February 13, 2004

Drumroll: Another Witness Saw Bush

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer says he remembers seeing George W. Bush on post in Alabama several times in 1972. Retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun told the Associated Press he saw Bush on the post on at least six occasions.

Those pushing the "Bush was AWOL!" allegation have long said one of their key pieces of "evidence" against Bush was the lack of anyone who recalled seeing Bush on post in Alabama. Well, now two people have. Calhoun and Joe LeFevers, another member of the Alabama squadron where Bush pulled Guard drills. And there's paperwork - pay stubs, proof of a dental exam on the base, and more that prove Bush was there.

So what is the response of the Bush-haters? They are AWOL from the truth.

They say that Calhoun's testimony is not to be believed because he says he saw Bush. Oh, they don't say it exactly like that. They merely suggest that the only credible witnesses are those who don't recall seeing Bush on the Alabama base. And they insist on treating another witness against Bush as credible, even though the evidence is mounting that he fabricated his story.

One of the commenters on Calpundit, the blog of AWOL lie-spreader Kevin Drum, puts it best:

So, Burkett is still believable to you, despite the holes appearing in his story, and Calhoun's story is "mysterious." Are you even listening to yourself? A guy says he had lunch with Bush, saw him a number of times, and hung out with him, but he has no more credibility in your eyes than people who "don't remember seeing him."

You see, for Kevin Drum and the rest of the crowd pushing the lie that Bush was AWOL, evidence is only credible and accepted if it proves their point. But they have no real evidence. The guts of the "Bush was AWOL" claim is a lack of evidence.

In the bizzaro world of Drum and his fellow-travelers in anti-Bush slander, it is missing documents and lack of memories that they claim proves their case - while existing documents and people who remember are dismissed or ignored.

Missing documents are claimed as "proof" that Bush was AWOL - though the only thing it really proves is some records are missing. And people who don't recall Bush being on the base are offered up as proof that Bush was not on the base - though all it really proves is that they don't recall seeing Bush. And though the chief of the "do not recall" witnesses now says his own lack of recollection proves nothing since he doesn't recall himself being on the post much in 1972, and wouldn't have remembered Bush at an rate because Bush "wasn't famous" in 1972.

Well, existing documents and eyewitnesses may prove nothing to the liars, but they do prove something. They prove the liars of the rabid-dog Left don't care about the truth.