You know-- at this point in Bush's life, everyone knows and admits he was a drunk and a screw-up. It is also quite clear that he got special treatment to get into the TANG in the first place.

So why do you think that he served so honorably? What evidence is there? Oh wait-- the records are missing.

You really need to pull the blinds from your eyes, dude.

"Everyone" knows and admits it? That's hardly true. I don't know nor admit such.

The evidence that he served honorably is abundant - and includes his HONORABLE DISCHARGE. Idiot.

Alex

I served in TANG and USAR in the 70s in a personnell company. One thing we did a LOT of is try to find missing records. The Army is famous for losing records. I'll bet if you got 50,000 Guard or Reserves together at least 20% of them would have had a situation where their records weren't found for some period or another. It was and probably still is common for members to switch posts for a few months when they needed to be gone from home for a long period of time. And the borrowing post was ALWAYS losing records.

Alex, had you bothered to read the other materials that Bill has posted on this subject, you would know that Bush asked to serve in a unit that, at that time, was occasionally sent on special missions to Vietnam. You'd know that the planes he flew were particularly difficult to pilot and rather dangerous. You'd know that if he had gone AWOL, then returned, he would have been arrested--otherwise, he would have had permission to be gone, and did nothing improper.

You'd know that he received an honorable discharge, not a general or dishonorable discharge.

He served honorably and well, with a decent if undistinguished record and, as we have learned, national guard records are famous for going missing.

There is, quite simply, absolutely no basis for the AWOL charge. Given the utter lack of evidence, continually bringing up the charge simply borders on the libelous--though of course as a public figure it's impossible for him to sue on the matter, you're still guilty of spreading malicious gossip if you keep repeating this baseless charge.

I must say, this isn't quite as bad as the right-wing moonbats who accused Bill Clinton of murdering Vince Foster and running a cocaine smuggling operation out of Mena airport while he was Governor of Arkansas, but it's damned close to it.

In addition to Sensing's clarification on what a "deserter" is, you should also read Andrew Olmstead's post on why AWOL isn't an appropriate term, either, even if the specific allegations are true:

Let's start with what AWOL is; for reservists, you can only be AWOL if you fail to report when you are supposed to be in an active duty status. Failure to report to a weekend drill does not make a soldier AWOL; only failure to report to annual training or mobilization would render a solider AWOL. Since I have seen no evidence that George Bush failed to attend annual training, it's difficult for honest people to argue that he was AWOL (although that certainly doesn't stop those who are looking to gain politically).

For completeness, I'll address what happens if a soldier fails to attend scheduled drill. Each time it happens, he is supposed to be sent a 'U Letter' which informs him that he failed to attend scheduled drill. If this happens six times, he can be dropped from the unit rolls. This is not AWOL, nor is it desertion. There is, of course, no evidence that George Bush was ever sent any U letters either.

Heh.

Those that posted in behalf of the President are correct.

Military records are lost as Jane attested to per her own job history. It does not matter which branch of the military one served, records are lost.

Ignorance is playing out this lie of AWOL, and the fools that believe it...I rest my case.

Sadly, the folks advancing the tale that the US military is one huge paperwork black hole are using 'the dog ate my homework' excuse.

How is it a Wesley Clark or a John Kerry can produce their military records? How is it that I can be looking at my own military records jacket (Gosh, I can even see what my blood pressure reading was on a June day in 1986 or the very nice comments from a RADM on my FITREP in 1982)? How is it I can even peruse my dad's personnel jacket and have a darn good idea where he was on every given week over 33+ years of service?

Yet, we don't seem to know where George W. Bush was during the last year and a half of his Texas ANG commitment? Strike that. We *do* know where he was--it just wasn't where the ANG documentation says he was supposed to be.

The folks saying there's no AWOL issue simply are making a greater leap of faith than those making the charge. Let's be clear: George W. Bush could put this all to rest (along with smacking Michael Moore) by producing his NG records. At least, if those records support his side of the story...

Dean Esmay

I ahd always wondered why he checked the little box saying he did not want to go to Vietnam. Now I know, there was a danger they might actaully send him.

Of course I still wonder why the box was there at all. I thought we spent all that money to train those pilots so that they could go and fight. Or was the ANG of that time populated with a lot of guys whose fathers had influence and were not about to let their sons be put in dangers way?

Jadegold...

When I transfered from one USNR squadron to another, they lost my records. The whole time I was in the second unit, they never found them. I never got paid for that service (no records) even though they took my word for it as far as aircrew qualifications and I flew (and almost got killed) in that outfit.

I recently ordered up my service records. They have my blood pressure too from 1966, they have my various tests scores, they have my Vietnam Service Award, they have a telegram from when I extended a leave. But there isn't a shred of evidence that I ever served in that reserve unit.

So the dog certainly ate MY homework!

BTW... my best friend DIED FLYING A FIGHTER IN THE NATIONAL GUARD, except he was in New Mexico, not Texas. This attack on Bush dishonors his sacrifice and the sacrifice of some of my squadron mates. In general, it is a slander on military aviators. Military aviation is dangerous. Fighter flying in those days was very dangerous. You didn't have to go to 'Nam to get very dead serving your country!

Jadegold, I'd guess you can check your own records because you, like most service members, make copies of your records to guard against the military losing your records.

As has been brought up by numbers of people, if you wish to argue that the 'dog ate my homework' excuse is bogus, perhaps you should produce evidence that you could find the records of Bush's squadron mates easily. That would make the argument significantly more effective.

Having served in the military, I also can attest the fact that the military can lose records. However, everyone knows that and guards against it by making copies in the event they need some type of future government assistance. Bush was a Yale graduate, which certainly makes it seem that he was smart enough to know that.
Those of you who support him, do so blindly and without knowing exactly where he was. If Clinton, or any of the current Democratic candidates had the military or personal record Bush has, they wouldn't stand a chance at the White House. It is completely contradictory for conservatives to liberally support this man, who has a proven history of being reckless, and criticize any Democrat who scratches his head wrong. How democratic of you.

Andrew:

The primary problem with Bush's 'the dog ate my homework' excuse is there's no evidence to support the notion the paperwork ever existed. OTOH, there is documentation from at least 5 senior officers specifically noting Bush's absence.

To listen to Bush defenders, you'd think the military is this huge black hole where all personnel records disappear. To be sure, like any large organization, paperwork does get misplaced.

But don't you think it a bit more than odd that for a period of the disputed year and a half, nobody from Bush's unit has stepped forward to say that they remember drilling with him or having lunch with him or hitting the O-Club? Moreover, personnel files are one part of the paper trail; during that year and a half, one would expect Bush would have likely incurred some travel, lodging, MIE costs, he would have shown up on duty rosters, maybe he would have participated in some base- or unit-sponsored extra-curriculars, maybe an entry on a security log, etc.

Mr. Moore:

You protest too much. Nobody is saying that NG duty is worthless or non-hazardous.

What is being said--and isn't in dispute--is that Bush used family connections to get into the Texas ANG ahead of many more deserving and better-qualified candidates. By Bush's own admission, he sought entry into the Guard to avoid Vietnam.

Then, after receiving preferential treatment to get into pilot training, despite almost laughably low aptitude scores, the US invests a significant amount of time and money training Bush to be a pilot--only to see Bush decide to walk away from the last year and a half of his commitment.

Tell me, Mr. Moore; tell me and those who didn't walk away from their sworn commitments how Bush's conduct in the Texas ANG honors anything.

Jade,

I personally don't really care. I'm far more interested in what Bush is doing now than what he may or may not have done thirty years ago. I don't understand the fascination with something that means absolutely nothing to us now. If Bush wasn't AWOL, would that make you consider his current policies in any different light? What if he was? Shouldn't we be a little more concerned with what he's doing now?

Andrew:

In a perfect world, it shouldn't matter if someone spent their military commitment peeling spuds in Adak, AK or winning the Silver Star in combat. So long as they honored their commitment--it shouldn't matter.

Ours is not a perfect world.

And politicians like to run on their records--or at least, as they'd like their records to be perceived.

Bush likes to portray himself as particularly close to the military. Yet, when he served--it's pretty clear he received preferential treatment and, subject to this debate, apparently was able to decide for himself when and where it was convenient for him to serve.

As I noted on another blog, the issue of Bush being 'AWOL' or a 'deserter' isn't going to result in Bush receiving bad paper or being forced to make up time or any other similar penalty. But the real takeaway from this issue is that throughout his entire life, Bush has received benefits and opportunities based on his family name and not on merit. And, invariably, he failed despite being handed these opportunities on a silver platter. Never are there penalties for these failures and screwups.

Jade,

I'm still not seeing how this is relevant to his presidency. It seems to me (YMMV) that how he's done as president is really the key issue in deciding whether or not to vote for him in November, not what he did 30 years ago. I guess I just have a different set of criteria for evaluating candidates than you do.

Andrew:

Candidates for public service are often asked to provide proof of their stated experiences. And candidates often seek to present their public personas (kissing babies, a strong family background, success in business, etc.) in many ways.

Bush likes to present himself as a warrior; witness the pics of him standing by his aircraft or his recent posing aboard the ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

The relevancy lies in the fact that despite opportunities and advantages often unavailable to others, Bush fails, And this failure is met not with the penalties others might face--but rewards from those seeking to curry favor with rampant cronyism.

Let's be clear; if you were hiring a CEO to run your company--would you choose someone with a long track record of failing to honor commitments or lack of success? And you would you choose this same person who told you these failures and derelictions of duty were something to be proud of ?

Jade,

If I were hiring a CEO who had been a CEO for four years, I would focus on what he had done as a CEO. That seems the most relevant experience.

So in this case, that means to me that I will almost certainly not vote for President Bush this November, because I don't think he's done a very good job as President. But if he had, I probably would vote to reelect him regardless of what happened 30 years ago.

As for the failures and dereliction of duty, assertions are not the same thing as facts.

Andrew:

I'll admit politics have many differences from choosing a CEO in the business world. But I can assure you most organizations would take an extremely dim view of finding out that a CEO (or any other employee, for that matter) had embellished or lied on their resumes.

As you correctly note, Bush has not done a very good job. A dispassionate glance at the record quickly reveals this. Unfortunately, many people don't look at the records or the issues. They're swayed by perceptions--and Bush likes to put out the perception that he's a friend of the military. Even as he cuts veteran benefits, combat pay, and uses the military as a political prop.

Jade,

I don't wish to sound rude, but you don't need to convince me that a company would be upset with a CEO who lied on his resume. However, I submit that a CEO who lied on his resume but who was a brilliant success would probably still hang onto the job, while one who was utterly scrupulous on his resume but wasn't meeting earnings targets would be out on his ass.

My point? At this point, I consider it far more logical to judge President Bush on his presidency rather than on an event that may or may not have happened 30 years ago.

And Clinton was a draft dodger. Oh, wait - he was never eligible for the draft.

And Gore claimed he invented the Internet. Oh, wait - even Newt Gingrich confirmed he never made that claim.

And --- oh, never mind.

I love how folks make allegations to score points without understanding the broader ramifications of their statements.

When you say Bush's service is somehow less honorable b/c it served the purpose of "sheltering" him from combat in Vietnam, you say something interesting about others as well:

My Father in law volunteered for the US Navy in 1968 after graduating from HS. Rather than subject himself to the draft lottery and face the prospect of becoming a grunt on the ground.

While serving from '68 to '73, he served two tours off the coast of Vietnam in support of sea-based air operations.

Is his service somehow less honorable b/c he found a way to serve but without getting shot at every day?!

Paul in AZ,

"Is his service somehow less honorable b/c he found a way to serve but without getting shot at every day?!"

Compared to men and women who volunteered with the intention of doing direct combat tours, yes. Sorry, don't mean to piss you off, but that's just the truth.

You can't compare the sacrifices of people in the thick of it to people who never got their hands dirty.

Just like you can't compare the sacrifices and dangers of bomber pilots (brave though they are/were) to what ground troops undergo. It's a whole other ball park.

[quote]Just like you can't compare the sacrifices and dangers of bomber pilots (brave though they are/were) to what ground troops undergo. It's a whole other ball park.[/quote]

Uh, in WWII more bomber crews died than did Marines.

The fact is, service is service. It isn't what you do, but how you do it.

Patton once told a story of the bravest man he ever met. It was in Africa, and this man was a non-combatant. He signed up to fix telephone lines so he could stay out of the combat area.

Well, one day Patton is driving down the road and is under small arms fire. He tells his driver to stop, and he gets out. He runs over to the telephone line and screams at the guy what the hell he is doing up there.

The guy said, he was doing his duty fixing the phone line.

Another time, Patton said a supply truck driver who never was under fire, should win a Silver Star. Why? Because he had the guts to pull a gun on a Allied Soldier who was refusing to give his unit fuel, when they were desperate, though the British unit that was to get the fuel was supplied and was not in a position to attack, but was entrenching.

Just because someone doesn't face combat, doesn't mean it is less honorable. Now if that person refused combat if ordered into it, then he has dishonored himself and his commitment.