The AWOL accusations are proof that the What Terry and the Pirates don't realize is that (unlike he and his mentor Bill) a lot of voters HAVE served in the Military. And we all know that this class warefare rhetoric isn't true. Having a daddy who is an ambassador may mean a lot in the beltway, but it doesn't mean diddly squat to a Wing Commander. Terry M. doesn't have a clue; otherwise he would realize that to say that the Air National Guard played favorites in such a way is to impune the men and women who served honorably in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam era and now. It is to say that the officer who was George W Bush's reporting official was so cowed or inept that the most he would say on his OER was 'not observed' if Bush had been missing for a year. Anyone who has ever been a reporting official in the Air Force knows that 'not observed' means just that, the person you're supposed to evaluate wasn't available for you to give a report on their performance.

Has anyone bothered to find out how often that phrase is used in a report and why? Of course not, that might bring a well needed fact into this cynical supposition. When I deployed for Desert STorm/Desert Sheild my reporting offical couldn't give an accurate report on me because I was 9,000 miles away, and so I was 'not observed.' Guess that means I was a deserter too--and this son of a second generation german farmer had more influence on his commanding officer than he thought:). I imagine there are many officers and enlisted in the Guard and Reserve whose reporting officals cannot make a report on them because they're in another country, does that make them deserters too?

Any officer would have reported as AWOL captain who had not reported once for duty the Uniform Code of Military Justice has specific guidlines for that and politics can't amelorate the UCMJ. After a year had gone by his status would have been changed to 'desertion,'and there's no way his DD form 214 would say honorably discharged if he had been listed as a deserter. But that is the undestanding that most people who have served their country in the military have, that she is overburdened with a preponderance of paperwork, and that makes covering up cover ups nigh on impossible.

The military, regardless of the branch runs on three things, discipline, discipline, discipline. Again, the Democrats don't know that, because they think everything is political, that middle level officers won't act honorably and report the son of a politician, because that's not what a middle level political functionary would do. These accusations are proof Democrats don't have any issues, candidates, or anything else resembling traction on what concerns most Americans.

Well said. The most enjoyable part of blogging about this topic for me has been the comments and emails I've received from so many current and retired military people.

You know Bill, there's plenty of raw material here by now for somebody to run a national story detailing the (very slim) evidence of Bush being AWOL and the substantial arguments in opposition, including the terms of his contractual commitment to the Guard (which he'd exceeded by 1972) and some of the stuff you've got here on the F-102, as well as the points about the hazard rates for even stateside Guard pilots . . . a lot of the best arguments have been made by veterans of the Guard and the Reserves, but a diligent reporter should be able to pull it all together into a single story and pitch it to the WSJ or WaPo op-ed pages or some such high-visibility outlet as a freelance piece, now that the issue's being raised by Kerry and McAuliffe.

Wouldn't you be the logical guy to do that?

Yes.

"Not observed" on military performance evaluations doesn't mean, "we looked and looked for him everywhere and no one could see where he was," as Democratic operatives may think. (This misunderstanding of military lingo is perhaps understandable for a political population, who, as a rule, don't know anything about the military or defense issues more generally.)

"Not observed" is one of the many ways of saying, "I can't evaluate" a particular skill or performance attribute, as I have no first hand knowledge of an airman's performance in this area.

Similarly, on Army Academic Evaluation Reports, there is a checkbox for "Not evaluated," which means the same thing.

This "not observed" term is indeed pretty tricky, and hard to explain to civilians. For example, I understand how one's reporting official couldn't observe you while you were 9,000 miles away. He's here and you're there. But that doesn't help me understand why Bush's (Texas-based) reporting official couldn't "observe" Bush in Texas at all during the period May 1972 - May 1973. The evaluation *seems* to provide its own explanation - "[Bush] has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status [in Alabama]" but that of course isn't correct, since Bush only says he was in Alabama for the first half of that period, May - November 1972.

If "not observed" means "the person you're supposed to evaluate wasn't available for you to give a report on their performance", then why wasn't Bush available in Texas from December 1972 - May 1973, and why did the reporting official think he was still in Alabama 6 months after he had returned?

This would clear itself right up if Bush would simply allow the release of his military records, but he won't. I can't help but think that there's more to this than meets the eye.

This "not observed" term is indeed pretty tricky, and hard to explain to civilians. For example, I understand how one's reporting official couldn't observe you while you were 9,000 miles away. He's here and you're there. But that doesn't help me understand why Bush's (Texas-based) reporting official couldn't "observe" Bush in Texas at all during the period May 1972 - May 1973. The evaluation *seems* to provide its own explanation - "[Bush] has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status [in Alabama]" but that of course isn't correct, since Bush only says he was in Alabama for the first half of that period, May - November 1972.

If "not observed" means "the person you're supposed to evaluate wasn't available for you to give a report on their performance", then why wasn't Bush available in Texas from December 1972 - May 1973, and why did the reporting official think he was still in Alabama 6 months after he had returned?

This would clear itself right up if Bush would simply allow the release of his military records, but he won't. I can't help but think that there's more to this than meets the eye.

This "not observed" term is indeed pretty tricky, and hard to explain to civilians. For example, I understand how one's reporting official couldn't observe you while you were 9,000 miles away. He's here and you're there. But that doesn't help me understand why Bush's (Texas-based) reporting official couldn't "observe" Bush in Texas at all during the period May 1972 - May 1973. The evaluation *seems* to provide its own explanation - "[Bush] has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status [in Alabama]" but that of course isn't correct, since Bush only says he was in Alabama for the first half of that period, May - November 1972.

If "not observed" means "the person you're supposed to evaluate wasn't available for you to give a report on their performance", then why wasn't Bush available in Texas from December 1972 - May 1973, and why did the reporting official think he was still in Alabama 6 months after he had returned?

This would clear itself right up if Bush would simply allow the release of his military records, but he won't. I can't help but think that there's more to this than meets the eye.

Good grief, sorry about the triple post.

John wants GW Bush to "release his records" to clear things up. But the reality is that GW Bush might not have enough records to clear anything up to the standards that Kerry/McAwful or other Democrats would insist on.

I seriously doubt that GW Bush retained any records from his Guard period. I went off active duty (1979) and didn't affiliate with the Naval Reserve for several years. I didn't expect to affiliate . . . and almost everything I had was discarded as irrelevant and unimportant.

When I reaffiliated - some of my records were in the archives, but some items were lost forever!

Bottom line -
if GW Bush has an honorable discharge for service that was completed over 20 plus years ago - it really should not be a hot issue by Democrat syncophants who gave the lying/draft-dodging Clinton a pass!

Since 2000, GW Bush has a real resume - acting as Commander-in-Chief, and the record looks fairly impressive.

On the other hand, Kerry has a record - speaking before Congress in 1971, where he paints all the military as murderers and rapists, and he has done nothing since then to apologize. And his record in the 1980's and 1990's has been one of hostility to anything military - He was against any military programs that would enhance the security of the U.S., and he has been against intelligence programs that would have perhaps given us better intel on 9/11, the cheating by the North Koreans on the 1994 "oil for no nuclear weapons development", etc.

Someone who needs "more information" is only kidding themselves!!

Different posters, the same excuses.

"The dog ate my homework."

There is a new excuse being bandied about called the "how 'did not observe' does not actually mean 'did not observe'" excuse.

Let's review a little background for these many posters who seem to know little about the military. Any military unit--active duty or the reserves--has a military hierarchy. within this hierarchy--also known as a chain of command--there are superiors and subordinates.

Everyone within that chain of command is evaluated annually. This annual evaluation accomplishes several things of great benefit to the unit (and military as a whole). It provides feedback to those being evaluated; it tells those being evaluated how their service is viewed. It also provides a baseline for promotion potential and the possibility of greater responsibilities.

One hard fact, though: everyone gets evaluated. Good, bad or indifferent.

"Not observed" means exactly that. Bush wasn't observed. That means he wasn't in the chain of command which means he wasn't around to be evaluated.

Whew. Read the previous post on this subject with all its' 117 comments as well as this one. It's apparent to me that no ammount of rational thought or evidence would change the mind of a Bush hater. This is nothing but election year partisan politics at its worst.
It's funny but in the month following the 9/11 attacks I asked several of my Bush hating friends if they would really rather have Al Gore as president at that moment. No one said yes.

BTW, those interested in a little more honesty than "the dog ate my homework" or "when 'not observed' does not actually mean 'not observed'" excuses, might wish to check out

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003193.html

Salon also has a good article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/05/national_guard/index.html

which quotes a number of former military lawyers and law experts. I'd urge people to read it because it provides some insight into the UCMJ and how the UCMJ may not apply to Bush's case.

Also, particularly interesting is the fact George HW Bush--during the 1992 Presidential campaign--demanded Bill Clinton "make public all personal documents relating his draft status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with "Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate." "

Why won't his son comply with the same request?

Perhaps because he volunteered to serve, served, and got an honorable discharge, which really says all that needs to be said.

What do they say now, now that the federal deficit is the largest in history, now that the Patriot Act has established the greatest expansion of federal intrusiveness into invididual privacy in the past 100 years, now that we've turned Iraq into an anarchic state that is rapidly becoming the very refuge for terrorists, the elimination of which Bush claimed as justification for going to war in the first place? Ask 'em! See what they say!

John: Absolutely.

As I've noted previously, this AWOL issue isn't going to result in Bush getting a less than honorable discharge or being compelled to serve as an E-1 or any other penalty.

What Bush's AWOL status does point up is yet another case where Bush has received an unearned and undeserved opportunity and he screws it up. Then, his daddy's friends come in and clean up after him.

Bush's ANG service is such an instance, so is his business career. And his appointment to president.

Mr. Hobbs: "Perhaps because he volunteered to serve, served, and got an honorable discharge, which really says all that needs to be said."

Your assertion is in dispute. I'm sure you've read the articles-pro and con--on this issue.

But, if Bush's service was as squeaky clean as you--and others maintain--why does Bush's story keep changing? Why has Bush been caught in several demonstrable lies? After all, one shouldn't have to lie if the truth is as one maintains.

Yesterday, I noted the 4 or 5 variations of stories told by Bush concerning his reserve duty activities. In his autobiography, Bush said he was flying "with my unit" until he was discharged. Later, Bush said he didn't fly during the disputed time because the unit didn't have "the right planes." Still later, Bush said he couldn't remember what he was doing.

Today, let's look at Bush's changing stories on why his flight status was suspended. Here's one story told by the 2000 Bush campaign: "he did not take the physical because he was in Alabama and his personal physician was in Houston."

It's a nice story but certainly false. Flight physicals can be administered only by certified Air Force flight surgeons, and some were assigned at the time to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, where Bush was living.

Another story, again by the Bush campaign, to the London Times: "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam," according to campaign spokesman Don Bartlett. "

Problem with this story is there is documentation ordering Bush to take a flight physical. Orders aren't choices.

Still another story: "Bush campaign spokesman Dan Bartlett told the newspaper that Bush was aware back then that he would be suspended for missing his medical exam, but had no choice because he had applied for a transfer from Houston to Alabama and his paperwork hadn't caught up with him."

The documentation ordering Bush to get a flight physical permits him a window of 3 months to obtain one. 3 months.

When I was young, I had a strong need to be right to the point that I also needed the person on the other side to admit that I was right. I sometimes argued with people who had had too much to drink. I found that no amount of facts or logic proving them wrong was enough to change their minds. Because their opinion was their opinion it was right. I still like to be right, but I no longer argue with drunks. For the same reason I wouldn't spend too much time arguing with someone who signs themselves Jade Gold. By the way I was in the Army from 65-69 and I'll bet a dollar against a donut that the only record that I served is the DD-214 in my possession. It was an honorable discharge in case you were wondering.

I find it interesting that the leaps of logic and assumptions of truth based on absence of proof to the contrary that were denounced by the left during the "scandals" of the Clinton administration are now the tools the left is choosing to attack our current president. I am sure the response will be that this situation and acuzation is different than the those posted against the Clintons, but I don't think it is different. One example from my memory: Mrs. Clinton made a large profit trading futures and during the same time frame most people with the same trading organization lost money. The "truth" must be that she was given special favors because her husband was the govenor at the time. Since there is no proof to the contrary, this must be the truth. Of coure we all can recognize that the truth of the matter was and is that somehow Mrs. Clinton's investment performed better than the investment of other people. No evidence was discovered that indicated her profits were the work of a manipulation for political gain. The same holds true of the desire to call President Bush AWOL. He was given a honorable discharge by the military. You want to claim this was done to cover up the fact that he did not perform his duty at the request of his father and his associates. If this were true, why wouldn't they have eliminated any questionable evidence? If they could get the discharge level changed, certainly they could have had someone eliminate some paperwork or at least "correct" it after the fact. For that matter if the discussion is going to be about proving your actions, should Senator Kerry be asked to prove he saved the lives of fellow Americans during his time of service? Sure he was awarded some medals but if a discharge can be changed perhaps someone intervened on the Senator's behalf. You say there are people who served with the Senator that can validate his service and I respond that I don't know who these people are. They could be actors hired to play a lifetime role. There is no evidence that Senator Kerry performed the actions he is credited with, we need proof.

I hope, but I doubt, that we can agree that this type of argument can be used to serve any purpose or view point. I do not doubt Senator Kerry's miltary service and I do believe he was correctly decorated for his heroic actions. I hope we can move past speculative claims of AWOL and BOTOX and could talk about true issues that will effect this nation not only for the next 4 years but the next 10, 20, 50, 100.

TK2:

I share your sentiments and hope that all elections could be elevated discussions of policies and ideas.

Unfortunately, that's a Pollyanna-ish view of the real world. In the real world, you have oppo research teams scouring for dirt.

BTW, John Kerry has released his full military record; it's a matter of public record.

Why won't Bush?

The majority of the comments I'm reading from veterans are supporting the idea that Bush wasn't AWOL, a deserter, etc. If this subject is indeed a "wash" as the likes of Bob Somerby say, I'll take the word of the vets.

HH: Your confusion lies in the fact many vets do think Bush shirked his duty.

Ever hear of a guy named James Webb? Sure you have--USNA grad, USMC, Vietnam Vet, Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, AsstSecDef for Reserve Affairs, author? Here's what he had to say on CNN:

" And George Bush did none of those things, George W. In fact, he did nothing. I mean he apparently was able to get his father's political influence in order to get him in to the Texas National Guard in 1968 at the height of the war at a time when being in the National Guard virtually guaranteed that you wouldn't have to go into combat.

He later transferred over into the Alabama National Guard. As you mentioned there is some question about his attendance records. The White House has responded in a rather confusing way by saying that these records have been lost.

I can tell you having spent three years as assistant secretary of defense for reserve affairs in charge of the guard and the reserve programs it would be very unusual to lose these records.

They are important for monitoring pay, also for the credit that you get for drill that goes against satisfactory performance in the guard and these sorts of things, so there are a lot of questions out there.

And, at the same time, this is taking place against the backdrop of a war that a lot of the people who served in have sons and daughters serving in now and view as unnecessary."

You know the meaning of "majority," don't you? Quite frankly someone coming from that high up would never admit to the apparently rampant problems with record-keeping.

JadeGold,

someone on the other thread said you had a 'net account deactivated because of libel.

care to elaborate?

or, are you going with same m.o. of deflection and distraction in the face of evidence to the contrary you have used while being banned from God-knows-how-many weblogs?

and why is it you have an entire group of weblogs who banned against you?

just thought you would provide some of that "full disclosure" you demand of men more successful than you.

HH:

This is a conservative site; most commenters here will defend Bush no matter what. The fact, as James Webb--a diehard Republican--has noted is that most Vietnam vets are of the opinion Bush shirked his duty.

Victor:

How's Nic? Give her my best.

JadeGold,

Still sounding the same sour note? Please check your email, I await with baited breathe your military bona fides - not doubting mind you, just very curious.

BTW, The Salon article was quite interesting. Though it was little more than a direct rehash of the old Globe article, I did find Mr. Lattin's remarks to be illuminating and the only thing of value in the peice. Although I'd argue the point about the term honorable dscharge simply meaning a lack of misconduct on the soldier's part. Given the scenarios he spun I'd have expected an Administrative Seperation General would have been forthcoming instead of an Honorable Discharge, but then I'm not even a barracks lawyer anymore.

LOL!!!

you still think this is Victor?

sorry to disappoint you, JadeGold.

you still refuse to answer questions don't you?

what "federal military institution" was it again?

you still have not answered all the while expecting others to answer to your calls of "full disclosure" from the President.

are you so hypocritical you can't even answer that question?

seems to me you won't walk your own talk.

make sure you do say hello to Victor for me. i'm sure he'd love to know someone is keeping an eye on you.

Special to JadeGold:

By golly, I'm going to get an answer out of you one of these days! [G]

I asked in a previous thread, but you never got around to answering... so here it is again:

JadeGold, do you have any evidence whatsoever that it was unacceptable for a member of the Alabama Air National Guard in 1973 to skip monthly meetings, even if he made them up later?

Because if you don't, then this whole point is moot. If it was part of the deal that you could skip meetings when "real life" made attendance difficult, so long as you made them up later, then even you would have to admit Bush did nothing wrong.

It's like me taking an obscure income-tax deduction: it's not relevant whether I took it unless you first show I wasn't entitled to take it. If I was, then what's the big deal?

So straight up, fellow... do you, personally, have any evidence that skipping and making up later was not allowed in the AANG in 1973? Anything at all?

If not, this entire charge is just a tempest in a molehill.

Dafydd

A note from a lifelong conservative and Reagan fan and Bush Senior (but not Bush Junior) fan: thanks, Jade Gold! Your comments have been reasoned and well-researched, and you've stood up quietly to a tidal wave of venomous abuse. You have a lot of courage and extraordinary tenacity. Unlike your foes here, you never resort to insult or vitriol. Keep up the fight--the truth will out.
To my fellow conservatives--try to argue fairly. Try not to lapse into scurrility, and personal attacks, and anti-Hilary rabidity. Some of you (JLawson for example)are making brilliant arguments--but some of you are making us look dumb.
And everybody: do read that Salon.com article--it IS illuminating.
GG

More for JadeGold:

While you're mulling my previous question, here is another that is perhaps easier.

You wrote, "The fact, as James Webb--a diehard Republican--has noted is that most Vietnam vets are of the opinion Bush shirked his duty."

Can you please post a citation where James Webb has said "most Vietnam vets are of the opinion Bush shirked his duty?" I have never seen any quotation to that effect, but I'm always willing to take a look.

Thanks,

Dafydd

[GG]

Do you think my two questions constitute "venomous abuse," or would you say they're reasonable and legitimate questions that JadeGold should answer?

Thanks,

Dafydd

Dafydd,
Some quotes from the new Salon.com article might shed some light on your question. "In the Guard today, as a general rule, 'if someone doesn't show up for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable discharge' most likely noting 'unsatisfactory participation,' says D.C. military lawyer David Sheldon, who served in the Navy and represented officers before the Court of Military Appeals."

But would that person be disciplined? The article quotes military law experts:

"...a guardsman on non-active duty who fails to show up for his monthly drill sessions, as Bush did, is not subject to the UCMJ. The UCMJ, Lattin says, applies only to active-duty servicemen. And while guardsmen who report for weekend duty are covered for those 48 hours by the UCMJ's unique codes (regarding desertion, being AWOL, etc.), a non-active guardsman who refuses to report for duty in the first place cannot be covered by the UCMJ. Instead, an absent-without-leave guardsman is subject to the state's military codes of justice, which mirror the UCMJ.

But even then, says Lattin, cases of guardsmen who fail to attend drill sessions are rarely dealt with under the military's criminal code, but rather administratively, which is less burdensome. Administrative options include transferring the solider to active duty, or separating him from his unit while beginning dismissal procedures that would likely -- although not always -- result in a less than, or other than, honorable discharge. Also in Bush's case, he could have been permanently stripped of his flight privileges.

So why was no administrative action taken against Bush during his missing year or more? "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal official," says Fidell, the military law expert. "Observers of the Guard at that time have said it did seem to be an entity in which connections might be helpful."

Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political in the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very day. One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not. If George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."

Again all this is from the current Salon.com ....

GG

Mr. Modean: Glad you looked at the Salon piece. I found Lattin's comments pretty interesting as well--I learned some things. I'm not certain everything he said was completely accurate.

Hey Victor: Still got the beard?

Dafydd,
Both your questions are reasonable and fair. And I'd be surprised if JadeGold doesn't come with a citation for the Webb quote.

But surely, Dafydd, you've noticed some of the 'venemous abuse' on this web site?

GG

Further comments re: "missed flight physical".

I was CO of a Naval Reserve Unit - the unit supported NAVSEA. We had two Naval Aviators. Both aviators stopped getting their flight physical, because there was no futher opportunity for them to fly. They decided it wasn't worth the extra time for the extra poking and prodding - because they weren't going to fly! Now - they received several "formal notifications" that directed them to get their flight physical (which is something that is almost "automatic" if you have a pilot designator.

About 6 months later, both pilots received notification that they were suspended from flight status. Note - one was a A-6 pilot, but since there were no more A-6 planes in the Navy - it really was a moot point! He wasn't qualified to fly anything else! And he wasn't going to be trained to fly anything else. So why waste the time!

This thread has been fascinating! It is amazing how many anal-retentive people are obsessing over whether or not Bush completed his obligation, and expect HIM to prove to THEIR satisfaction that Bush served honorably. (Hint - he has a paper that is proof!!) But I bet these same idiots never questioned the legacy of Clinton, with conclusive proof of being a draft dodger ... and the same whiners choose to ignore Kerry's record of accusing the military people in Viet Nam of routine atrocities - and speaking up and supporting liars (people claiming to have served in Viet Nam and witnessed the atrocities, when they never served!!).

I bet that about 90% of the past and present military DO believe that GW Bush served honorably, and now support GW Bush. And I bet when the people find out that Kerry spent less than 6 months fighting in Viet Nam, and then spent more than 3 years fighting with Hanoi Jane, and then has spent almost 20 years in Congress, opposing almost all military programs ... Kerry will be without any real support.

I do not challenge Kerry's service while in Viet Nam. But his service afterwards has been sleazy! Being a veteran doesn't automatically make one immune from critisism re: national security. One only has to look at the record of John Glenn, who served heroically in the Marines (Korea) and with NASA, only to become a political hack whose actions were traitorious in helping cover up the investigation of Chinese Campaign contributions and getting access to national secrets ... to protect Clinton's sorry rear! Glenn should be up there with Benedict Arnold for selling out America! (Great hero til he became a senator.)

I won't rehash all the points here, but I just want to add my two cents. I'm a current F-16 pilot in the AF and a 9 year officer (getting ready to transfer to the Reserves, by the way...anyone from the DNC care to make an issue of it?).
Myth 1: Vets are turning to Kerry. I heard that repeated tonight on Hannity & Colmes. It ain't happening. I'd say a full 90% of the current officer corps supports GW. Probably a smaller number of retirees, but I'd wager it's still over 70%. The Dems can trot out some old vets that will support their newfound respect for military service, but they will get trounced in the military vote come November.

Myth 2: Kerry served in Vietnam, so Kerry MUST be strong on Defense. Pure crap. Among the programs Kerry voted to kill: F-14, F-15, F-16, F-117, B-1, B-2, AV-8B, and Patriot systems. There's plenty more.

Again, I find this newfound conversion among Democrats fascinating. For 25 years, the left has derided, mocked, and scorned military service. For 8 years under Clinton, it didn't matter if you served, and at first you couldn't wear a uniform in the White House. So ironic to hear McAuliffe now. If it wasn't so damn funny, I'd be pissed!

Question to ponder: If OBL and Saddam were registered Independents, who would they vote for in November? Do you really want to be on their side?

I won't rehash all the points here, but I just want to add my two cents. I'm a current F-16 pilot in the AF and a 9 year officer (getting ready to transfer to the Reserves, by the way...anyone from the DNC care to make an issue of it?).
Myth 1: Vets are turning to Kerry. I heard that repeated tonight on Hannity & Colmes. It ain't happening. I'd say a full 90% of the current officer corps supports GW. Probably a smaller number of retirees, but I'd wager it's still over 70%. The Dems can trot out some old vets that will support their newfound respect for military service, but they will get trounced in the military vote come November.

Myth 2: Kerry served in Vietnam, so Kerry MUST be strong on Defense. Pure crap. Among the programs Kerry voted to kill: F-14, F-15, F-16, F-117, B-1, B-2, AV-8B, and Patriot systems. There's plenty more.

Again, I find this newfound conversion among Democrats fascinating. For 25 years, the left has derided, mocked, and scorned military service. For 8 years under Clinton, it didn't matter if you served, and at first you couldn't wear a uniform in the White House. So ironic to hear McAuliffe now. If it wasn't so damn funny, I'd be pissed!

Question to ponder: If OBL and Saddam were registered Independents, who would they vote for in November? Do you really want to be on their side?

I won't rehash all the points here, but I just want to add my two cents. I'm a current F-16 pilot in the AF and a 9 year officer (getting ready to transfer to the Reserves, by the way...anyone from the DNC care to make an issue of it?).
Myth 1: Vets are turning to Kerry. I heard that repeated tonight on Hannity & Colmes. It ain't happening. I'd say a full 90% of the current officer corps supports GW. Probably a smaller number of retirees, but I'd wager it's still over 70%. The Dems can trot out some old vets that will support their newfound respect for military service, but they will get trounced in the military vote come November.

Myth 2: Kerry served in Vietnam, so Kerry MUST be strong on Defense. Pure crap. Among the programs Kerry voted to kill: F-14, F-15, F-16, F-117, B-1, B-2, AV-8B, and Patriot systems. There's plenty more.

Again, I find this newfound conversion among Democrats fascinating. For 25 years, the left has derided, mocked, and scorned military service. For 8 years under Clinton, it didn't matter if you served, and at first you couldn't wear a uniform in the White House. So ironic to hear McAuliffe now. If it wasn't so damn funny, I'd be pissed!

Question to ponder: If OBL and Saddam were registered Independents, who would they vote for in November? Do you really want to be on their side?

"This is a conservative site; most commenters here will defend Bush no matter what."

I'm not just talking about here... I've been to a multitude of blogs and the overwhelming majority of vets can attest to problems similar to that of Bush and believe he was not AWOL.

By the way, Turnipseed continues to backpedal furiously... so was he being dishonest to the Boston Globe in 2000 or was the Globe being dishonest about what he told them?

FYI,
Folks, "JadeGold" is actually someone formerly named "Guy Cabot", who has been banned from at least three separate sites because of continued intentional falsehoods (that's a nice way of saying that he lies on purpose). Last I saw he was following me around Yglesias' site spreading lies about me and making up stuff that I never said.

Of course, when I call him out with links to his repeated lies, he hauls ass for a few days & then tries it again. John Cole also has some experienc with him.

He's a troll & one of the drawbacks to this thing we call the blogosphere. Good luck.

Good luck.

GG - You are clearly not familiar with JadeGold.

Or here.

--"In the Guard today, as a general rule, 'if someone doesn't show up for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable discharge' most likely noting 'unsatisfactory participation,--

But we're not talking about today, are we?

We're talking about 30 years ago. When we could drink and smoke and eat and no one would bother us. Of course we had only the Big 3 TV stations, no VCRs and all the stuff of today, but, hey, it is the 70s again.

JadeGold, Bill's assertion that Bush volunteered, served, and received honorable discharge is not in dispute. The discharge is posted in this very article.

What is in dispute is the thoroughly debunked assertion that Bush served in anyway less than honorably, which is entirely constructed out of innuendo and unreasoning hatred.

Actually, the evidence of Bush being AWOL is quite strong. The definition of AWOL in the Texas National Guard is simply absent without leave from his base. That Bush did this is undisputed! He refused specific orders to be at specific places at specific times. To see these orders and why Bush was AWOL, go to the analysis at http://www.RadioInsideScoop.com/wst_page12.html

Ivan mentions Bill Clinton, and in case it was not brought up before, didn't Clinton avoid the draft himself? While there was mention about it, I don't recall as much dust flying over that issue than Bush's assumed "AWOL" status.

To JadeGold:

Come now, come now; you posted on here since I asked my questions (for the third time); and even GG, who by and large supports your point of view, has agreed that my questions are both fair and reasonable.

He predicted that you would supply a citation for your claim that Webb has said that "most Vietnam vets are of the opinion Bush shirked his duty." But you left your own ally hanging to twist gently in the wind. Don't you have any such citation? Can't you at least get GG off the hook by citing something we can all check or owning up to some creative exaggeration on your part?

And of course the biggie... you still refuse to answer a simple and direct question: do you, personally, have any evidence at all whether it was acceptable or not for drilling reservists in the 'Bama ANG in 1973 to skip monthly meetings and make them up later?

It's really a very simple question. Either you have such evidence or you don't. Again, you seem to be counting on GG to save you having actually to answer. But GG's quotations from Salon do not actually answer the question:

1) GG's first source, "D.C. military lawyer David Sheldon," said only the following:

"In the Guard today, as a general rule, 'if someone doesn't show up for drill duty, doesn't show up, and doesn't show up, they'll be separated from their unit and given an other-than-honorable discharge' most likely noting 'unsatisfactory participation.'"

A) We're not talking about the Guard today but the Guard in 1973;

B) We're not talking about what is the general rule but rather what is acceptable; as a general rule, Guardsmen don't wear yarmulkes under their covers... but it's certainly acceptable if they choose to do so. Those two terms, general rule and acceptable, are not equivalent.

Perhaps the base commander at the AANG back then didn't care how assiduous was the attendance by those inactive reservists who were no longer flying. Does Mr. Sheldon know? Do you know?

C) Finally, if in fact Sheldon is correct, and as it's demonstrable that Bush was neither separated from his unit nor given an OTH discharge, the easiest conclusion to draw is either that he didn't miss enough meetings to draw such dire consequences or else that missing meetings was all right so long as they were made up later.

2) GG's other source, with the improbable name of Fidell [G], was asked why Bush wasn't punished, and he responded, "It could have been mere inefficiency, or a reluctance to create controversy with the son of an important federal official."

Or perhaps Bush wasn't punished because he did nothing wrong. Did Mr. or Ms. Fidell consider that possibility?

He -- and you, JadeGold -- can claim other possible explanations; but the lack of punishment certainly cannot be called "evidence" that Bush committed an infraction. Otherwise, you could say that the fact that I've never been arrested is solid evidence that I'm a criminal!

So JadeGold, we're still at the starting block, waiting for you to fire the pistol -- which you seem to have forgotten to bring: do you, yourself -- not a long-suffering, loyal surrogate like GG -- do you yourself have any evidence whatsoever to tell us whether or not it was acceptable in the Alabama Air National Guard in 1973 to miss monthly meetings and make them up later?

I am going to keep asking until I get an answer. Of course, it's already beginning to appear that, in a sense, I have my answer: no, of course you have no idea whether it was acceptable or not, since if you did, you would have told us by now.

But I am a patient man, and I'm willing to give you as many second and third chances to answer as you think you might need.

Dafydd

Hmmm.

Let's see.

So this is the picked terrain you all want to fight this campaign on?

I knew so many, so many guys who desperately wanted to get into the National Guard back in the sixties to stay out of harm's way. George Bush, in the same Guard unit as John Connaly's son and Lloyd Bentson's son was one of them. He was just unusually well connected, and able to get the "Champagne" posting as a consequence. There were no waiting lists for the sons of prominent politicians.

Even if we say all Kerry's medals were bogus and fake, he enlisted and certainly put himself in harm's way. There is even the bare possibility that you don't get a Silver Star just by punching a ticket. President Bush checked the box saying he didn't prefer overseas deployment.

George Bush is a physical coward. He proved that to my satisfaction by scuttling around the country from one secure location to another on September 11th, while many of us were choking our way down the stairs of the World Trade Center, climbing over the wreckage and the body parts in what was the Plaza.

He is contemptible.

And you are ideologues. Try the truth. It will set you free.

My own guess is that Karl Rove has enough sense that he will look for other ways to smear Kerry. Or any other Democrat. They are all, of course, ipso facto traitors.

To Malloy:

From your angry non-sequitur above, I take it you, too, have no evidence that it was unacceptable to miss monthly meetings and make them up later in the AANG in 1973. :-)

By the way... who did you vote for in 1996?

Dafydd

Malloy's post is rather silly.

Of course the President was sent from one secure location to another...he's the freakin' president and needed to be protected. The same actions would have been taken had Ralph Nader been the CINC. I guess you conveniently overlook the fact GW demanded to be taken back to Washington before the day was out, against all the advice of the Secret Service.

You also said you knew so many who tried to get in the Guard. This begs the question: What were you doing at the time? In college? Enlisting? What? And "we" didn't pick this fight...McAuliffe and his gang of hatchet men at the DNC, with their newly discovered zest for military service, resurrected this debate.

Malloy's bile is just idiotic. He's seen Independence Day one too many times. I was near my office in the World Trade Center on September 11 too, and like most people I was trying to get to safety. POTUS is a huge target, and he's got a frickin' federal agency tasked with keeping him in one piece.

Malloy: Fly into Baghdad Airport some time and tell me Bush is a coward. Or try learning to fly an airplane, for that matter.

Malloy - if you really were, as you claim, in the WTC on September 11, then how can you support a candidate (Kerry) who believes the threat of terrorist attacks is "exaggerated" ???

Do you agree with John Kerry that this is an exaggeration?

"George Bush is a physical coward. He proved that to my satisfaction by scuttling around the country from one secure location to another on September 11th, while many of us were choking our way down the stairs of the World Trade Center, climbing over the wreckage and the body parts in what was the Plaza."

Malloy, do you know ANYTHING about security surrounding the President during an emergency? The Secret Service takes over, calls all the shots on where the President can go. The Secret Service will not allow the President to put himself in harm's way during these situations.

9/11 was beyond horrible. But imagine how much worse it would have been for the country had an attack against the President that day been successful. (And it doesn't matter what party the President is from.)

Think before you post something so stupid, Malloy.

Wondering if Malloy's first name is Mike... also wondering what happened to JadeGold all of a sudden.

[Folks]

Well, I'm wondering whatever happened to an answer to my question! [D]

Am I going to have to follow JadeGold to yet another section of comments? To another blog? How can it be so difficult to answer such a simple question?

Dafydd

Dafydd,
Once Guy Cabot/JadeGold is nailed, he hauls ass.
Don't worry, he'll chime in again in the future, when it's safe and when he thinks you don't have links to his previous idiotic statements. Once you post them, he'll haul again.
I've seen it at least a dozen times and he's still following me around the internet seeking my attention & then running scared when I call him on his lies.

Alabama is where serious questions arise over whether or not Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Guard. According to military records, his request for transfer was never approved. In June, 1972, the Guard’s personnel records center notified him by mail that he was “ineligible” for the Air Reserve Squadron he requested and he remained assigned to the reserve unit in Texas.

Bush, however, says he went to Alabama anyway and claims he attended guard meetings there.

Not so, says William Turnipseed, the commanding officer of the Alabama reserve unit.

“Hell, I would have remembered a guy from Texas reporting for duty in my unit,” Turnipseed says. “I had been in Texas. Did my flight training in Texas. Somebody from Texas would have been something worth remembering.”

When the issue was raised in the 2000 campaign, Bush said he “specifically remembered” performing some duties in Texas. The problem is, the commanding officer doesn’t remember any such thing and the records back him up.

I requested copies of Bush’s military records as well as the records of the guard units in Houston and Alabama from May 1972 through May 1973 and went through them page by page. I could not find any record of Bush attending any guard meetings during that period nor were there records of him performing any service for either unit.

In addition, he did not report for his two-weeks of duty during the summer and the records show his flight status revoked in August 1972 for missing his annual flight exam.

He was, Turnipseed remembers, “nowhere to be found.”

Bush finally surfaced again in Houston in May 1973 and attended meetings through July of that year. In September he requested an early discharge to attend Harvard Business School and was granted a discharge the following month.

cite

So, Bush blew off his National Guard duties for a year. The usual penalty would have been to send the defaulter to active service, but by that time the Vietnam War was winding down, and besides, George W. was the son of a Texas congressman, George H.W.: so he got an early discharge, and went off to waste his time at Harvard.