Bush*'s Military Documents Support AWOL Claims

[nwstrn]

If the Texas National Guard had ever asked George W. Bush to prove he’d fulfilled his duty and he had to depend on the papers in his own military file to make the case, he would have been unsuccessful. . . .

Among the documents Ret. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett claims to have seen tossed in trashcan in 1997 were Bush’s personnel review and pay records, the type of documents that are missing today.

. . .

Last week Calhoun told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Bush asked for weekend drills. But according to the documents released by the White House one week ago, only five of the 12 days Bush was credited for serving in Alabama were for weekend days.
Specifically, Calhoun told reporters Bush was assigned to his command at the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group, and saw Bush serve between eight to 10 times for about eight hours each from May to October 1972. But those May-to-October dates do not correspond with the payroll records the White House released last Tuesday. They indicated Bush was credited for doing Guard duty in Alabama during the months of October, November and, presumably, January.

Secondly, when Bush moved to Alabama to work on the Blount campaign, he first asked to be transferred to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron (the postal unit). There’s no evidence Bush ever showed up at 9921st. Instead, Bush in September 1972 asked to serve with a different Alabama unit, Calhoun’s 187th Tactical Recon Group, for the months of September, October, and November. So why would Calhoun have seen Bush signing in at the Montgomery base during May, June, July, August and September, if Bush didn’t even ask to be transferred there until September 5? And according to the recently released White House documents, Bush didn’t actually show up at the Montgomery base until October 28-29.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/17/records/index.html

[bif]

1. Wait, is someone accusing Bush of lying?

This God-fearing man wouldn't lie, would he?

[gandalf]

2. Question: Position of Salon?

What kind of magazine is Salon? "Liberal", "leftist", conservative, or what?

(Not sure, as I am German)

[Stephanie]

7. It's generally progressive but they publish some RW columnists too

It's the top online publication, based in S.F.

Joe Conason's column is a must-read. They have been way ahead of the curve on black box voting. They have now allied themselves with Rolling Stone to pool political reporting.

[gandalf]

14. Thanks! n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Here's the problem

We still have people believing Iraq not only had WMDs, but even used them against our troops. By Bush releasing the documents, even though they prove otherwise, probably has the ignorant masses just reading the headlines and hearing the Bush spin team's sound bytes, in which case, they say "See? He DID serve! CASE CLOSED!"

I have little faith that the people are reading any further into it. :argh:

[gandalf]

5. Solution could be

more to focus on the fact that he evaded to serve in Vietnam, using family influence, avoiding to take a responsibility that thousands of other young men had to take.

I think he said "I decided not to go to Vietnam". This was impossible for most of his fellows.

It is not necessary to have medals to be a good president, but if one avoided to go to war, but later plays the great military Führer, then something is wrong, and this fact should be exploited.

[nwstrn]

6. This is one piece of an important story

Bush*'s entire military record--including how he got in and out, why he was suspended from flying, etc.--undermines the RW campaign to portray Bush* as a down to earth, honest, courageous leader. * can't run on his record, so his "character" is a critical aspect of his campaign.

We know Bush* is a lying coward, who used family connections to avoid Vietnam. If he's going to prance around a flight deck for a campaign photo-op, pretending to be a military pilot, we have a right to ask what kind of military pilot he was.

[Stephanie]

8. Not really

Our candidates are right to not take this position. It was a very complicated time and those who sought to avoid going to Vietnam generally had well-examined legitimate moral reasons for it. Not saying Chimpy did, but we can't judge him on this when we don't others.

Clinton avoided going to Vietnam too - he protested the war, opposed the war, and made no secret that he didn't want to fight what he considered an immoral war. That is an HONEST position.

What we can judge Bush on is his LYING now about what he did then. He continues to claim that he showed up when he didn't. He produces false witnesses and no paperwork. He is LYING.

His prancing in a flight suit on the deck of the Lincoln makes this a legitimate issue. It's not that he sought to avoid Vietnam - half of those eligible did. It's that NOW he pretends that he didn't avoid it, and pretends that he served honorably, and pretends that he's some kind of hero fighter pilot. He's a FRAUD. That is what this is about.

[nwstrn]

15. If Bush* was a pacifist

If Bush* was a pacifist, who spoke out against the war, I wouldn't have a problem with his desire to avoid Vietnam. It is the hypocrisy, and the lying, that makes this a legitimate issue.


I don't want Kerry to discuss Bush*'s record either. But we need the media to continue to ask questions.

Krugman nailed this point in a column last December entitled "New Years Resolutions:"

During the 2000 election, many journalists deluded themselves and their audience into believing that there weren't many policy differences between the major candidates, and focused on personalities (or, rather, perceptions of personalities) instead. This time there can be no illusions: President Bush has turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right's takeover is complete. But will the coverage of the election reflect its seriousness? Toward that end, I hereby propose some rules for 2004 political reporting.

. . .

Beware of personal anecdotes. Anecdotes that supposedly reveal a candidate's character are a staple of political reporting, but they should carry warning labels.

For one thing, there are lots of anecdotes, and it's much too easy to report only those that reinforce the reporter's prejudices. The approved story line about Mr. Bush is that he's a bluff, honest, plain-spoken guy, and anecdotes that fit that story get reported. But if the conventional wisdom were instead that he's a phony, a silver-spoon baby who pretends to be a cowboy, journalists would have plenty of material to work with.

[gandalf]

16. OK

that's more or less what I meant, but you expressed it better.
If I avoid going to war because I oppose war morally and act upon that position consistently this is legitimate.

Bush avoided war, but not for reasons of moral, and plays now the military leader and lied the world into the war. That point (among many others) distinguishes him from Clinton.

[tinrobot]

18. It still makes the Bushies hypocrites.

Clinton avoided going to Vietnam too - he protested the war, opposed the war, and made no secret that he didn't want to fight what he considered an immoral war. That is an HONEST position.

Yes, but when Poppy Bush ran against Clinton in '92, he made Clinton's "draft dodging" into a huge issue. Id draft dodging was of utmost importance to the Bush cronies 12 years ago, why isn't it important today? Bush* joined the TANG to 'dodge' the draft, too. He then didn't even follow though on his obligations to his country. Feh.

[Doctor_J]

4. It's weird

That Calhoun would be trying to fly all these "defenses" of * that are so easily disproved. Matthews and his HB guest last night poked holes in all of Calhoun's points.

Very strange.

[Stephanie]

9. I'm telling you, Rove is not that bright

He's made out to be this great genius but I think he is an idiot. They never bothered to get their stories straight.

[Cat Atomic]

11. I agree completely.

He's overrated. I never would've believed it'd be possible for Bush piss off his base, but he managed to do it this year with his amnesty plan.

I always think of the 2000 election, too. He had a media that fawned over his candidate and attacked his opponent, he had a massive campaign war chest, and he STILL LOST.

[diamond14]

12. rove never could even finish college...although he tried several

times....rove just couldn't mount the brain-power necessary to achieve a college diploma (and in Texas, too)....

KKKarl rove only has a high school diploma....in most White Houses, real Presidents do not even entertain the idea of putting people with rove's academic credentials in powerful positions....

[Stephanie]

17. Right! Few people know that. This WH is not a brain trust

Cheney flunked out of Yale and got sent home. Even Chimpy managed to finish Yale, so that tells you something.

There's a theory that those with lesser abilities are MORE likely to overrate themselves, possibly because they are not bright enough to understand that they are not so bright. I think Rove, Cheney, Chimpy, and the neo-con crew of Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld demonstrate that. They fail and fail again, and still maintain they are correct. Their logic is inherently flawed. Their mental capacities are not what they imagine them to be.

[diamond14]

10. sad, Calhoun is all that bush* has to defend him...pathetic, watching

bush* collapse in front of OUR military, and OUR Nation, and the World...sad, embarrassing....


bush* tries to cover his LIES, as our soldiers DIE

pay stubs
dental records
Calhoun
no dentist
no records


this really is the 'Mayberry Machiavellians"

as the bush*'s 'faith-based' department head called them,
during his resignation....

[opihimoimoi]

13. More like "Mayberry Wimps" in tutus trying hard to look like

Cowboys on the range.

Instead, they come off as dudes on a Dude Ranch, skeered to even come close to a real horse.
Luara told the Queen they got ponies at Crawford. The Queen, who got tons of pedigree horses, must have "smirked" and rolled her eyes, "Oh Gawd".

Bush is caught in a predicament and is lying his ass off. You can feel the insincereity in their answers, the pauses, the hesitation, the Lame excuses. They conned us before and are trying to con us again.

Shame on them for trying.

You are right, its damn Pathetic we got this Fraud in the White house.

[Beetwasher]

19. 400 Pages Of Utter CRAP!

Ha Ha! And everyone knows it and they're not letting him get away with it! Ha Ha!

[NNN0LHI]

20. This is a good article. Thanks for the post n/t