What say you now, Jade???

You forgot to underline the following paragraphs:

Bush spent most of his time in the Guard based near Houston, but in May 1972 he received a three-month assignment in Alabama so he could work on a political campaign.

While serving as political director of the Senate campaign of Winton "Red" Blount, a family friend, he was ordered to report for duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Unit in Montgomery, Ala.

The 187th did not fly F-102s, so Bush did not go to the base as a pilot. After missing a required physical exam and being out of the cockpit so long, he lost his flight credentials in Alabama.

So the question's are why was he transferred to a unit that didn't fly his plane and why did he miss his physical?

Interesting that you emphasized Albert Lloyd remarks. He's the man the Bush folks deputized to find some corroboration for Bush's claims. He's also the man who gave us probably the best theory yet for Bush's AWOL Year. From the Boston Globe article:

"Lloyd said it is possible that since Bush had his sights set on discharge and the unit was beginning to replace the F-102s, Bush's superiors told him he was not ''in the flow chart. Maybe George Bush took that as a signal and said, `Hell, I'm not going to bother going to drills.'

''Well, then it comes rating time, and someone says, `Oh...he hasn't fulfilled his obligation.' I'll bet someone called him up and said, `George, you're in a pickle. Get your ass down here and perform some duty.' And he did,'' Lloyd said. That would explain, Lloyd said, the records showing Bush cramming so many drills into May, June, and July 1973. During those three months, Bush spent 36 days on duty."

Not desertion. Not anything terribly evil or heinous. Maybe not even actionable. Mostly its just typical 'W' irresponsibility and lack of character. I still wonder, why are we conservatives fighting so hard for this spoiled Daddy's pet? Hell, he's not even a real conservative -- he's spending bucketloads of OUR money 'cause he's too wimpish to veto the pork. He's nation-building in Iraq--and weeping about their lack of rights till I think I'm hearing Jimmy Carter. He wants to spend MY money bringing home more moon rocks till I think I'm hearing a damn Kennedy. He hasn't got one fiftieth the sense that his father had. And he's clearly lying about his National Guard time. If he won't release his records, if he won't bother to get his own story straight, why are WE going to the mat for him?

Manish, you really don't understand how the Guard works, do you. It's a PART-TIME thing you do in addition to your regular job. THere's no big deal to GWB being transferred to an Alabama guard unit so he could work on a political campaign - Guard members often get transfers to other units to accomodate them moving to a new city to take a different full-time job.

Manish: You don't understand how the Guard works. No one gets "transferred" in the Guard. If you have to work out of town for a few months, you either get carried "absent leave" or you volunteer to make up the weekends you miss at another unit closer to the new workplace. Retention of people is paramount and the Guard bends over backwards to ensure that its members can make up missed drills. I propbably had five soldiers out of 200 in George Bush's situation every drill weekend. They would promise to make up the drill, we'd both sign a piece of paper and then the unit admin NCO would ensure that he came in on a weekday or went to another unit on an alternate weekend. Usually, when you make up a weekend as an officer, you shuffle paperwork or help out in the command post. Would the base commander remember an LT shuffling paper for three weekends? Probably not. I'm sorry if this isn't palatable for those of you taking a hardcore AWOL line, but it's just the way the system works.

11A5S,

Your comments seem to support those of Albert Lloyd in the Globe article:

"Lloyd, the retired Texas Air Guard official, said he does not know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. 'If he did, his drill attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there would have been a record. We cannot find the records to show he fulfilled the requirements in Alabama,' he said.
Indeed, Bush's discharge papers list his service and duty station for each of his first four years in the Air Guard. But there is no record of training listed after May 1972, and no mention of any service in Alabama. On that discharge form, Lloyd said, 'there should have been an entry for the period between May 1972 and May 1973.'
Said Lloyd, 'It appeared he had a bad year. He might have lost interest, since he knew he was getting out.'"

I'm sorry that Bush grew bored with the Guard--I know how annoying it can be when you're stuck with a commitment you're tired of. But he shouldn't pretend there isn't a paper trail. There is--and if we can ever get him to release his records, we'll all see it.

GG

First off, let me state that I don't know if Bush was AWOL or not. As I see it, there are 3 salient facts in this matter:

1)Bush could stop this story in its tracks by releasing his military records, as is standard practise for politicians with military experience (including Kerry and Clark).

2)Bush refuses to do so.

3)Points 1 and 2 mean that this will always be a controversy..whether he was actually AWOL or not becomes less relevant. As with Watergate, it's the coverup, not the crime.

I don't bring up the issue of his transfering as proof of him being AWOL. My point (which I should have better enunciated) was that simply why would someone who has trained on a particular aircraft and have had all that money poured into him by US taxpayers, suddenly pick up and use that knowledge pushing papers? I think that's ridiculous, especially in a time of war.

GG - The salient point here is, Bush had joined the Guard at a time when he could have been militarily useful - he joined a unit that was flying to Vietnam at the time, he signed up for flight training, he even volunteered to go to Vietnam at one point and got turned down. That's not John Kerry's record, but it's not Clinton's, either. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

After 4 years of making himself useful and exceeding his required commitment to the Guard, Bush saw the writing on the wall: the US was promising to de-escalate its presence in Vietnam, the draft was being phased out, the military was cutting manpower, the Guard wasn't being called up anymore, and Bush's plane was being taken out of service. So Bush wanted out, and spent the last two years of his Guard service doing the minimum possible. So what? Al Gore got an early discharge from the Army. So did Kerry, who was in a rush to get home and run for Congress. They did their respective duties, and they went home, as American soldiers have always done.

I expect more than,

"Hey, he was only doing what other wimped out liberals were doing, at the time."

He is a poor excuse for traditions and legacy. It is that "lax" attitude that probably caused him to miss that memo.

Bob Kerrey Says 9/11 Group Meets With Condoleezza

But having been dissed, crawfished, starved for funds and now denied access even to the notes made by four commission members chosen to see a key Presidential briefing—the one at which Mr. Bush learned, five weeks before 9/11, that Osama bin Laden and his terrorists were an imminent threat—at least some of the commissioners feel insulted.

The debate over whether President Bush was AWOL during war time or a Deserter is no debate at all. The UCMJ is very clear on this and I don't see how the "only AWOL" crowd can really stand up to it. If someone is AWOL more than 30 days he is reclassified as a Deserter. A year is certainly more than thirty days, any way you look at it.
For all the verbage that the "only AWOL" group has issued the only thing they have going for them is the ability to be vague on the facts. Any veteran familiar with the code will tell you that the debate is no debate at all.

Dear Crank,

You wrote,

“So Bush wanted out, and spent the last two years of his Guard service doing the minimum possible. So what?”

So he disobeyed orders. He disobeyed the order to take his flight physical; he disobeyed the order to show up at the base in Alabama. It’s a big deal, because he’s running for Commander-in-Chief. We have to vote, so he has to make a FULL ACCOUNTING. No more stonewalling. He has to RELEASE THOSE RECORDS.

And if that means he loses the election, so be it—we’ll come back next time with a REAL CONSERVATIVE, and whip Kerrey’s butt.

But we conservatives have to make a stand here. Just as honest liberals like Leiberman condemned Clinton, we have to condemn George W. Bush for lying and cheating—and we have to demand THE WHOLE STORY. Otherwise we’re hypocrites, and we’ll lose more than one election.

GG

Manish and CG,

I've posted this question to just about every AWOL discussion I've encountered and NO ONE ever gives an answer, but I'll try again.

What is your source for the assertion that Bush hasn't released his military records? Do you think that Bush has a file somewhere that he insists on keeping secret? Can you provide one legitimate news source to support your accusation that he hasn't released everything he has?

The truth is that Bush has released his records and there is NO EVIDENCE that he's holding something back. You and your ilk keep repeating the mantra that he's holding something back, but it just isn't true.

You may not like the fact that there aren't sufficient records to document every day of his life during the period, but that's too bad. An honorable discharge is presumptive proof of honorable service.

Dear Jim,

You wrote:

"Can you provide one legitimate news source to support your accusation that he hasn't released everything he has?"

Well, OK, here's one, from the recent Salon.com article:

“If Bush wanted to resolve the questions about his National Guard service, he could do so very easily. If he simply agreed to release the contents of his military personnel records jacket, the Guard could make public all his discharge papers, including pay records and total retirement points, which experts say would shed the best light on where Bush was, or was not, during the time in question between 1972 and 1973. (Many of Bush's documents are available through Freedom of Information requests, but certain items deemed personal or private cannot be released without Bush's permission.)
Releasing military records has become a time-honored tradition of presidential campaigns. During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, to 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." That, according to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release.”

I could find a thousand other sources, Jim, but it would be better if you’d find them yourself. Read the Salon.com article. It’s balanced, reasonable, accurate. Read the Boston Globe article. Learn about the charges against Bush—and the Bush team’s defense. GET WHATEVER FACTS ARE AVAILABLE, and then, whatever your politics, I’m sure you’ll agree--he ought to RELEASE THOSE RECORDS.
GG

CG-

You posted, "During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, to 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." That, according to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release..."

My question is this, did Clinton ever provide what was requested of him?

I am more worried about the rumor that Bush killed all the unicorns. Now I have never seen a unicorn, and I don't really know anything about them other than the name, but reliable Democrats have claimed that Bush killed them all, and it seems to me that if Bush would just release all the records on his time spent with the unicorns, we would know. After all, there is a suspicious gap of some 30 years in which he could have been killing unicorns but no records seem to exist of him having done so or having even been seen in the company of a unicorn. Therefore, it is highly probable (even though I don't have any idea how unicorn association records are kept or stored or what they mean) that he was, indeed, busy killing off all the unicorns. I demand answers. How will we ever know if Bush did in fact kill all the unicorns if he won't release the records?

Dear OMC,4MARDIV,

Bill Clinton? That lying snake-in-the-grass weasel? I doubt it! But George Sr, who was an honorable man, was right to ask.
And he's a hypocrite not to demand the same of his own son.
GG

So say you got those personal records and they showed no evidence of AWOL. Wpuld you guys leave it and say good enough for me? I don't think so. I think it would be just like the hutton enquiry where the same people repeat the same things and so on and so on...

I think no amout of evidence will ever validate Bush record because you have too much invested in the idea of a bad record.

My, my, this is sad.

Instead of opening his military records as every President and candidate for that office has done back to Harry Truman, Bush opts to attack a man who has devoted the bulk of his life to military service.

Of course, this doesn't help Bush's case; in a way, it adds to the growing suspicion Bush's record isn't as he claims.

Again, Bush can't produce anyone--a superior, a subordinate, a colleague--who can vouch for him having served at thi disputed time.

Think about it for a moment. When Bush was undergoing pilot training, there's no shortage of people who recalled training with or supervising Bush. Yet, the only people who recall working with Bush during his AWOL period are campaign workers---doing campaign work, not reserve duty.

CaptJoe: "So say you got those personal records and they showed no evidence of AWOL. Wpuld you guys leave it and say good enough for me? I don't think so. I think it would be just like the hutton enquiry where the same people repeat the same things and so on and so on..."

Again, if Bush were open up his military records and they showed he was where he said he was--end of story. Anybody who'd continue to claim Bush was AWOL or a deserter would be consigned to the lunatic fringe like those who still believe there's a 'Clinton body count.'

And if the record showed Bush wasn't telling the truth--I don't believe he'd suffer any penalty like taking away his honorable discharge or any sort of punishment. He'd likely take a hit in the court of public opinion.

The real story, as I've maintained all along, is that is just another instance where Bush has received an undeserved opportunity due to his name, failed or otherwise screwed up that opportunity, and left others to deal with the mess.

Dear JorgXMcKie,

Attempt at humor there, Jorg?

Look, will you pro-Bush fanatics please spend a little less time blogging and more time reading the facts?
The charges against Bush are CLEAR. They are SERIOUS. They come from MILITARY RECORDS.
The record tells us Lt. Bush was ordered to take a flight physical; he disobeyed.

He was ordered to appear at the base in Alabama. He didn’t. When he returned to Texas, he didn’t show up that base (Ellington) either. He says he did, but his commanding officer—a friend of his—wrote “Lt Bush has not been observed at this post…”

He disobeyed orders, and now he’s lying to us about it.

In Bush’s defense, he did get an Honorable Discharge. But this discharge was at the discretion of local Guard commanders. Knowing how easily the Bush family manipulated the military system in Texas, we have a right to be sceptical.

I remember during the early days of the Watergate investigation, conservatives were making up all sorts of excuses for Nixon (even lame jokes like your unicorn analogy). Their failure to hold Nixon responsible for his lies is what led to Jimmy Carter and the Democratic landslide of ’76.

So no more unicorny jokes, OK?

GG

OK, now I'm confused. A few months ago the refrain was "Bush released his records, and there is no paperwork for his time served in Alabama". Now the refrain is that his records have not been released. How can there be a gap in his records for Alabama if his records are still sealed?

JadeGold,
Wha' happened to you yesterday? Check that blog--I defended your sorry ass--even promised Dafydd you'd give citation for your Webb quote--you vanished.
GG

Siergan,

Who's got time? Just read the articles. Go to Salon.com, read that one, and read the Boston Globe article as well. Get the basics down--then come back and argue.
GG

Siergen:

Bush has never released his records. What few records that have been obtained have been FOIA'd. But the FOIA only extends so far. See the recent Salon article on what kinds of records can and are withheld.

Basically, we have the broad outline of Bush's time in the reserves; what's troubling is we also have documents that show Bush was 'not observed' for a period of time when he should have been. We have the accounts of Bush's superiors claiming he didn't show up. We have documents showing Bush ignored an order to take a flight physical and being grounded.

All of this is at variance with what Bush has previously said.

I'm not trying to argue, I'm just asking someone to explain it. Are the people who say there is a gap in Bush's records disagreeing with the people who say the records haven't been released yet?

Jadegold,

Thanks - that clears things up a bit.

Why, thank you, GG. Appreciate it. Been a little busy--there's a war on, don't you know.

The Webb quotes come from a CNN interview with Aaron Brown found here:

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/04/asb.00.html

[JadeGold]

Good heavens, JadeGold -- did you think I wouldn't actually look up the Web citation you gave?

Webb says nothing in that interview remotely like what you alleged.

Here is what you claimed, "Posted by JadeGold at February 5, 2004 06:46 PM":

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

But in the CNN interview you cited above, here is the only thing Webb says about Bush and veterans. I give you the entire question and answer, lest anyone allege pulling out of context; the "Brown" conducting the interview is Aaron Brown, CNN anchor:

BROWN: Let me -- let me ask the question this way. Whatever each of them did back then or didn't do back then they were a little bit more but not much more than kids. I mean they were, you know, 20, 21, 22, 23 years old. What does that tell us really about who they are today and how they would deal with the issues of today?

WEBB: Well, I think that's a really good question first of all and a valid question because first of all we make decisions all through our lives that we have to live with for the rest of our lives. And, second, the most important question really is who is the least dangerous in terms of the situation that we're in right now?

I say that because there's an enormous amount of concern about what the Bush administration has done in terms of the Iraq War and I personally would never even have thought that large numbers of Vietnam veterans would be moving toward John Kerry because of the anger toward him from before but you're seeing this happen now largely just because of concern over the management of the Iraq War.

Note that nowhere in the entire interview does James Webb say a single word about whether vets think Bush "shirked his duty."

I have, however, identified where this phrase came from... it came from you, JadeGold.

In an earlier post, the one where you actually quoted (correctly) from this CNN interview, at 6:32 PM same day, fourteen minutes before the one I called you on, you began as follows:

"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:" [Here followed a quotation from the CNN transcript.]

This is a perfect encapsulation of how nonsense gets propagated on the Web (not the Webb [g]): it was you yourself who used the phrase "many vets do think Bush shirked his duty;" and immediately afterwards, you quoted James Webb saying something different.

But then, just a quarter of an hour later, your mind had rewritten the past, not as it actually happened, but as you think it should have happened; you posted that it was Webb, not you, who had claimed that vets think Bush shirked his duty, when in fact Webb said no such thing... as I suspected all along when I read your first post, followed by the second in which your own claim was put into James Webb's mouth.

So the reality is that you have either unwittingly or else deliberately made a false claim that Webb said something that in fact you yourself, and only you, said. You have attempted to lend false authority to your own opinion by putting it in the mouth of someone who has more credibility.

This may be why George W. Bush said in a press conference today "JadeGold over on the Hobbes Online blog really oughta answer that question Dafydd asked... does he have any evidence at all that the Alabama ANG in 1973 did not allow reservists to skip meetings so long as they made them up later?"

Well? It's not just me asking it now -- the president is asking as well. And Koffi Annan just called me up; he's on tenterhooks waiting for your answer, too.

Dafydd

[JadeGold]

Addendum: I just noticed as well that your original claim was that "many vets" think Bush shirked his duty; but the subject of that clause underwent an amazing transmaugrification into "most vets" when you put the quotation into James Webb's mouth.

Just thought it worth pointing that out.

Dafydd

At the risk of sounding foolish here - GWB's got a document stating he got an honorable discharge. That's easily seen at this particular site...

The money quote lines are at the top.

"Report of Separation and Record of Service in the __AIR__ National Guard of __TEXAS__ and as a Reserve of the __Air_Force__

Type of discharge __Honorable__

That's all he needs to prove he served honorably. That he discharged his duties in a satisfactory manner.

If he had a General discharge, a Bad Conduct Discharge, an Undesireable Discharge, I can see why you'd be bitching. But he doesn't, it's an Honorable.

That may not be good enough for you - you might want to put his entire record under a microscope hoping to find an undotted I or an uncrossed T to scream about - but aside from the NGB Form 22, the DD-214 equivalent, he's under NO obligation to provide anything else, or AUTHORIZE it either.

I did attendence recording for my unit for 8 years. We had folks miss months of Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) and either make them up later or be excused because they were on active duty. As long as the member had enough points for a good year toward retirement - it didn't matter whether they got them at the beginning of the year in AD status, throughout the year doing their regular drills and annual tour, or at the end of the year - or any time in between. The thing was, you had to have your points in during the fiscal year which ended 31 Sep. You couldn't carry excusals over to the next calendar year.

As far as the actual records go, for reasons I detailed in this previous thread, the actual records may no longer exist. Certainly the attendence records have been boiled down to points listings, and discarded long ago. As far as the military is concerned, all they need to know is how many points a member got in a year. The attendence records are kept for a few years to verify points listing if the member has a problem - but I'd be very surprised if any Reserve unit from that time had archived paper copies of their AFR Form 40's or the Nat. Guard equivalent.

Demand he release his records? Why should he? To appease people who won't be pleased by anything he does? If I were him, I'd sure as hell not release them to satisfy the curiosity of people more that willing to spin things and falsify statements any way that would suit their agenda.

J.

Dafydd,

What was with that post? You some kind of lawyer now, twisting words to win an argument? You KNEW what JadeGold was saying. James Webb HAD made the point that Bush’s defense was suspect to vets like himself. He made a pretty powerful anti-Bush case. You don’t like it, argue back. Stop all the tricky stuff. On your other point, I think you’re trying to say that in the ’73 Texas Air Guard, a few months or even a year of unexcused absences were no big deal. Just say that. Or if I’ve got it wrong, say what you DO mean. All this prosecutorial garbage (“JadeGold, do you or do you not have personal knowledge blah blah…”) sounds weird on a blog. Contributes nothing.
GG

Dear JLawson,
Good to hear from you again.
On the subject of the records, James Webb (Sec. Of the Navy under Reagan) disagrees with you:

“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.”

But suppose you’re right, and the records were lost. There are other records available. If W would release them. Philip Carter (a former Guardsman) on his blog site, mentions for example:

“Pay Records. If you attend drill, you get paid by Uncle Sam. This is a fundamental principle in the reserves -- federal and state National Guard -- that is true for a variety of reasons. Soldiers join the reserves to earn money and college benefits, and thus pay is very important. Also, Uncle Sam's legal umbrella only covers you for accidents, medical treatment, etc., if you're on duty -- and being paid is the way you know if you're on duty. If President Bush drilled on the dates in question, his attendance would have been compensated by the Guard. (On occasion, Guard officers do volunteer their time, especially when they're in a critical position like company command. But the President says he was doing menial paperwork, so I don't think he was volunteering his time on weekends) In any event, even if the President's attendance records were lost, his attendance at drill would have generated pay. That should have also resulted in the creation of pay records, and/or bank records documenting the receipt of that pay.

Retirement Points. If the President attended drill during the summer of 1972, he would have received retirement points for those drill dates. Different units use different means for the computation of these points, but they're generally computed using either pay or attendance records. If President Bush attended drill for the dates in question, his attendance should have generated something on his Guard retirement report for those dates. (A copy of the President's retirement points report for 1973 is available online.) In all likelihood, he would have received a rollup of his retirement credit for 1972 that indicated he did not serve the requisite number of days on duty in order to earn credit for a year towards retirement.”

JLawson, you think he shouldn’t release these records because the charges against him aren’t grave enough? Or because he got an Honorable Discharge?—even though you know that that discharge would have been in the hands of the local Texas commander—and subject to Bush family influence?

I don’t agree. Millions of Americans, including lots of conservative—are with me. I think Bush will lose the election if he doesn’t ante up.
GG

Daffyd -

Oddly enough, the vast majority of vets I know think Bush did his duty, and are a lot prouder of him than they were of Clinton. And I'm referring to guys from WW2 on. As a Viet-Nam era vet, I think he did his duty well.

BTW, GWB landed AF-1 at our Reserve base when attending a fundraiser in Atlanta. (Something Clinton didn't do during his tenure - preferring to disrupt traffic and air schedules at Hartsfield) We had a whole lot of people lining the route off the base, saluting as he passed.

J.

" discharge ... subject to Bush family influence."

GG -

You accusing the administration of Dolph Briscoe, a life-long Democrat, of being corrupt?

GG -

Well, I'M certainly shut down by that last. After all, what's my opinion worth (as someone who actually DID the work keeping the records, and who disposed of a LOT of the forms over the years) compared to some politician who got appointed to the job? Did he ever work as a personnel specialist?

"JLawson, you think he shouldn’t release these records because the charges against him aren’t grave enough?"

Grave? How are they grave? WHY are they grave? Seems to me you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. YOU want to know where he was. The military was apparently satisfied he was where he was supposed to be.

Are you saying he actually got a General or Bad Conduct discharge, instead of an Honorable? Falsifed his documents somehow?

I'm looking at what's available from the viewpoint of someone who processed these things for a (Reserve) living. It really is my opinion that you're trying hard to find problems with Bush where none exist.

" Millions of Americans, including lots of conservative—are with me. I think Bush will lose the election if he doesn’t ante up."

I disagree. I do believe there's millions of Americans who wouldn't vote for GWB if he was the only person on the ballot. And that's their right - and yours. I also think, judging by your arguments, that you'd never vote for Bush at all whether he released his records or not.

So at this point, I think we can agree to disagree on this subject. I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you - and I don't believe you're going to be able to convince me.

GG - (Cont.)

The TANG members who researched, typed and signed Bush's honorable discharge were in a chain-of-command that ran directly to Governor Briscoe, one of the most respected and beloved Texas politicians of the 20th Century. A man of great integrity and a life-long Democrat.

JLawson,
Nah, your opinion is worth as much as Webb's. Been fun debating with you. I have to retire from the world of blogging now--too much work these days. I wish I could say we'll see--but I bet I'm dead before Bush's records come out. Take care.
GG

CG,

I appreciate the response, but you didn't really answer the question. First off, I don't consider Salon legitimate. Second, you didn't provide a link. Third, excerpt you quote doesn't say that there has been any document in the file that hasn't been released. Instead, the author SPECULATES that there must be something somewhere to vindicate Bush's claim. The truth is just the opposite. This all occurred long before the computer error and I can point you to many Guardsmen who report similar incidents involving lost and shoddy recordkeeping by Guard units ().

Finally, I notice how you shift the goalposts. Instead of opening his military file (still waiting for any evidence that the President has refused to open any file regarding his Guard service) you point to pay records and the like. As if! Do you have pay receipts from more than 6 years ago?

I'm pretty sure that CG earned millions in illegal drug transactions in 1985 and failed to report the income. All he has to do is release his tax returns showing that he reported the income and I'll be proved wrong. His refusal to provide those tax returns speaks volumes doesn't it?

Questions JLawson would rather avoid:

Why won't Bush open his military records? After all, he got an honorable discharge; every President and candidate for that office--since Truman-- with military experience has opened his military record.

Why has Bush's story about the disputed period of time changed? Why have those stories often included demonstrable lies?

Why can't Bush produce anyone from his unit during the disputed time period? This is odd since Bush has had no problem producing people to talk about him from before and after this period.

Bush's father threw a hissy fit in 1992 demanding Bill Clinton make public any correspondence with his "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." Bush's father opened his own military record to the public. Why won't his son?

Why, in 1978, during his unsuccessful campaign for Congress did Bush claim to have served in the US Air Force?

Inquiring minds, etc...

Jim asks: "Do you have pay receipts from more than 6 years ago? "

Yes. However, I realize most people probably do not.

However... most people could easily produce the names of people they worked with. And they certainly could tell you what they were doing at their place of employment.

Plus, I'm sure the IRS has the pertinent records. One should remember that Bush was looking at a career in politics (after ensuring his daddy's friends ante'd up); so, it's a virtual certainty Bush's tax returns exist for his entire adult life.

JadeGold:

Already covered things here.

GWB was a lieutenant 30 years back. And you expect him to be remembered by all and sundry. I couldn't tell you the name of the last officer I processed into the squadron, and that was less than three years back. In fact, in the 13 years I was in that unit, I'm not sure I ever met everyone in it. One weekend a month and two weeks out of the year (and that two weeks doesn't have to be taken with the unit, if training's available elsewhere) doesn't leave a lot of time for socializing - and if the member comes in on the off-weekends (Or alternate UTAs) the commander MIGHT meet him when he inprocesses, then outprocesses when he gets another assignment.

Your other questions/rants merit no response.

BTW, why do people suggest you punch Guy Cabot in the nads?

Midnight. Goodnight.

J.

GG says: "Millions of Americans, including lots of conservative—are with me. I think Bush will lose the election if he doesn’t ante up."

I think there's a chance that he'll lose the election. How good a chance? *shrug* Got me, that's why they have elections. But if he DOES lose it, it ISN'T going to be because of THIS matter. Iraq, sure. Economy, okay. May or may not have been AWOL from the ANG 30 years ago? Nuh-uh. Not a chance.

[GG]

Dafydd,

What was with that post? You some kind of lawyer now, twisting words to win an argument? You KNEW what JadeGold was saying. James Webb HAD made the point that Bush’s defense was suspect to vets like himself.

Au contraire, GG (pardon my French). JadeGold made a very specific claim: he said that James Webb had said that "most Vietnam vets are of the opinion Bush shirked his duty."

This is not simply claiming that Bush's record was "suspect" to James Webb. It's largely irrelevant what one person happens to think.

The claim, which JadeGold put into Webb's mouth, was that MOST vets thought Bush failed to fulfill his duty.

In act, Webb didn't even say that he, personally thought Bush failed to fulfill his duty.

Words have meanings, GG. I am a professional writer; I use the English language with clarity and precision.

I expect others to do the same. This is the real world, not high school. If JadeGold insists upon engaging in irresponsible discourse, he should bloody well expect to get called on it.

That goes for you, too. And for me; if you find sloppy writing on my part, I order you to bring it to my attention so I can correct it [G].

Dafydd

Questions JadeGold would rather avoid:

Do you, personally, have any evidence indicating members of the Alabama Air National Guard in 1973 were not allowed to miss monthly meetings and make them up later?

If you don’t -- and I’m pretty sure you would have coughed up something by now if you had -- then this entire discussion is completely moot. If it was allowable for Bush to do what he did, then there is nothing wrong with him doing it. Duh. (That's pretty much the definition of "allowed.")

Dafydd

JLawson: "GWB was a lieutenant 30 years back. And you expect him to be remembered by all and sundry. I couldn't tell you the name of the last officer I processed into the squadron, and that was less than three years back."

A bit of a strawman, JLawson, on several counts. First, Bush wasn't some nameless guy. Even during his service, his father was a Congressman and his grandfather a former US Senator. So, it's not as if Bush were some Joe Sixpack from East Pickleseed, Nebraska.

Second, Bush got elected Governor of Texas and appointed President; things like that tend to jog people's memories. Think about it; have you ever known anyone who became famous or semi-famous before they were famous?

Third, Bush's unit in AL was comprised of between 600-700 servicemen. How is it that one hasn't come forward and said they have a recollection of Bush during this period? You may not be able to name all the people in your unit from 3 years back but I'll bet you can name some. And I'll bet you can tell us what you were doing in that unit and what responsibilities you had. Bush apparently cannot.

Even if Bush WAS a deserter, and he wasn't.
Even if Bush WAS a coward, and he wasn't.
His decision to recognize terrorism as a war and not a law enforcement problem was critical to the future of our country. Earlier presidents who blamed only the line soldiers and not the countries who sent them, who blustered about retaliation but did nothing significant must stand exposed as derelict. This specifically includes presidents of both parties. The Bash Bush Boys should get on with life and talk abour REAL problems, like Janet's tit.

JadeGold:

Not a strawman at all. He wasn't running around with neon signs pointing at him blinking "CONGRESSMAN'S SON!" and "FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!" after all, and it's extremely unlikely he'd be going "Hi, I'm GWB, remember my name because I'm gonna be famous some day!" whenever he met someone in the military. He may have been the son of someone famous, but playing off that sort of thing is considered pretty damn tacky and earns someone very well deserved ridicule. He may have tried it in Basic as an Airman, but that'd have been the LAST time he'd have done it.

Second - when you've got a reserve unit, you may remember some of the guys - but unless you work with them on a day-in day out basis for quite a while, or the guy's got a UNIQUE name, (which 'George Bush' isn't - 'Mark Van Velkinberg' is, for example) it's not going to stick in your mind. As I've said before, one weekend a month and two weeks in the year isn't sufficent time for that.

Third - see second above. Ten years from now, I'd be very surprised if anyone I took care of paperwork for at the squadron remembers me. I took care of pay and points issues, pulled out decorations reports, took care of their personnel issues, took care of their records - but why should they remember the name of the E-6 who did it?

Bush was a Lieutenant. He came in, he didn't stay till he made Captain. He got out. What would have been memorable about him?

You're starting to impress me as someone who's remarkably clueless as to how the military and the Reserves work, how the paperwork is organized, and what the customs are - and not at all inclined to learn.

J.

I served in the National Guard in the Vietnam era. I am not someone who'd be described as either patriotic or unpatriotic. I tell my story because there are parallels to Bush's. You tell me, should I be admonished?

At age 25, I got an induction notice. My employer was able to get a postponement because of critical project I was working on, labor negotiation involving 5 plants and 10,000 employees -- not a deferment, but my induction date was pushed back to when the negotiation would be completed.

During that "reprieve" I learned that I could enter the Guard by agreeing to go to OCS, two years of rigorous monthly weekend duty on the other side of my state. I went that route, which allowed me to marry my wife, who had 2 young children from a previous marriage.

I went to Fort Dix for basic training and advanced specialty training, along with the Regular Army inductees. Nothing "special" because I was in the Guard. My advanced training was in administration, which was the focus of my home unit.

After that, I was transferred by my employer to another state. There, my home unit was artillery, so I studied that to become qualified as a forward observer and served weekends and went to 2 weeks of summer camp out of state twice --- firing range, etc. This was not a hardship per se, but it did mean there were no real vacations during that time with my family.

When I was transferred again, back to my original home unit, Vietnam was scaling down. I was expecting to serve another 1.5 years, but was told that there were officers returning from Nam who were on a waiting list because they wanted the income from being in the Guard after their active duty was finished.

Frankly, being in the Guard WAS boring, and I was happy to give my slot to someone who wanted admission to the National Guard. I was honorably discharged.

So --- I avoided going to VietNam, although we were told regularly during basic training that we could be called up at any time. In fact, the drill sergeants liked to play with our heads in that respect --- and so did the "faculty" at my OCS program, who were very good at harassment, sleep deprivation stuff, and so forth.

My Guard duty was modified to meet the circumstances of my employment.

I served only 4.5 years rather than 6.

I was not in favor of our Vietnam efforts and did some marching (thanks to living in a country that allowed freedom of expression). But was I willing to go to combat if called up. Sure. That's the system. Unpatriotic? You tell me.

JLawson: "He wasn't running around with neon signs pointing at him blinking "CONGRESSMAN'S SON!" and "FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!" after all, and it's extremely unlikely he'd be going "Hi, I'm GWB, remember my name because I'm gonna be famous some day!" "

Again, people in his unit--when he was flying--seem to remember him and his family connections. And they have no problem remembering all sorts of things about him after 30+ years.

Why is it when he goes to AL he becomes invisible and anonymous?

The answer is very apparent.

WRT "unique name" excuse; it's not the name (unless somebody has a really memorable moniker), it's the notoriety. When you find out one of them has gone on to do something memorable--it jogs your memory. I can guarantee you people who served in that unit in AL during the disputed time have searched their memories to see if they could remember Bush. None have.

Here's an example; about a month ago, I'm at a meeting. I get to talking with this old duffer and swapping stories. He tells me, during our sea stories, he was CO of a certain FFG. Since I'd done some inspection and survey work on that particular FFG, I asked him when he was CO. He tells me and it jogs my memory to remember the fact we'd met years earlier onboard that ship, we'd even attended a base social function, etc. So, here's a guy I'd known all of 3 days 20 years ago and we remember each other. And this isn't some guy who was a Congressman/VP/US President's son.

Again, it is beyond belief that some 600-700 people in Bush's AL unit had no recollection of Bush.

Manish:

The Associated Press reviewed several glowing annual evaluations along with about 200 pages of Bush's military record.

Let's see: people have insisted Bush find someone he served with to prove he did his service; the story quotes several people. You want Bush to release his military records; AP has reviewed a big chunk of them and found glowing reports. Phil Carter wants his DD214; Bill links the gif of Bush's DD214.

Why should we particularly imagine that anything would be enough?

Can you guys promise me that this thing has finally, finally, finally been settled?

I'd sure hate to think of having to listen to this through the next several months. In fact, if I were a campaign operative, I think I would be waving my arms wildly saying "Don't go there!!" in light of the military situation we are tangled up in right now.

Charlie: Actually, Bush didn't get a DD-214. As a member of the NG, he probably wouldn't get one. The form posted by Mr. Hobbs is an NGB 22 (if you squint real hard at the lower lefthand portion of the document you can just about make it out).

The NGB 22 only provides a rollup of Bush's service dates from 68 to 73. it doesn't detail his reserve attendance dates or provide any idea of what those duties or functions were. It also doesn't tell if Bush acquired any, or enough, drill time.

Again, if this were the only document out there--we Bush opponents would have nothing to go on. Unfortunately, we do have documents that state Bush was 'not observed' for the last year of this service. We also have documents which note he wasn't prest for another 6 months at another unit. We have documents that suspend Bush from flying because he disobeyed an order to get a flight physical.

Compounding the documentation are the near-constant changes in Bush's story about this time period.

Really, all Bush has to do is authorize his military records to be opened. That's all.

JG,

You imply that you have a Naval background, yet still cling to the tact of misinterpreting a standard "Not Observed" report as some sort of sinister accusation. This leads me to suspect you are either misrepresenting your personal experience or being purposefully disingenuous in your arguments.

Submandave: The inference is all yours. 'Not observed' means just that--the evaluating officer could not evaluate Bush. The reasons for this are unknown; it could mean the evaluating officer simply was unfamiliar with Bush's performance or it could mean he never saw Bush. It could mean something in between.

Of course, the evaluation strongly suggests the latter since the amplfying remarks note he was not observed "at this unit" during the period of time in question. It also makes note that his "civilian occupation" made it necessary for Bush to transfer to a non-flying unit in AL.

Again, this documentation does exist in a vacuum; officers in AL can't recall seeing Bush as well.

[JadeGold]

All right, since you seem utterly unwilling to answer a simple, civil question that even GG admits is reasonable and relevant, I'll ask a different one that perhaps isn't as personally embarassing to you:

JadeGold, do you, personally, believe it is relevant whether Bush had permission to skip monthly meetings and make them up later?

Or do you believe that even with such permission, he was still AWOL?

You ought to be able to answer that question, as all it requires is your own opinion.

What about the rest of you: how many people here believe that even if Bush had permission to skip meetings and make them up later, he was still AWOL?

Thanks,

Dafydd

As an amplifying comment to those, most recently-JLawson, who claim they can't remember people they've served or worked with--I offer this:

Everybody Knows

After a scary couple of years in the North Atlantic at the beginning of WWII, my father got transferred to a ship bound for the forward areas of the Pacific. Once there, he told me he met at least three guys who claimed to have lost money playing poker with the young Lt. Nixon, who was one of the most notorious cardsharps in the Pacific Theater. (One of Bravo’s True Tales Of The West Wing concerns the youthful Dick’s way with a deck on deck.) Further, he also met about 10 guys who claimed to know guys who got similarly fleeced.

My point is this. The forward areas of the Pacific were, I think we can all agree, a slightly more chaotic and random duty station than was, say, Air National Guard billet in Alabama in the early 1970s. Yet, by his own reckoning, my father met at least 13 guys claiming at least a secondhand acquaintance with a future president of the United States. By contrast, the Republicans can’t find one single person who remembers encountering the young C-Plus Augustus in peaceful Alabama as the age of Aquarius faded.

Not…one…single…person.

They apparently can’t even find anyone who saw him in the Piggly Wiggly, let alone in the cockpit of a jet fighter.

They apparently can’t even find one barracks braggart to come out and lie about it.

They apparently can’t even find anyone who’ll do it just for the reward money.

That is the ground on which I call bulls**t on every bit of Republican spin on this story. You lied. You’re still lying. You buried the documentary evidence. Admit it and move along, please.

...oh look, JadeGold has nothing but innuendo, nudges and winks to "prove" his charges. When an eyewitness's

Typical.

My favorite gem from Jade Gold:

Instead of opening his military records as every President and candidate for that office has done back to Harry Truman,

...and I suppose if they all jumped off a bridge then you'd be expecting GWB to do so to?

Additionally, it would help your cause if you didn't include outright lies:


Bush opts to attack a man who has devoted the bulk of his life to military service.

Sorry, but where is Bush mentioned attacking anyone in the article Hobbs quoted?

Sad thing is, your actions, your "evidence" only destroys your own case and make your accusations look like the rantings of a bitter, spiteful little man.

Keep it up.

Ahhh, Mr. Chester, we aren't speaking of "jumping off a bridge," are we ?

We're talking about something every US President (and presidential candidate) with military experience has done since Truman.

Let's be honest; Bush likes to portray himself as a martial figure. In his unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 1978, he told audiences he served in the US Air Force; something which wasn't true.

His campaign literature and the like often show a younger Bush in his TX ANG days.

There are serious questions, though, about whether or not Bush fulfilled his commitment to the Guard. And many of these questions arose from the fact Bush has changed his story so many times about how he got into the Guard and what he did and when.

[JadeGold]

Fine. You've conclusively proven that Lt. Bush didn't fleece anyone in the AANG poker games.

You know, I rarely make personal comments about anyone. It's just not my style; go back and take a look and see.

But I must say, of all the dyed-in-the-wool Leftists I've ever debated, you are without question the most cowardly.

Your craven refusal to answer simple, civil, relevant questions; your inability to face the simplest logical arguments and respond in like; your studied ignoring of anyone who says anything you can't answer off the top of your head; these defy description.

Michael Moore would have made shift to answer. Terry McAuliffe would have found something relevant to say in answer to even a tough question. Even John F. Kerry manages to scrape together a vague response to arguments against his position.

You are simply a poltroon. And there is no point served conversing with a coward.

Goodbye, JadeGold.

Dafydd

Daffyd -

Guy Cabot (JadeGold) seems to be a rather popular person. North Georgia Dogma: Troll outage has words to say about him, and Baldilocks at baldilocks: Dishing it Out has noted his presence.

Apparently JadeGold/Guy Cabot is an egotist who's own blog failed. Kind of pitiful to watch, actually, as he seems to be seeking some sort of recognition from the blogosphere while finding himself frequently banned for unacceptable on-line behavior. I guess negative strokes are better for JadeGold than no strokes at all.

J.

Let's go to the WayBack Machine to find another instance where Bush was, well, less than candid about his National Guard days.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,2763,202917,00.html

The most serious scandal yet to threaten George W Bush's campaign to become US president gathered momentum in a Texas courtroom yesterday when a retired politician admitted that he had intervened 31 years ago to help Mr Bush avoid going to Vietnam.

He has so far weathered questions about his youthful excesses, including allegations that he took cocaine. But the claim that he used family connections to dodge the draft threatens his support on the Republican right, for whom military service is a political benchmark.

In a written statement under oath presented on Monday, Ben Barnes, a former speaker of the Texas state legislature, said that in 1968 he asked the head of the Texan Air National Guard, General James Rose, to give the young Mr Bush a place on a pilot-training programme, automatically excusing him from the draft.

The draft has become a big issue in recent election campaigns. The former Republican vice-president Dan Quayle was accused of seeking refuge in the National Guard, and Bill Clinton was criticised for going to Britain. The issue is particularly dangerous for Mr Bush, as it focuses attention on his privileged past.

In his deposition, Mr Barnes said he had been asked to intervene by a Bush family friend, Sid Adger, but he did not know whether George Bush Sr, then a congressman, knew about the request. The former president said recently that he was "almost positive" that he had never discussed the matter with Adger, who died three years ago, and never asked for help. Rose died in 1993.

In the Austin court case, Lawrence Littwin, a former director of the Texas lottery, is claiming that, under George W Bush's governorship, the contract for operating the lottery was given to a corporation called Gtech, for whom Mr Barnes was a lobbyist, as a favour in return for Mr Barnes' silence on the governor's Vietnam record. Mr Littwin is suing Gtech for orchestrating his dismissal after he proposed that the $150m-a-year (£91m) lottery contract should be open to competitive bids.

His claims have been dismissed as baseless by Gtech, Mr Barnes and Mr Bush, who have pointed out that Mr Barnes left Gtech before Mr Littwin was hired by the state lottery. On Monday Mr Bush also denied that his family had been directly involved in pulling strings to get him in the National Guard.

"I don't know if Ben Barnes did or not, but he was not asked by me or my dad," he said. "I can just tell you, from my perspective, I never asked for, I don't believe I received special treatment."

But records published in the US press show that Mr Bush won a pilot's slot in the National Guard in front of thousands of others, despite scoring only 25% in his aptitude test: the lowest acceptable grade. He was sworn in on the day he applied.

In his statement, Mr Barnes said that one of Mr Bush's advisors, Dan Evans, came to see him last year to discuss the issue. Mr Bush later sent a note saying: "Thank you for your candour and for killing the rumour about you and dad ever discussing my status. Like you, he never remembered any conversation. I appreciate your help."

Mr Barnes initially resisted giving testimony, arguing that his former role as lieutenant governor gave him executive privilege. This argument was rejected by the judge.

The Guardian?

From 1999?

Uh, yeah. I think you ought to send this to Matt Drudge. I'm sure he'll be glad to get it. Also CNN. And don't forget Indymedia.org - I particularly recommend the SF branch. They'll be on this like, oh, stink in a cesspool. They'll lionize you there.

G'night.

J.

For those of you interested in the documentation on President Bush's stint in the NG please read the George Mag article, it has links to the documentation you are interested in and is the most detailed article I've read on it.

BTW George Mag is NOT a conservative mag.

http://web.archive.org/web/20001202233300/http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html

Gail: The George Magazine article is good in that it introduces some new documentation. Unfortunately, that documentation opens up many new questions about the so-called "torn document."

As for George Magazine (now defunct) not being a conservative magazine; I can only laugh. It's chief editor was Tony Blankley (Newt Gingrich's senior advisor) and Ann Coulter was the featured columnist.

"I particularly condemn the way our political leaders supplied the manpower for that (the Vietnam) war. The policies -- determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live -- were an antidemocratic disgrace. I can never forgive a leadership that said, in effect: These young men -- poorer, less educated, less privileged -- are expendable (someone described them as "economic cannon fodder"), but the rest are too good to risk. I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well placed and many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us) managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to our country."

Quiz Time!

Who is quoted above?

a.) John Kerry

b.) Wesley Clark

c.) George McGovern

d.) Colin Powell

Bush can't authorize release of his military records that are still kept private. If he does, one of the documents to be made public would be a copy of the "torn document" without the SSN redacted. This would likely not be George Bush's SSN, which would show that he not only did not serve during the months in question, but that someone snuck a forged record into his file in an attempt to make it look like he made up the time missed.

During my twenty years on active duty in combat units, I saw quite a few guys walk away from the Army with an honorable discharge they did not deserve. In such cases, commanders usually didn't want to go to the trouble of making a different discharge stick.

And not to disparage the Guard, but I once saw an entire tank company leave a training area to go home because their commander wanted them to start field training one day earlier than previously announced. They were all convinced to return, but none suffered any consequences. I can easily imagine that TNG leaders might have decided that holding George W. Bush to his word in 1973 was just too much trouble, given his powerful family. So I don't view his honorable discharge as evidence of honorable service.

Left, Face!: The SSN, as well as certain other personal data, could still be redacted. The key is ensuring that the "torn document" is Bush's and the information is what it is purported to be.

I'll seconf your comments about the honorable discharge. People should understand the military, like any huge organization, is pretty political in nature. To cite a case everyone's familiar with--Ollie North. Here's an O-5 who gets nailed in federal court with felony convictions for convicted of altering and destroying documents, accepting an illegal gratuity, and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress. The convictions were later vacated on a technicality but North certainly remained open to a court martial. Yet, because North had a sea daddy in the Commandant's office--he was allowed to take an honorable discharge with no penalties.

As to the professionalism of reserve units--it all depends on the unit. Some units are no-nonsense, by the book; others are little more than social clubs.

I assume that I'll be receiving apologies from GG and JadeGold:

"RUSSERT: When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?

BUSH: Yes. Listen, these files have been -- I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor. And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files, as well. Probably you were.

And absolutely, I mean, I...

RUSSERT: But you will allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

BUSH: Yes. If we still have them, but I -- you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records.

And I'm just telling you, I did my duty. And it's politics to, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me. But I have been through it before. I'm used to it.

What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is -- may not be a true service.

RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

BUSH: Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way. "

"and Ann Coulter was the featured columnist."

They hired her because she was something of a "conservative freak show." It wasn't a conservative mag in the slightest. People wanted JFK, Jr. to run for president one day for crying out loud... not as a Republican. Nice try.

"We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country. "

Quiz Time!

Who is quoted above?

a.) John Kerry

b.) Wesley Clark

c.) George McGovern

d.) Colin Powell

Answer here

If I were Tim Russert, asking President Bush about this bogus "issue", I would have asked him this:

"Who was your best friend in Montgomery while you were stationed there?"

and if the answer were evasive:

"Can you name anyone with whom you served there?"

None of which really matters.

Russert behaved like the appreciative lapdog that he is, nodding, smiling, doing everything but kowtowing. The "independent" commission on intel is stacked with useful fools who won't be able to find their way to the men's room before Election Day. The 9/11 commission is showing disturbing signs of independence, but surely can be delayed with the promise of more information. George Tenet can't be fired, and won't be; it's important to keep him on the reservation. As the Godfather says, "Hold your friends close, but hold your enemies closer." After November, Tenet will be unceremoniously dropped. Until then, he's safe.

I don't think that people really appreciate the truly deep cynicism of the current government. Tactical cynicism allied with religious fundamentalism was, I thought, our enemy. But maybe it is us.

To Terry Ott:

That's exactly my point. Bush passed on Nam, the easiest way he could, which wasn't as easy as some, but easier than others. So what?

It is ancient history. It doesn't matter.

He's a hypocrite, but dog biting man is not news.

What does matter is what he is doing to our children's futures. That matters a great deal. He is selling them out to his buddies.

On the other hand, if you take the Bible as literal truth, and if Revelations can be believed, perhaps the Apocalypse is upon us. Maybe we shouldn't worry much about the future. There are actually people out there, as there have always been, who believe this. Anybody remember James Watt?

I guess I am relieved to know in my heart that the Bushes are way too cynical to believe, or even profess belief, in such things except as ways to delude the masses. Thank God for small blessings.

I didn't read all the comments here but I did see a few good and totally INSANE. Like Malloys comments.

First, Bush requested duty in vietnam (did you miss that part of the article?).

Second, there were many many many guard units in vietnam. Soldiers do not typically have the power to control their assignments and/or their deployment. In fact, I don't know a single soldier who ever has. If you have ever served in the military you would also know that commanders don't typically know the face and name of everyone one of their soldiers. Units are not always the same xx number of men and soldiers are often reassigned or moved around.

After re-reading your cryptic post I have decided that you posted nothing but liberal dribbel. Which usually entails nothing but opinion based on emotions and lacks anything close to a fact or something tangible and real.

No apology from me, Jim. Frankly, Bush lied by saying his records were open in 2000. And he'd be lying if he said they were open today.

But it's certainly encouraging to hear that Bush is now calling for the full release of those files, including pay records.

But that may ultimately be unnecessary as the mystery surrounding Bush's lost year and a half may have been solved:

ARF.

HH: They hired her because she was something of a "conservative freak show." It wasn't a conservative mag in the slightest. People wanted JFK, Jr. to run for president one day for crying out loud... not as a Republican. Nice try.

Let's see; Henry didn't address the fact Tony Blankley was senior editor and I suppose every feature magazine aspires to hire "freak shows," liberal or conservative, to impart gravitas.

And while I'm sure there are those who remember the days of Camelot, JFK Jr. was never seriously considered a candidate for much of anything.
I'd say 'nice try,' Heanry--but it wasn't.

On his TANG application, Bush checked the box declining overseas assignments, Sanitizer. It's in the record. Check it out.

Or maybe one of his media poodles like Russert will ask him. But don't count on it.

Here is the impass, those who are not familiar with military records insist upon misreading military jargon or records in order to "find" a cover-up; those familiar with the way the military personel file looks try to correct the misperceptions, but are tarred as either ignoramus yes-men or complicit conspirators. This debate is completely devoid of good will. I will simply post the response I recieved from a respected professor of economics.
Malynn (me):

>Prof. Brad,
>
> You're barking up the wrong tree on Calpundit's latest
>"Bush AWOL" thread, the paragraph you excerpt>[1] is the form
>"letter of intent" that every guardsman/reservist signs prior
>to/upon taking an assignment to a unit. You will find such a letter
>in the record book of every single servicemember of a guard or
>reserve unit.
>
> I don't know if you've spoken to many serving
>reservists, but this veteran has followed everything posted on the
>web, with too much interest. I have significant experience in
>discharging non-performing reservists, having turned around a
>moribund unit in time to have it combat ready for activation in
>Desert Storm. There is nothing in dozens of documents that have
>surfaced so far that even suggests his commander in Texas was
>concerned in 1972-73 with the whereabouts of 1stLt Bush.

Delong:

Exactly. Bush appears to have decided in May 1972 that he was no
longer interested in flying airplanes for the Texas Air National
Guard. And he never did--relying on his father's political
connections to keep his evasion of pilot duty from having any
consequences. I don't see any other way to read the record.

Malynn:

>30 years later you can imagine that the lack of concern was due to
>command negligence, nefarious conspiracy or simply business as usual
>- granting a unit member the courtesy of fulfilling his commitment
>in a manner that did not interfere with his full-time employment.
>"Imagination" is not evidence, it takes evidence to obtain an
>administrative or punitive discharge.
>
> The problem of those holding to a "AWOL" theory is that
>you have to believe that the entire chain of command was corrupt in
>order to make your case. That is insulting the entire branch of the
>service,

Delong:

Look: the entire chain of command *was* corrupt during the Vietnam
War. It's not partisan to say so. Colin Powell says so. You are the
first person I have met who appears to deny it.

--

Yours,

Brad DeLong

***

No evidence is necessary to convict the President, and no amount of evidence is sufficient to exonerate him, as far as the blogospheric left is concerned. We may as well stop trying.

Bush apologists like Jesse Taylor have noted that Drum's "ARF" post leads nowhere at best, and at worst, totally exonerates Bush, as one of his commenters stated.

JadeGold - Michael Kelly was in charge of the Atlantic. Was that a conservative publication too? The actual content of your average George leaned decidedly to the left, end of story.

Steve Malynn's comments are absurd and ignore the record. Basically, he might have just typed 'I was in the reserves and Bush was ok.' Malynn also creates the strawman that 'the entire chain of command must have been corrupt.'

Not necessarily. As Grant Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired LCOL who served as a judge JAG officer said, "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over these types of issues. It is obviously very political, even more so than other military institutions, and is subject to political influence."

Lattin goes on to state, "The National Guard is extremely political in the sense of who you know. 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."

HH: You greatly mischaracterize Jesse's comments. To the point of being 180 degrees away from the truth. At worst (Bush's best case) it shows for some unknown reason, the ANG cut him loose after 4 years of a 6 year commitment.

At best (Bush's nightmare), it strongly suggests your president was a very bad boy and the National Guard didn't want him anymore.

WRT Atlantic; Michael Kelly was an editor and writer. Tony Blankley, aside from a brief career as a child movie actor, was a political operative.

And Ann Coulter wasn't a featured columnist for the Atlantic.

It's rather amusing watching the ever-shifting defenses of the Bush defenders on this issue.

On one hand, we have people stating those holding to a "AWOL" theory is that you have to believe that the entire chain of command was corrupt in order to make your case. That is insulting the entire branch of the service

while others maintain the military--as a whole--is incapable of maintaining service records on any of its people.

Still other Bush defenders see nothing amiss with the fact that Bush was able to go to the head of a waiting line of thousands trying to get into the TX ANG.

And no Bush defender sees anything odd about Bush receiving a direct commission to Second Looie without having any specialized skill or experience and only mediocre grades.

Of course, there's certainly nothing untoward about getting into flight school--one of the military's most desired and most competitive training--with a pilot aptitude score of 25%.

Sorry Bush-defenders, it's time for you to buy a clue. The military is a political organization. To suggest that because Bush has a form that has 'honorable discharge' on it means he legitimately earned it is specious given the evidence. Wake up, folks--OJ Simpson can probably show you paperwork that says he's not guilty of murder.

Jesse sees nothing there. Here's a quote: "I'm really, really not seeing this." Per usual, JadeGold, you twist the facts, ignore inconvenient facts, etc. to fit whatever you want to say. And per usual, you're not worth anyone's time. Good day.

By the way, JG, stop quoting from Salon.com already... if George Magazine is somehow "invalid" for being "conservative," stop quoting from a left-wing hit piece which obviously went out and cherry-picked quotes from people that fit their agenda.

I sometimes wonder what my conservative friends would be saying if the same facts that obtain with respect to George Bush's military and business careers applied to a Democrat.

Bush credited for Guard drills:

President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe.

The personnel records, covering Bush's Guard service between May 1972 and May 1973, constitute the first evidence that Bush appeared for any duty during the first 11 months of that 12-month period. Bush is recorded as having served the minimum number of days expected of Guard members in that 12 months of service time.

Your conservative friends would say this is a non-issue, there's more important stuff happening NOW to talk about.

Your conservative friends would say this is a non-issue, there's more important stuff happening NOW to talk about.

Too many side walk admirals who have no clue about the Guard/Reserve are chiming in. Service is about money, but not necessarily a paycheck next week. Several officers have drilled at my unit for multiple years for points only. I know ones name, after seeing him for 3 years. I have drilled in other units, no one but the UA knew my name and if anyone remembered me the next month I would be surprised, despite having a unique name and qualifications for a reservist. By the way the LTC who was drilling for points only usually read a SK novel all day for two days straight. When any one drills in a unit other than their own little meaningful work is given to them.
Maybe not then but now, in LA if a guardsman fails to show for drill, the parish sherrif picks him up and he spends the weekend in jail. Plus may, may be charged with awol at later date. Check Bush's police record for time spent in the county pokey.

The sad thing here is that the majority of those who defend Bush's record have never been in the military, yet proclaim they would die for this country. I would guess that you would boast "I'd go to war for this president" but I assure you, you would not want to depend on him in your foxhole.

I happened upon this website for the first time today, 1/17/05, and have read with interest the various comments on GWB's TNG duty. When the bruha surfaced prior to the November 2 election, there was a brief wire service item which flared like a roman candle and quickly vanished. It concerned the wife of the pilot who replaced Bush in his trainee jet. She had never publicly commented on this issue until this time when her family insisted she make a statement. She claimed that Bush was removed from the front seat of the jet because he could no longer land a plane safely, due to his long history of binge drinking. He was assigned to the rear seat and shortly after that was no longer flying. It was about this time that he disappeared in the wilds of Alabama on the election junket. Those who continue to defend his TNG record must know that where there's smoke, there's usually fire. This service record is too spotty when compared to tens of thousands of other Guard and regular service members. If Bush were not out of circulation for a year, there should have been many individuals who could have vouched for his whereabouts and activities. Granted, this is a footnote to history at this point but it adds another notch in Bush's personal history which reflects poorly on his performance and character.