I was going to dig thru my old military records as I went inactive reserve at one point for a silly reason I know. They decided everyone would do truck maintenance and I didn't care for working on trucks. I had enough time in and could do it cause I wanted to and not for any disciplinary action. Think they may have done it too when I moved before finding another unit to be in. Wasn't any big deal. Just don't collect as much credit for retirement being inactive.

I'm not going to read Drum's article - there's no convincing some people.
NRO today links to a Boston Globe article that has some new documents supported Bush's claim he completed service. And brothersjudd notes the White House is releasing pay stubs to show he was not awol.
This is all a smokescreen to deflect attention away from Kerry. Kerry's campaign seems to be "elect me, I was a Vietnam war hero, nothing else matters". It's akin to a Heisman trophy winner 30 years ago with a dismal coaching record saying he deserves to coach the Patriots (or other top NFL team)

Looks to me like what is posted are the retirement point accreditation sheets. These are provided to reservists/guardsmen to allow them to ensure all duty/points are accounted for, for retirement purposes. 1 point is credited for each authorized drill attended and points are credited upon successful completion of correspondence courses. 1 point is credited for each day on active duty. 15 points are awarded for an anniversary year. 50 points are needed to earn a qualifying year for retirement purposes.

Basically it doesn't say much other than GWB drilled from Oct 72 to Jul 73 and depending upon his "anniversary" date he had a qualifying year for retirement purposes. I don't see where this proves the "AWOL theory".

"I'm not going to read Drum's article - there's no convincing some people".

Lets not bother AWW with any additional facts. As he says, there's no convincing some people.

It looks like Drum's allegations have been refuted in a post in his comments section. A poster using the name Stray Pooch identifies himself as a former NCO and administrator and gives a lengthy explanation as to why this document does not prove that anything was wrong with Bush's military service. It seems that the problem is in the consistent misintepretation of the documents by people, mostly civilians, who have no experience of how these things worked in the military 30 years ago. I too would be interested in the response of others with relevant military experience to see if they support Stray Pooch's take on this. His post is here:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html#100470

Bill, thanks for the mention and the link! Keep up the good work!

TexasToast - touche.
My point was this story didn't stick in the Texas governor races and in the 2000 election so why would it stick now? Any strong evidence that he was AWOL would have surfaced by now and would have been used by the Dems like the DWI in the 2000 election.
Finally it is interesting that the Dems, who were very eager to ignore Clinton's Vietnam era activities for the '92 election, now want to have the whole election hinge on Bush's Vietnam era activities.

The Globe article seems to be written in order to muddy a central fact. The records to which they refer, the records that prove Bush's completed service, have been in the hands of a democrat activist named Fertig for four years.

Fertig is the democrat dirty-trickster who supplied the Globe with documents for their initial article on Bush's gap in Guard service. Now it turns out that he had documentation for that alleged gap all along.

References to the release of documents from the White House are all in the future tense, and are not germane to the article, except that they probably provoked the release of Fertig's long-withheld -- probably stolen -- documents.

Shouldn't the Globe turn its animus from the victim of their smear to the creep who conned them into that smear in the first place?

It doesn't prove the AWOL theory at all. In fact, from this retired Personnel Specialist's POV, it renders the theory a POS.

Looking at the pattern of dates and points recorded, it's pretty clear that he made up the Feb and March drills in May. In July, he did his annual tour (the 14 days obligated) in a non-sequential format - which is perfectly acceptable. I did it myself when my son was born, instead of leaving for two weeks I did 7 extra weekends, one extra a month.

This is a big non-issue, I think. If the Dems had trotted this out right before the election, like they did his DWI, it might have had an impact. As is, it's being given too much time - and it's getting debunked.

J.

Shouldn't the Globe turn its animus from the victim of their smear to the creep who conned them into that smear in the first place?

Oh, wouldn't it be pretty to think so?

What I want to know is, if Bush hadn't made his records available, what was Fertig doing with Bush's confidential personnel records?

Some "Anybody But Bush" types have been complaining that the lack of records of the President's service is a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

I imagine they wish a dog, or at least Bob Fertig, really had eaten the homework now...

On MEET THE PRESS (as opposed to "Face the Nation"), President Bush agreed to release all of his military records. Now he is releasing selective records that he thinks support his position. If he has nothing else to hide and is now completely vindicated, why doesn't he sign an authorization allowing reporters to look at all of his military records? And I guess Bush was untruthful in this exchange with Russert:

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

Apparently, Bush only authrorizes the release of those records which have been prescanned by his team before they are released. That is called a lie and, as I recall, Clinton was impeached for it. Oh, but this is different, isn't it?

Here things are in short form, based on the points records at the top of the article on Drum's site, and based on my experience with the drill schedules and record keeping customs.

72 Oct 28-29 -- 4 points - Either rescheduled October drill, or premature November drill. 0 drill points, 0 AT points.

72 Nov 11-14 -- 8 points. Nov. drill, and December's - which is missing. +4 drill points, no AT points.

72 Dec - missing. 0 points, no AT points.

73 Jan 4-6 -- 6 points. Jan drill, and 1 day of another - maybe Feb. +2 points, no AT points.

73 Feb -- missing, so subtract 4 from 2 - -2 points, no AT points.

73 Mar -- missing, so subtract 4 from -2 - -6 points, no AT points.

73 April 7-8 -- 4 points, normal drill. Still 6 points down.

73 May 1-3 -- 3 points, not normal drill - Annual tour most likely? -6 drill points, 3 AT points.

73 May 8-10 -- 3 points, not normal drill. -6 drill points, 6 AT points.

Now, it could also be that he was doing his makeup for the excusals in Feb and March one period/point per day - and AT points and drill points ARE the same. Without a 40A, I'll admit I'm just guessing here.

73 May 19-20 -- 4 points, normal drill for May. -6 drill points (still), 6 AT points.

73 May 22-24 -- 3 points - not normal drill. -6 drill points, 9 AT points.

Now we go to the other copy of his points.

73 May 29-31 -- 3 points - not normal drill. -6 drill points, 12 AT points.

73 June 5-7 -- 3 points - not normal drill. -6 points, 15 AT points. Normal AT points needed - 14.

73 June 23-24 -- 4 points, normal drill. Still -6 drill points. 15 AT points.

Conversely, if some of the 3-pointers were single period makeups, we could be at 0 drill points and 9 AT points. But we'll keep the -6 and 15 for now.

73 July 2-3 -- 2 points - looks like AT or makeup, 1 period a day. -6, 17

73 Jul 5 -- 1 point, one day. -6, 18

73 July 9-12 -- 4 points, 4 days - Annual Tour? -6, 22 points

73 July 16-19 -- 8 points, 4 days, looks like a rescheduled drill weekend, as well as making up an excused drill weekend. -2 drill points, 22 AT points.

73 July 21-22 -- 4 points, two days - normal drill pattern here. Making up for August drill excusal?

(You could excuse drills in advance, with commander's approval.) +2 drill points, 22 AT points.

73 July 23-27 -- 5 points, 5 days, looks like annual tour. +2 drill points, 27 AT points.

73 July 30 - 1 point. +2 drill points, 28 AT points.

Annual Tour accounts for 15 of the 28 - 14 + 1 day travel time. 15 points remaining. (2 drill, 13 AT - remember they're interchangeable.)

73 Aug - Done, I think, 21-22 July.

73 Sept - No record. -4 points from the 15 - leaves 11 points excess.

Looks to me like he did more than his minimums for the year. I don't see a problem with this. Of course, the Bush-AWOL folk are already moving the goalposts.

J.

Tommyj,

Please read the Globe article. Wade through the irrelevancies and snarky asides. The article is based on records supplied by a democrat party activist named Fertig who has had those records for at least four years.

The initial Bush-AWOL story started with Fertig's selective release of Guard records to the Globe. He concealed other records that proved the president's completed service.

Perhaps whoever supplied him with those records told him that the heat was on. I don't know. But those records were not released by the White House.

Lyle,

So I'm sure President Bush will authorize a general release of all records to clear up this matter, as he promised to the country, right?

And I wasn't referring to the Globe article, I was referring to the White House's own release of records today:

WASHINGTON — The White House, facing election-year questions about President Bush's (search) military service, is releasing pay records and other information intended to support his assertion that he fulfilled his duty as a member of the Air National Guard (search) during the Vietnam war.

The material, to be released Tuesday, was to include pay records and annual retirement point summaries to show that Bush served.

See FoxNews

Wake up, Tommyj, it's a fake scandal.

I'm glad you're on their side.

That is called a lie and, as I recall, Clinton was impeached for it. Oh, but this is different, isn't it?

First, show how Bush has lied in this matter. He's releasing his service records, and there's independent corroboration of them.

Second, Clinton was impeached for lying UNDER OATH and obstruction of justice. Don't be an idiot by pretending there's no difference.

The President said he would "absolutely" authorize release of all records to clear up the matter. Now, apparently, he retains the right to look at the information himself and only release those documents he wants to. So our "war time" president get the benefit of telling the nation that he will agree to a general release of all his records (all he would have to do is sign an authorization allowing third parties access, but he doesn't have to live with the consequences for almost immediately going back on that representation! I guess the guy can just do or say anything and get away with it.

And if Bush's "honorable discharge" proves on its face that he met the requirements of service, then the fact that Clinton has never been prosecuted (let alone convicted) of perjury, proves that he did not lie under oath.

Clinton was prosecuted, Tommyj - that's what the Impeachment TRIAL in the House was.

As for Bush reviewing the records before they are released, hell, given how the Bush-haters have spun other innocent documents and missing records into "proof" that he was "AWOL," I don't blame him for taking a look-see at the paperwork before it is released, so he can prepare for how the Bush-haters will lie about and distort them too.

He said he would release records that settle the issue, and appears to be doing so. The Bush AWOL meme will recede to resonance only in the ultra-extreme Bush-hating lunatic conspiracy theorist fringe inside a month.

The previous unsupported allegation, now debunked, is quickly replaced with more unsupported allegations.

I agree that the liberals are going too far in this one, I just don't like it when the president makes a broad promise to the nation and then goes back on it. He is getting the best of both worlds.

With regard to Clinton, the fact that the House of Representatives, led by a band of rabid anti-Clintonites, forced through Articles of Impeachment in a highly political setting, hardly proves that Clinton was "prosecuted" for perjury. If the evidence was so clear that Clinton lied under oath, why hasn't there been a criminal prosecution of him?

Tommyj,
I know of some ex-presidents who are eligible to practice law in their home states.
I know one who isn't because he lied under oath & paid a $25K fine for it.
:)

Not to get off track here, but since when does an impeachment proceeding conducted by a House of Representatives led by rabid anti-Clintonites amount to a criminal prosecution? If the evidence was so clear the Clinton lied under oath, why has he never been criminally prosecuted for perjury? Doesn't that create a presumption (under your own standard) that he is innocent of the charge?

Your explanation of why Bush will not generally release all his records to absolve himself is certainly correct, but it runs directly contrary to the unambiguous statement he made to the nation. That is my only point.

I suspect the reason the AWOL story hasn't "stuck" before is because it has always been turned into a "He went into the guard to avoid the jungle" story from a "He squirreled out of his obligation to the guard" story. Lots of folks served honorably in the guard in the early 70s. I for one am not comfortable attacking anyone’s “other priorities” (to quote the Vice President) in the Vietnam era (either guard service, student deferment, “medical” deferments or any number of other methods) because the boomerang effect is rather painful.

Neither Bill Clinton’s nor George W. Bush’s “other priorities” are at issue here. The question/goalpost has never been was guard service in the Vietnam era honorable. The question is rather; did Bush actually complete his service? That question is not answered by the fact that he got an honorable discharge.

Why would we not want to know that?

I suspect the reason the AWOL story hasn't "stuck" before is because it has always been turned into a "He went into the guard to avoid the jungle" story from a "He squirreled out of his obligation to the guard" story. Lots of folks served honorably in the guard in the early 70s. I for one am not comfortable attacking anyone’s “other priorities” (to quote the Vice President) in the Vietnam era (either guard service, student deferment, “medical” deferments or any number of other methods) because the boomerang effect is rather painful.

Neither Bill Clinton’s nor George W. Bush’s “other priorities” are at issue here. The question/goalpost has never been was guard service in the Vietnam era honorable. The question is rather; did Bush actually complete his service? That question is not answered by the fact that he got an honorable discharge.

Why would we not want to know that?

Not to get off track here, but since when does an impeachment proceeding conducted by a House of Representatives led by rabid anti-Clintonites amount to a criminal prosecution? If the evidence was so clear the Clinton lied under oath, why has he never been criminally prosecuted for perjury? Doesn't that create a presumption (under your own standard) that he is innocent of the charge?

Your explanation of why Bush will not generally release all his records to absolve himself is certainly correct, but it runs directly contrary to the unambiguous statement he made to the nation. That is my only point.

TommyJ,
Good question, why wasn't willy j. prosecuted for lying under oath? I do know he was disbarred for his actions.

Also, President Bush said he would authorize the release all the records required to settle the matter. How is the current release of records different from that statement?

I suspect the reason the AWOL story hasn't "stuck" before is because it has always been turned into a "He went into the guard to avoid the jungle" story from a "He squirreled out of his obligation to the guard" story. Lots of folks served honorably in the guard in the early 70s. I for one am not comfortable attacking anyone’s “other priorities” (to quote the Vice President) in the Vietnam era (either guard service, student deferment, “medical” deferments or any number of other methods) because the boomerang effect is rather painful.

Neither Bill Clinton’s nor George W. Bush’s “other priorities” are at issue here. The question/goalpost has never been was guard service in the Vietnam era honorable. The question is rather; did Bush actually complete his service? That question is not answered by the fact that he got an honorable discharge.

Why would we not want to know that?

I still say that when he goes up against Kerry, this issue of putting in his time won't be nearly as important as his good fortune to serve in the Guard instead of the other services.

Sorry for the duplciations - I kept gettig a error message re "entry id" ????

There is a huge difference between an individual generally authorizing release of his records and selectively releasing documents at his leisure. Not that Bush is required by law to do so (in fact, just the opposite, the records are protected under privacy law), it is just that he made a statement to the nation that he would authorize the release of all records to clear the matter up -- not just his own selective release of documents that tend to exonerate him.

"Neither Bill Clinton’s nor George W. Bush’s “other priorities” are at issue here. The question/goalpost has never been was guard service in the Vietnam era honorable. The question is rather; did Bush actually complete his service? That question is not answered by the fact that he got an honorable discharge."

The HD is presumptive proof that he did in fact complete his service in an appropriate manner.

The Web is full of former vets testifying to the fact that there is virtually zero chance of being able to politicize such a thing. His discharge was presided over by a Democratic Gov. in Texas. How would a first-term Congressman exert enough influence over the Gov. AND Guard officials to result in an Honorable Discharge in light of any official documentation that suggested such was unwarranted?

I still say that when he goes up against Kerry, this issue of putting in his time won't be nearly as important as his good fortune to serve in the Guard instead of the other services.

It is now 1:20 PM and Scott McClellan has been conducting a press conference for about a half hour now. So far, the liberal press is hung up on only one question and will not let it go.

He is pounding away at your final nail, but seems to be using a rubber hammer.

Paul in AZ - " How would a first-term Congressman exert enough influence over the Gov. AND Guard officials to result in an Honorable Discharge in light of any official documentation that suggested such was unwarranted? "

Quick answer? He wouldn't. GWB would have gotten a General discharge, or no discharge at all and had his records sent to ARPC in Denver.

Notice the moving goalposts. Soon the question will be not whether he served, but what he did during his time. There will never be a sufficient answer for those determined to prove Bush unsuitable on this issue.

J.

Quick answer? He wouldn't. GWB would have gotten a General discharge, or no discharge at all and had his records sent to ARPC in Denver.

Of course, JLawson is ignoring the fact that not only was Bush Jr's dad a Congressman and prominent wealthy businessman but that his grandaddy was a US Senator and once thought of as a presidential aspirant. Of course, you can go back even further--but there's the political connection.

Again, there is no question Bush got into the TX ANG using political connections. And there is no question that these same connections got him a direct commission and admission to flight school. So, pretending that Bush could only get a honorable discharge for honorable and complete service is a little silly.

"Again, there is no question Bush got into the TX ANG using political connections. And there is no question that these same connections got him a direct commission and admission to flight school. So, pretending that Bush could only get a honorable discharge for honorable and complete service is a little silly."

I suppose, as long as you're willing to piss on the integrity of everybody involved in the process at the NG, not to mention the Governor's office.

P.S. Why would anyone in Texas know or care who Prescott Bush was as a Senator from Connecticutt who had been out of office for a decade?

WRT to the Meet The Press interview, it seems Bush was caught in yet another lie regarding his ANG service. In the interview, Bush claimed he had released his records in 2000.

Yet, today, the WH announced Bush had authorized release of those records.

It's really quite telling how many times this guy can change his story over this episode and defenders will pretend nothing's amiss.

I suppose, as long as you're willing to piss on the integrity of everybody involved in the process at the NG, not to mention the Governor's office.

Anyone who has ever served in the military understands it can be just as political as any other bureaucracy.

Even Colin Powell in his autobiography wrote:

"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."

--(My American Journey, p. 148)

Yeah, Paul, you can pretend wealth and privilege don't play a part in the military--but you'd be wrong.

More Leftist delusions. It isn't going to matter in November. Bush will win in a landslide. They're not only beating a dead horse, they're beating an extinct horse. It's pathetic what the Left has been reduced to.

Lies, distortions, half-truths, ommissions, smears - typical Leftist mendacity.

*snore*

TommyJ, if you will read back over the facts, you'll find that the reason Clinton wasn't prosecuted for perjury was that he agreed to a settlement in which he paid Paula Jones (and her attorneys) about $800K to settle the lawsuit, thereby making the perjury in a civil lawsuit moot. At the same time, as other have mentioned, he voluntarily resigned from the Bar of the Supreme Court and voluntarily agreed to be disbarred in Arkansas for ten years rather than be faced with a disbarment proceeding that could have disbarred him for life.

As to the Bush thing, well, actually for some time the argument has been that Bush was AWOL -- see what Terry MacAuliffe has been saying -- but now that Bush has shown conclusively that he was there with service records, pay stubs, and personal tesimony of fellow Guardsmen, the issue has apparently become whether Bush completed the service "satisfactorily". Of course, you've already set up your out for that by suggesting political pull would account for his getting credit for the time -- notwithstanding the number of people who have made it clear that it doesn't work that way.

I really don't think the facts are the issue here.

So much for President Bush "absolutely" agreeing to release all his records to clear his name:

President Bush's military records are removed from local storage center

07:47 AM CST on Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Overland (KMOV) – There is a St. Louis connection to the controversy surrounding President George Bush’s National Guard records.

KMOV
Mr. Bush speaking to fourth-graders and a roundtable-style conversation on education at Pierre Laclede Elementary School last month in St. Louis
For more than three decades those records have been locked away at the Federal Military Records Center in Overland. The center director tells News 4 that the records were removed from a vault at that facility just a few days ago and sent to the National Guard headquarters at the Pentagon in Washington.

The records are at the heart of allegations that Bush did not report for service with the Air National Guard in 1972.

Bush says he served in an Alabama unit, but the Boston Globe is reporting that there are no records to prove it.

The president defended his record during a weekend interview with NBC.

“There may be no evidence but I did report, otherwise I wouldn't have been honorably discharged," he said.

Those files may contain rosters and sign in sheets indicating his service. President Bush told NBC he would authorize the release of some documents to show he did serve in Alabama.

JadeGold

"WRT to the Meet The Press interview, it seems Bush was caught in yet another lie regarding his ANG service. In the interview, Bush claimed he had released his records in 2000.

Yet, today, the WH announced Bush had authorized release of those records."

You must be reading another version of the MTP interview that I am. The one here pretty clearly states that Bush had authorized the release of records in 2000, not actually released them. Whether or not the records were actually found is another matter.

"Yeah, Paul, you can pretend wealth and privilege don't play a part in the military--but you'd be wrong."

Who is denying that priviledge has allowed many members to "escape" certain duty? Not I.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but exerting such influence as would be required to Honorably Discharge a serviceman for whom such was not warranted (based on official documentation)would be criminal, would it not?

Are you comfortable making such an assertion about the people involved in TANG in '1973?

With regard to the Clinton issue, please note that he has NOT been convicted of perjury. As far as the public record is concerned, he committed no crime. Your tortured attempts to prove otherwise are entertaining, but fruitless. Literally millions of public dollars were spent in multiple investigations of Clinton, and they only resulted in a wholly politically charged impeachment proceeding and Clinton's agreeing to a five year suspension of his law license and a $25K fine -- something he agreed to for no other reason than to finally end the debacle and get the demented Clinton hounds off his back.

JadeGold:

"Again, there is no question Bush got into the TX ANG using political connections."

Okay, all you've got to show me on this is that ALL members of the Texas ANG got in using political connections. That NONE of them just walked into the recruiter's office off the street and signed up.

J.

[Folks]

It's interesting that some Bush haters are claiming that Bush got his honorable discharge partially through the influence of his grandfather, the ten-year senator from Connecticut.

This influence is rather remarkable and must have been accomplished using a Ouija Board... because when Bush got his honorable discharge, his grandfather had been retired for more than a decade -- and dead for nearly a year.

Dafydd

The goalposts are now going to move at relativistic speeds, just watch.

Oh, too late.

I am not satisfied with the White House's partial release of records, showing President Bush showed up for national guard duty in Alabama in 1972. In fact, today's staged production makes me even more suspicious. As noted by Richard Cohen at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27178-2004Feb9.html:

"For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed."

Thus, it is entirely possible (if not likely) that Bush got paid for time that he did not serve. This would make his conduct even more egrigious.

You can keep repeating the mantra of "moving the goal posts" all you like, but Bush himself moved the goal posts himself by agreeing to a general release of all his records that would clear up the matter on "Meet the Press" and now he has gone back on that and will only release records that tend to prove his story. Why won't the president sign an authorization allowing anyone to go through his records without his handlers perusing them and then selectively releasing them? What is there to hide? Perhaps there is a moving goal post hidden somewhere in his records.

Okay, all you've got to show me on this is that ALL members of the Texas ANG got in using political connections. That NONE of them just walked into the recruiter's office off the street and signed up.

How's that? What difference does it make if all of them used political connections or just some of them? Or just one of them?

It's actually a matter of public record--the Speaker of the House in Texas at the time, Ben Barnes, admitted he had received a request from a longtime Bush family friend, Sidney Adger of Houston, to help Bush get into the Air National Guard. Barnes further testified that he contacted the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but exerting such influence as would be required to Honorably Discharge a serviceman for whom such was not warranted (based on official documentation)would be criminal, would it not?

Let's see what LCOL Grant Lattin USMC-Ret. says. He's a former JAG officer and still practices military law.

" "An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record. 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 continues:

"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."

Ollie North, anyone?

North didn't have half the political connections Bush did--and North escaped a court martial after being convicted of several felonies.

I still say this is a phony issue, and a distraction from what our public discourse should be about.

I'll repeat that this election shouldn't, and won't, be about whether the President technically served honorably or not in the Texas Air National Guard. What would be shocking would be if the pattern of his later life, during his very strange business "career", were not found to be present in this episode, as well. In the scheme of things, though, it doesn't really matter. Is it really going to surprise anybody that this family of brokers, gladhanders, go-betweens and backscratchers behaved like what they obviously are during that era as well as the rest of their lives?

What matters?

Well, how about the fastest growth in discretionary domestic spending since LBJ?

How about a government that spends the highest percentage ever of the GDP, outside of WWII, while taking in the lowest share of GDP in 50 years as a percentage of GDP in revenue?

Not exactly coincidentally, how about a $521 billion deficit, without taking into account any (that is, absolutely showing as zero) further appropriations for Iraq in the fiscal year? The most likely supplemental appropriation that will be requested, according to the Administration, is $50 billion. Again, even in constant dollars, that is the largest deficit ever.

How about a President who has never, ever found a reason to veto one spending bill that came across his desk?

How about a Medicare bill, with the ink barely dry on it, that is now projected to cost fully 1/3 more THIS YEAR than the figure originally assigned to it by the Administration? Do you think it would have passed if the truth had been told?

Speaking of that bill, which requires the government to supply prescription drugs to 40 million Americans, why does it outright prohibit the government from negotiating bulk discounts with the pharmaceutical industry?

Then again, speaking of crony capitalism, how is that Halliburton and Bechtel get these no-bid contracts in Iraq, and then proceed repeatedly to overcharge the government?

Then again, whatever happened to Kenny Boy?

And let's not forget the obscene farm bill with its billions to Archer Daniels Midland, or the nearly unbelievable and unprincipled steel tarriffs imposed in a deeply cynical effort to get a few thousand more votes in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

And how about the Orwellian labels attached to things like the Clean Air bill and the Jobs Creation Act, each of which has no serious correllation with its title?

But speaking of Orwellian, how about the massive rewriting of history now taking place with respect to the pre-GWII intel. Do these people really and truly expect everyone to forget their bitching and moaning about how the CIA wasn't taking the WMD threat seriously enough and was thereby undermining national security? It wasn't that long ago. George Tenet, as long as he continues to take one for the team, is safe in his job. But maybe Karl Rove's breathtakingly cynical appraisal of people's attention spans and memories will prove to be on the mark -- or at least enough of the people's attention spans and memories.

Of course, let's not leave out the literal trillion dollars in tax cuts to the richest Americans over the next five years. Yeah the average tax cut for Americans is a few thousand bucks; and if Bill Gates and I are in the same room, on average we're billionaires.

Bah.

As James Thurber once said, "You can fool too many of the people too much of the time."

This TANG dustup is the least of our problems.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but exerting such influence as would be required to Honorably Discharge a serviceman for whom such was not warranted (based on official documentation)would be criminal, would it not?

Let's see what LCOL Grant Lattin USMC-Ret. says. He's a former JAG officer and still practices military law.

" "An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record. 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 continues:

"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."

A) Nice non-answer to my question.

B) Sounds like your beef is more with the NG/Reserves in General. If it was and still is common practice, so what? Still says more about the Guard itself than any of it's members.

Back to the question, Jade. Are you comfortable asserting that a first-term Congressman and his dead-Senator father had more to do with W's dishcarge than standard processing procedures did?

Slartibartfast:

The goalposts are now going to move at relativistic speeds, just watch.

TommyJ:

I am not satisfied with the White House's partial release of records, showing President Bush showed up for national guard duty in Alabama in 1972.

Golly, Slarti, you should be on the Psychic Friends Network. You called that one.

GAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!

If there are any swing voters reading this, they're going to vote Bush no question. The tactics and sneering and whining and seething and goalpost moving are disgusting. Anybody who has enemies who are this desparate to discredit deserves to win.

Let's not get carried away, Syl.

Rereading Drum’s posts, he is not asserting that the records he has found prove anything about the President’s guard record. He is only asking the President to waive his privacy rights to all of his military records so that the full record is available. If the full record is made available, that still may not prove anything about the record one way or the other. Many of the above posters seem to require proof that there was some sort of wrongdoing before we even get to look at the complete record.

The ultimate issue here is really whether or not we as a nation want to rehire GWB as our President. The argument has been made repeatedly that the honorable discharge is dispositive of all issues regarding GWB’s military record. To use a rather extreme example, that is like arguing that the verdict of not guilty in the OJ trial means we shouldn’t be interested in the evidence produced at the trial in determining if we should hire OJ as our president.

Somebody much smarter than me once said, "Trust, but verify."
The president is asking us to trust him.
Fair enough.
But …..
How can we verify what the White House says when they choose which records to release?

JadeGold sez:

"Of course, JLawson is ignoring the fact that not only was Bush Jr's dad a Congressman and prominent wealthy businessman but that his grandaddy was a US Senator and once thought of as a presidential aspirant. Of course, you can go back even further--but there's the political connection."

You'd also have to be unaware of the fact that the National Guard belongs to the governor of the state ... not the congressmen, not the senators and not family friends. Its often been characterized as the "governor's army". And they guard it and access to it jealously.

Of course the governor of that state from 1969 - 1973 was Democrat Preston Smith, and after that Democrat Dolph Briscoe took the governor's seat.
The head of the NG would be appointed by them and serve at their pleasure.

Smith and Briscoe are hardly a pair that would be in favor of handing out commissions to the son's of political opponents, especially when it would be much more politically beneficial to do so for their political allies (if they were so inclined). Doubt we'd find much Bush money in these two governor's war chests or compelling political reasons for them to be open to granting favors to the Bush clan.

Oh oh JadeGold, you aren't quoting the whole thing from Sidney Adger. He clearly said that the Bush family was unaware of his action. Dishonest on your part.

But I know what you will say. You will say, "Ah but he is just saying that and they knew" Must be that magic Ouija board again. I bet if I go and check your other quotes I will find you gilding the lily again.

tsk tsk

You'd also have to be unaware of the fact that the National Guard belongs to the governor of the state ... not the congressmen, not the senators and not family friends.

McQ: You're kidding, right? You don't think a Governor of state has no association with that state's congressmen, do you?

Do I have to give you a Civics 101 course?

Again, this isn't in dispute; it's a matter of public record. Ben Barnes testified to it in court.

Paul in AZ:

Are you comfortable asserting that a first-term Congressman and his dead-Senator father had more to do with W's dishcarge than standard processing procedures did?

Certainly. Getting Bush out of the NG, at that time, was probably child's play compared to getting him into the ANG, getting him a direct commission and into flight school.

Think about it; nobody's going to complain about someone who hasn't done much of anything--possibly nothing-- in the last couple of years of his commitment wanting to get out.

The truly tough thing was getting George Jr. into the ANG ahead of a long waiting list (some of whom were likely trying to avoid VietNam as well). The direct commission was also a sweet political trick.

But perhaps the toughest thing of all was getting Bush Jr. into flight school. Military flight school is perhaps the toughest and most competitive training to get into in the military. Why? Because a lot of folks want to fly. And it's fantastic training for a career; most of your commercial pilots were trained on Uncle Sam's time.

February 8, 2004. Bush on Meet the Press:

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

February 10, 2004. Bush does NOT authorize release of everything to "settle this" but releases partial records which he claims shows the charge of AWOL to be ridiculous.

If the charge is so ridiculous, why not authorize full disclosure?

Am I unreasonable to infer from this that Bush might have something to hide?

Just to keep the record straight about what Poppy was doing in the relevant time frame: George H.W. Bush ran twice for the Senate from Texas, in '64 and '70, and lost both times. He was a Congressman from '66-'70, was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations in '71 by President Nixon, and became Chairman of the Republican National Committee in '73, at the height of Watergate. He was not without influence.

Tsk, tsk, CaptJoe. It is you who is being dishonest WRT Sid Adger.

Adger was a friend and business partner of the Bush's. It was Bush Sr. who said no strings were pulled, not Sid Adger. Actually, Bush Sr. said he "couldn't remember" asking Adger to intervene for George Jr.

TommyJ: Of course, you're right; what Bush is going to do is let out *selected* documents that won't tell us much of anything.

I think the real thing we need to see is the paperwork behind the suspension of Bush's flight status.

Paul in AZ:

Are you comfortable asserting that a first-term Congressman and his dead-Senator father had more to do with W's dishcarge than standard processing procedures did?

Certainly. Getting Bush out of the NG, at that time, was probably child's play compared to getting him into the ANG, getting him a direct commission and into flight school.

Think about it; nobody's going to complain about someone who hasn't done much of anything--possibly nothing-- in the last couple of years of his commitment wanting to get out.

The truly tough thing was getting George Jr. into the ANG ahead of a long waiting list (some of whom were likely trying to avoid VietNam as well). The direct commission was also a sweet political trick.

But perhaps the toughest thing of all was getting Bush Jr. into flight school. Military flight school is perhaps the toughest and most competitive training to get into in the military. Why? Because a lot of folks want to fly. And it's fantastic training for a career; most of your commercial pilots were trained on Uncle Sam's time.

This story stays propped up on Two Pillars: ignorance of military procedure(s) and/or a little thing I like to call "Shadows & Conspiracies."

Good to know which one you've wrapped yourself around Jade!

This story stays propped up on Two Pillars: ignorance of military procedure(s) and/or a little thing I like to call "Shadows & Conspiracies."

Again, Paul, the fact strings were pulled to get Bush a berth in the TX ANG isn't in dispute.

And I fear you don't understand how the military operates if you believe direct commissions are handed out like popcorn.

But check with a military aviator or pilot--see wht they say about getting into flight training with the minimum acceptable score.

"But check with a military aviator or pilot--see wht they say about getting into flight training with the minimum acceptable score."

Are you saying that the "minimum acceptable score" is not the minimum score that you will find among all pilots entering training? I don't think that word means what you think it means...

What is "everything?"
What are the specific documents (DD / AFR Form number, please) that President Bush should be releasing for both your pleasure and edification?
In the interest of fairness, where are your witnesses AND your substantial and irrefutable evidence? I have yet to hear one of LT Bush's former senior officers state specifically and unconditionally that he failed to report to a designated place at an appointed time (the standard, BTW, for determining whether or not someone is AWOL / UA). Do we know, beyond dispute, that LT Bush did NOT have permission, either written or verbal, to be absent from monthly drills?
BTW, General Turnipseed is not creditable on this issue as he doesn't remember. Period. Ill-informed anecdotes from Vietnam-era whining TEDs also won't cut it.
Prove that you can talk intelligently about the applicable articles of the UCMJ, Officer Efficency Reports, ANG/AFR drill procedures and military pay system (LESs, anyone?) and you will both have my undivided attention and mea culpa and not my burgeoning contempt.

Are you saying that the "minimum acceptable score" is not the minimum score that you will find among all pilots entering training? I don't think that word means what you think it means...

Sort of. Basically, if you don't achieve the minimum score, your application goes right into the circular file. All applicants meeting the minimum score and exceeding it are in consideration for flight school. But note that there are so many applicants--and relatively few slots--only the applicants with very high scores get in. There are other factors, of course. For example, eyesight disqualfies a lot of people as does the inability to pass a flight physical.

But, again, there are so many applicants who do meet the physical requirements and possess high scores that the bare minimum score wouldn't even be considered. Generally, most applicants know whether they'll be able to meet the physical requirements or not.

The infamous Kevin Drum noticed that one of the weekends during which Bush supposedly attended drills in Alabama was October 28-29 1972 (only nine days before the election of 1972 and a crucial period of campaigning for the Senate candidate for whom Bush was assistant campaign manager). He also noticed that those dates do not match up with the training schedule for the unit which Bush was attached to at the time. With this in mind, he has called for a search of microfilm libraries in Alabama to find out if there is any mention of Bush during that important weekend of campaigning. I wonder what he'll find. Too bad Bush won't consent to release all his records(as he promised on Sunday), forcing others to have to dig up the truth that he is apparently hiding.

To answer your earlier question regarding what the "everything" is that Bush should be releasing, I am reminded of the KISS rule (keep it simple stupid). A one page authorization signed by Bush, allowing third parties to search his entire United States military and IRS records would suffice. The people conducting the search could determine what parts of the records to search -- I doubt they would leave any stone unturned. I hope my response to your attempt to unnecessarily complicate the matter has earned your "undivided attention." You can spare me your own mea culpa.

Belloscam

I am not the prosecutor - I am just one of the members of the jury - i.e., a voter. It is not my job to marshall evidence required for a court martial. At this point, I have no idea whether Mr Bush was AWOL or not. I suspect he was not, but I also suspect he was rather lax in the performance of his duty.

It has not been disputed that Lt. Bush was grounded because he failed to show up at the place designated for the annual physical required to maintain his flight status. Is that specific and unconditional enough for you?

Some political thoughts: As I explained here, this is probably another case of Bush sandbagging the suckers, pretending to be vulnerable to draw them in. I think most people, especially marginal voters, will now see this as an attempt by Democrats to smear Bush. Kerry, who pulled back awfully quickly after the documents came out, seems to share my view.

So, given that keeping the "scandal" going now helps Bush, what does that say about the motives of Ms. Jade Gold, Mr. Tommy J, Mr. Texas Toast, and similar folks? If they are doing Karl Rove's work, are they on his payroll? Seems too conspiratorial to me, but I can't claim to have a better explanation.

Bush Jr. is more cheerleader than soldier...period!

The Cheerleader from Andover
Bush: So-So Student but a Campus Mover

Jim

Go read Mark Kleiman and tell me what you think. I am honestly interested.

Boy, I don't think I can take one more person with absolutely no actual experience in the military telling everyone what it must be like and how things must mean what the non-experienced think they mean rather than the obvious meaning and what the experienced know they mean. I know JadeGold guards his/her anonymity. Okay, but at least release your service records with the personal identifying stuff redacted, huh? You others . . . well, most of us vets are used to you, so I guess one more or less doesn't matter.

Also, at one time, almost all military records of service were kept in St. Louis. Back in the middle '70s or so they had a huge fire. Not only did it burn a lot of records, even more got real water damage. Ever seen paper that's been thoroughly soaked by a firehose? I remember that they brought in some kind of huge microwave thingy that sucked the moisture out of the paper and salvaged some of it. I really remember because most of the records of my 10 year fight for veteran's benefits based on a service connected injury were lost. (Well, they weren't lost, they were accidentally destroyed or unreadable or both.) Also, most of the records of my father's combat service in the South Pacific in WWII as a marine went missing. Guess that proves I didn't have multiple surgeries and a bad leg and dad didn't fight on Guadacanal, Iwo Jima, Bouganville, Okinawa, etc.

Texas Toast -
Not sure which Kleiman post, or set of posts, you had in mind. As for the latest one, speculating about about Kaus's ideas, I'm not entirely sure what Kleiman's point is.

As for Kaus's idea, I think Mickey is over-analyzing. Kerry picked up the attack on Bush because he thought it was effective, and then dropped it today when he thought it no longer worked, that it would backfire. I doubt that he gave much thought to the timing on it.

As for Mark Kleiman generally, this quote will explain why I do not read him or link to him:

"My dislike of the current resident at 1600 Penn. is so intense that I can't use my reactions to things he says and does as any sort of gauge of the likely reactions of normal people."

That's honest, but disqualifies him in my mind as someone who will have something interesting to say about Bush. Saw the same phenomena on the other side with some anti-Clinton people a few years ago.

So what did we learn?

The Dems will lie about Bush and Kevin Drum is an idiot.

Didn't we already know that?

Jim

What interested me is the timing issue. I don't think anyone "planned" to bring this up now. Jennings question to Clark in the NH debate seems to be the ignition point as it seems everyone but Jennings pointedly ignored the Michael Moore charge. Russert took the spark Jennings created and applied the propane almost as a afterthought as WMD seemed to takeup three fourths of the MTP interview.

Also, it seems that the AWOL issue has little traction except as a "final straw" issue when piled atop the CEA jobs report, the Kay report, the Budget proposal and several other "optimistic" Administration pronouncements.

As to my being on karl rove's staff, well, I am from texas. :)

I know JadeGold guards his/her anonymity.

It's Guy Cabot, general blog troll.

Why do the Democrats keep bringing up the MILITARY? It's looking more & more like this is the ONLY ISSUE they "THINK" they have to win...a decorated vet. Are we supposed to TRUST the party that got thousands of young men & women killed in Vietnam? Am I supposed to feel safer with them in leadership?

I'm a grandmother and I truly believe that my four grandchildren will be much safer with President Bush leading. If I thought for one second that they would be safer with a Dem, I'd vote for them.

You know what? I don't care how many medals Kerry has or if Bush went AWOL (I KNOW he didn't). I care about the future of our country and the safety of our citizens. So, Terry McCauliffe, if all you've got is a bogus AWOL charge & a candidate with medals, you're weaker than I thought.

The honorable discharge was good enough for me to begin with. The burden is on the Bush-haters to prove he was AWOL. And they have nothing.

Michael Moore publicized it when he was very publicly endorsing Clark. After that, reporters tried again and again to get Clark to disown Moore's comment and he refused. That's why Jennings asked Clark about it.

(This shows, IMHO, Clark's inexperience in politics. He could have defused it early with the right phrase, something like not agreeing with everything his supporters say but wanting to look forward.)

It kept bubbling as an issue because Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe (another person sometimes accused of working for the Republicans) kept talking about it.

One thing to remember in assessing the political effects of these kinds of charges is that the public is generally quite cynical about them. And swing voters typically hate what they think of as mudslinging.

Leftist desperation, pure and simple. It isn't going to work. It's more for therapeutic value, the Leftists are feeling vulnerable and need something to pin their hopes to.

'Tis an amazing display.

The Prez says he'll authorize releasing the records on Sunday, and because they're not all out there on Wednesday, he's called a liar.

Tommy & Jade, everything you write is animated by one overriding article of faith - that Bush is an ignoramus, a liar, a man of incredibly bad faith in all things.

Your faith in that proposition approaches bigotry - nothing said or done which is contrary to your faith in the badness of GWB will be allowed to sway you.

John Kerry has never apologized for spreading lies about his fellow servicemen, despite documentation that the stories he helped spread about war crimes and atrocities committed by American servicemen in Vietnam were largely fabrications.

Given all your concern about whether GWB is honorable, tell me why you don't give a d@mn about Kerry's post-service defamation of the American soldier?

Given the blind faith in your leader that many of you have displayed, I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that you have taken the opportunity to engage in ad hominen attacks upon me. The only thing I want to know is whether President Bush will authorize full release of his records, as he promised on the Meet the Press on Sunday. If not, then I think it is reasonable to assume that something is being hidden.

Bush, the national guard pilot, was no more "AWOL" for his schedule shenanigans than Kerry, the anti-war demonstrator, was a "traitor" for his actions prolonging the Paris Peace Talks.

Both are open to fair criticism. The truth is not served by abusing techical legal terms in pointless personal slanders.

There are sure enough people that remember his service as a cheerleader at Andover. People who liked him as well as people who did not like him when he served as head Cheerleader.

Where are all the people (or some) who remember his character in uniform?

To many conservatives are more than willing to have a Republican version of Clinton, it's disgusting when Liberals do it, but it's shameful when Conservatives do it!

By failing to take his annual flight physical, LT Bush did not violate, nor was he found in violation of, any article of the UCMJ; he was simply removed from flight duty status. This is a nonjudgemental administrative procedure. As LT Bush was no longer in a flying billet at the time of the missed physical, no disciplinary measures were warranted. If LT Bush had been specifically ordered by his commanding officer to have his happy ass in a specified place and at a specified time and he then failed to report as ordered, that would be another issue. Where is your pissed-off Colonel who will state that LT Bush disobeyed his direct orders?
To conflate the missed flight physical with an act of UA / AWOL, as many have done, is reckless in the extreme and is symptomatic of degenerative talkingoutyourass-itis.
Remember, this issue is about whether or not LT Bush was either AWOL / UA or a deserter, NOT whether or not he received special treatment and/or played the system to his advantage. The so-called "facts" do not support the charge(s). Period. BTW, the burden of proof is always on the accusers, not the alledged violator.

His consistent ability to exploit his station in life reveals a character that is no better than Clinton. He takes shortcuts unbecoming of someone who calls himself conservative. A Republican slacker is still a slacker.

His consistent ability to exploit his station in life reveals a character that is no better than Clinton. He takes shortcuts unbecoming of someone who calls himself conservative. A Republican slacker is still a slacker.

Belloscm

I bow to your superior knowledge of the UCMJ and agree that the facts we now know do not support any finding of a violation by Lt Bush. I did not and do not intend to leave any impression that I believe the missed physical was an act warranting discipline.

I must disagree with you, however, when you state that the issue must be confined to a legal finding of desertion or AWOL status imposing a burden of proof on a prosecutor. GWB has not been charged with any crime, and the facts as I understand them do not support any such charge. His actions do however have quite a bearing on whether or not we should rehire him as our commander in chief. This is where gaming the system becomes a legitimate issue.

Remember, Bill Clinton’s “acts” were not actionable in themselves. Whether or not he lied about them under oath was the substance of the legal actions against him. But whether or not his acts were actionable in law makes little difference in the political sphere. In both that case and this, the character of the job applicant was raised as a political issue. Time will tell whether it has any traction this time.

TexasToast,
If the genesis for this story had been a Michael Moore or Terry McAuliffe(sp?) comment that Bush had received special treatment in the ANG, they would have been closer to the truth, but there would have been no "story." As the Bush was AWOL hysteria fades, I fully expect to hear more about silver-spoonism.
I'm not opposed to the President getting "outted" when he's wrong, I just knew by experience and my understanding of military law that the AWOL charges didn't make sense or have any substance. Instead, critics of the President have been afflicted with a severe case of degenerative talkingoutyourass-itis, willfully misinterpreting facts, plain making things up or, in most cases, not knowing what they were talking about. Just imagine if, in the mid-nineties, the Chairman of the RNC had given his support to the Vince Foster conspiracy theories. A lot of Republican supporters would have bailed out on that one.
I may be wrong about this, but now that the subject of character is being freely discussed and John Kerry has encouraged and condoned the "Bush was AWOL" fishing expedition, don't start whining when he begins to get better than he gave. I think that the dems are getting ropa-doped on this issue and their arms are beginning to get heavy.

Bush Sr. is certainly a man born with a silver spoon, yet he still made sacrifices and went that extra mile in spite of the privilege. Or better yet, he didn’t rely only on his privilege to advance himself…. however, it seems Jr. is nothing like his father, and certainly avoided any serious sacrifice and risk.

...however, it seems Jr. is nothing like his father, and certainly avoided any serious sacrifice and risk.

The more fool you then.

Bush did more than two years active duty service -- more than he would have been required to if he'd have been drafted -- and did it as a fighter pilot. Being a fighter pilot is plenty risky -- I used to do reliability analysis for NASA, and the rough rule of thumb number is that you've got about one chance in five of dying in a 20 year career as a fighter pilot. (And a lot of that is front-loaded: "There are old pilots, and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.")

He sacrified more, and risked more, than a REMF photographer who got out of a two-year hitch early to go to Divinity School.

Those that hate Bush will never believe the facts they don't like. They repeat the same old stories and lies - Bush stole the election, even though ever recount has shown he won it. Take tommyj (jeweljoker@aol.com). He compares Clinton lying under oath for which he was fined and lost his law license in several states, with Bush releases some of his military records. Get a life, he released he records that showed he served. I don't hear him making the same demands on sKerry who still refises to put all of his militray online despite promises to do so weeks ago. You know, sKerry, who drives a SUV but he doesn't own it - his family does. The man who defended Clinton when Clinton lied about avoiding the draft, but calls serving in the National Air guard a cowards way out.