Bush's military Record ... now on record

**FTM** · February 10th, 2004, 06:21 PM

Bush Releases National Guard Files - CBS News

Pick your source, they all spin it a little differently, but the conclusion is the George W Bush did indeed fulfill the requirements of being a National Guardsman.

I'm surprised that one of our more studious members that normally keep right on top of these political topics hasn't already posted this story... it is the top story on all the major (US) news outlets.

**Creatures** · February 10th, 2004, 06:26 PM

i dont get it, what's so special?

Creatures

**ooops** · February 10th, 2004, 06:53 PM

The liberal *deleted* Dems have been accusing Bush of being AWOL during his stint with the National Guard.

But once again the democrats are wrong.

Do not disrespect the opinions of other members by posting vulgar and offensive terms and acronyms - Fingers / TechIMO Moderator

........ ooops , must have upset another liberal

**wallie_x** · February 10th, 2004, 07:22 PM

But once again the democrats are wrong.

Wrong? The Democrats are *deleted, *

*edited by surreal* Do not make highly offensive blanket categorizations.

Last edited 02-11-2004 at 8:48 AM

**RADAR1797** · February 10th, 2004, 08:33 PM

Oh the silence is deafening...

-RADAR

**Mike** · February 10th, 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by RADAR1797
Oh the silence is deafening...

-RADAR

It's because of all the moderator presence in this thread.

**wallie_x** · February 10th, 2004, 09:12 PM

Surreal,
What I said is fact, and not personal opinion. The leader of the DNC, Terry Mc Alliffe blatantly accused President Bush on national television and said "was AWOL from duty in the National Guard" He knows it and I know it and everyone else with a mind for truth knows that what he said is untrue (a lie) that has now been substantiated as such. (Please follow link to: 'Bush Releases National Guard Files if you need more 'proof'.)
There is no more 'personal opinion' in this than the subjectivism of each reader.

**RADAR1797** · February 10th, 2004, 09:27 PM

Hmm, now we blame the mods?

-RADAR

**Toadman** · February 10th, 2004, 11:08 PM

.

**whitebeard21** · February 11th, 2004, 07:38 AM

I wonder how many national guard members in Iraq will get to go home 8 months early to go to graduate school. Since when does a "gentlemens C" gpa get you into graduate school? Oh thats right daddy is skull and bones so its ok.

**Warthog** · February 11th, 2004, 07:54 AM

Is someone afraid of moderators? *snickers*

Warthog

**Theophylact** · February 11th, 2004, 09:42 AM

The records show he was paid for service, and that he accrued service points. But read Richard Cohen's column in yesterday's Washington Post:

In my case, it was something similar -- although (darn!) I was not rich. I was, though, lucky enough to get into a National Guard unit in the nick of time, about a day before I was drafted. I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. 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.[emphasis added]

*removed*
no posting of passwords for password protected sites - Fingers

**MTAtech** · February 11th, 2004, 10:09 AM

I posted this in another thread first, but it is germain here.

As the New York Times Editorial says today, “If President Bush thought that his release of selected payroll and service records would quell the growing controversy over whether he ducked some of his required service in the Air National Guard three decades ago, he is clearly mistaken… The payroll records show that he was paid for many days of duty in the first four months of 1972, when he was in Texas, but then went more than six months without being paid, virtually the entire time he was working on the Senate campaign in Alabama. That presumably means he never reported for duty during that period.” He had only two days of pay in the next month (Oct. 72,) three days the next month and none the following. The same day’s Times news article says, “In the winter of 1973, Mr. Bush was back in Texas, where his payroll records show that he was paid for six days in January, no days in February or March, two days in April, 14 days in May and five days in June… Guard members also say that it was possible to be paid in 1972 and 1973 without actually turning up for the service dates because of relaxed record keeping at the time.”

The editorial further says, “The commanding officer of the Alabama unit to which Mr. Bush was supposed to report long ago said that he had never seen him appear for duty, and Mr. Bush's superiors at the Texas unit to which he returned wrote in May 1973 that they could not write an annual evaluation of him because he had not been seen there during that year. Those statements are so jarringly at odds with the payroll data that they demand further elaboration… The issue is not whether Mr. Bush, like many sons of the elite in his generation, sought refuge in the Guard to avoid combat in Vietnam. The public knew about that during the 2000 campaign. Whether Mr. Bush actually performed his Guard service to the full is a different matter. It bears on presidential character because the president has continually rejected claims that there was anything amiss about his Guard performance during the Alabama period.”

**Theophylact** · February 11th, 2004, 10:15 AM

As Josh Marshall points out,

The payment records out today do give some evidence of what the president was doing during the year in question. But to say they raise further questions is something of an understatement.

It's long been known, for instance, that in the late spring of 1973, Bush's commanding officers in Texas reported that they couldn't write an evaluation of him because "he has not been observed" at the base in Houston. That didn't raise any red flags because, though, because they believed he was then serving in Alabama.

Yet these new records seem to say that Bush actually was doing drills in Houston.

In fact, as the Washington Post notes, on the very day that his commanding officers were writing that he hadn't been seen on base -- May 2, 1973 -- these new payment records say he was actually on base logging in hours.

Go figure.

**Epidemic** · February 11th, 2004, 10:35 AM

"I played a perfectly legal form of hooky"

Uncool but done!

**MTAtech** · February 11th, 2004, 10:37 AM

Perfectly legal if you are from the aritocracy and protected by family priveledge. Everyone else would have been in the brig, sent to Vietnam or at the min., dishonorably discharged.

**FTM** · February 11th, 2004, 11:08 AM

I just love liberal media. Yesterday, the CBS article I linked to contained quotes from National Guard representative stating that it was not "unusual" for others flyers training on obsolete aircraft, such as the plane Bush Jr flew to be in a similar circumstance. There were also other quotes by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr that indicated that Bush fulfilled his requirements.

Yesterday, the the article was titled "Bush Releases National Guard Files" today the same article reads "Questions Over Bush Guard Records"

I wish I had saved that page before the bias media decided edit the article to exclude significant new information in lieu of their same old speculation

**Epidemic** · February 11th, 2004, 11:36 AM

Josh marshal is from the aristocracy and protected by family priveledge?

**MTAtech** · February 11th, 2004, 12:03 PM

Be real, Epidemic. You know darn well that I was refering to the aristocracy and protected by family priveledge of the Bush family. The family that gets a mediocre student into Yale, sent to the Reserves instead of Vietnam, inspite of poor aptitude, made into a pilot - jumping other more qualified candidates and then allowed to be absent without punishment and let out of military service 8 months early.

Sorry I had to spell it out.

FTM, yesterday's release of Bush's records by the White House was supposed to put the issue to rest. It has raised more questions after looking at what they released. This is a developing story.

**Theophylact** · February 11th, 2004, 01:20 PM

Interesting story from the Dallas Morning News:

Retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett said Tuesday that in 1997, then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, told the National Guard chief to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor."

Col. Burkett said that a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can. He said he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms.

To be fair,

Bush aides denied any destruction of records in Mr. Bush's personnel file. "The charges are just flat-out not true," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director.

He said the president has been forthright in producing all documents relevant to his stint in the Texas Air National Guard, from 1968 to 1973. He dismissed Col. Burkett as a disgruntled former officer of the Texas Guard.

Of course you can never believe anything a "disgruntled former employee" says...

Again, to be fair, he really is a disgruntled former employee, and may well have an ax to grind, as Kevin Drum points out. So this is one that should really await further corroboration or refutation...