goalpost being moved to

I know exactly wha the next post will be.

Note the following statement about his time there:

"More indications emerged yesterday that some details of Bush's service may never be known. Lt. Col. Robert Horton, a spokesman for the Alabama National Guard, said yesterday that no records exist in Alabama that would confirm Bush's temporary duty in Montgomery in 1972. According to Horton, there are no requirements to maintain records for a unit member who is on temporary assignment. "He was never officially assigned to the Alabama Guard, he never showed up on any rosters, and the Alabama Guard does not issue him his pay," Horton said."

no requirement to keep records and therefore there will never be any indicator of his actual time spent.

While the plaintiff has the burden of proof in any lawsuit, there are also discovery rules requiring the defendant to produce all relevant records - not "selected" ones. The judge determines which records are relevant - not the defendant. So we don't know whether or not GWB's critics could prove there "case" or not because we dont have a complete record - we only have records selected by the White House.

Ya'll keep saying the goalposts are moving. How about another sports metaphor - remember the Tenessee Titans vs the St. Louis Rams Superbowl? Are you guys trying to run out the clock and declare the game over before Tennessee can get over the goal?

PS Hope you folks are enjoying BUD as much as we did in Houston. :)

Cripes. Better check the dental records -- might have been an impostor.

"but aides backed away from his weekend pledge to release all his military records"

transcript from meet the press:

russert: "...they opened up their entire files. Would you agree to do that?"

bush: "...And absolutely. I mean."

***and then you claim in your post***

"Bush promised Meet the Press host Tim Russert he'd release records settling questions about his Guard service"

what vital concept is missing here? oh yes, the part about "the entire file." which, of course, he hasn't released.

is this a lie or just an accidental omission? please update the entry accordingly.

I have recently become interested in this case. Prior to this, I suspended judgement for lack of evidence.

In the past few days, there has been a flurry of evidence supporting the president's position that he served temporarily in the Alabama unit.

Question: Is there *ANY* evidence from the president's critics that he did not fulfill his obligations? It seems to me that the critics have simply made accusations.

"Is there *ANY* evidence from the president's critics that he did not fulfill his obligations?"

if mr. bush wants to silence his critics all he has to do is release all of his service records like he said he would, not just the ones that support his claims. or he can withhold them and withstand the criticisms.

p.s. please prove that you are not an alien from jupiter.

Good thing that the right didn't demand evidence that Clinton didn't rape Juanita Broadderick.

They'd appear as looney as the left does, today.

Raving Lefty,

The president's critics are demanding that the president prove a negative. The allegation made without evidence is that the president was AWOL. The president is being asked to prove the negative that he was not AWOL. And the president has actually provided documents to support his claim that he was not AWOL.

Like the president's critics, you ask me to prove a negative, that I am not a space alien from Jupiter. I suppose I could produce my birth certificate and have medical tests to show I am human. But this would not be sufficient to some.

Not good enough, Bill.

Records were tossed or altered. The Seattle Times says so.

The dental exam occurred in Alabama at a time when Bush has previously said he was back in Houston. Something doesn't add up.

I bet he didn't show up on February 31st, 1973, either! Or March 34th!

Not good enough, Bill.

Records were tossed or altered. The Seattle Times says so.

The Twin Pillars on display again. How many of you will continue to ask all the wrong questions in connection with this issue?

"Where was he?" "Why wasn't he there?" "If the unit CO doesn't know him, doesn't that mean he wasn't there!?"

Ignorance.

Then the USA Today article about "scrubbing" of docs. Or Sandy's comment about the Seattle Times...

Conspiracies.

This issue will eventually settle down into those believe Bush and those who don't. It appears that enough evidence has been presented that the average voter will accept that Bush wasn't AWOL. I don't think Bush is stupid enough to try and manufacture documents which would blow this up much larger than it should be.

There's no point in debating the issue anymore; those who buy into the "AWOL" story have latched onto it with religious fervor, and NOTHING will change their minds. They'll just shift the goalposts or come up with some explanation as to why they won't believe the latest evidence.

Oh, please. "Records were tossed or altered." Any evidence for that? Nope, but someone's just convinced they were. The lack of evidence is evidence itself! It's a freakin' conspiracy!

The lack of evidence is evidence itself! It's a freakin' conspiracy!

hard to evaluate evidence which is presented selectively.

As noted above, this is why every presidential candidate of modern times has released his entire military service record.

except for george, that is.

From ABC News radio ...

... the dentist who performed the work doesn't remember Bush ever visiting his office, but he is not saying that Bush's teeth were there alone ...

Honestly, you can't make this stuff up ..

Does that mean Kerry has to release information about his relationship with Jane Fonda?

TAS,

well, don't be so quick to throw a good conjecture.

While we may apply occam's razor in this deliberations, the other side uses the lessor known tool, occam's butter knife. Using Occam's butter knife, any piece of evidence no matter how stretched, contorted, or bizzare it is, is probably the correct answer. In other words, the complex answer is better than the simple one.

Also demand the president release all his Led Zep records. I'll bet there's cocaine residue on the album covers!

I have never seen a horse more dead. But please, oh drooling lefties, don't let that stop your displays of utter ignorance of all things military.

TexasToast, if the issue is Bush being AWOL, then the military should have prosecuted him. He wasn't. The records won't show that he was.

It looks like Bush has snookered Democrats yet again with the old tar-baby ruse. They have conceded that events of some 30 years ago are fair game. John F. Kerry will come to regret this concession.

As noted above, this is why every presidential candidate of modern times has released his entire military service record.

except for george, that is.

No matter how much you try to spin it, the burden of proof still lies on the accuser. The accuser has exactly zilch real proof. Therefore, your accusations don't stand.

Here's a free clue: if you want even a tenth of a chance in the general election, you're going to need an issue other than "I hate Bush!"

Jake

As I have said in another thread on this blog, I am not aware of any proof in the records we know about that Lt Bush was AWOL.

As Kleiman says:,
“Yes, he was honorably discharged. But not everyone who violates the law is prosecuted for it. So while it may turn out to be incorrect to say that Lt. Bush went AWOL, it's not foolish. Only the records will tell us.

President Bush on Sunday promised to release all the relevant records. By Monday that promise was no longer operative. All he has to do is sign a Privacy Act waiver. If he has nothing to hide, why won't he keep his promise?”

I agree that youthful indiscretions don’t disqualify Bush from office, but he isn’t making it easy for me to believe he is telling the truth about his Guard service.

Does that not matter?

Texas T,
Have you served in the military? The reason I ask is: if you did, you'd know you simply DON'T get an Honorable Discharge if you've been AWOL, which is an Article 15 offense if my memory serves.
By the way, not that it matters, because no one has mentioned it yet, in the Guard and Reserve world, unless you're on a specific set of orders (MPA, RPA, AT or what have you), which it doesn't sound like GWB was...YOU CAN'T BE AWOL. It's impossible to be considered AWOL for not doing IDTs every month.
A perfect example is one of my own recent experiences in the AF Reserve: I had planned to do one or two weekends a month in Jan and Feb, but I flat out didn't do them (busy at my "regular" job and also simply didn't have time to do them). Even though I'd forwarded my IDT (weekend-drill) schedule to my Reserve Division chief, the fact that I didn't do those IDTs don't mean a darn thing. I'll end up making them up in an upcoming week-long exercise. No AWOL.
I apologize for the long boring personal explanation, but I felt that it would help educate those who don't understand how the Guard and Reserve world works. Heck, I even had to explain this to a 24-year Active duty veteran-->even some regular military folks can be foggy about a guard/reservists little world. I hope this helped un-muddy this issue a little. If it put you to sleep, well, pleasant dreams then! :-)
Anyway, long explanation made short: unless GWB was on a specific set of orders (which in his situaion, he would NOT have been), it is simply impossible for him to be AWOL; any absence, no matter what the reason, would be considered excused. This whole thing is simply a non-issue.

Yes, Kleinman. Being a JAG officer, he would know.

Oh wait, he wasn't JAG officer, a regular/reserve officer or even in the military. You definitely are right, he would know. After all, all the military bloggers and the retired servicemen seem to contradict Mrk. But hey, he is the final authority on military codes of conduct.

You guys are so funny.

No matter how much you try to spin it, the burden of proof still lies on the accuser. The accuser has exactly zilch real proof.

...

There's no point in debating the issue anymore; those who buy into the "AWOL" story have latched onto it with religious fervor, and NOTHING will change their minds.

Sorta reminds me of the Juanita Broderick rape allegations, the Clinton body count, the Mena Airport drug running, Vince Foster's muder, etc. NOTHING changed their minds - not even facts to the contrary.

Does that mean Kerry has to release information about his relationship with Jane Fonda?

And the crime is ... ?

The proof, as so many ignore, is available - not just missing records, but from the accounts of people who ensured they were missing. Tomorrow's newspapers should help you along.

Hey Al, did you even bother to read what I just wrote? As a National Guardsman not on Federal orders, it would have been physically and legally IMPOSSIBLE for GWB to be AWOL! What evidence do you think is necessary? Just what data exactly do you think you're going to be able to mine from 30-year old records? Hell, I don't even have my LES's (paystubs for you civilian types) from six months ago. I worked for a Brig Gen who was only two levels up from me in my chain of command that couldn't pick me out of a lineup, much less tell you whether or not I drilled at STRATJIC at any given time. Was I drilling for STRATCOM? Guess not!! Was I AWOL? I must've been!!!
Give it up already! There are Reservists, Guardsmen and military members out the ying-yang who KNOW what the military is all about and how it works saying this is a non issue, but you guys are so desperatly hanging on to this "he needs to produce evidence he wasn't AWOL, otherwise he's guilty of being AWOL!" It's disgusting.

" you'd know you simply DON'T get an Honorable Discharge if you've been AWOL"

The DC sniper guy went awol, among other offenses, and got an Honorable Discharge:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=benson021204

"John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an honorable discharge in 1985."

So much for that theory.

Thanks for dodging THE REST of my FACTS Jon H! I repeat for the dense or hard of reading: In GWB's case (or ANY guardsman/reservist not on federal orders), one simply can not be considered AWOL. Got that?
So much for that theory. What else ya got there Dr. Hawking?

Corey, AWOL or not, the point is you can really screw up bad and still get an honorable discharge. That includes going AWOL.

So the simple fact that Bush got an honorable discharge really doesn't mean all that much.

Hello...is this thing on? I just said, it would've been impossible for him to be AWOL. What's your answer to that? (he said, asking for the SECOND time!) Why dont'cha head on over to DU wher the real geniuses hang out and get your answer spun correctly before you reply.
Fuck it...I give up; where's my propeller cap?

Corey,

Simply put, you were wrong. Admit it.

You said: "if you did, you'd know you simply DON'T get an Honorable Discharge if you've been AWOL"

But this is not the case. I gave a specific example.

Admit that you were wrong. Never mind about Bush. You were wrong when you said that you couldn't get an Honorable Discharge if you've been AWOL.

Okay, I was wrong about not getting Honorable discharge if you've been AWOL. (Although, methinks there's more to the J. Muhammed story than meets the eye, if it's even true)

Now, all you have to do is admit that it would be legally IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been AWOL. He wasn't on Federal orders, which means ANY absence would be excused. Read what I wrote. Understand it. Learn it. Know it. Of course, you know that for you to acknowledge this, the ENTIRE AWOL issue is exposed as bogus. Simply put, I've just checkmated you, the Dem AWOL-ers and the tinfoil hat lberal brigade.

Your turn, buddy.

Hehehe...can't wait to see you spin this.

For the record, I am a USN MCPO with 26 plus years of military experience, still on active duty.
Just curious, but how many of you have served in the military and have received an Honorable Discharge? I believe that this is germane, for the simple fact that those who have (with rare exception) are the only ones who have posted intelligently and/or authoritatively about this topic.
As I have mentioned on this site a couple of times, it is obvious that 98 percent of you don't know a f##king thing about AWOL / UA, UCMJ, OERs, reserve duty, etc. If you did, this foolishness would have ended a long time ago. For most of you, these terms are just words and phrases without meaning and/or context (Psst, you show your ignorance(and your ass) everytime you parrot the Moore/McAuliffe talking points).
Here's your homework assignment: Who is the ANG senior officer who convened an Article 15 proceeding and found LT Bush in violation of Article 86 of the UCMJ (or the ANG/ARF equivalent)? Simple question. The answer will determine the validity of the charges.

Jon H -

It depends on HOW he screws up. You don't show and you don't make up your time, your records get sent off to Denver and you don't get a discharge. You're marked as incomplete. You're in limbo. You ain't gonna see the DD-214 or NGB-22.

Look, like it or not (and believe me, there were times I didn't like it while serving because attendence recording is some of the most tedious, HAS TO BE RIGHT work and I got REALLY tired of redoing paperwork because of a missed period or misspelled word on excusal/makeup forms) his points record doesn't support the AWOL contention. At all, in any particular. To someone (like me) who did attendence recording and records transmittals, who lived this stuff on UTA weekends - for 8 long, boring years in the AF Reserve, I can look at the points record and go "Okay, no drill for December - but he's got two drill weekends in Nov, so he did the Dec one early."

It's as clear as a will to a lawyer, an MRI to a trained radiologist. You could show the points reports to any AF Reserve Personnel Specialist who handles attendence recording, blank out the name of the person on the form, and they'd give you the same result.

Bush, by the points record, wasn't AWOL.

I've got posts on this issue here - the Interpretation of Points Reports, and
on the Right Way, the Wrong Way, and the Military Way.

Whether you bother to believe them or not is up to you.

J.

I can't say it any better than the Master Chief just did.

BTW, I have an Honorable Discharge on my DD214, and I'm not particularly thrilled about having it put on the level of the DC sniper's, who may have slipped through the cracks with his "Honorable" discharge.

Corey: "Now, all you have to do is admit that it would be legally IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been AWOL."

Okay, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Bush to have been AWOL, in a very legalistic sense.

I reserve the right to be skeptical about how well he fulfilled his obligations, and to suspect he got off easy for blowing off his physical and being grounded.

I remain curious about why he was having his teeth cleaned in Alabama in January of 73 when he supposedly had moved back to Houston weeks earlier after the campaign ended in November.

Just to clarify - I'm not imputing something devious about Bush's dental checkup. It was just a checkup.

It just doesn't fit with the established timeline, which makes me wonder what other things are incorrect or off.

It just doesn't fit with the established timeline, which makes me wonder what other things are incorrect or off.

You mean that Bush might not have correctly reconstructed every minute of his time over a six month period thirty two years ago?

Can you?

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 was 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 either contemplated or warranted.
I know that some members of the "98 percent" crowd have been so reckless to suggest that LT Bush dodged the physical in order avoid drug testing. Did they even have/conduct drug testing in the early 1970s? Not to my knowledge. Anyone out there with authoritative information that hasn't been gleaned from the shit-house wall?
I know for a FACT that we didn't have regular drug testing for the U.S. military until 1981. Were the reserves different? Almost ten years earlier?!

Poor TNR is a couple days behind the John Kerry for President/mainstream media spin cycle...

I can't remember if I moved into my home in May, June or July of 1998. This was just 5 1/2 years ago. I must be a liar and this is very fishy.

Bush didn't show up at all during Jan. 32 1973. I got that beat.

During the whole of Jan. 32 1973 I did not take a single breath. Yet, when February 1st 1973 came I was breathing normally. No problems at all.

But I might be wrong. It would appear that my memory is faulty. When I awoke on Feb. 1st I was quite certain Jan. 31st was only yesterday. No recollection of Jan. 32 at all. But it's been about 31 years, so anything's possible.

YOU GRINGOS LOCOS!!! IN MEXICO NOBODY WOULD GIVE A DAMN ABOUT IF HE WAS IN THE ARMED FORCES OR NOT. AND MUCH, MUCH LESS ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OVER 3 DECADES AGO. TSK, TSK, ESTOS GRINGOS ESTÁN MUY LOCOS. LOL. /Greetings from UN MEXICANO TAMBIÉN LOCO :P

OK Jon H, thank you for admitting this whole thing is a non-issue.

Now before you go back to the DU, could you please put the goalposts back where they were before you moved them from "He was AWOL" (you just admitted he couldn't have been) to "I only care how well he fulfilled his obligations." {Check this: his completed 6 more drill points than was required of him during the time in question}
Again, I highly suggest you read the posts from the TWO Veterans (besides myself): belloscam and JLawson. You have three authoritative sources basically drop-kicking this weak-ass AWOL issue out of the park--how can you ignore that? We have facts and experience on our side...what do you have?

Jon H:

Re the teeth -

Appointments for dental care in the military aren't done on a walk-in basis, except for critical care like a tooth being knocked out or something - and many Reserve bases have no full-time dental clinics. Also, even the active duty bases are way backed up. He may have had that exam scheduled up to a year in advance for a cleaning.

Back when I got contacts at FE Warren AFB (which is an active duty base), I had to show up at the eye clinic in person to get an appointment for an exam, and then that exam was 6 months later. (Which makes me think a government takeover of health care isn't such a good idea, but that's another issue.)

Would he have travelled from TX to Alabama to make it? Depends - there could well have been other reasons he was in the area.

J.

hey guys I have enjoyed reading your posts...

here is a subtle point maybe worth mentioning:

the fact that bush went to an alabama reserve unit for a dental check up and got a tooth capped DOES NOT prove he did any of his reserves duty while in alabama.

it proves plenty of other things though -

it proves he was in alabama on that date.
it proves that he went to a military dentist in alabama.

but we already knew he was in alabama. he was there working on that friend of the family's campaign.

The question is - did he do his required monthly training for the year long period of time in question? did his transfer get properly approved? did he disobey an order to stay in texas and continue his duties in houston?

and the answers to these questions don't look good for bush. is it a big deal? maybe no, maybe yes. a military court would have to decide.

but the whole dental records argument thing is a subtle point that I think a lot of people miss. Here is an example that might help clear it up -

(example - I ran in the 2003 boston marathon. you don't believe me? here is a reciept where I ate lunch at taco bell in boston on thursday april 17th, 2003 on Boylston Street ... that proves I did run the in the 2003 boston marathon... um, NO it does not...)

I guess, to me, its not a question of if he was awol or not - the important thing is what he is doing now, and don't get me started on that...
= )

however -

fact1: the UCMJ applies to air national guard reservists ONLY when they have been called up for federal duty....

fact2: States can come up with similar provisons for regular non-federal-duty reservists, and guess what... texas has just that.

here is a link to the TEXAS CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/go/go0043200.html#go082.432.131

the definiton of awol in the texas cmj is pretty much the same as the federal version of the ucmj. so is the definition of desertion. so is the failure to obey order or regulation.

hope this information is helpful.

note that since we were at war during the dates in question, so there are no time limitations on court martial - he could be charged today. will he be? not very likely.