February 10, 2004
THE BUSH PAYROLL RECORDS....If you're interested in the payroll records the White House released today, National Review has posted the complete file here. If you just want to see the guts of it, it's reproduced below.
I've put together portions of two records into a single image. The
top part is a pay record showing activity between January-April 1972,
with a final entry on April 16. The bottom part is a pay record showing
activity between October-November 1972. The first entry is on October
The dates on the bottom record match the ARF attendance records showing duty on October 28-29 and November 11-14. A couple of comments:
The complete file contains seven separate pay records. The later ones seem to match the ARF attendance records.
For the first time, the pay records show the exact
length of Bush's absence from duty in 1972: April 17 through October 27.
That's six months.
To be honest, I can't make sense of all seven records
in this file. The format seems to have changed midway through 1972, and
the handwritten notations indicate that we're missing the record for
the 3rd quarter of 1972. I don't know if that's the way they came from
the White House or if it's a mistake on the part of the NRO staffer who placed the documents on the web.
[UPDATE: Nope, that's the way they came from the White House. The Washington Post has exactly the same file here.]
What's more, the two records I spliced together below don't agree
with each other. The top one is supposed to be from the fourth quarter
of 1972 but shows no activity in October-November. The bottom one is
from the first quarter of 1973 and shows the October-November activity.
Somebody who understands this stuff really needs to take a look
through these records and explain what they mean. At first glance
something seems to have happened in mid-1972, with the records changing
format and a chunk of time missing. But only an expert can say for
Posted by Kevin Drum at February 10, 2004 07:03 PM
Have any of the WHPC contacted you today?
Where did all the wingnut trolls come from? Anyone know?
Apparently someone posted something about all this over at Free Republic....
"Where did all the wingnut trolls come from? Anyone know?"
The trolls are a good sign that this story is too close to the truth.
Is anyone else disheartened by the fact that the anger and vitriol of
the press gaggle resulted in absolutely nada on the evening news?
All 3 networks meanwhile did a freaking 5 minute piece on the Akins Diet doctor.
I wonder if Bush ripped huge lines of cocaine off of those pay stubs.
Too bad Lehrer reaches about .5% of Americans, and the wrong .5% of Americans at that.
You know, I have no idea where all this is going, but watching it
break on the internet is fascinating. 15 years ago most of would never
be able to look at source documents in a matter like this - everything
would come through a media filter. One can only imagine what Watergate
or Iranamok would've been like in this environment. Keep up the good
bush has something to hide, and is a liar.
There, I've said it.
What wingnut trolls?? What does Lehrer have to do with this discussion?? Were comments deleted?
One of the upsides of the continuing Kerry surge (and I'm not a huge
Kerry supporter and I don't want to turn this thread into a primary
discussion) is that the AWOL issue will always be close to surface of
the political discussion, whether implicitly or explicitly. And that is a
very good thing. This will not go away...
Keep up the good work, Kevin.
I'm sure Glenn Reynolds would have said that Watergate wouldn't be a
story, because it's too hard to understand. Unfortunately, in today's
media climate, he'd probably be right.
Thought the Lehrer gang did a pretty decent job tonight.
I've been following this story on your site since it was mentioned on
slate.com a week or so ago - now I'm back here checking it every few
Keep up the good work.
Keep up the good work, Kevin. I don't know if Bush's service or lack
thereof meets the definition of AWOL, but it sure is an appalling
Another investigative angle for anyone who understands the military
payroll process, or who knows someone who was a military payroll clerk,
is what source documents were used to produce these payroll reports. I
suspect it was just static rosters, and not timecards, sign-in sheets,
or any other guardsman specific (or generated) document. A clerk who
could say these reports were produced independent of any source
documents would completely debunk the WH contention that these reports
settle the issue.
ABC had a 5 minute piece, and also clarified that joining the Guard was a way avoid getting sent to Vietnam, then.
I think Bush is playing the low expectations game. Since we can all
see that he wasn't shot for desertion...his guard service must have been
He did no work in 3rd QTR, 1972. The White House admits this.
That's what Lois Romano of the Wash. Post said on CNN. She's on now.
Kevin, stop this senseless crusade!
It's disturbing how obsessed you are with this story!
Kerry is a deserter!
Adam Yoshida proved you wrong!
These records show nothing!
This is all a sign of desperation! Give up!
The infidels are committing suicide at the gates of Baghdad!
Whoops, wrong laughable propaganda.
It looks like these documents both reference L9CMPY48 which seems to reference the 111 FIS in Houston.
If he had been TDY [Temporary Duty] to Alabama, he wouldn't have
cleared the base, but the Commander of the 111 FIS states on Bush's
Officer Efficiency Report that it was blank because he had transferred
to Alabama and cleared Houston on May 15, 1972.
There is nothing here that indicates he showed up in Alabama.
We don't care if W got paid! We want to know if he showed up! And
why didn't he take his physical? These records don't settle anything,
anymore than the fact that he got honorable discharged.
Thanks Kevin. Great info. There are so many angles to this story.
Every one is worthwhile and most are not flattering to Bush and his
enablers. This issue may not be as vital as the Iraq WMD lies or the
budget fiasco but it is as vivid as the Plame affair at highlighting
Republican hypocrisy. Our democracy needs more of this kind of
Me, approximately 3 weeks ago:
"you know, I just don't see what's supposed to be so great about CalPundit..."
Er, I think I get it now...
This is great work. Ignore the trolls. The wingnuts were, eyes wide
and froth flying, defending Nixon right up to the end...and beyond...
We could all be wrong about this, but we've got to find out for sure.
Regardless of where this leads, we should remember that Bush
supported the Vietnam War but made damn sure he wouldn't have to fight
himself. If he thought the war was an important endeavor, then he should
have done the honorable thing and should have offered himself for
So, let's not forget he did not volunteer for combat duty. Instead he chose to serve in a military branch that at that time was guaranteed
to stay put in the continental US. It was a pretense of serving in the
armed forces while making sure he stayed out of harm's way.
It tells us a lot about his lack of integrity. It took far more
integrity at that time to be a conscientious objector or even to run
away to Canada. Whether AWOL or not, Bush will remain someone who
expected others to serve and die in a war he supported. That's the worst
kind of coward.
The discrepancy between these records (the Oct. and Nov. dates not
appearing on the 4Q72 record but appearing on the 1Q73 record) is rather
intriguing. Two explanations come to mind:
(1) Innocent: Bush served those days and either Bush or some
superior/record keeper didn't get the Oct. and Nov. "time sheets"
submitted until after Jan. 73 for some reason, which is plausible
because Bush was missing for awhile and bouncing around various commands
and it might take time for the bureaucracy to figure out what unit he
was supposed to be in.
(2) Not so innocent: Bush didn't serve those days and sometime in
early 73 his records were changed to give him credit for those days.
Normally I'd give him credit for the innocent explanation, except for
what Kevin has pointed out: Bush was presumably still working hard for
Blount in those last days before the election in late Oct., and those
days don't match up to Bush's orders to appear on certain days in Oct.
and Nov. Something does smell funny there.
71077345, you left off the best part, the headline:
Hero versus Zero
Let's spread that one around the blogosphere on this side of the pond.
You guys crack me up...
Clinton dodges the draft and it does not matter.
Bush does his duty and earns his point BUT does in in only 6 months
of the year rather than spreading it out over all 12 months and he is
the great satan.
Hypocrisy thy name is liberalism.
Kevin you are (were) better than this.
Or To paraphrase Kevin from the last 3 days posting on this topic....
"I have no idea how to read these records but I do know that it PROVES Bush was AWOL."
Kevin you are jumping the shark right before our eyes.
Assuming that the first page of the National Review posted doc #3
(accounting for May 1972 - May 1973, and linked at
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/bush3.pdf ) is an accurate summary of
Bush's service based on the payroll records, there are gaping holes.
W FAILED TO SHOW UP FOR DUTY (cumulatively over 1 yr)
For over 6 mos betw 4/16/72 - 10/28/72
For nearly 2 mos betw 11/14/72 - 1/4/73
For nearly 3 mos betw 1/10/73 - 4/7/73
For over 2 mos betw 7/30/73 - 10/1/73--was there an obligation to
show for duty prior to the official separation date of 10/1/73?
You guys crack me up...Clinton dodges the draft and it does not
matter. Bush does his duty and earns his point BUT does in in only 6
months of the year rather than spreading it out over all 12 months and
he is the great satan. Hypocrisy thy name is liberalism. Kevin you are
(were) better than this.
That's it, squirm for me, boy! Squirm! I love watching you squirm!
Me, approximately 3 weeks ago:
"you know, I just don't see what's supposed to be so great about CalPundit..."
I actually noticed that, Winston, and I'm glad to see you've recanted ;)
Or To paraphrase Kevin from the last 3 days posting on this
topic...."I have no idea how to read these records but I do know that it
PROVES Bush was AWOL." Kevin you are jumping the shark right before our
Translation: "Pleasepleaseplease stop posting all of this stuff
because it looks like it might lead somewhere and every cable channel
led with this story and it's on the front page of the every major
newspaper, so pleasepleaseplease stop scooping everyone and connecting
the dots, please, CalPundit!"
"I have no idea how to read these records but I do know that it PROVES Bush was AWOL."
Unless I'm much mistaken, I don't believe Kevin's said anything of
the sort -- specifically, I don't believe Kevin said that these
documents "PROVE" anything, let alone that Bush was AWOL. Could you
provide a cite?
The real difference, George, is that Clinton didn't want anyone else
over there either. aWol was perfectly happy to use Poppy Bush's
connections to avoid active duty, to use Poppy Bush's connections to
avoid serving the limited duty he was required to do, while other, far
better, young men died. It's fine to be pro-war if you're willing to
back that war with your own blood. But to be pro-war and hide.. that's
the height of cowardice.
Clinton dodges the draft and it does not matter.
Not serving in vietnam if you were personally against the war was not dishonorable. Not exactly meritous, either.
Bush does his duty
hardly, pal. --Somebody-- jumped W to the head of the TANG line,
displacing a more worthier candidate (W's minimal 25% pilot score) for
the cushy job. All the while W's dad in 1968 was undoubtedly voting for
the war -- for other people's sons to fight, apparently.
and earns his point BUT does in in only 6 months of the year
rather than spreading it out over all 12 months and he is the great
Just another brick in W's particularly lackluster resume, if you ask me.
Clinton dodges the draft and it does not matter
Principled conservatives who quite rightly -- yes, rightly --
excoriated Clinton for dodging the draft should be the first ones to
apply the same standard to Bush. Unfortunately it's obvious that there
are no principled conservatives any longer, just partisan hacks. Please
don't talk about liberal hypocrisy.
What Bush did was worse that what Clinton did. Not only Bush
supported the war -- while Clinton at least didn't -- but he made sure
he put on a quasi-military uniform that virtually guaranteed non-combat
duty, preserving the pretense that he somehow wanted to serve, while
Clinton dodged the draft, but Bush dodged the fighting.
Things we should think about (so far):
1)WHY were dates originally torn off 1972-73 ARF?(Just to hide the time
off? If so, why did the Bushies originally say the first date was
2)Did Bush really go to Guard duty the week before the Blount election?
(C'mon, that makes all the ARFs and pay stubs look like credit and pay
were given without showing up.)
3)Who asked his records to be sent from St. Louis to Washington and why?
4)When does his time in the inner city program start and what type of situation was it really? (I believe it was punitive)
Something bad happened in this time frame and they are covering it
up. They produced the pay records so fast because they are not the
answer. The next question for them should deal with how Bush got
involved with the inner city program. Somebody ask Scottie!
Thanks Kevin... from a semi-long time reader!
The Freepers are in a complete panty-twist over this. As much as I
dislike taking pleasure from other's discomfort, I'll make an exception
this time. hehehehheee
Slightly OT but why do some Americans think Bush is so great when it comes to security here in the Homeland?
Because we never did catch the anthrax terrorist, and here we just
had a bout of ricin at Frist's office (which made much less of a splash
than Janet's mammary). Domestic terrorism, anyone?
Interesting stuff from a bio of Winton "Red" Blount whose unsuccessful 1972 Senate campaign the Shrub was allegedly working on:
In 1964, although he personally opposed the Civil Rights Act, he urged compliance with it.
When Nixon appointed Blount to his Cabinet, critics noted that the
conservative businessman employed no blacks, was active in an all-white
church and had backed local segregationist candidates.
The 6-foot-3 redhead stood even taller in his chosen career than in
public service. His Blount Inc., which he sold in 1999 for $1.35
billion, constructed the launch pad at Cape Canaveral that sent Apollo
11 and man to the moon in 1969. It also built the first nuclear power
plant in Tennessee, the first intercontinental missile base in Wyoming,
the New Orleans Superdome and the $2-billion King Saud University in Saudi Arabia.
After Desert Storm in 1991, Blount and his company rebuilt the superstructure and literally turned the lights back on in Kuwait.
In Southern California, he built projects ranging from solar energy
fields in the Mojave Desert to major facilities for Lockheed and other
Yep, he's got the credentials of a Bush crony, that's for sure...
sorry, link here:
Guys, you don't get it.
GWB has had a lifetime excuse, get out of work card free card. He
still brings it out every year, for the entire month of August.
He even was off duty on 8/6/01, when his advisors informed him of an
imminent attack on his country. And we haven't done anything on that.
To be honest, we were a lot safer with him taking 6 months in 1972
than we are now with him taking his August "Brush Cleaning and
Reengaging the Bottle" field trips.
So, he pretty much blew off his last two years of war-time service,
refused to take a phyiscal and ignored an order that he do so despite
the money spent to train him, he did not show up after May 72 till
ordered to do so, there still is no record of any duty in Alabama and he
got out early (after jumping ahead of thousands to get in due to
Sounds like the service record of a future war president to me!
If I were in Iraq and a national guard enlistee, I think I would want to rub the shrub's face in some sand about now.
You people have this upside down. Bush's long absences show his
fundamentally responsible nature. I mean, what could be more
irresponsible than showing up for duty around dangerous jets and weapons
when you're coked out of your mind?
I agree. Their panic and incredible efforts to cover all of this up
signals to my tin foil receptors that Bush was strung out on alcohol and
coke in the summer of 72 and forced into rehab by barbs by fall. They
then salvaged his honorable discharge and got him into Harvard Biz
school by spring. Sounds like a good bush plan to save their boy, and
typical cover up and string pulling to make it happen and to hide it
all. Some things in 'merica, only money and connections can buy.
Even if this did happen, it would not disqualify him in my mind. It
is the lies, the hypocricy, the special treatment and the cover-up that
is too much to take.
Stay on it. I don't think there is anything here. But the truth will out.
Where did all the wingnut trolls come from? Anyone know?
Their mommie's basements.
Stay on it. I don't think there is anything here. But the truth will out.
Let's just hope it outs in time.
Don't know for sure if this is right but it looks like one of the
records posted here has Bush's social security number: 460-74-3610
Look in the top left corner of the micrifilm record (hint--white
letters on black background). The number preceding Bush's name is
460743610, which appears to be his service number. His service number
would also be his SSN. Finally, if you look at the Social Security
Administration's website, they will tell you that before the 70s, they
assigned SSNs in blocks by state. SSNs beginning with 449 through 467
were assigned to, and therefore issued in Texas. Bush wasn't born
there, but he lived there as a boy and should have been there at about
the time his parents would have been getting a Social Security card for
It's always the coverup that gets 'em.
Man, that would be stupid, to release a doc with his SSN on it.
That's chaos, pretty soon there will be a thousand people applying for credit cards claiming to be George W. Bush.
Keep up the good work! When the Freepers are telling you how much
they want you to keep digging becuase you're so amusing to them, it
means you're making them uncomfortable.
"JOHN F KERRY
RECORD: Naval officer in Vietnam. Wounded in action
MEDALS: 3 Purple Hearts, Silver Star, Bronze Star
GEORGE W BUSH
RECORD: Didn't go to Vietnam. Went Awol from Alabama National Guard?
Help is on the way! Restore honor and integrity to the WH!
Click my name for the URL to the Mirror article, also linked above.
"Don't know for sure if this is right but it looks like one of the
records posted here has Bush's social security number: 460-74-3610"
I had two military serial numbers, one as an EM and one as an
officer. Neither had anything to do with my social security number.
he put on a quasi-military uniform that virtually guaranteed non-combat duty
I'm not sure this is entirely true, but I do recall Bush checked "no not volunteer" for overseas duty on enlistment.
I don't think you can count on Kerry or his people driving this story home -- from P. 1 of today's (11 Feb) WaPo:
Kerry lowered his stance on the issue [Bush's service record]
yesterday, telling reporters at Dulles International Airport, after
arriving from Tennessee, that he did not want to comment. "It's not an
issue that I chose to create," he said. "It's not my record that's at
issue, and I don't have any questions about it."
The 1972 pay stub says he didn't work in the 4th Quarter at all.
Now the pay stubs for 1973 are a mess. But the question is, are
those listed payments in the 1973 stubs for work in 1972 some sort of
correction? Or is that information just meaningless filler?
I mean, it would have to be some strange situation where you're
working somewhere, and you get a W2 for one year, and the next year you
get a W2 with adjustments to the previous year's totals. Did they
forget to pay him?
Mike K. wrote:
"I had two military serial numbers, one as an EM and one as an
officer. Neither had anything to do with my social security number.
Posted by Mike K at February 10, 2004 09:18 PM |"
I'm not disputing your experience and am not absolutely certain that
the number next to Bush's name is his SSN. Still, my own experience
inclines me to believe it is. I just went through my military service
records (active duty enlisted, Army Reserve and National Guard) and
dadgummit, most every one of them had my social security number just
before, after or below my name.
Social Security # were first obtained to obtain a job.
Prior to 1986 the Social Security # would determine the state the person was generally when they were of working age.
From 1986 the SSN would indicate the state at age 5
1987 the SSN for New Mexico initiated a pilot project to require newborn infants to have a SSN
1989 appears to be the year that all states were required to have SSNs for new borns
Essentially, the SSN for anyone born in 1989 and after would indicate the state birth.
Kind of running around banging into trees, aren't we? Don't worry.
Somebody at the DNC will get an angle on this by tomorrow or the next
day. There's always the "forgery" line.
While obe is restoring honor to the White House, I'd love to know who he voted for in '92 and '96.
Might be time to shift back to the economic talking points again.
Just a clarification on the seeming mismatch of months with quarters:
the fed gov't, including DoD, begins its fiscal year on Oct 1
(f'rinstance, FY04 began on 2003-10-01); on the fed calendar, 1Q is
Oct-Nov-Dec, 2Q is Jan-Feb-Mar, 3Q is Apr-May-Jun, 4Q is Jul-Aug-Sep.
(It appears that some of the monthly data still doesn't completely match up with the handwritten quarterly designations though.)
Would you be able to check somebody's arrest records if you had their SSN?
Like, if you were a cop or other person associated with the Criminal Justice system in Texas.
Because if that's his SSN, it might be useful since he got his Driver's License changed (supposedly) when he was Govnor.
Just thinking out loud.
You want a fight on whether Clinton or Bush has been a greater keeper
of honor and dignity in the White House? I?ll see your stained blue
dress and raise you five hundred dead service men. I?ll see your White
Water dry hole and raise you Harken Energy. I?ll see your FBI files and
raise you the Patriot Act and Orwellian ?First Amendment Zones.?
Sorry tbrosz, when it comes to honor and integrity Clinton had it all over the guy putting his muddy feet up on JFK?s desk.
> Clinton dodges the draft and it does not matter
As a matter of fact, that's why I voted for Bush Sr. in 1992 -- he
was a genuine combat veteran and hero, while Clinton, well, you know.
And this is also why I did *NOT* vote for Bush Jr. in 2000 - I followed
the AWOL story on the Internet (it certainly wasn't being covered by the
news media!), and it left a bad taste in my mouth. (Well, that, and the
way Bush smeared John McCain in South Carolina with the "illegitimate
black child" crap... treating a combat veteran that way is disgusting
and sickening). While some of my Southern brethren apparently have drank
the coolaid of partisan hackery, there's some of us who are still
patriotic Americans who believe that service to our country (REAL
service, not trophy service in a unit designed to keep the sons of the
rich and powerful out of combat) is worth something. That's why my
preferred 1st choice in this race was Gen. Wesley Clark -- and why I
will be voting for Kerry in the fall.
Lori, the specific context was military service, and how people who
would one day run for president approached their obligations during the
If you believe Clinton addressed that issue with honor, I'd love to hear the explanation.
I am sick of hearing people who were, for eight years, mortally
offended whenever Clinton's evasion of service was brought up, and are
now declaring the issue of service in Vietnam to be one of the most
important issues of this election. You can cut the hypocrisy with a
At least some people like BadTux seem to be more consistent in their beliefs in this area.
This will be little enough help--as Kevin says, we need someone with
some genuine expertise in the forms--but I?ve noticed these few patterns
in these scraps of paper. Maybe they?ll help someone else focus on
more significant parts of these documents.
1. Most of the pages do not show a complete pay report. If you
look at pages 6 and 7 of the NatRev pdf file, it?s clear that these
pages show the complete form for a quarterly report (comprising both a
detailed accounting of current pay and a 12-month summary). By
contrast, pages 2 through 5 and 8 are only clipped sections of the full
form: pp. 2 & 3 the detailed section; p. 5 the detail with a
fragment of the 12-month summary; pp. 4 & 8 show the 12-month
summary, but lack the detailed pay records. That?s why I call them
2. The 12-month summary is a rolling summary. On p. 6, which has
the 2nd quarter 1973 summary, the reported July to December is for 1972,
not 1973; on p. 7, which is the 3rd quarter summary, July to Sept. are
now 1973, but Oct. to Dec. are still 1972.
3. Where we?ve got the detailed statement, it seems fairly common
to see payments dating from the month at the end of the previous quarter
accounted for in the subsequent quarter. On p. 2, on the detailed
record of the 1st quarter of 1972, you can see pay dates from Dec. of
1971. Similarly, March 1972 is reported on p. 3 (the 2nd quarter
report). What?s unusual about the catching up of the Oct. & Nov.
1972 pays on the 1st quarter 1973 report is that they?re essentially
three months old (not just the last month of the preceding quarter).
And, of course, there are those pesky questions others have raised about
squaring drill with the demands of the final weeks of a political
I leave the serious work on these documents to others.
Even in the context of military service, Clinton?s behavior was far
more honorable than Bush's getting his daddy?s cronies to pull strings
and guarantee that he did not have to go and die like the sons of less
Clinton, as you apparently are not aware, did in fact sign up for the
draft. That this has been spun by partisans such as yourself as ?draft
dodging? is a testament to the RNC?s ability to emulate Humpty Dumpty.
Once again: signing up for the draft isn?t ?dodging? it, no matter how many times you try and redefine the word ?dodge.?
I think the wingnuts trying to bring up Clinton are missing three major points here.
1. This isn't really about what happened thirty-odd years ago. If
Bush had admitted, the first time the subject came up, "Yeah, I pretty
much blew off my National Guard service. I was young and irresponsible.
It's not something I'm proud of," and had had the nous to tell his PR
team to quit dressing him up in quasi-military gear, this wouldn't be a
story now. Bush got away with the DUI incident - even claiming he'd lied
about it so as not to set a bad example for his daughters. He could
have got away with this in 2000. It's the fact that he bragged about a
military service that turns out to have been nothing worth bragging
about that is going to bring him down.
2. Clinton was consistent - he opposed the war and avoided fighting
in it. Clinton didn't brag about what he did to avoid service: he
admitted that he'd opposed the war and wanted to avoid it. Nothing
Clinton did was illegal: he registered for the draft, he got a valid
academic deferment, he got a high lottery number. Clinton smells of
roses compared to Bush - inconsistent, hypcritical, bragging about
nothing, and breaking the law in at least one instance - refusal to show
up to take a physical.
3. Clinton stopped being President over three years ago. Wingnuts bringing Clinton up now are just looking like idiots.
You now need to find a way of running down John Kerry, for serving in
Vietnam, while exculpating George W. Bush, for having dodged the
fighting in a cushy job. Judging by wingnuts forethoughtful enough to
focus on Kerry, this will be done by claiming that what Kerry did wasn't
so brave, and that anyway he "'sociated with Commies" when he got back.
When people talk about the nut cases and fruit loops on the internet... That's you all they are talking about...
Lemme explain to you how to beat George Bush.
Pretend to be sane. Find a real problem, (if you can) hammer on it repeatedly and get your vote out.
Lemme explain to you how to lose to George Bush:
Act like Howard Dean.
The choice is yours.
Luckily, you all are are too stupid/crazy to understand what I am telling you.
I think George is right and KD is jumping the shark. Its been entertaining to say the least.
Now he is down to: "Somebody who understands this stuff really needs
to take a look through these records and explain what they mean"
Hah. OKay KD, I thought that is what you have been doing. Or not. Whatever.
The funniest thing though, are these comparisons to watergate.
(Huh?) I am also enjoying the "They are only laughing because they want
to silence us! We must be right!" Right on guys, keep digging.
6 months unaccounted for in the payroll records.
At least 1 date where he was paid for texas duty. Same date his commanders said he was a no show. Record tinkering?
Every time I see one of your posts, this one is gonna follow it.
Stick with the story-there is blood in the water, and these
disclosures raise more questions than they answer. If Rush is squealing
like a stuck pig about this, you're doing something right.
None of the big media reports seem to have picked up on the
implications of ARF-Air Reserve Force on his attendance records. Since
there have been suggestions that this implies disciplinary action, I
don't see why this is not getting treatment.
I'm having a little trouble with the .pdf at
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/bush3.pdf , and I was wondering if
someone could clarify for me. This first page, what is it? Is it a
tally done by someone at the White House? Because this is NOT a
document from the 1970's. This is a modern font, clearly from a jet
Not saying this means anything. I'm just confused because I was
under the impression this .pdf doc was primary source material. If it's
not, I need to know that so I don't look like a fool when I go to
press. Thanks for any clarification anyone can provide.
And BTW Kevin you are doing a great job on this story, as many others
have remarked. I am using you as one of my chief news sources on the
That's because it's not an indication of disciplinary action.
The Air Reserve Force is a consolidated term for both the Air National Guard (all branches) and the Air Force Reserve.
Take a look through the site at http://arpc.afrc.af.mil, or even
google on the term, and try to find something disciplinary about it.
It's a non-issue, which may be why the major media isn't covering it.
Heh, I have an internet doppelganger.
The documents released yesterday give W's address as "2910
Westheimer" in Houston. Presently that is the address of an Eckerd Drugs
in this stripmall:
Anyone know what was there in 1972-73? Was it a housing development
worthy of a Congressman's son? An apartment comlplex? A drug rehab
center? A halfway house?
Anyway to find out? Could be a blind alley, but it seems worth investigating...
If I may ask a question. Dose the National Guard get a DD214 on
discharge? The reason I ask is, it gives history of your service,and
discharge...I understand that there are more than one type of Honorable
I hope Kev's got his taxes in order, no undercover 'extracurricular'
activities, etc., b/c if this gets really ugly the Bushies are gonna
come out swingin'. They don't hold regular sway over us bloggers like
they do the WaPost and other media outlets.
Ron Suskind has a term for what can happen to a someone who tells the truth about the Bush Administration - it's called a DiLulio, as in, he pulled a DiLulio.
The phrase is so-named after one John DiLulio, the former head of
Bush's Faith-based Office of something or other, who once had this to
say about the Bush White House:
The lack of even basic policy knowledge and the only casual
interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking: discussions by
fairly senior people who meant Medicaid but were talking Medicare; near
instant shifts from discussing any actual policy pros and cons to
discussing political communications, media strategy, et cetera.
After swift pressure from The off-White House, DiLulio completely retracted his statement to Suskind/Esquire Magazine. And I mean, he really retracted - not a la O'Leilly - I mean, regrets and apologies and please-forgive-me's.
The point is, I'm sure the death threats, etc. are already pouring
in, but I'm worried what will happen when Rove/Cheney go to work. I
think we all need to be active in this investigation so as to hopefully
take some of the heat off of Kevin.
This whole thread perfectly embodies BDS.
At the time, there were 4 different types of discharge.
The NGB-22 is the DD-214 equivalent. It's available here...
and shows an honorable discharge. There's no differentiation on
honorable discharges - it's either honorable or some other type.
You are right Bird Dog, the rampant Bush Defender Syndrome that
infects the loonies unable to tell the difference between registering
for the draft and dodging the draft, the inability to see something
wrong in having missed six months of training, the inability to notice
the discrepancy inherent in having a training day the very day a
commander says you were not observed, these things demonstrate the
depths to which BDS sufferers will sink to cover for this joke of a man.
Another aspect of Clinton vs. Bush in the military record comparison to add to Jesurgislac's excellent post:
Clinton's academic deferment was won purely on his own abilities; he
was awarded a prestigious scholarship to a prestigious school purely
based on his own abillities and his own hard work. His mother
certainly couldn't afford to send him to England for schooling, and he
didn't have any big-named father pulling strings for him.
On the other hand, Bush Jr sure as hell didn't get to be a jet pilot
based on his aptitude tests, and he didn't stay in the guard because of
his exemplary service record. He got in under questionable
circumstances, and somehow managed to `arrange it with the military'
when he was tired of it and went to school instead. (How is that
better than having been in school in the first place? At least Clinton
wasn't sucking back tax dollars getting trained for something he'd never
I used to think you were an intelligent guy. You're a jerk. What a
thing to waste your time on: pay records for doing menial chores and
desk jobs in 1972-73.
BobNJ sez: "None of the big media reports seem to have picked up on
the implications of ARF-Air Reserve Force on his attendance records.
Since there have been suggestions that this implies disciplinary action,
I don't see why this is not getting treatment."
The ARF was indeed a form of "Disciplinary Unit"...Take a look at
Bush's Enlistment Contract...It states that failure to perform assigned
duties may result in a range of "Punshments", the mildest of which is
"Two years in the Air Reserve Force"...(not to be confused with the Air
Not exactly "sweatin' on the rockpile", ARF "service" amounted to
nothing more than having one's name added to a roster in a filing
cabinet in Denver...One supposedly COULD be transfered from the ARF
straight to Active Duty...(But that ain't very likely for someone who's
Poppy is a sitting Congressman)
Thing about it is...Bush was "kicked out" of the Texas Air National Guard some time on or about 21 November, 1972...
Look at hs Discharge Date...Bush SHOULD have been officially
"Discharged" six years to the day from the date of his original
enlistment...Which was in May of '68 - 29th IIRC...So his much-cited
"Honorable Discharge: should be dated 29MAy74...That would be six
But Bush's Discharge is dated 21Nov74...About six months AFTER the end of his opriginal obligation...
There's only two ways to stretch out one's enlistment...Either the
Service Member signs an "Extension" (which people do for various
reasons) or as a result of Disciplinary Action...
Ergo...Bush was assigned to the ARF because the TANG was finished
with him...The two years of ARF "Duty" being the least possible
"punishment" he could have recieved...
The extra six months is the equivalent of "making up Bad Time"...
Heres a website for all who want to get a handle on the comparisons
of Bush and Clinton. Clinton most definitely got political influence in
his efforts to avoid his military service obligation.
Read the whole page. What happened on Dec 1, 1969? If you sign up
for the draft and get a high lottery number, that?s not dodging. The
page, rather than supporting its allegation, completely refutes the
notion of ?draft dodging.?
Man, the more I look at the comments here, the more convinced I've
got that not only don't you folks have a clue, you've been sprayed with
Clue-Off to actually repel them.
ARF as a disciplinary group? No, it's a catchall term for the
Reserve and Guard forces. Don't bother looking things up on Google,
don't bother actually trying to find things out by going to relevant web
I've tried posting what this stuff actually is, and I obviously don't
know what the hell I'm talking about because I only spent 13 YEARS
doing the work you guys think you know everything about!
Have a good time, folks. You're not interested in what actually IS,
you'd rather work up a frothing rant at what you think MIGHT be the
Scalia and Rehnquist may have made Bush president, but God made him a second lieutenant (and even that was undeserved).
It's tough waiting for this government to fall.
Is the ARF a place where people who are disciplined might be sent, to serve out their remaining term in a paper unit?
I am curious, and you seem like you might know...
I also like how the people who absolutely crucified Bill Clinton for
daring to get strings pulled to avoid serving in what he viewed as an
unjust war, ignore it when it's their guy.
Uh, ok. Remind me not to take anything you have to say seriously, folks.
Not you, Mr. Lawson. Just the wingnuts whose minds are not open to
the fact that Bush might have gotten preferential treatment, but God
forbid Clinton did.
There's a word for that...it's around here somewhere...
Couple of questions about these records, maybe some folks with more knowledge can help me out here.
In these records: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/bush3.pdf there
are a couple of discrepancies that stand out to me, and a couple of
questions to be answered.
First of all, pages 6 and 7 the hand labeled pages referring to q2-q4
of 1973 all list the months of the year on the left, in order, jan-dec.
But the year for oct,nov,dec seems to be 1972, instead of 1973. This
is strange, and is very different from page 5 where the q4 months from
72 appear *above* the 73 duty. It is also different from page 8, which
lists no duty at the end of 73, which follows with his Oct 1, 1973
So that's weird, but probably explainable.
Second is a question about what the different rates of pay mean. All
the 'missing dates' or whatever they are being referred to (oct 72 -
apr 73) are recorded as 22 ( I assume dollars ). Earlier and later
service times are recorded as being for different amounts. 50, 23, 32,
30, etc. I'm assuming that these are all for different types of service
or something like that, but I honestly don't know.
Anyone able to contribute information here? I'd be curious about the
rates of pay especially. 22 is significantly less that 50, does that
represent administrative work, like Bush said he was doing, or is it
I saw a couple of interviews yesterday with the reporters who are
covering this for the WaPo and two others. None of them felt that the
records released did an adequate job of filling in the gaps, said that
there was definitely still more story to come out, and that they were
continuing to dig for it.
What I found significant about this was, given the general ADD of the
press, is that if the records released had come a good way towards
closing the door on this, they would be off to greener pastures. There
are tons of juicy potential stories out there to be followed -- the
revelations on Monday that, well, yes, the president was briefed in
August 2001 about the possibility of al Qaeda using airplanes, and
yesterday that, oops, we made up that 2002 SOTU claim about finding maps
of US water plants and nuclear facilities in Afganistan.
Folks compare this to Watergate, and it's not. It's just one more
example of Bush's pattern throughout his life: get his way greased by
connections to get something he didn't work to qualify for on his own,
screw it up, get to avoid the consequences by getting bailed out by
connections, and then brag about it as if it were a big success. That's
all it really is -- except that, for some people, it may be the tipping
Or, actually, their current obfuscation may be the tipping point. Here's where Watergate does
have some relevant comparison. If you remember, Watergate was just a
sleazy little burglary - not much more than a "dirty trick" - until it
turned into a major coverup. If Nixon had handled the aftermath
differently, we'd barely remember it.
Not that this is of that level, even so. But one thing that Watergate
did was to get us all familiar with what it looks like when there's something
being covered up. As Josh Marshall keeps pointing out, he promised to
release them all on MTP, and all he has to do to put the story to bed is
to sign the waiver to allow his records to be released. Claiming to
have released "all" of the records when they haven't, promising to do it
but refusing to sign the waiver, suddenly finding something else (that
doesn't quite jibe and still isn't complete) when someone else finds
records... all this does is plant a big sign here for the press that
says "there's more here - keep digging."
My tipping point on Watergate was the missing 18 minutes of tape, and
that picture in Time magazine with Rosemary Woods stretched awkwardly
across her desk trying to show how she might have "accidentally" erased
them. After that, I didn't believe anything they said. One has to be
very careful in these coverups, especially when a falsehood may be the
tipping point for someone who actually knows some of the truth.
And there are so many signs up now... the "independent" intelligence
commission who isn't allowed to investigate how the Administration used
the pre-war intelligence (which is more the issue than what they were
given) ... the 911 commission and the attempts to keep them from seeing
the PDB's that they wanted to see (24 of 360 only, before the latest
compromise, and it's still "edited summaries"), along with the sudden
remembrance that someone did mention using airplanes (after all
of Condi Rice's "we never imagined...") ... how the Niger documents were
actually passed to the administration, and how completely fabricated
information got into the 2002 SOTU ... and the interesting combination
(New Yorker today) of Cheney's Iraq and energy plans... plus, of course,
the scrubbing of GWB's TANG records while he was in office (Dallas
Morning News, today)...
When the other guys scream "lies!" with no real evidence to the
contrary, it's a flag to keep looking. When they flood in to troll you
with insults, it's a flag that you're in the paydirt area. And when they
start screaming "Clinton," you know you're scoring. Good job, Kevin....
93 comments at the time I'm posting on 1, just 1, even attepmts to
answer the question Mr. Drum purposed. aploumb back at 8pm yesterday.
The discrpency between the different reports is the processing lag time.
Airman Soandso performs a day of duty on August 12. DFAS receives
the paperwork a week later, and has a processing time of 10 business
days to post it to the record. In between Soandso performing the duty,
and DFAS posting it, the as-of date for the report passes. So if
someone were to dig up the finance records of Soandso for the month her
actually performed the duty, it will not be reflected. However, if they
look a month or two ahead they will see it posted.
How this relates to GWB. Unless something is produced to the contrary,
there is nothing sinister in the difference between the documents.
For Caleb, the different numbers in the pay record are the different
types of duty performed. "2" represent a single point for regular
drill. Since each day is worth 2 points a "22" is a full day, a "20" is
a half day. "50" is a day of active duty. "99" is a day in a month
w/o that day. Like June only has 30 days, but the matrix has 31. And
finally, the matrix only covers a 12 month period, so the March report
will being with APR of the previous year and ends with MAR. The next
month will beging with MAY the previous year and end with APR.
And for those curious how I know this, I am a personnel sergeant in
the Army, and have been in the personnel field for close to 9 years, as
well as working in finance for 5 years. Although I'm not in the AF, I
know about these particular documents because they're Defense level and
all services use them.
The Crimson reported Kerry called for U.N. control of troops in 1970.
Do you really want to participate in this process, hounding candidates on choices they made 30-35 years ago?
I made my first post on the subject here... http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003230.html#100739
You might want to search subsequent threads for my name to see what
my comments are on the issues - I just don't have time (or, actually,
the inclination) to try all this again.
Honestly, a lot of the folks posting 'Gotchas!' here haven't a damn
clue what they're talking about - and don't have any inclination to
remedy their ignorance. I don't have a problem with folks who don't
know about a subject but are willing to learn - I DO have a problem with
folks who are determined not to learn about a subject, preferring their
own preconceptions and prejudices to the actuality. There will NEVER
be enough evidence to exonerate Bush of his heinous crimes in this
matter in their eyes. The few who are actually seeking light on this
will go elsewhere.
As I think I shall.
Good luck to you.
Good luck in trying to explain things. Hope you have better luck than I did.
GWB's ridiculous response (on his AWOL record) to Tim Russert was to
tell us, please do not minimize the National Guard. Wasn't it his own
Donald Rumsfeld who had to issue an apology to the National Guard Viet
Nam veterans for minimizing their role!!!! The right wing airways are
filled with "liberals are making fun of the National Guard". Shouldn't
somebody remind them what their own DoD had to say about them? It's
GWB's record of disrespect for the Guard in question, not the Liberals!
A brief excerpt from today's BOSTON GLOBE article by Robinson & Rezendes :
The records released yesterday list Bush as serving at Ellington in
January and April of 1973. His military file also includes orders that
Bush appear for duty again May 1-3, 1973. But the two lieutenant
colonels who were in charge of Bush's annual officer evaluation for the
period between May 1, 1972, and April 30, 1973, wrote on May 2, 1973
that ''Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187th Tac
Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.''
In an e-mail to the Globe last night, White House communications
director Dan Bartlett noted that one of those two officers, Lieutenant
Colonel Jerry B. Killian, approved Bush's request for an early discharge
on Sept. 5, 1972. ''Must have seen him,'' Bartlett wrote.
Of course, as most readers here are aware, Dubya's request for discharge
was dated Sept 5, 1973 (NOT 1972); and approved by Killian Sept 6, 1973
(NOT 1972). So did Bartlett just make an honest mistake in emailing the
Globe this erroneous date? The White House Communications Director
can't tell a 2 from a 3? This can't be a simple typo in Bartlett's
email, since his whole point is to "prove" that Killian had contact with
Dubya sometime between May 1972 and April 1973.
I don't see any reference in the Globe article that Robinson/Rezendes
noticed the switch or corrected Bartlett's 'mis-statement of fact'.....
Thanks! I appreciate the explanation of the documents. Pay records stuck in my head, hence the guess as to dollars.
If the records indicate drill, should there be some sort of record as
to what sort of drill it was, where it was, that sort of thing. I
understand this was 30+ years ago, I'm just curious.
JLawson, I don't have much luck explaining this stuff to actual
Soldiers when I'm sitting down with them, their own records in hand.
And this is all done electronically now, yet it STILL takes a week for
it to be posted.
This is a Rosarch for people. Those opposing Bush see it as the tip of
an iceberg of lies, deceipt, fraud, theft, and influence peddling.
Those who support Bush see it as completly exonerating him from
questions on his service. It is neither. It's a financial record of
duty performed. Without further documentation otherwise it proves
Bush's contention he fulfilled his service.
There just seems to me that a lot of time and energy is being spent
trying to lynch or diefy GWB based on a dozen documents of which the
pundits are totally ignorant. It does make for great theatre though.
Oh, and as a kindness, if anyone has an actual question about
something on these forms, feel free to email me at my adress, just
replace the 0 with an o.
The issue of 72 vs 73 was addressed above.
The federal government's fiscal year begins 1Oct. All budgeting
authority, pay etc. relate to that date, not to the calendar year
beginning 1 Jan.
re the .pdf posted on NRO - whoever claimed above that the fonts are
meaningful is, I'm afraid, drawing conclusions from no personal
experience. I worked on mainframe computers during that period and we
most definitely did have both "line printers" and teletype terminas with
fonts like this.
I don't know the facts about Bush's service but - based on what I
*do* know, most of the attempts to find a "smoking gun" here are ...
well .... pretty silly. Sorry.
And that includes the attempt to infer punishment from references to
the Air Force Reserves. Could be Bush got drunk or got in trouble but
there's nothing here you can use to prove it or even to make a
reasonable case of likelihood.
I have been a lifelong registered Democrat but I have to say, guys,
that you all have lost me on this election. Quite literally some of my
best friends serve in the Guard and I find the sneers insulting. OTOH,
I was deeply offended by Kerry back when he was an obnoxious rich snot
trying to launch a political career by posturing in a fatigue jacket and
mouthing slogans ... now he's just boring beyond belief. Just
becauase *he* committed attrocities he later regretted doesn't mean that
others didn't serve with honor in Vietnam. Some of them were my
friends and relatives. The idea that Kerry is a "war hero" doesn't
play with those of us who served ourselves or who respect those who
served with dignity.
Good luck y'all - because the Democratic party is a shambles right
now. Let me know if you ever stand for something positive, okay?
I'll come back and maybe take a look.
Fiscal and Calendar years get weird in the military. The fiscal year
is the calendar used for most functions within the military when it
comes to money. However, pay raises and scheduled allowance adjustments
take place 1JAN. Occasionally a change will be made to a benefit
during the year and the change will be effective immediatly,
retroactivly, or on a future date.
"Clinton, as you apparently are not aware, did in fact sign up for
the draft. That this has been spun by partisans such as yourself as
?draft dodging? is a testament to the RNC?s ability to emulate Humpty
Signing up for the draft was not exactly an option. It's hilarious
that some of you seem to think so. "Draft dodging" consists of avoiding
the draft by some subterfuge like applying for ROTC when you don't
intend to join, then cancelling out when you find that your draft number
(which everyone got) was high.
Bush and Kerry and Gore (and Roosevelt, for that matter) were rich
kids who went to Ivy League schools and got favoritism. Kerry chose to
serve in the Navy and went to Vietnam where he served honorably. Bush
and Gore got shunted into safe units by political influence. Roosevelt
got an appointment as Assistant Sec of the Navy.
Kerry deserves credit for his service and showed courage. His
behavior after he came back was dishonorable and the medal throwing
incident was dishonest. I don't think the Bush story is going to turn
out to be a big one. I do applaud Kevin for getting the facts.
The conspiracy theorists are acting under one handicap: They can't
use Bush's membership in Skull and Bones again. Kerry is also a
"Bonesman". They were both spoiled rich kids, like Roosevelt.
Ok here is what this means to me. Look not only at the point totals
but how they are distributed. Normally the point totals for National
Guards break down this way: 15 points just for being part of the
service. 15 points for serving the two weeks active duty requirement
and 4 points for each weekend served, one for each half day of the
weekend. What is intriguing to me is that he served way too many half
days. No commander in his right mind would have put up with that. Look
at the points and the days served. You can tell on which days he only
showed up for half the day. Basically he did the minnimum requirement
of 8 weekends (usual requirement is 12) and only 9 of the active duty
days. The active duty days are wierd because usually the unit goes away
together, meaning you get the 15 points total. Because he had only 9
that means he missed the regular 2 week drill and had to make the time
up at a later date. I have seen people with better records expelled
from the NG.
Mike K, you are still spinning like a top and you know it. Everyone was required to ?sign up? or as the first entry on the ?draft dodging? page says:
August 19, 1964 - Clinton registers for the draft
Second, while you may whine that he wanted to avoid the draft, the
fact is that he was subject to it and was given a high lottery number. I
may make plans to kill my friend, I may even talk to someone about
doing it for me, but if an earthquake kills her I am still not a
murderer. Clinton may have ?intended? to avoid being drafted, but the
facts conspired against you and he simply didn?t need to.
But thanks for the reminder that to those afflicted with Clinton hating, facts are merely obstacles to be overcome.
John B, you're ignorant of a very important fact. Bush wasn't
drilling with his unit. His unit was in Texas. He was excused from
that unit and was performing his duty at the unit in AL. He wasn't even
drilling with [i]that[/i] unit. He was coming in when he could to make
up his time, whether the whole unit was there or not.
All guard and reserve units are staffed full time by a combination of
regular Army/AF/Navy/USMC personnel and full-time reserve soldiers (A
full-time reserve soldier is one who is under the command of the
reserves, but serves like an active duty soldier). What Bush was
probably doing is scheduling his time with these full-timers to come in
during the week to perform administrative actions. Since he was doing
it when it was convient for him (with the permission of the full-time
staff) it makes sense that it wouldn't all be at the same time. And the
report bares it out.
As a full-time reservist (AGR in Army parlance) I have had dozens, upon
dozens of Soldiers perform such non-drill duty. It's so very very
common that I imagine every reservist across the services is wondering
why this is such a big deal to you folks. I guess the best thing to
come out of all of this is going to be that the civilian population is
going to have a better understanding of what their military does. And
that is something that the Liberal Media just doesn't put out
Yeah, I included the liberal media thing on purpose. I despise Eric
Alterman and I find great irony in him linking to ABC's The Note on the
same day they post just how liberal their DC bureau is.
By my count, GWB racked up more than the required
time between Jan and Apr 1972. He had 15 days worth of active duty, and
19 days of training (depending on the meaning of the 30s). That's
almost a whole year's worth of training in 4 months. This wouldn't
include the six days in
For Fiscal Year 1973 (Oct'72 to Sep'73) He has six days of service in
Oct & Nov '72. Six more in Jan'73, 2 in Apr. '73, and then a
whopping 27 days of active duty and 12 more days of training. Totals:
27 days of active, 26 of training.
Sure sounds like the equivalent of a weekend a month, and two weeks a year to me.
This also explains the "not observed" comment on the fitness report.
GWB had been in Alabama for most of '72, and had done only 8 days of
training before the FitRep was due. If the FitRep was based more on the
active duty part then the training, then there wasn't anything to
observe yet. GWB did the active duty portion after the report.
One note on the missing entries for Oct-Nov 72 in the "fourth
quarter" 1972 report. The government's fiscal year begins October 1.
Thus, service performed Oct-Dec 72 probably wouldn't show up on a "4Q
1972" pay record, because those dates are actually in the FIRST QUARTER
Welcome to the exciting world of military administrivia!
Listen, I'm not trying to score a point here, I'm just confused. You
said "line printers" existed in the 1970's... Well, of course they
did. Line printing has existed since the 50's. The issue here is that
this document appears to have been printed by a jet printer and not a
dot matrix. Laserjet printing existed in 1974, but it wasn't in
widespread use. If this was printed on a laserjet in 1974, that's
extremely remarkable. Injet printing hadn't even been invented yet.
I could be wrong; perhaps a high-quality dot matrix printer could
have produced this page in 1974. My question, however, remains - what
exactly is this document? Where did it come from? Who printed it, and
The "line printers" I used on 1970s mainframes weren't dot matrix
printers. They had solid type elements - basically very expensive,
high-speed typewriters driven by the computer.
Hope that helps. ;-)
To make it perhaps even more relevant, I worked on *military* computers in the early 70s as a brand new programmer.
Can't help on the "exactly what/where" question on the document.
But, I can say that similar reports were very common in payroll and
other "management information systems" - both lists of the individual
transactions (record entries) and also summary reports. My own
computer center produced these by the ream each week and month during
that time period. Many of them were later microfilmed for long term
Does anyone else see it that way?
Nobody who has the foggiest hint of a clue, no, Mike.
All the records are Texas Guard because Bush was in the Texas Guard.
Well, Charlie, then why has Bush been claiming he made up his missed drill in Alabama, like in the link I gave?
We can't take his word in the state of the union about weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq -- when his own CIA told him they weren't
certain -- and we can't take his word on his Guard attendance, handing
over Texas Guard docs when his story has been the Alabama Guard.
First, the typefonts look accurate. My own experience with line
printers goes way back too, and when I first went to school (somewhere
when the dinosaurs roamed the earth), that's what I saw.
It looks like Bush basically blew off piloting for the last two years
of his commitment, was missing altogether for 6 months, and was
assigned to a desk job to make up missing time. It also appears that his
committment was extended by 6 months to make up the missing time. So he
was "AWOL" in the sense that for 6 months, apparently nobody knew where
he was, but he was not AWOL in any legal sense, since with the
permission of his superiors he made up the time that he missed.
The question remains: Why does he continue to refuse to authorize the
release of his entire military record? What's he trying to cover up?
The notion that this is a "fishing expedition" doesn't make sense to me.
What could Bush have done in 1972 that would be any way relevant to who
Bush is today, no matter how embarrassing it might look at first
glance? I mean, we already know he was a drunkard and coke-head in '72,
but he's not a drunkard or coke-head today, so it's irrelevant. What
matters is not anything he may have done in '72, but what he is doing
now now by continuing to cover up and lie about his service.
Yes, I believe my President should be truthful and should admit
mistakes when he makes them. Clinton was a serious disappointment to me.
Bush Jr., though... this dude appears to either be utterly deranged (I
cannot BELIEVE that he continued to insist, just this Sunday, that Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction, after his own hand-picked inspector
David Kay had handed in a report saying that at most, Iraq had "Doodles
of Mass Destruction"!) or the biggest liar since Lyndon B. Johnson (hmm,
another vicious bastard who lied us into an unnecessary war... "our
ships have been attacked today in the Gulf of Tonkin" indeed!). Where
was Bush for those six missing months? If Bush just authorized the
release of his records, that question would be settled once and for all
and go away like his drinking problem. By continuing to stonewall, he
makes himself look like a liar -- and a fool.
Get a grip people.
Mike- "and we can't take his word on his Guard attendance, handing
over Texas Guard docs when his story has been the Alabama Guard."
Because he was still a member of the TXNG. He wasn't reassigned to
the ALNG, he was living in AL at the time so he was drilling with the AL
unit. The AL unit would complete some paperwork on him, certifying his
attendence, and send that paperwork to the TXNG. The TXNG would then
process that paperwork and GWB would be paid.
I could have a Massachusetts ARNG Soldier walk through my door right
now, and ask to drill with me today. And after I spoke with this
hypothetical Soldier's unit, and got their permission, I would let them
work for me today. A single sheet a paper, signed and either scanned,
faxed, or mailed to their unit and they will be paid. I wouldn't matter
that this MANG Soldier was performing duty in an Army Reserve unit.
I now know that all it takes to make a partisan-hack of either side
go insane: military financial or administrative data. The efforts a
partisan-hack's mind will go through trying to find evil, or exoneration
in a 2405 probably causes brain tumors.
I'm a Reservist who is in essentially the same situation Bush was in
back in '72-'73, meaning I am assigned to a unit based in one state
while performing drills in another. Basically that means my "home" unit
mails me paperwork every month that gets filled out at my "duty" unit
as proof I performed duty there and mailed back, and THAT means
everything lags by two or three or four weeks. I don't doubt that
someone looking at my records 30 years from now would see some gaps or
Another thing: generally, to get pay and points in the Reserve arms
of the military, one has to have been verified as having been present
for duty. In other words, pay and points are proof you were there.
Someone has to sign off on you.
Missing a physical is no big thing either--we all miss them, some
people miss them every year. They just make them up next drill. A
pilot would get pulled off flight status, sure, but that is not in any
way a punitive measure. Nor is having your records sent to ARPC in
This whole flap is the product of a bunch of people who don't have a
lot of knowledge of how the Guard and Reserve work. That's not said to
be insulting; the military can be complex and inscrutable, even to those
of us with many years in. But I'd think if I were running the DNC I'd
find something else to concentrate on.
What else does the DNC have to offer?
I'm thoroughly disgusted with the intellectual bankruptcy in the
party to which I belonged for 30 years. I have not heard one credible
economic position paper or foreign policy statement come out of the
democratic nominees this year - not one that to my mind addresses the
most serious set of international vulnerabilities (and oportunities)
we've faced in 50 years or more.
Folks: this past week the public around the world was informed that
there has been massive nuclear proliferation done by individuals who
are not responsible for their countries (and so who might possibly have
something to lose).
Musharraf is walking a tightrope made slippery by his own complicity.
Kashmir jihadis have openly proclaimed their right and desire to be able to deploy nuclear attacks against India.
There's lots more going on too.
And what is the DNC talking about? They are making "awol" claims
that are so insulting to those of us who know military matters as to
alienate many who would otherwise consider voting Democratic this year.
Now, this sort of thing could go both ways. We could, perhaps,
pressure George Soros to disclose just how much he and his fund made on
currency speculation in the resulting international instability caused
when he poured money into destabilizing several governments in central
Europe and in the 'Stans.
But of course, since he is private he can't be called to account.
How convenient then that he has decided to invest millions of dollars in
Democratic efforts to defeat the Bush administration too. Where is
the media outrage over this? Who is trying to uncover trading records
to disprove Soros' profiteering from his intervention in the affairs of
PFAH. It hasn't been easy, but I'm shaking the Democratic dust off
of my sandals and moving on. You all aren't grown up enough to be
entrusted with the country.
I now know that all it takes to make a partisan-hack of
either side go insane: military financial or administrative data. The
efforts a partisan-hack's mind will go through trying to find evil...
As opposed to going insane over evil you spend $140 billion to disarm
and rebuild -- only to wind up in the same place you would have been
had UN inspections been allowed to continue?
Folks: this past week the public around the world was
informed that there has been massive nuclear proliferation done by
individuals who are not responsible for their countries (and so who
might possibly have something to lose).
Well then George Bush shouldn't have ruined the credibility for anyone raising an alarm over weapons of mass destruction, person-claiming-to-support-the-president's-reelection-over-disgust-over-his-critics--to-avoid-looking-like-he-doesn't-have-the-basic-sense-to-speak-in-his-own-self-interest.
Release the full military record, like every other candidate in
america would have done. There is a reason they won't do this - it will
have the evidence of his past arrests. They, really, really don't want
that to come up. They are shooting for plausible deniability right now. I
suspect it won't work this time.
The difference between Clinton's Draft Dodging and Bush's Draft dodging is this:
Clinton - Expressed that he did not believe the war served americas
interests or values. Went through legitimate channels to arrange
deferment, which was earned because of his outstanding scholarship. He
used his deferment to excell further in scholarly pursuits, in what many
believe was already a determination to become president. When
confronted about this in 1992, he released all of the records about it.
Bush - Claimed to support the war, but used his daddies influence to
avoid serving in it. Jumped over 400 people who were in line ahead of
him. Was poorly qualified for the position he was assigned, getting the
lowest possible score he could have to become a pilot (suspicious in
itself, considering the strings that were pulled to jump him over other
all the other candidates). Instead of trying to excell at being a pilot
(in case he was called upon to fight for his country), he shirked his
duties, and lost flight qualifications. Instead of trying to be a good
guardsman in a time of war, he went to become a political hack for one
of daddy's friends. Quite possibly he did not even show up for long
periods of time, except to get a tooth cleaning on the government's
dime. Might have arranged to get paid for time he wasn't there (not hard
to do, by all accounts from the time). He REFUSES to release his full
record to clarify what was going on.
Now, how much of this is relevant to today? I don't know. The fact he
is still trying to cover it up makes it relevant to me. The fact that
he has disrupted the lives of thousands of guardsmen who signed on to
defend their country, while he himself did not fulfill his duties, makes
it relevant to me. The fact that for the first time in his presidency,
Dumbya is being held accountable for something, makes it relevant to me.
We can only hope that this shot of testicular fortitude into the
washington press corps will let them pursue all of the other lies and
cover ups the American people have suffered from this administration
with at least equal vigilence.
Winston said on Feb. 10:
"Regardless of where this leads, we should remember that Bush supported
the Vietnam War but made damn sure he wouldn't have to fight himself. If
he thought the war was an important endeavor, then he should have done
the honorable thing and should have offered himself for active service."
Well, Kerry's no better.
He OPPOSED the Vietnam war but made damn sure he DID have to fight!
If he thought the war was so bad he should have done the honorable thing and left the country instead of volunteering!
For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.
www.burningcar.net Site Map
Pocket Bike only $299.95,
plus free shipping!49cc Pocket bikes 47cc mini pocket bike super electric pocket
bike Mini Gas scooters
- pocket bikes Gas scooters guide
2005 Pocket Bikes - 47cc Pocket Bike Now only $299.95, plus free
Gas Pocket Bikes - 49cc pocket Bike Now only $459.95, plus free
Pocket bikes for sale - 47cc Pocket Bike Now only $299.95, plus
Fastest Pocket Bikes - 47cc Pocket Bike Now only $299.95, plus free
power Pocket Bikes - 47cc Pocket Bike Now only $299.95, plus free
Mini Pocket Bikes - 47cc Pocket Bike Now only $299.95, plus free
rocket Pocket Bikes - 49cc Pocket Bike Now only $459.95, plus free
Pocket Bikes - 49cc Pocket Bike Now only $459.95, plus free shipping!
Pocket Bikes - 49cc Pocket Bike Now only $459.95, plus free shipping!
Pocket Bikes - 49cc Pocket Bike Now only $459.95, plus free shipping!
2555 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here
you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~
3887 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-)