Bush's Guard Service In Question :W.Post

[jbfam4]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7372-2004Feb2?language=printer



washingtonpost.com
Bush's Guard Service In Question
Democrats Say President Shirked His Duty in 1972

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 3, 2004; Page A08



While none of the presidential candidates has directly criticized Bush's service, some Democrats, including Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe, have accused the president of shirking his military duties in 1972, when Bush transferred to an Alabama unit. McAuliffe on Sunday called Bush "AWOL," or "absent without leave," during that period.

Terry Holt, spokesman for the Bush campaign, accused McAuliffe of trying to "perpetuate a completely false and bogus assertion." Holt said, "The president was never AWOL."

Questions about Bush's Guard service first surfaced during the 2000 presidential race, when he ran against Vice President Al Gore, a Vietnam veteran. A review of Bush's military records shows that Bush enjoyed preferential treatment as the son of a then-congressman, when he walked into a Texas Guard unit in Houston two weeks before his 1968 graduation from Yale and was moved to the top of a long waiting list.

It was an era when service in the Guard was a coveted assignment, often associated with efforts to avoid active duty in Vietnam. Bush was accepted for pilot training after having scored only 25 percent on the pilot's aptitude test, the lowest acceptable grade.

In 2000, the Boston Globe examined a period from May 1972 to May 1973 and found no record that Bush performed any Guard duties, either in Alabama or Houston, although he was still enlisted.

[HereSince1628]

1. Did Bush recieve pay from May72 to May 73?

I've never seen that answered...

I am not sure how payroll was done, but I would really like to know if his pay was suspended because of his absence. The military is in many ways a big dumb machine, but I'd think they would quit paying someone if they didn't show up for duty after several months,

[whatelseisnew]

2. Pretty weak article

not much digging there, no links, and no feedback link for the

author/article

[jbfam4]

3. See Talking points memo on this

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

ThePost piece bends over backwards to give plenty of benefits of the doubt. But it makes clear that the president jumped to the head of the line to get into the Guard because of political connections. And then, after he'd been given a comparatively easy way to get out of getting shot at or killed in Vietnam, he proceeded to blow off his service for substantial periods of time while in the Guard.

The Post points out that there is no definitive proof of Bush's non-attendance. But there is an utter lack of any documentation for his showing up for service and the officer he was supposed to report to during the key period in question continues to insist that he never laid eyes on him.


I strongly recommend reading the article because there are various ins-and-outs that I've just summarized here. And the details are important. But the long and the short of it is that all the strong evidence points to the conclusion that the president blew off a lot of his service in the Guard, while there's enough flimsy and self-serving evidence to believe that he might have actually been there if you really, really, really want to believe he did.

[underpants]

7. I thought it stated facts very well

Short and simple like W&Co. like to keep their lies.

[emanymton]

4. Wrap Him In The Flag ...

drop him over board.

[buff2]

5. They ignored it in 2000.........

Now they are bringing it up? Give me a break. I wrote countless letters (e-mail),made numerous phone calls,signed a slew of petitions....like I know all of you did,and it wasn't even discussed during the campaign. Thanks to the media whores pandering to that idiot in thief,just look at the thousands of lives destroyed needlessly.......dying in a war that didn't need to be started in the first place,and all those poor soldiers who lost their limbs,eyesight,and ended up in divorce court in marriages that couldn't hold together because of being separated. Plus,look at the guys who came home and KILLED their wives. These gang of thugs ought to be put in front of a tribunal themselves and punished to the fullest extent. I won't rest until it happens...if it ever does.The horrible deceiving and lies coming from this hap hazard mis-administration is outrageous and totally unacceptable. The sooner we are rid of those evil people,the better off this country AND the world will be. :nuke: them ALL!!!

[mojo2004]

6. George Magazine did a piece on this.....

back in 2000 where they examined his records pretty thoroughly. The article is archived http://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html">here. The results are kind of mixed, they thought he did recieve preferential treatment to get in but he wasn't AWOL.

[dfitzsim]

8. Will this have legs in 2004?

I think it will more than in 2000. In 2000, the thought of war was as far from people's mind as possible. The Kosovo war was completed with zero U.S. casualties, so frankly, no one cared. And those that did care, believed Bush would be better for building the military than any Democrat, personal record be damned.

In 2004, we are in a war. A president with an AWOL history is suddenly relevant. More importantly, this administration has spent four years NOT talking to the press. In fact, they have been down-right hostile. So despite the Republican friendly editors, cable news and radio outlets, actual reporters are less likely to give Bush a good ol' boy pass. Reporters in 2000 were charmed with this hapless dolt - I think (hope) they are less enamored now.

If Edwards is the nominee, this issue will die as Edwards has no Viet Nam record period. If Clark or Kerry are the nominee, this story will get some press.