He was described as "an officer of the Navy of the United States, entitled to wear the uniform and to draw pay as such." Nonetheless, it is DA policy that "retired personnel subject to the Code will not be tried for any offense by any military tribunal unless extraordinary circumstances are present." (DA Pam 27-174, paragraph 4-5.)

(5) Members of the Fleet Reserve and the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. In U.S. V. Overton, 24 MJ 309 (CMA, 1987), the court upheld court-martial jurisdiction over "members of the fleet reserve and the fleet marine corps reserve," which is provided for in Article 2(a)(6), UCMJ. The accused had completed 20 or more years of active service, and was subject to being ordered by competent authority to active duty. This was also based on 10 USC section 6485(a): "In time of peace any member of the fleet reserve or the fleet marine corps reserve may be required to perform not more than two months' active duty for training in each four-year period." Finally, he was receiving "retainer pay."

(6) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial. This includes prisoners in a military stockade and at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. This is true even if the soldier received a punitive discharge as part of his court-martial sentence. U.S. V. Harry, 25 MJ 513 (AFCMR 1988).

(7) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. There are several other categories of persons listed in Article 2, UCMJ, as being subject to the jurisdiction of a court-martial. These other categories, however, are rarely invoked and rarely litigated.



"(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

Person v. Bloss, 28 MJ 376 (CMA 1989). In Pearson, court-martial jurisdiction was found to exist over a retired enlisted accused for offenses he committed both while on active duty and while in a retired status. A retired member of the Regular Armed Forces may be ordered to active duty by the Secretary of the military department concerned at any time (10 USC Section 688). Therefore, Article 2(a)(4), UCMJ, which provides that, "[retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay]" are subject to the UCMJ is constitutional.

In U.S. V. Hooper, 26 CMR 417 (CMA, 1958), a retired Naval rear admiral was court-martialed for sodomy and conduct unbecoming an officer. The court explained that "retired personnel are a part of the land or naval forcesgHe was described as "an officer of the Navy of the United States, entitled to wear the uniform and to draw pay as such." Nonetheless, it is DA policy that "retired personnel subject to the Code will not be tried for any offense by any military tribunal unless extraordinary circumstances are present." (DA Pam 27-174, paragraph 4-5.)

(5) Members of the Fleet Reserve and the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. In U.S. V. Overton, 24 MJ 309 (CMA, 1987), the court upheld court-martial jurisdiction over "members of the fleet reserve and the fleet marine corps reserve," which is provided for in Article 2(a)(6), UCMJ. The accused had completed 20 or more years of active service, and was subject to being ordered by competent authority to active duty. This was also based on 10 USC section 6485(a): "In time of peace any member of the fleet reserve or the fleet marine corps reserve may be required to perform not more than two months' active duty for training in each four-year period." Finally, he was receiving "retainer pay."

(6) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial. This includes prisoners in a military stockade and at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. This is true even if the soldier received a punitive discharge as part of his court-martial sentence. U.S. V. Harry, 25 MJ 513 (AFCMR 1988).

(7) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. There are several other categories of persons listed in Article 2, UCMJ, as being subject to the jurisdiction of a court-martial. These other categories, however, are rarely invoked and rarely litigated".

https://hosta.atsc.eustis.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/accp/mp1018/lsn1.htm

 

Charles:

Thanks for that insightful information. I knew that retired personnel could be recalled to active duty to face charges stemming from actions they committed while on active duty. I don't recall ever calling Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), or Clinton morons.

This is what I found: "Retired members should not be court-martialed unless their conduct clearly links them with the military or is adverse to a significant military interest of the United States." AFI 51-201, para 2.9


It appears that under extreme circumstances, a retired military member could be recalled to face charges stemming from behavior occuring while retired, under extreme circumstances. But if my calling Bush (43) a moron fits that criteria, there's going to be a looooooong line at the UCMJ woodshed. (Many retired officers publish highly critical writings about the military and the administration, and have done so for a long time.)

Nonetheless, I stand corrected, even if the circumstances for such action are most certainly extreme and rare. I was wrong. I only wish President Bush would admit the same once in awhile. But that isn't a trait often shared by those in his position, Democrat or Republican.

 

First, I want to say that I am not silly enough to have made these statements without having at least an attempt to research my comments. I do know that the information you have presented here is nowhere near relevant to my comments. The polices for an undergraduate degree at the Arts and Sciences school at Harvard, have nothing to do with those related to an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Secondly, I will agree that President Bush is not quite as "slick" as Bill Clinton, but I think he is a far cry from being a moron.
If, however, moron means that you speak from your heart, and based decisions on integrity, then I'm I going with the Moron.

If Bush is a moron, I wonder how Al Gore feels now?

 

My sister-in-law (Harvard MBA) tells me that one must maintain a 3.0 average to graduate from HBS.

IIRC, Bush received one "C" while at HBS, which his critics love to point out as "proof" that he's less than intelligent. The fact that he maintained at least a "B" average doesn't seem to matter to them.

Bush is not the most dynamic public speaker, especially when not making a speech, but I think it's very unfair to call him a "moron". He's certainly better than the alternative.


Bruce

 

Captain Douglas,

Thank you. I have a great deal of respect for you.

 

I agree with you. I think most of it has to do with slick Democratic spin. Gore tried that in one speech when he suggested that Bush was handed a strong economy. The economy was faltering at the end of the Clinton administration (I think at one point as the Clinton administration was ending Clinton was mad that Bush was mentioing this fact). Gore had a worse academic reconrd in terms of achievement/grades but spin made him more intelligent. I think you hit the nail on the head with the public speaking issue. Bush is not a dynamic speaker and tends to stumble over words in public. In *private* Bill K. on 60 Minutes said that he tends to dominate his cabinet (all of them).

Rich has no basis for callling Bush an idiot (at least that he has mentioned). I think Rich is going on liberal bias and name calling.

PS Thank goodness for *The No Spin Zone* (which Gore is apparently afraid to show up on and face another Harvard Grad school Grad).

North

 

Yes, at least Bush has a graduate degree. Gore dropped out of both Divinity School and Law School (Vanderbilt, I believe).

Yep, Bill O'Reilly earned a M.P.A. from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.


Bruce

 

Of course Rich has a liberal bias. When I call a politician an idiot, he always seems to be a liberal, as I consider myself a conservative.

Let me know when fairness became a requirement in political commentary. If it has maybe I will give another try at political office.

 

I enjoyed the series of Factor programs done from Harvard. O'Reilly himself is quite an interesting mix. His views occasionally defy stereotyping. For example, he supports the possibility of homosexual adoption. That is one of the things that makes his program interesting along with his ability to cut through the crud.

North

 

One thing that most democrats don't get is that this "moron" is quietly orchestrating republican control. Everyone he campaigned for won except in Daschle's home state, and then it was close.

His brother was supposed to lose a close race. He went to a party and got to bed by 10pm. Republicans now control the legislature of the US and are well on their way to appointing judges. The judges are the last stand of democrats since they cannot seem to win by votes.

All this moron statement shows the arrogance of a party that still cannot believe that average Americans don't swallow their story. The bottom line is the natural progression of liberal democratic leadership leads to Clinton/Daschle/Gore/Carville. The natural progression of conservative republican leadership leads to Reagan/Bush/Dole/Bush. People obviously choose the latter.

The democrats will never take power until they realize they did not lose because people are stupid. They lost because people preferred the alternative.

 

Excellent point! I don't think the new House minority leader (Pelosi) is going to do much to change people's minds.


Bruce

 

Gore earned his B.A. in Government at Harvard in 1969, but put his plans for grad school on hold and volunteered for Vietnam instead; after he returned in '71, he spent a year as a journalist before deciding he might like a career in the ministry. In '74, he switched to law. In '76, he "dropped out" of law school--because he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. (I find the phrase "grad school dropout" amusing for some reason; I suppose I've "dropped out" of programs in theology and counseling, though I can make use of the credit later, and presumably Gore can do the same with his if he finds a program that doesn't expire transfer credit.)

Bush earned his B.A. in History at Harvard in 1968. For several years he was, in his words, "rootless" and "an irresponsible youth"; he served in the Texas Air National Guard, but never saw combat. After being rejected by Harvard Law School, he applied to their MBA program instead and finished up in 1975.

Both Gore and Bush have impressive academic records, but I don't see the presence of Bush's MBA as any great advantage over Gore, who has a roughly equal amount of credit in a more diverse range of fields collecting dust on his transcripts.


Cheers,

 

Tom, the PBS special on Gore made it sound like he was not really doing that well and kept dropping out. The PBS program brought up several other issues with his character that were enlightening. PBS is not known for being conservative or Republican friendly.

North

 

I can't speak for the PBS documentary--I haven't seen it--but did it give any information on his GPA to support the conclusion that he wasn't doing well? If not, what was the basis of this conclusion?


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: Bush a moron

But did he do it the hard way, by distance ed?

 

Re: Re: Re: Bush a moron

No that I know of. I heard he did his National Guard Service this way

North

 

I would probably state again the baseless attacks of George Bush as "moron" is an age old attack from democrats. This was the same attack on Dan Quayle, Gerald Ford......

The left seem to feel that they have an intellectual grasp that only those who would agree with them have. If you do not agree you must be stupid. I have never heard anyone call Teddy Kennedy stupid, but then he is enlightened enough to be liberal.

George Bush is stupid for graduating and never coming to the decision to be a democrat. After all he was just in the Air National Guard, Harvard MBA graduate, governor of Texas, President of the United States. In the month of November he took the Senate and House of Reps, captured an Al Queida leader, and got one of the only unanimous UN resolutions ever, and signed 7 former Soviet Block nations to NATO.

The DOW will have even rebounded by the end of his term, thanks in large part to a solid economic recovery program. Pass some form of prescription drug bill for seniors and the last tax cut gave me more money in my pocket.

Keep calling him a moron and America stupid for voting for him. Please keep doing it, republicans could use 60 senators to overcome a democratic filibuster. It will give you more to get indignant over at Starbucks.

 

A fighter pilot (F-105's I think) at that. Anyone who has ever been in the military can tell you that the government doesn't hand over multi-million dollar pieces of equipment to stupid people.


Bruce

 

I agree that Bush has gotten a bum rap. It is the result of democratic spin.

They (demo's) gripped and gripped about Florida and then when independent journalists studied the situation well after the election and came to the conclusion Bush won, we heard nothing. Demo's complain about Bush and yet vandalized the Whitehouse to the cost of thousands of $$$$$$. The Bush administration did not use that for political capital. Clinton was bright and yet allegedly did quite a bit of harm to our defense.

Bush has come across as sincere and the administration concerned about the good of the US. I might also say that the Bush administration did not merely patronize minorities as the democrats do (and take their vote for granted). Bush appointed minorities to some of the highest posts in the land because they were qualified. The democrats encourage minorites to stick with them and then what??? What we get is politics such as those of H. Belafonte who accused Powell of being an Uncle Tom. Belafonte was way out of line and did more harm to his reputation tha Powell's.

I think that the democratic party is going to need to reinvent itself. Sending democratic congressman to Bagdad to criticze US policy is not working. The American public is not buying what has become baseless hyprocritcal nonsense. I am not sure their new minority leader is going to cut it either.

Americans want substance out of both parties.

North

 

The Democratic Party did not send the three congressmen to Baghdad; the three congressmen did it on their own, and cost the Democratic Party a great deal of political capital in the process.

As far as Belafonte's comments go, I--and most other liberals I know--found them unbearably stupid and reprehensible. The notion that having dark skin mandates that you're only allowed to hold certain political views is a dimwitted attack on the Fourteenth Amendment and the concept of civil rights. It does not even deserve a forum.

As far as Bush's successes go, I think he can claim credit for them only to a point; the House and Senate victories were due in large part to the excellent candidates the Republican Party had this year (I just saw Senator-Elect John Sununu Jr. on the Capital Gang last night and am convinced that he is not only a viable Senate candidate, but seems articulate enough to be a viable Presidential candidate in 2008), though Bush can legitimately say that his tireless campaigning on their behalf gave them an edge, and he does deserve kudos for that. The foreign policy victories are due in large part to the brilliant coalition-building skills of Bush's foreign policy team, one of the best ever assembled (headed up by Belafonte's favorite media ticket, who could have become President in 1996). There is no evidence that a Democratic foreign policy team would have been any less effective at coalition-building, or that a moderate Democratic President wouldn't have targeted Iraq just as aggressively as Bush is doing now (though I'm sure there would be less Democratic opposition). As far as the recent Al-Qaeda arrests are concerned, the people responsible for that are not elected officials of either party, and many of them aren't even Americans.

I agree that the Democratic Party is in a state of flux right now, and think that replacing the tired and repetitive Gephardt with Pelosi was a smart first move, as she will do a fine job of unifying her party. What we need now is someone who can speak to the nation in a larger sense--a charismatic, unapologetic liberal who is capable of making a convincing stand outside of the context of the Democratic Party. I predict that person, whoever it turns out to be, will get the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. It has to be someone who can beat Bush. I'm not sure Al Gore is that person anymore (though the 1992 Al Gore could run circles around anyone in the party today, and he could pull a Nixon '68 if he gets his groove back). Joe Lieberman could do it. So could John Edwards. If I can throw a curveball out there, so could Mary Landrieu if she wins the runoff--I saw her debate on C-Span the other day and she's easily one of the most articulate moderate Democrats in the game. At any rate, there's no need to worry about the next election being a rout; nobody's more confident that the Democratic Party is in shambles than its representatives, and nobody's more committed to making sure they win next time around. I think it's going to be a very interesting couple of years.


Cheers,