yep, check but ....

what is that sound? goal posts being moved way back. Maybe Mars this time.

Bravo!

I find myself wondering if this is more an example of incompetence on behalf of the press or 'brer rabbit' politics on behalf of the White House ("PLEASE don't make an issue out of Bush's guard service...NOTHING scares us more than that!").

Spot on about the Drum post.

You know, slogging through the hundreds of comments to that post, watching Drum's fan club try to make sense out of that ARS statement was sort of like watching those monkeys at the beggining of 2001: A Space Odyssey figure out what the hell that black monolith was.

The real question is, who will hold people like Kevin Drum accountable for his errors? He hasn't addressed them on his blog, and he remains unapologetic about his comical ignorance of military documents and records. Who will force his feet to fire, and at least make him address this issue and if appropriate concede that Bush did not shirk his duty (he was NEVER AWOL - that is a techinical term with as specific and narrowly-defined a meaning as 'treason,' and should never be tossed around carelessly.)

Bill, will you ask Kevin to account for himself? Will SOMEBODY?

The real question is, who will hold people like Kevin Drum accountable for his errors? He hasn't addressed them on his blog, and he remains unapologetic about his comical ignorance of military documents and records. Who will force his feet to fire, and at least make him address this issue and if appropriate concede that Bush did not shirk his duty (he was NEVER AWOL - that is a techinical term with as specific and narrowly-defined a meaning as 'treason,' and should never be tossed around carelessly.)

Bill, will you ask Kevin to account for himself? Will SOMEBODY?

I just read the commnetary are Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#2_11_04_1106

He is very hard on Kevin.

heh

You must overlook folks like South Knox Bubba. He lives up on one of those ridges where the oxygen is thin.

Well, don't break your arm patting yourself on the back just yet...

Tonight's paper quotes the former commander of the squadron in Montgomery:

"He never did come to my squad," said retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, who lives in Montgomery. "He was never at my unit".

Bricken reviewed documents Tuesday showing Bush's transfer request to his squad and his response to the request. He said he remembered sending approval back for him to serve in the small squad, made up of reserve members who met weekly.

"He was looking for a place to hang his hat, but he never came by", Bricken said.

---

The article also said Bush didn't receive military pay from May to September 1972.

It sounds like you're the one with the deflated story, Hobbs.

Great work, Bill. Another head-in-the-sand type is Bob Somerby, blogger of "The Daily Howler". When he started in on this "Bush was AWOL" thing a couple of weeks ago, I linked your previous posts and asked him why this didn't help him (he gets a lot of mileage out of feigning ignorance and then blaming the Washington press corp for not having done its job).

While he is often right about the press, it is often for the wrong reasons, or he uses press failures to draw wacky conclusions. He didn't respond to me personally, link to you, or discuss what you had written while he banged the drum of pseudo-scandal. So he comes out looking a bit smaller and your reputation is enhanced. Funny how the latter happens when you do your job well, huh?

Well done! It's quite impressive all of the stories/pages/documents you've compiled.

I don't think that the major media will drop this story any time soon. They smelled "blood" in the water, and are going after it like a bunch of sharks. They've gotten too involved with this story to simply admit their faults.

WT -

Your conclusion is quite a leap from the evidence you present. Accepting that evidence as you've stated it, Bush could well have requested transfer to more than one unit in Alabama, been accepted at more than one, and not chosen this particular squad. At least that's one plausible interpretation. And the missing months issue has already been raised and answered. Bush missed some "drills" and made them up within that service year. All quite kosher, apparently, in the ANG at that time. The war was effectively over, the ANG was awash in pilots returning from active duty in 'Nam, and folks were hanging pretty loose.

WhiskeyTango - if you would read an earlier post of mine today, referencing a long letter from one of Bush's fellow pilots in the TANG, Bush was never formally assigned to the Alabama base/post/squadron/unit. So he did not HAVE to be there, period, but could go in order to accumulate some drill time.

Going was optional. And he made up all of his time before getting his HONORABLE DISCHARGE.

Sir: What you fail to mention in your "reporting," and I use the term loosely, is that no one has come forward to say, "Yeah, sure, I was hanging out with George Bush in Alabama" during this whole scandal. Bush and the entire apparatus of the administration can do no more than come up with pay schedules for this period. Not one person, not one eyewitness, not one personal, easily verifiable recollection by Bush of what he was doing during this whole period in Alabama that can be independently checked. That's beyond belief. Not one story -- "Oh yeah. Joe X was flying one of the 102s one days and it's engine blew and he made an emergency landing." Nothing like that. Have you ever been in the service? Everybody who has has got stories. Everybody. My Navy enlistment was 25 years ago, and I can still bore people with stuff that happened then. Yet Bush can come up with is the incredibly lame "All I can tell you is that was there" excuse. That's not gonna cut it.

And Alabama, which you conveniently neglect to point out, was Bush's duty station only because he was there to work on a political campaign. That doesn't happen every day. People are gonna remember serving with a guy like that. Guys serving in the unit would come forward and say, "Oh, hell yes, I remember Georgi Bush! Good looking kid, funny. Was actually assigned to some political campaign. Wierdest thing you ever saw." But that doesn't happen either. A guy would remember serving with someone who became president of the United States of America, I can damn well guarantee that. Yet no one ever comes forward. Strange, no?

But forget all that. Let's focus on this fact -- there is not one shred of physical or anecdotal proof that Bush was where he was supposed to be in the fall of 1972 into 1973, except that he says it was so. Which is apparently enough for you, although is not for many, many others.

You argue that Bush opponents cannot prove he was AWOL. Fair enough. Bush, though, cannnot prove directly that he wasn't, except for pay records, which, unfortunately, offer no physical proof of anything other than he got a check. Does your W-2 statement show which days you were at work and which you weren't? Mine doesn't, and neither do these pay records. Where are the duty rosters, where are the muster sheets, where is anything that exonerates Bush, proves he was not shirking his duty while others were fighting and dying in Vietnam? So the entire proof you have that Bush fulfilled his duty are impersonal pay records (where are the signatures for Bush to have picked up his check? In the military at that time, you had to sign to get paid. Curious) spit out by a computer. I hope Bush can do better than that.

Your other proof is attempting to poke holes in the memory of Bush's former commander, who originally said he didn't remember Bush being where he was supposed to be. That means your case that Bush fulfilled his military duty is to discredit a career officer who served his country honorably. Nice job.

I don't know if Bush was AWOL. It is truly unclear to me what really happened. The problem you face is that you don't really know either. You cannot prove he was where he was supposed to be. You believe it to be so, but you can't prove it. You believe Bush, though, because he said it. That, however, is not good enough for millions of other Americans, who suspect that the real truth has yet to emerge.

And apparently it's not good enough for the media either. It requires two sources to verify a story. So far, there's only one, and he clearly has a reason to lie, if necessary. So that source's word is suspect. The ball is in your court. The story will be buried eventually because the media will have to move on. The doubt will remain. And that's the real tragedy in this story.

Its getting increasingly difficult to devine the line where the Democrat National Committee stops and the National Press Corp begins.

John,

You missed the earlier article that referred to a woman who dated GW in Montgomery during that time period. I think that constitutes a corroboration.

see http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm

" But further confirmation was supplied yesterday by a woman who dated the young George W. Bush in 1972 who says she distinctly remembers the young pilot visiting Montgomery that year to fulfill his Air National Guard commitment.
Emily Marks Curtis told The Times that she and Mr. Bush met in the summer of 1972 when he went to Montgomery from Texas to work in the U.S. Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a Bush family friend. She said the two became good friends. "

John: Honorable discharge -- burden of proof is on you, buddy.

And John,

when did juris prudens require people to be quilty until proven innocent. That is a Code Napolean concept (French Law). Certainly not the way things are done in the US, n'est-pas

John we have been getting reports that you sodomized you cat in your teenaged years. Despite your selfinterested denials, your lack of proof has left many people wondering. Now I have no proof either way and have no real interest but I know I won't be letting you kitty sit around here.

Regards
A fair and disinterested oberver

The sad thing about Kevin Drum and the other lefties who are "covering" this story is that actual reservists like myself and Baldilocks have tried to help them interpret the released documents -- but because they didn't like our conclusions, they chose to believe that we were misleading them.

Not exactly "objective" reporting.

I am incredulous that you could type such things with a straight face.

Bush has declared unequivocably that he did serve with the unit in Montgomery. There was only one such unit.

The commander of the unit stated unequivicably that Bush never showed up.

The fact that he went to Montgomery is not in dispute. The problem is that he failed to report for duty. His girlfriend's recollection doesn't alter that fact.

Either Bush or Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, ret. is lying.

Smash, Of course.

Facts are what they say they are.

I mean, just because you, and the restof us are in the military and they weren't, doesn't actually mean you/we have a point. ;)

That is the way they see things because as far as they are concerned the verdict has been in since Florida 2K. They just dance up another painted pig in a dress to try justify their pre ordained prejudices.

sigh, it'll never end.

whiskeytango,

The Lt. Col. stated no such thing. He has also stated unequivocally that his prior comments were taken out of context.

Quit lying.

John,

you forgot Emily Marks Curtis. She says he was there. So it is Bush and Curtis on one side and Lt Col Bricken on the other.

Remember Col Turnipseed who was quoted by the globe as saying he was definitely not there. Turns out his quote was distorted by the globe reporter.

Funny that.

You still haven't given us a link to that definite proof you have so how can we evaluate it.

But don't worry, these things seem to tying themselves up quickly. I am sure it will resolve itself also.

Jim, you are mistaken. You are quoting retired Gen. William Turnipseed who was higher up the chain of command.

Squadron commander Lt. Col. Bricken stated, and I quote directly from this evening's paper, "He never did come to my squad", and "He was never at my unit".

Get your facts straight before you call someone a liar.

link please

we still only have you saying this.

I sent Kevin Drum a link to a news source earlier today about this. I've corresponded with Kevin very occasionally (seemed decent enough), and I've left comments on Calpundit on different items. I was reading his blog to hear what the "sensible Left" was thinking -- always good to sharpen one's own arguments.

I haven't heard back from Kevin, and he's not responded to some other e-mails as well, so I suspect I've been written off. No problem of course, it's his blog and his time. But it's a shame: with his audience he could have provided a real service by listening to people with sufficient experience to read these records. He could have been the level-headed one out there and could have been the first one, ahead of other bloggers and the media, to get the full story pulled together. That would have been a coup.

Instead, he's allowed his "Bush must go at any cost" thinking to interfere, and I guess we're seeing part of the "any cost" as far as he's concerned.

Again, a shame, but I think I'm going to have to look for the "sensible Left" elsewhere than Calpundit from now on.

Kevin is DEEPLY invested in this. Obsessed, even. If it's ultimately a dry hole, he will need to rename his blog. "Area 51" and "Grassy Knoll" would both fit.

"Either Bush or Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, ret. is lying" OR the third option - that the transfer to Bricken's unit (9921st Air Reserve Squadron) was denied because Dubya was an obligated reservist and could only be assigned to a IRR position. Note that a subsequent transfer request to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Wing was approved, hence both Bush and Bricken were telling the truth.

Now I've lost all patience with this subject so I'm going to fall back on what served me well when I served: whiskeytango, maybe if you took the stick outchyer ass and used it to clean the shit outchyour ears y'all'd have a better unnerstannin' of the facts...but I doubt it.

As my old DI used to say, "Son, yore 'bout as useful as tits on a boar-hog." And WT, that ain't much. Now it's clear to me you know exactly two things about military service, jack and shit - and not a whole lotta jack. So let me make it painfully clear - so damn clear even grade a latrine material such as yourself can unnerstand - the records show that he did the drill, he got paid and he got an honorable discharge. That's three for three - now you got a problem with anything you start coughin' up some real evidence son, or sit down, shut up and spare your mamma the embarrassment.

whiskeytango,

I've got my facts straight. LCOL Bricken was CO of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron, and it is indeed true that GW Bush never served with that unit.

He never claimed to. His application to perform equivalent training with the 9921st was rejected, because it was only a "postal unit" whose members could not drill for pay.

Instead, Bush drilled with the 187th Tactical Recon Group. The CO of that unit doesn't remember seeing Bush, probably because he didn't. Bush didn't attend the regular drill weekends with the rest of the unit, because it interfered with his campaign schedule (the Nov 72 drill, for instance, was the weekend before the election). The records show that Bush drilled in late October, and again in the middle of November that year. Only a handful of active duty support personnel would have been present at the time. As Bush was just another guy "flex drilling" from an out-of-town unit for a couple of weekends, it's unlikely that anyone would remember him three months later, much less three decades.

Yeah, I've got my facts straight. How about you?

WT,

Keep looking for "muster sheets"...should keep you occupied for about the next hundred years. No one can produce that type of evidence b/c it's never existed. Again, the burden of proof is on you, and it's lacking.

Anyone else amazed at the press corps' fascination with the term "drill." Did he drill? Was he flying when he was drilling? How did he drill? Did he drill on Tuesday? "Drill" is a generic term for "go to work." Hell, I'm a current F-16 pilot and I don't fly everyday. Ask me what I did on Jan 25th, 2003, and I'll have no damn clue. I can't even remember exactly what I did at my desk last Tuesday. There is no story here.

Now, about that whole Vietnam Veterans Against the War issue...

Here is a letter to the editor from someone who served with Lt Bush in the TANG.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

whiskey, tango, foxtrot, over?

More like "JadeGold/Mac Diva/Guy Cabot" sooo over.

From 1983 - 1985, I was assigned to the 56TTW at MacDill AFB. My "administrative" unit was the headquarters squadron. The commander of the squadron, Capt Inman, would be able to say in all honesty "never saw him, he was never came to the squadron." It would be true. I was actually "Airman of the Month" for the squadron and received a nice signed paper (with Inman's signature) for it.

I guess that means I was AWOL those two years. Fancy that. Mind you this was active duty too. My discharge claims I never missed a day of service.

Riddle me how that could happen. I guess I'll have to assume that some people, not naming names Whiskey Tango, are simply willfully stupid.

WTF works for moi.

Enough of this shit. Let's talk about Kerry's funny Silver Star and his self inflicted million dollar Band-Aid wound.

And let's talk about a party whose slogan is rule or ruin.

...Bob Somerby, blogger of "The Daily Howler". When he started in on this "Bush was AWOL" thing a couple of weeks ago, I linked your previous posts and asked him why this didn't help him (he gets a lot of mileage out of feigning ignorance and then blaming the Washington press corp for not having done its job)....While he is often right about the press, it is often for the wrong reasons, or he uses press failures to draw wacky conclusions.

I agree with WW. The more Kerry invokes his "heroic" actions in Nam, the more I want to know the true story. And let's be frank...there are tens of thousands of Republicans (myself included) who have either fought in a war or are currently serving that are NOT afraid to challenge Kerry on national defense, Vietnam Vet or no. I've said it before: Kerry hasn't done a thing worth a damn since he left SE Asia. His record on national defense and military affairs is atrocious. That WILL be highlighted.

Another conversation with General (then Lt. Col) William Turnipseed was started by a blogger on freerepublic.com. Same results as we are seeing today.

It's here.

Now I know that freepers are considered sort of fringe, and there are some that fit in that category, but the above posting has a strong ring of truth to it and has been corroborated by posts above.

I was a Naval Air Reservist during that period. After my active duty (2 year obligation), I transferred to a nearby reserve outfit. Then I moved and transferred again. To this day there exist no records of that second transfer, the squadron never got my records (even though they let me fly as a crew member - I did have some AC wings on my uniform), and I never even got paid for that duty. I also got into the Reserves with no wait and got out early with no hassle. My brother got into the Guard with no wait, as did my best friend who was killed flying a fighter in the New Mexico Air Guard (easy way out? not hardly!).

With all the efforts that the Dems have wasted or caused to be wasted on their slanderous campaign, we could probably have put them to better use and found some WMD's in Syria :-)

And WhiskeyTango is silent.

Funny how the truth does that to some people.

I cannot believe the "guilty until proven innocent" stance....goes along with the thinking of two other socialist regimes that failed....communism and nazism...and goes against a fundamental tenet of our justice system. But that shouldn't surprise us for a group of people who consciously or subconsciously want our system dead.

Note, though, that Calpundit has a post on a new USA Today article. The article basically says that TANG officers purged Bush's records of personal, non-duty info before making them available for public release. Sounds reasonable to me, but the press won't (even try to) understand it .

Bill Hobbs: "What you fail to mention in your "reporting," and I use the term loosely, is that no one has come forward to say, "Yeah, sure, I was hanging out with George Bush in Alabama" during this whole scandal."

Mr. Hobbs, this is an unreasonable argument. Having served in the Air Force as a navigator on F-4E fighters, I would be hard pressed to remember the details of any detached duty I did three decades ago. I certainly would not remember somebody temporarily attached to my unit for a few goes. I doubt anyone would unless some unusual incident occurred to make that person memorable. Your insistence that the absence of such evidence is evidence of absence is simple-minded. I challenge you to produce from memory the attendance rosters of any TDY you did thirty years ago to prove that such recall is normal.

The rest of your argument is similarly irrational, demanding that the opponents of your argument bear the burden of disproving it. You, sir, bear the burden of proving your charge of AWOL. You. Fallaciously, you seem to think that the lack of proof supporting your slander seems to be proof itself.

This follows the liberal tactic of slandering their opponents with wild and unsubstantiated charges, demanding their opponents disprove it, and then by the time the truth surfaces the Left has scampered on to their next lie.

Tantor
Editor For Life
Conservative Propaganda
http://www.conpro.blogspot.com/

Okay, I admit it, my repeated calls for Bush to release his full military record (as he promised to do on Meet the Press) are silly and naive. I forgot that Bush lives his life according to a different set of rules. He gets to step ahead of others to get a coveted slot in the National Guard, and he gets to run an oil business into the ground, only to have his daddy's cronies bail him out, and he gets to become the primary owner of the Texas Rangers while only putting up a tiny majority of the money for the purchase, and he gets to become president because the Supreme Court, contrary to its majority tradition of respecting states' rights, cuts off Florida's recount and appoints him president. I'm sorry, President Bush can release whatever records he wants to exculpate himself and hide the rest. I apologize for ever questioning him. Thank you all for correcting my misapprehensions and setting me straight. How dare I ask the President to live according to the same standards of the mere common folk? After all, this is America.

Couple of points for clarity: The Col. Campenni letter to the editor referenced by Ivan above is a crock. The same letter was published elsewhere a year ago, and Campenni was profiled here. Note that the guy was assigned to a unit in Pennsylvania right out of grad school in 1972, so his claims of serving with W. in the TANG are questionable at best, and his letter is rife with inaccuracies and silliness which can certainly be deciphered by all of you here.
Second, the much-ballyhooed account of the "girlfriend" who "confirmed" Bush's attendance at Alabama guard duty, is likewise a crock. LA Times: "Emily Marks Curtis, who said she was Bush's girlfriend in Montgomery, recalled that he had told her that he was in the Alabama National Guard, but she never saw him in uniform. She said she also never saw a uniform or National Guard material in his Montgomery apartment or in his car."

The Washington Times:
"I didn't see him go to work. I didn't see him come home from work," she said. "He told me that was why he was in Montgomery. There is no other reason why he would come back to Montgomery."

Not exactly proof positive.

Look, I don't know if Bush was AWOL. Frankly, I think he's done a lot worse and I wish the press would focus on some of that. The thing that bugs me the most is that the "straight-shooter" were sold in 2000 has turned out to be the leader of an administration that refuses to be up-front about anything, stonewalls every examination into any subject that might potentially embarrass someone - 9/11, Valerie Plame, Iraq intel, energy policy, the list goes on.
It's OUR government, dammit, and we deserve the full, unvarnished truth about all of this stuff. Bush said on national TV that he would release ALL his military records. Let's have it and be done with this and move on.

When was George W. Bush called to federal duty? Article 2 of the UCMJ states that members of the National Guard are subject to its provisions only when in federal service. Further, DOD Directive 1325.2 (AWOL & Desertion) does not apply to National Guardsmen unless ordered to federal service. AFAIK there is no such status as AWOL for a Guardsman under state control in any state, thus it appears to me that Bush's detractors are accusing him of an 'offense' that couldn't even exist in the first place.

Here's an angle on the Kerry slams that I haven't seen covered. Kerry says some Vietnam era guys who thought they were about to be drafted joined a National Guard outfit, like President Bush, to avoid being assigned to a combat area. True enough, but something more guys did was join the Navy, like Kerry, for the same reason. What almost nobody did, if they had enough education to have a choice, was volunteer to be a jungle fighter in the Army or Marines. Arguably, then, President Bush asked for a more hazardous military tour by volunteering to fly jets than Kerry did to ride ships that were miles away from combat areas. Kerry's tours as a jungle river boat commander did put him in harm's way at times, but it's a
good bet that he wasn't counting on that when he joined.

I think I've figured it out. It was Colonel Turnipseed, in the hangar, with the candlestick holder.

you seem to think that the lack of proof supporting your slander seems to be proof itself

You know, you're right. So let's have our Commander in Chief put this all this pointless debate to rest with a single stroke -- let's have him release his full service record, as he promised to do on national television.

A proud veteran like Bush should have nothing to hide, and the truth will finally be there for all to see.

That should shut up all the Bush haters!

Lets cut the crap. No one on their side give a damn about whether or not Bush was AWOL or not. Or really anything he has ever done. They are playing this up in the hopes that WE care enough about it to stay home and allow Kerry to win the White House.

Its the same reason they are touting Kerry's record in Vietnam and hoping we don't look at his record afterwards, or in the Senate.

The burden of proof is for those who come up with the charge. Not the person being charged. The whole innocent until proven guilty apparently only applies to Democrats. You think he was AWOL. YOU prove the case.

But make no mistake, some of us see what this is about. The Democrats elected a draft dodger, a serial adulterer, and quite possibly a rapist, and definitely a liar as President. So for that side to make any of these charges against Bush at best is pot and kettle time. At worse, just plain slander.

I couldn't slog my way thru all the comments posted here so I don't know if this has already been mentioned or not so here goes...

AWOL (Absent Without Leave) is a legal term. The only way I know (I was only a company clerk in an infantry company during my time in Uncle Sam's walking Army, so I was not nearly as informed as say a PFC at Corps level and if we can find one I would sure like to hear what his take on this matter is.) that a guy can get those letters hung around his neck is to be reported on the Morning Report as AWOL.

I know nothing about reporting as to presence or absence of an individual in the National Guard or even if there is such a thing but I do know that the threat held over those in the Guard for failure to attend meetings is that those failing to make meetings will be put on active duty where failure to be where you are supposed to be can result in one being charged with AWOL. This charge, in my recollection, was, depending on the length of absence, tried in a Special Courts Martial and carried a maximum sentence, for first time offenders, of what we called "six and two-thirds." Meaning six months in the stockade and a forfeiture of two-thirds of pay and allowances.

At least that was the case when I was in the Army a loooong time ago.

Larry R Duncan

at best, bush had a very below mediocre military career. he was suspended for missing a medical. he didn't fly the last 2 years of his service. he left 8 months early (while he currently issues stop-loss orders extending today's guardsmen's tours). he has been quoted as saying he joined to guard so he wouldn't have to face combat.

every other president who has served in the military has authorized release of ALL their military service records. bush is the first to not do so. why? duh. obviously he wants to hide something.

scott mcclellan should be fired (or promoted as the case may be) for his inability to give a direct answer to a simple question, such as "why did bush miss his physical?"

most reasonable wouldn't care about what he did 30 years ago, except that he seems to be covering up something about it. it's today's lies that are the problem.

he promised on mtp to release all the records.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-11-bush-guard-usat_x.htm

I'm still waiting for the guy to prove he doesn't sodomize cats.

Makes about as much sense as their "Bush was AWOL" story.

But we ought to cut through the crappola -
Those of you claiming he was don't give a *&^% whether he was or wasn't; you simply hate Bush & will hang your hat on ANYTHING you can find which you think might hurt him politically.

You didn't care about Hillary making $100,000 trading futures; you didn't care about her Rose Law Firm billing records disappearing for two years and then - imagine my surprise!!! - turning up in the private quarters in the White House; and you didn't care about Bill lying under oath.

So drop the pretense that all of a sudden you're driven by some sort of moral indignation in this case.

You're driven by partisan hatreds, nothing more.

And on that score - an "honorable discharge" indicates Lt. Bush did what was required to fulfill his commitment to the Guard.

Whether you like it or not.

speaking for myself, i cared about bill and hillary's lies too. so please don't pull a childish, "but mom all the other politicians are doing it" to excuse him.

However, hummm, that's not his point. BradDad's point is that most of the critics (Kerry, Moore, McAuliffe, Drum, et al) went out of their way to excuse and give a pass Clinton's documentable and verifiable sins. However, they are more than willing, for partisan purposes, to slander Bush with lies based on nothing more than innuendo. These people are plainly hypocritical in who they hold accountable for what.

As for you; your childish use of a straw man (the "but mom all the other politicians are doing it") can lead one to question the veracity of your "cared about bill and hillary's lies too..." claim. Pardon me, but based on the evidence of your partisanship, I highly doubt it.

ok, sparkey, what about you? just you? does bush's military record, or lack thereof, and his failure to release all his records bother you? without couching your response in relation to what everyone else's motives for their attacks on bush are, does it bother you? if not, for god's sake why not?

"And Alabama, which you conveniently neglect to point out, was Bush's duty station only because he was there to work on a political campaign. That doesn't happen every day"

Actually it does happen every day. Guardsman travel around for their civilians jobs pick up drill with another unit. What really gets me about this whole debate is that the people fueling this thing have absolutely no knowledge of the military much less the NG and yet can read a couple reports and suddenly become experts. You dont have the context to know what you are talking about!

p.s. evidence of what partisanship? i am partisan. i've always voted republican, and i will again this year, with great distaste though.

Wasn't there a letter to the editor in the Washington Times from a fellow soldier that proves Bush was in Alabama?

Interesting slew of comments. I do appreciate all the facts that have been presented, especially the entire category you have dedicated to this subject, Bill.

What is most interesting is the continued insistance that there is still a "there" there, despite the expanding pile of information which debunks these charges.

(If there really was a "there", do you not think it would have been exploited back in 2000?)

Let me copy in a post I made on Jane Galt's website yesterday (my pertinent background is 11 years active duty and 17 years in the Reserves (Marines):

Just for those folks who might have seen the copy of Bush's drill point record on Baldilocks via Instapundit--you should know that the overiding requirement for drills is to have a "good" year, i.e., 50 drill points. There is also some minimum attendance required, but it is not 100%. (There are also excused absences and unexcused absences, and makeup drills, and rescheduled drills, etc., but I won't get into all that.) A good year is normally obtained by getting 15 points for being in a drilling reserve status, 4 points per weekend normally done once a month (2 points per day or one point per 4 hour period), and 14 active duty points for the 2-week annual training duty aka "summer camp." 50 points are required for a good year, and accumulation of inactive duty points (aka drilling points) is limited, for retirement purposes, to 60 inactive duty points per year. Add up the points for a "normal" reserve year and you come up with 63 inactive duty points and 14 active duty points for a total of 77 points. Remember that the requirement is only 50 points for a good year, i.e., one that meets the minimum standards for counting towards retirement. Also note that if you make all monthly drills, you end up with more inactive duty points (63) than will count towards retirement (max 60), which says to me that "the system" doesn't expect everyone to have 100% attendance all the time.

Looking at Bush's drilling record, and squinting at the small print, it appears that he did a normal drill in October '72, a double drill in November (which took care of his December drill), two extended drills in January which took care of his drills through March, a normal drill in April, and then four different drills in May which took him up through July.

By the way, it is also possible to earn drill points on a non-paid basis, and it is possible to be on active duty on a non-paid basis. And drill points can be earned for completing correspondence courses. None of this pertains to the Bush question, but it does show the flexibility of the reserve system to permit people to be flexible in how they meet their reserve commitment. For some units and people, paid drills are at a premium, so you take what you can get.

To prevent fraud, which is something the military is death on, reservists weren't paid for drills until a month or two after the fact, because the paperwork documenting the drill has to make its way up the line to the paying authority. Part of this chain used to be automated, but not at the lower levels where the records were originated. (Now it's pretty much automated all the way, with the originating unit also entering the data in the automated pay system.) For Bush to have been paid, he had to have completed the drills he was paid for.

Contrariwise, even if he wasn't paid, it wouldn't be dispositive on the issue because I could sure tell you some horror stories about trying to get reservists paid for their drills. Fortunately, most of these stories had to do with transitioning to a fully automated system before the system had been adequately tested, but a large number of Marine reservists went over a year without getting paid.

Sorry for the tedious details, but isn't it interesting that those people who have an understanding of the military reserve system don't see what the fuss is about, while some of those who don't are still raising inane questions?

Here's an answer for you Ummmm:

Bush got an honorable discharge.

If his service had not been satisfactory to the Air National Guard, he would not have gotten an honorable discharge.

Unless you can prove the "honorable" was a fraud - in other words, that records were falsified - you're reduced to criticizing how the service which resulted in an "honorable" was rendered.

That is a non-starter, especially when you've been willing to give politicians you like a pass on similar issues.

Bush has no burden to prove himself innocent; and you have no right to pretend he does.

A single thought for defenders of President Bush on the aWol issue...

Russert, Q. "Will you release all the records?"

President, A. "Yes, absolutely."

So, where are they? Cleansed I guess...

Can you say "coverup"?

chris pastel, to me it's a matter of whether he fulfilled his requirements, it's just about honesty. don't make your service out to be something it wasn't. i believe the documents show he did meet the requirements, but it's what's missing that i think we deserve to know about our president.

Link 1
Link 2

see these are probably the kinds of records that they don't want to get out.

most of us didn't mind that bush admitted to having a wild young adulthood, and i don't think most of us would have minded if it is true that he had disciplinary problems during his service if he had come out and said so. it's the lying that's troublesome. i think even at this late date he should just come clean and by the time of the election it would have blown over, but the longer he hides it, the worse it will be.

the truth shall set you free.

"That is a non-starter, especially when you've been willing to give politicians you like a pass on similar issues."

which politicians are you talking about? you're barking up the wrong tree young man.

Chris, exactly these non military people are squeezing water from the the stone of GW's record (if you excuse the mixed metaphor).

On the other hand, they see nothing wrong with his winter soldier mockery where he brought a bunch of bogus vets to testify that vets in general were mindless murderers. as well, he flat out said the his fellow vets were guilty of war crimes.

Is it just me or does this seem far worse. You would want a guy like this for commander in chief? Sure, all you jane fonda-istas would love someone like that. We will be having 911 every second tuesday.

oops, forgot to mention Joh Kerry's winter soldier ...

capt joe, you are an idiot. why do you assume that anyone who is the least critical about bush is pro kerry or pro liberal? bush is just a man, and a flawed man, he's not a god. we can criticize him. there a plenty of republicans much more suited for the job in my opinion, people like cunningham or mccain or dole. men with real integrity and character.

and it's also a stupid thing to say that a democrat in office would let the country be invaded at will. it's divisive and dishonest. if you served, you know plenty of democrats and liberals served with you. if all the democrats left the armed forces, then yes we could have a 9/11 everday. you're an idiot. you really are.

sigh. i can't deal with this idiocy anymore. bye.

Crockmeister, your attempt to discredit the letter written by Col Campenni is weak. His letter clearly states that he flew with Bush 1970-1971. You offer up a story that has him serving with the PennANG in 1972 just out of grad school. That tells me that Campenni flew with the TexANG while in grad school and then went to Pennsylvania when a job took him there. That is much more plausable than you attempting to discredit him by saying he said he was in Texas in 1970 and Pennsylvania in 1972! How could that be!?!?
The answer to this really is very easy. Bush recieved an Honorable Discharge. As others have posted, the burden of proof is on the Moores, McAuliffs and Crockmeisters of the world. Nice company.

Ummm,

so are you are basing most of this on the usa today article. where some guy thought he overheard some cleaning a record.

This anecdotal stuff is really unreliable sometimes it is called hearsay. People are never sure whether they understood the context, or was it even about the guy, or even maybe they subconsiously added wored or misinterpreted.

I am surprised that USA today (or maybe I am not) would engage in spreading vague rumors and hearsay.

But in the end, that is your case, hearsay, some outright misintepretations, distortions, etc.

So if he releases all his record, you will now say CONSPIRACY, CONSPIRACY, he falsified his records.

The goalposts are moved to where nothing would satisfy the pre ordained verdict. And you guys complain about the Patriot act. whew!

Guilty until proven innocence.

Found this on a Brit site:

I just came across a brief report on page 6 of our local center-right newspaper: Allegations going back to 1998 that GWB's National Guard service records had been reviewed by aides (some of whom now hold positions in Bushes government now) to gov. Bush in Texas and that selected records were ordered removed. Stay tuned.

Ummm,

so are you are basing most of this on the usa today article. where some guy thought he overheard some cleaning a record.

This anecdotal stuff is really unreliable sometimes it is called hearsay. People are never sure whether they understood the context, or was it even about the guy, or even maybe they subconsiously added wored or misinterpreted.

I am surprised that USA today (or maybe I am not) would engage in spreading vague rumors and hearsay.

But in the end, that is your case, hearsay, some outright misintepretations, distortions, etc.

So if he releases all his record, you will now say CONSPIRACY, CONSPIRACY, he falsified his records.

The goalposts are moved to where nothing would satisfy the pre ordained verdict. And you guys complain about the Patriot act. whew!

Guilty until proven innocence.

You want to defend Bush, go ahead. That's your prerogative. For the life of me, I don't understand how anybody can fail to see him as he is, even if they choose to support him for reasons having to do with his performance in office. He is what he is.

But you go too far in saying that John Kerry was seeking a cushy life in the Navy. For obvious reasons -- think sitting ducks -- the sailors serving on those patrol boats on the Mekong had the highest casualty rates in the Vietnam War.

So cut that part out.

I think we all should drop this talk about who did what 30 years ago and discuss rather what we're going to do to get out of the various messes we're in, domestically and internationally.

Personally, I can't imagine running on a record of endless war, endless and immense deficits, more lost jobs since Herbert Hoover, secrecy and evasion, cronyism of the baldest sort, bigger government and being a universally detested international pariah. Actually, not just a record, but the promise to continue it and give us more of the same, is what Mr. Bush is basing his campaign on. Wasn't it just yesterday that the chaiman of his Council of Economic Advisors informed us what a good thing it is for us that American jobs are being outsourced to low-wage countries?

But those things appear to appeal to about half of the population. I can't figure it out.

umm, thanks for you pleasant thoughts

read before you comment. remember the cardinal rule put brain in gear before you open mouth.

My point was not his character flaws, my point was that you guys are setting unrealistic goals for this. Something that no one could justify. I served in the military and I would not be able to find anyone who would definitely remember a specific time period where I was in the late 70s.

And I am not slamming democrats with this , just Kerry. I have not idea whether you are for/against/related/married to Kerry and so what.

The point is Kerry did something far worse against his fellow vets. He smirched their repustion and the reputation of the US.

If we compare those two incidents Bush's spotty records and Kerry's lying under oath to a congressional committee about war crimes, which is worse.

Come on man. get a sense of perspective.

that was my point.

umm, thanks for you pleasant thoughts

read before you comment. remember the cardinal rule put brain in gear before you open mouth.

My point was not his character flaws, my point was that you guys are setting unrealistic goals for this. Something that no one could justify. I served in the military and I would not be able to find anyone who would definitely remember a specific time period where I was in the late 70s.

And I am not slamming democrats with this , just Kerry. I have not idea whether you are for/against/related/married to Kerry and so what.

The point is Kerry did something far worse against his fellow vets. He smirched their repustion and the reputation of the US.

If we compare those two incidents Bush's spotty records and Kerry's lying under oath to a congressional committee about war crimes, which is worse.

Come on man. get a sense of perspective.

that was my point.

Hey Malloy,

Kerry record in vietnam was standup.

It is his record when he came back that that I despise. The fact that he consistently cut the military and intelligence community as far as he could. The fact that he never stood up for anything.

Currently, he complains about outsourcing and his wife (Heinz products) is way up there in the outsourcing effort.

Kerry is a massive hypocrite. The only good thing he accomplished was in Vietnam and it has been downhill since

And all the rest of your points worst, yada yada. Those as dem talking points. The current economic problems that have been mostly resolved are a result of a bubble that began in the previous admin.

stop reading Krugman in the NYT. It rots your mind and it is completely bogus.

The Boston Globe article today is an example of spin by people who don't know what they are talking about. I read the statements from the retired Guard generals in a different light. For example,

--Weaver said it is entirely possible that Killian -- who, according to Bush's biography was also a friend -- concluded that Bush had lost interest in flying, at a time when Weaver said there were numerous active duty pilots with combat experience eager to get flying billets in Guard units.

Weaver, after looking over Bush's light duty load between May 1972 and May 1973, said he doubted that Bush would have been proficient enough to return to the F-102 cockpit. "I would not have let him near the airplane," Weaver said. If there was evidence that Bush's interest in the Guard had waned, Weaver said, then it would have been acceptable for Bush's commanders to "cut their losses" and grant him an early release rather than retain a guard pilot who could no longer fly.--

So what's the big deal? This was a time when Army 2d LTs, who had joined the Army after college expecting to have at least 3 years of active duty, were being cut as soon as they graduated from OCS. All the services were cutting way back because of the drawdown in the Vietnam war. And flying billets are and always have been at a premium--if someone doesn't want to fly, there are plenty of others who will jump at the chance. So, if Bush didn't want to fly anymore, or couldn't because of being away from base working on the political campaign, it was no big deal.

To the worthy Capt. Joe:

Mostly resolved? What planet are you on, my brother? Which part is false?

Outsourcing hurts Americans. (The Heinz heiress hasn't got a damned thing to do with it, by the way. But I think Bush has made a better marital choice than Kerry's choices, I'll give him that.) Maybe when they start outsourcing economic professors' jobs, Mr. Manuw (or is it Dr.?) will start to understand that a laid-off 55 year old without health insurance who is so discouraged that he stops looking for a job is more than just "friction" in his quant model, and is certainly not making a positive contribution by reducing the unemployment rate.

So as to minimize the possibility of ad hominem responses, that's not me. To the contrary, the Bush tax cuts are reducing my taxes by tens (regrettably, not hundreds, perhaps someday) of thousands of dollars.

But there was a day when we were all in this together. Briefly, that day came back post 9/11. I think we need to remember what really makes America great. It's not demonizing other Americans.

One other thing, just out of curiosity: Does a person blush at all, or have any thoughts that perhaps he might be a bit over the top, when he entitles a post "I was right -- and way ahead of the mass media". Even if one believes that, shouldn't one refrain from that immodesty? Maybe not in the world of conservative bloggers, I guess.

Mallory, maybe you're new here, but Bill Hobbs has done an outstanding job of covering the AWOL allegations for a long time now.

All along Bill's been patiently and carefully gathering facts and accurately explaining the various millitary records and other corroborating evidence.

In contrast, the major media and some other bloggers (cough::Calpundit::cough) have been content to make up whatever random misinterpretion suited their story this week, misquote their sources, and refuse to correct even the most glaring mistakes. They cheerfully admit they know nothing about the NG or standard millitary procedures yet refuse to listen to anyone who actually does know what they're talking about. Because if they did they'd have to admit that their allegations are completely unfounded.

There's no need for false modesty here. I think the title of the post is entirely justified.

It appears there is no need for false or other modesty here, Bryan. With all due respect, try not to break your arm patting yourself on the back, Mr. Hobbs.

And at the risk of beating a dead horse, I don't give a rusty tin can who did or didn't do something 30 years ago. This so-called issue, as well as what John Kerry did or didn't do 30 years ago, in those heated, crazy years, has no relevance today.

President Bush has been a disaster now, in real time. Just think where we were four years ago, and where we are now.

We are at war, with no end in sight. We have an annual $500+ billion deficit, with no realistic end in sight. There has never, ever been more pork coming out of Washington. At the same time, there have been 2.5 million jobs lost under this President. His leading economic advisor tells us that outsourcing jobs is a good thing. (I am not making this up.)

President Bush has delivered, "big time", for the people who paid for his election, both in tax cuts and government subsidies.

He also continues to pander to our worst, most divisive instincts, while professing to want to change the tone of the debate.

I have a son, who wants to serve his country. I have told him that is laudable, and worthy. But I don't want to deliver him to the Bush war machine, not when the rest of the civilized world doesn't support American foreign policy.

I don't understand why people want more of this.

"Just think where we were four years ago, and where we are now."

Four years ago we were less than a year from an attack that killed more Americans than any event outside of the Civil War. Contrary to your belief, we were already at war; we had just chosen not to fight it until 9/11. Now we're fighting the enemy on their turf, on our terms. They're convinced they're losing, BTW. Go read Zarqawi's letter.

Also, read Kerry's statements on terrorism. He'd take us back to the pre-9/11 "there is no war" mentality that let 9/11 happen.

"He also continues to pander to our worst, most divisive instincts, while professing to want to change the tone of the debate."

Pot. Kettle.

BANG!

Malloy

Well thank you, I am quite well. Et vous mon ami.

Hey man, you are the one complaining about Bush endlees deficits, wars without end, cats and dogs living together. not moi.

I am amazed that i have to spell this out to you. But hear goes.

You are whining about someone 30 years ago.

I posit that there is no evidence yet presented that proves your point about Bush. I posit that Kerry's behaviour 30 years ago is much worse.

Bush is a sitting president. Kerry wants to be the next one. Should I not be allowed to "dare to compare" since Kerry may win. Is that not allowed. Only criticism of Bush based on what, pocket lint?

Your ecomomic arguments are mostly wrong (yes big deficit, everything else wrong, see econpundit for a real analysis of the economy). The econonmy that GW came into was a bubble nothing more. People came into the job market from retirement because of the opportunities. Those jobs were jobs that should not have existed. BUT I am not changing the subject of BUSH HAS NO BEEN PROVEN TO BE AWOL.

And on the Kerry-Heinz outsourcing question, Teresa Heinz has moved the majority of her factories out of the US (at least 57). So is Kerry a hypocrite on outsourcing? Yes, he is.

You're barking up the wrong tree. I agreed with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What I want to hear is when, if ever, this war will end. What will define victory? I think the President owes us that statement.

President Bush wants to run for reelection, apparently, on a program of perpetual war, perpetual budget deficits, lower taxes for the richest Americans, and plenty of pork and other goodies for everybody. I think that is selling a bill of goods to the American people.

All that said, if Bin Laden and Zawahiri are captured or dead by November, the President is reelected in a landslide. Probably with my vote, even.

Tell me, Malloy, when you say "2.5 million jobs have been lost", what do you mean?

Do you mean there are 2.5 million fewer jobs in America than there were on January 20, 2001?

Because if you do - you're simply wrong.

I ask because that number is regularly regurgitated by those who got their "talking points" memo from Terry McAwful - who's only lying when his lips are moving.

"2.5 million jobs lost" is spouted to convince people there are 2.5 million fewer jobs total, when it only purports to be the number of specific jobs which have disappeared, and takes no account of the number of specific jobs created during the same period.

Last I heard there was a net job loss in the 300,000 range - which also, by the way, doesn't take account of those who have left the "working for someone else" world to become self-employed.

I don't like deficits either - but Kerrynomics won't bring them down (let's see .... raise taxes & increase spending .... when was the last time that spending didn't outrun a tax increase?).

As for "lower taxes for the richest Americans" - it's amazing how so many of us treat "richest Americans" as if they're some sub-set of the population we should hold in contempt. Shoot, if they're that bad, why don't we just strip them of their citizenship, expropriate their property & deport them?

By the way - the last I heard, the share of federal income taxes being paid by "the rich" is still significantly larger than their share of the total income earned in the United States.

As for "perpetual war" - no one knew when WWII was going to end in 1942 or 1943 either. And we didn't ask for this war.

Dear BradDad,

What I mean is what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says. And, yes, they adjust their figures from the raw data to which I presume you refer for a variety of factors, I believe including seasonal employment and population growth. The private employment figures in terms of job loss are actually about 15% worse than the total figure, because of increase in government employment, again according to the BLS. The figure is net of job gains, by the way. If you want to stake the election on the accuracy or inaccuracy of these figures, I believe you will lose. Unless you want to suggest that the BLS is partisan, and that people should believe something other than their own lying eyes.

As far as budget deficits go, can anybody remember the last President who had a surplus budget? Maybe we shouldn't go there. Okay, then, who was the last Republican president to propose a balanced budget, much less achieve one? I'm going to guess Eisenhower, but it might have been Hoover. Or maybe fiscal policy just doesn't matter, as Vice President Cheney is quoted as believing. I think conservatives might want to think really really hard before adopting that posture; it might require truly talented contortions to get out of that position in a future Democratic administration.

Republican President + Republican Congress = Biggest government as a % of GDP ever. Maybe there is something to be said for a divided government in terms of spending restraint.

Finally, people don't hold the "richest Americans" in contempt, or at least I certainly hope not. The question is only how to pay for the cost of the public services that our (or actually, I suppose I can say "your" with a clear conscience) representatives have voted to have. We can (a) tax or (b) borrow. In a sense, the entire cost of the war in Iraq is now being borrowed. If we choose to tax to pay on a current basis for what the government spends on a current basis, which in general seems prudent to me, then whom are we going to tax? I believe that high-income Americans have benefitted from very generous tax-cutting policies, and can and should be asked to pay more. You don't. Fair enough. That's what elections are for.

As for "perpetual war", well in 1942 everybody knew what had to be done. We had to beat the bejesus out of Germany and Japan and their various lesser allies. Nobody had any doubt what "victory" meant or what conditions would have to obtain before wartime restrictions on freedom were lifted. The Bush Administration now seems to be saying that the war will be literally eternal, permanent. Vigilance, of course, has to be. War doesn't. Americans aren't likely to view the prospect of being a much larger version of Israel with enthusiasm, and I don't think we have to be. The first thing we've got to do is stop having a President behave as though every day is the day of the Gunfight at the OK Corral. The second thing is to resume behaving as though we are part of the rest of the world.

Regards,

Malloy

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) Total employment was essentially unchanged at 136.0 million, seasonally adjusted, in January.

January 2001 report, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data) The civilian labor force fell by 309,000 in December to 146.9 million; the labor force participation rate decreased over the month to 66.0 percent. Over the year, the participation rate declined by 0.4 percentage point. Both total employment (138.5 million) and the employment-population ratio (62.2 percent) were about unchanged in December.

December 2003 Report, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Malloy, ok then at least we agree about Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's leave the economy to a difference of opinion.

This is a complicated war and everyone has said from the start that it would be long. Sometimes hot (Iraq and Afghan.) and sometimes cold (special ops, law enfoorcement actions).

Even if OBL and his inner circle goes, the war will go on. That would have happened whether Iraq was on the plan or not. Ih fact, even if nothing happened in Afghanistan, the war would have happened. The start of this war was long before 911 and we helped down those two towers by not dealing with it sooner.

It is interesting to see what OBL believed about America in the 90s. He felt that his organisation was directly responible for destroying the soviet union. He, in fact thought the the US would be a pushover, weaker than the Soviet Union. He felt that we would be quickly defeated. Asked by his minions what the US would do when 911 happened. He joked and said he expected to be sued in a court of law. His grand plan was to take the US out of action by inflicting massive casualties. He felt that our reactions in the 90s were a sure indicator that we would cut and run. With us out of action, he would have free rein to topple the "moderate" arab states and form the beginning of the Caliphate. Once the Caliphate was formed then serious action could be launched against those former arab colonies like spain, philippines, etc that had broken from the fold. From then, it would be a restart of the expansionism that was stopped by Europe in the 15oos and 1600s.

We did the unexpected and have been doing so since the WoT kicked off. We owe the current pres for getting it right.

So when is the WoT going to be done. Well, when fanatical islam ceases to be a force.

sorry about the typos, uggh.

preview is my friend ;)

King of Fools has it dead on. If there was actually anything to this, it would have been used in 2000. There's no substance to this, just desparation on the part of the Liberals.

And you know what's really sad? Even if President Bush when he was a very young man was a total waste of space, went AWOL, mooned his commander, and was dishonorably discharged, does that somehow impugn his present performance? All this boils down to is a tacit acknowledgment that John Kerry is desparately weak in the area of his Vietnam past and national defense, and the machine on the left is trying just as desparately to get you to ignore the man behind the curtain...

Dear captjoe,

I think we are talking tactics here. It is very definitely a new kind of war. Bin Ladin's beliefs interest me only as a clue to what our tactics should be. Yes, I have agreed with the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (I think they have to be called that, don't you?) in a strategic sense. We have to try to kill Bin Ladin, Zawahiri, and people like them before they kill us. That's clear.

I've been bombed out of the Trade Center twice, and live about a mile downwind. I'm dumb, but I'm not stupid.

But when we are talking tactics, I don't see the benefit of being so rhetorically bellicose that the rest of the world thinks we are a bigger risk to peace than our enemies obviously are. I don't get it. I also don't understand the unusual deference being paid to people like Chalabi and the other expatriates. They're unlikely to factor in a democratic post-war Iraq. But they definitely fit the Bush profile of rich, glad-handing, essentially self-interested manipulators (I feel quite sure you won't be able to see this.)

President Bush did the right thing by acting as he has thus far. I don't think he is likely to finish it in a way that makes us, or for that matter the world, more secure.

Ok, what are you proposals for handling the WoT?

I think the term startegy is more applicable here whether you agree with it.

Perhaps you are talking about using the UN more. I was a termendous fan of the UN, even Clinton in the 90s. But that was before Serebrinica, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. I don't believe that the UN would deal fairly with the issue. It seems to be more of an organization that sendary powers and the third world uses to hamstring the US.

With Chalabi, I find him a difficult person to like. I think however he is enoough of a player to get things on track. Also he is secular. I think backing one of the many mullahs would be a mistake. Chalabi is walking a fine line and and is definitely not a stodge given his actions. He seems to piss off a lot of people in various parts of the US govt. Maybe he mislead the US on what was what but I believe that was a caveat emptor to us. We made the choice to deal with him. I think that doing to him what we did to Diem (or not depending on who you speak to) is not an option.

Malloy,
Just curious about something...I'm really wondering, of all the jobs lost (whatever that # may be---although I think it's WAY south of 2.5M), how many are really GWB's fault? The reason I ask is, to cite a recent and very specific case: The Kodak Corp. is cutting 15,000 jobs. Why? Doesn't have a damn thing to do with the economy. They're phasing out almost ALL of their film camera division in a move to a nearly totally digital camera inventory. So, we have 15,000 new folks out of work for no other reason than technology moving forward and companies taking best fiscal advantage of that new technology. Is this Bush's fault? No. Will he be held accountable? You bet. Which makes me curious: how many other job losses like this are there contibuting to this "2.5M" figure? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to fob off the whole number of job losses to cases like Kodak's situation, but these job losses weren't all due to a bad economy. Keep that in mind when Bush is assigned responsibility for all the eveils of the world.