# The Case against Bush (national guard) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 14, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231 "2004-02-14T18:31:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/181 "2004-02-22T03:12:30Z")
No, that still quite applies, **Sam**. There is, as I’m sure you know, a considerable physical component to being a pilot. This was even more so in those days, when there was more direct physical control by the pilot. Apparently, it is in this regard that GeeDubya’s skills were minimal, but acceptable. We have, however, considerable testimony that GeeDubya was a pretty fair pilot, nonetheless. But do you really think he would have been in a position as he was if his last name were not Bush? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/182 "2004-02-22T04:15:32Z")
Svin: > [@](#): > > I concur that this is entirely possible, although it seems to me to be a bit out of character for Bush. elucidator is not the only person out there who finds this sudden expression of altruism mysterious, coinciding as it does with a period during which Bush’s National Guard records become suddenly sparse and weird. I don’t see any way in which you can claim to judge the man’s character in 1973. Personally, I think it says a lot about you, and letting your personal feelings interfere, that you feel it necessary to attempt to create (out of whole cloth mind you, since you have not the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary,) a scenario whereby Bush’s charity work was something other than generous and altruistic. It seems to me that that’s the basic concept of partisan knee-jerkery; your personal preconceptions are not malleable. Your judgement of the man’s character is an article of faith, not of evidence. It’s major cognitive dissonance. The Bush family, and Dubya have been charity minded for a long time. > [@](#): > > By the way, regarding the question of how Bush got into the Guard in the first place, check out this piece in The Guardian from 1999 Yeah, Elucidator linked to it a page or so ago. I thought it pretty reasonable evidence that Bush family strings got George his place in the Guard. Elucidator: > [@](#): > > I reel back in disarray, my rhetorical force in confusion, trumped by the irreproachable authority of Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd Wise move. That and the fact that the original records have been kept according to Lloyd’s system and not your Lieutenant’s pretty much put the kibosh on your argument on this. * * * I’m not really seeing anything else new here. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/183 "2004-02-22T04:47:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, that still quite applies, **Sam**. There is, as I’m sure you know, a considerable physical component to being a pilot. This was even more so in those days, when there was more direct physical control by the pilot. Apparently, it is in this regard that GeeDubya’s skills were minimal, but acceptable. Surely Bush’s [Basic Attributes Test](http://www.baseops.net/bat/) results were included in the white house’s complete records dump ? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/184 "2004-02-22T04:48:14Z")
**elucidator** said: > [@](#): > > No, that still quite applies, Sam. There is, as I’m sure you know, a considerable physical component to being a pilot. This was even more so in those days, when there was more direct physical control by the pilot. Apparently, it is in this regard that GeeDubya’s skills were minimal, but acceptable. Where do you get the notion that Bush scored ‘minimal but acceptable’ on a physical test? The AFOQT is a written exam. The 25 that Bush got was on the ‘pilot’ aptitude part, which as I understand measures things like spatial relationships. Is 25 a low score? I don’t know. Perhaps 25 is a fairly high score, and most people who want to be pilots don’t make it and wind up as navigators. What I know about the exam I summarized above. But the fact is, Bush could have made pilot with much lower scores on that exam, especially in navigation, verbal and quantitative skills. Plus, his leadership score was very high. I fail to see why anyone would consider this exam to be a marginal qualification - it looks to me like he beat the required minimum scores by a wide margin, scoring only the minimum acceptable on one section out of five, and scoring much, much higher than required on the other section. Look at it another way: the minimum cumulative score that you could get on that exam and make pilot was 60. Bush scored 225. Or if it was an average percentage (not sure if ‘25’ represents percent or a raw score), then the average required was only 22%, and Bush scored 56%. Either way, would you not agree that saying, “Bush only scored the minimum on his pilot test, and they let him in anyway!” to be a misleading statement? Given the minimum scores required on the AFOQT, if you were an evaluator and you saw Bush’s score, plus his degree from Yale, would you not consider him to be a good candidate? And in any event, the people in his squadron who have spoken of him all say that he was a better than average pilot, and was known as the ‘smart one’. That might give you pause the next time you call Bush an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/185 "2004-02-22T06:15:41Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > It’s major cognitive dissonance. The Bush family, and Dubya have been charity minded for a long time. Now why does the mere fact that **Scylla** says something make me immediately suspect that it’s not true? > [@](#): > > [The Wars of the Texas Succession > By Paul Krugman > Feb 10, 2004](http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_5074.shtml) > > So what kind of family has, in its own eyes, regained its rightful inheritance? It’s a family that has become accustomed to privilege: > > By the mid-twentieth century, connections and crony capitalism had become the family economic staple, with emphasis on the rewards of finance, and instinctive policymaking fealty to the investment business. The Bushes have produced no college presidents or stonemasons, no scientists or plumbing contractors—generally speaking, their progeny have become almost exclusively financial entrepreneurs. > > As this quote suggests, the Bush dynasty differs from other American families that have mixed wealth with political prominence. While the Kennedys and the Rockefellers may have a sense of entitlement, they also display a sense of noblesse oblige—what one might call an urge to repay, with charitable contributions and public service, their good fortune. The Bushes don’t have that problem; there are no philanthropists or reformers in the clan. They seek public office but, if anything, they seem to feel that the public is there to serve them. > [@Scylla](#): > > I’m not really seeing anything else new here. I ain’t either. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/186 "2004-02-22T08:29:16Z")
**Sam** : > [@](#): > > - Now, doesn’t this put into perspective how misleading it is to say that Bush scored the minimum required for a pilot? He didn’t. His test results are OUTSTANDING.\* Not at all. To begin with, you are gratuitously mixing up two completely different categories: **pilot** and **officer**. With regard to the latter, Bush’s scores appear quite good, especially his verbal score (which isn’t surprising really, considering he had just graduated from Yale). But here we are concerned with the former, i.e., Bush’s **pilot** score. And it appears that, precisely as reported, Bush scored the lowest possible in that category, a 25. Had he scored but one point lower, he would have been ineligible for pilot training, regardless of the remaining results of his test. Yet Bush skipped to the head of the line for flight training, anyway. He cut in front of people who had scored a 50 on the pilot section and 25 on the navigation section. He cut in front of people who had scored a 50 on the pilot section and a 50 on the navigation section. He cut in front of people who had scored a 75 on the pilot section and a 50 on the navigation section. And so on. > [@](#): > > - Sure, I’m defending Bush. That’s a crime? As I recall, people are innocent until proven guilty. You guys have dredged up a whole bunch of 30 year old hearsay and innuendo. You need to prove your case. And there’s a lot of crap flowing around, like that “Bush scored the minimum necessary to be a pilot” stuff like I debunked above. So forgive me if I step forward to defend the man. Someone’s got to.\* Okay, I forgive you. Neither I nor the White House Press Corps has “_dredged up a whole bunch of 30 year old hearsay and innuendo_.” I’ve asked perfectly reasonable questions about mysterious deficiencies in Bush’s service record and history. Bush himself has been stubbornly reticent about these questions, and evasive in the extreme. It is entirely reasonable to ask, “Why doesn’t he just come clean?” By the way, you haven’t debunked the “_Bush scored the minimum necessary to be a pilot_,” crap floating around; you’ve _confirmed_ it. Congrats. > [@](#): > > - I can’t explain the discrepancies, but on the other hand, we have General Turnipseed vouching for Calhoun who he says has an impeccable character…. Perhaps Calhoun has his dates mixed up. Maybe Bush does. Maybe the guard does. I don’t see a slam-dunk here one way or the other.\* Oh, I see. First you characterize Calhoun as a “very strong witness,” and go on to state there is “_plenty of evidence that Bush WAS in Alabama_.” Would that not indicate that you believed Calhoun’s testimony to be a “slam-dunk?” But when I point out the weaknesses in Calhoun’s claims, suddenly we backtrack. Is Calhoun a “very strong witness” or not, **Sam**? And riddle me this: if Calhoun has such a clear memory of Bush, sitting alone in his office reading flight magazines months before he had even been assigned to the unit, then why is it that Bush can’t seem to remember _him_? Why doesn’t Bush confirm Calhoun’s statements? In fact, why hasn’t Bush simply provided us with a list of people whom he knew or met at that base during the time he served there? You mean his memory is so bad that he can’t remember the name of a _single person_ he met during this period, who could confirm his story? Why didn’t the Bush administration contact Calhoun before he came forward, and why don’t they stand behind his testimony? > [@](#): > > - Given that this was part-time service, and that there was really no use for his skills in Alabama, it seems the likely answer to all this is that no one really gave a shit. The Guard didn’t really need him, Bush didn’t need the guard, and all parties just eventually got the paperwork straightened out and life went on.\* That’s possible. Why doesn’t he just come out and say so, in that case? > [@](#): > > - Either way, would you not agree that saying, “Bush only scored the minimum on his pilot test, and they let him in anyway!” to be a misleading statement? Given the minimum scores required on the AFOQT, if you were an evaluator and you saw Bush’s score, plus his degree from Yale, would you not consider him to be a good candidate?\* I would certainly consider him to be a good officer’s candidate; I don’t know whether or not I would consider him to be a good pilot candidate. Your arguments rely on blurring the line between these two very different categories. > [@](#): > > - And in any event, the people in his squadron who have spoken of him all say that he was a better than average pilot, and was known as the ‘smart one’. That might give you pause the next time you call Bush an idiot.\* Actually, it gives me pause in my belief that pilots are smart. **Scylla** : > [@](#): > > - I don’t see any way in which you can claim to judge the man’s character in 1973. Personally, I think it says a lot about you, and letting your personal feelings interfere, that you feel it necessary to attempt to create (out of whole cloth mind you, since you have not the slightest shred of evidence to the contrary,) a scenario whereby Bush’s charity work was something other than generous and altruistic.\* Well, a couple three points. First off, I know nothing about Bush family charity. Bush is not known for his charitablity – he ain’t exactly Mother Teresa now, is he? – but of course I concede that he might be extremely charitable. It’s entirely possible that I just haven’t heard about it. Secondly, it simply strikes me as curious that George would suddenly embark on a period of community service at one point, never before having shown an interest in such service and never offering it again, afterwards. But, sure, maybe he got religion, or the spirit of God moved him, or something. Finally, there is the conjunction of factors. At precisely this period, the information in Bush’s file becomes sparse and contradictory. Important documents such that one might reasonably expect to find in his file for the period in question are missing. Bush fails to appear for his physical, which is by most accounts an important requirement of his service; this oversight should have led to the initiation of either an investigation or an explanation from his commanding officer, but neither the one nor the other is to be found. Other important service documents, like his DD – 214, are absent. And here, lo and behold, we have a witness who claims he saw members of the TANG removing “embarrassing” documents from Bush’s file in 1997, when he was governor. Bush himself is incapable of giving a coherent account of his whereabouts during the period, and witness reports are sparse and contradictory. At the same time, Bush is performing community service for the only time in his entire life. And I know that in some cases, minor legal infractions (like a DUI, for example) can be punished by a sentence of X number of hours of community service. Taken together, all of these facts _seem_ to point to possibility that something fishy was going on in Georgie’s life between May and November of 1972, something which has since been covered up. We have what Whewill called a “consilience of inductions,” all of which appear point to a conclusion of which we have no direct knowledge (this was the method Whewill recommended for reconstructing the fossil record). Given this, we must nevertheless remember that induction is an imprecise and sometimes misleading instrument. In other words, there might be completely reasonable explanations for the discrepancies mentioned above. > [@](#): > > - It seems to me that that’s the basic concept of partisan knee-jerkery; your personal preconceptions are not malleable. Your judgement of the man’s character is an article of faith, not of evidence.\* Bull pucky. I’ve been watching Bush operate as president for over three years now; I’ve accumulated a great deal of evidence with regard to his character. You yourself have freely admitted that he lied with regard to Iraq’s “WMDs.” Rather, it seems that it is you who have “faith” in Bush’s character, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. > [@](#): > > _It’s major cognitive dissonance. The Bush family, and Dubya have been charity minded for a long time._ Really? Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/187 "2004-02-22T14:51:52Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > [b > > **Scylla** :Well, a couple three points. > > First off, I know nothing about Bush family charity. Bush is not known for his charitablity – he ain’t exactly Mother Teresa now, is he? – but of course I concede that he might be extremely charitable. It’s entirely possible that I just haven’t heard about it. > > Secondly, it simply strikes me as curious that George would suddenly embark on a period of community service at one point, never before having shown an interest in such service and never offering it again, afterwards. But, sure, maybe he got religion, or the spirit of God moved him, or something. Your first and second points are at odds. If you know nothing about Bush and charity than how can you state he’s never shown an interest in such things before and never again? > [@](#): > > Finally, there is the conjunction of factors. At precisely this period, the information in Bush’s file becomes sparse and contradictory. Important documents such that one might reasonably expect to find in his file for the period in question are missing. Bush fails to appear for his physical, which is by most accounts an important requirement of his service; this oversight should have led to the initiation of either an investigation or an explanation from his commanding officer, but neither the one nor the other is to be found. Other important service documents, like his DD – 214, are absent. And here, lo and behold, we have a witness who claims he saw members of the TANG removing “embarrassing” documents from Bush’s file in 1997, when he was governor. Bush himself is incapable of giving a coherent account of his whereabouts during the period, and witness reports are sparse and contradictory. At the same time, Bush is performing community service for the only time in his entire life. And I know that in some cases, minor legal infractions (like a DUI, for example) can be punished by a sentence of X number of hours of community service. At this point, it’s becoming silly. You can’t in good faith read a drug conviction into an **absence** of information. You just can’t. You should no better to make such arguments. You can talk it to death, call it a consilience of induction, but it’s nothing more than a speculation. Move it beyond the speculation phase and offer something tangible and then we can deal with it. > [@](#): > > Cite? [www.dougwead.com/charity/Bush.htm](http://www.dougwead.com/charity/Bush.htm) (Bush favorite charities, honoring of Neil and Mrs. Bush) [www.ashbrook.org/events/memdin/bbush/home.html](http://www.ashbrook.org/events/memdin/bbush/home.html) > [@](#): > > Throughout her years in public life, Mrs. Bush volunteered in and supported hundreds of charity and humanitarian causes. Today, she continues her service as AmeriCares ambassador-at-large, and as a supporter of various organizations, including the Leukemia Society of America, Ronald McDonald Houses, and the Boys & Girls Club of America. [http://www.barbarabushfoundation.com/](http://www.barbarabushfoundation.com/) [http://www.charitywire.com/charity18/05272.html](http://www.charitywire.com/charity18/05272.html) > **[Briefing Room | The White House](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/)** It’s also my understanding that George I and Barbara have been pretty big in Leukemia work (they had a kid that died) and that George’s charity work has basically been continuous throughout his life in the private sector, gifting, sitting on the Boards of charities, etc etc. I think his tax returns are available for scrutiny should you wish to examine specifics, but I think this is enough to identify and support Bush family charitable activities. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/188 "2004-02-22T15:30:24Z")
Well, yes, but on the other hand, no. Charitable activities are rather common amongst the rich, this is hardly news. You have presented us with a number of charitable activities of the Bush _family_, but D for diddly-squat to show that the gallant Lt. Bush was, himself, so moved. And keep in mind, this is rather a different variety of charitable activities, this involved Lt. Bush trucking his pampered white butt down to Funkytown, _in person_. Now, if you could show us that he was active in that sort of charitable activities, you would have a point. And while it is true that a lot of this must remain speculative, it is speculative primarily due to the absence of records, an absence that continues even after loud and effusive statements that all the relevent records have absitively and posolutely been released. But as the redoubtable **Big Svin** has pointed out, the records are by no means “complete”. If they were complete, there would be no speculation. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/189 "2004-02-22T15:36:26Z")
Great, **Scylla**. How many other times in his life did G.W. Bush actually perform community service? When were they? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/190 "2004-02-22T16:28:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, yes, but on the other hand, no. Charitable activities are rather common amongst the rich, this is hardly news. No. But I was asked to cite it. Desmo’s cite says the Bush family isn’t charity-minded and Svin asked for a cite on Bush family charity. > [@](#): > > You have presented us with a number of charitable activities of the Bush _family_, but D for diddly-squat to show that the gallant Lt. Bush was, himself, so moved. The cite requested was for Bush family giving. That’s what I gave, and there are some details in their of George and Laura, and this is all available on line. Should you be so minded to inform your else, you can chronicle Bush’s charitable activities from 1973 onward. That can be your task. I am simply supporting my contention that there is a long and significant history of Bush family charity activities. > [@](#): > > And keep in mind, this is rather a different variety of charitable activities, this involved Lt. Bush trucking his pampered white butt down to Funkytown, _in person_. Really? Are you sure of this? I don’t think anybody’s cited the nature of Bush’s activity with this group yet. Why don’t you find out what it is first, and then we’ll compare it to other things? > [@](#): > > Now, if you could show us that he was active in that sort of charitable activities, you would have a point. I really don’t have a point. I am trying to examine evidence reasonably and find the best conclusion I can. If you wish to prove or suggest that Bush’s community service was a result of a drug conviction, you actually need something other than speculation, otherwise it is a completely unreasonable assertion. The closest you or anyone else has come is by asserting that Bush is not charity-minded, therefore he must have been sentencedto do this work. This is a faulty argument on two fronts. First, it is simply not logical. There are many conceivable reasons to explain Bush’s involvement even if your premise is true. Their is no rational reason to select “drug conviction.” Second, the premise isn’t true. Bush et al have been charity-minded. > [@](#): > > And while it is true that a lot of this must remain speculative, it is speculative primarily due to the absence of records, an absence that continues even after loud and effusive statements that all the relevent records have absitively and posolutely been released. But as the redoubtable **Big Svin** has pointed out, the records are by no means “complete”. If they were complete, there would be no speculation. You’ve told me many times that you are not stupid. Surely than, you understand that you cannot construe guilt from an absence of evidence. It’s an argument from ignorance, and it’s a basic fallacy. You need rational reasons to make your case, not an absence of them. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/191 "2004-02-22T16:51:31Z")
Perhaps people aren’t coming forward regarding the drug charges because… they’re afraid they will be KILLED!!! See the cautionary tale of J. H. Hatfield, who committed suicide after revealing information about Bush’s cocaine conviction!!! [http://dir.salon.com/politics/red/2001/07/20/blue/index.html](http://dir.salon.com/politics/red/2001/07/20/blue/index.html) Bum bum BUMMMM! **elucidator, Mr. Svin,** you guys still okay out there? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/192 "2004-02-22T17:03:36Z")
It’s like that **Living History** book Hillary Clinton recently published. It’s widely known that Hillary was the last person Vince Foster spoke to before he was shot. Up until the publication, Hillary never revealed the substance of the conversation. In **Living History** though, Hillary tells us what the last thing Vince Foster said to her was. “Please, don’t shoot.” ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/193 "2004-02-22T17:42:33Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Airman** :If I read you correctly, this would imply that Bush couldn’t simply pick up and move to another unit without substantial paperwork. Even if he moved to Alabama in May of 1972, he would still be under the command of his Houston unit, officially, until all the paperwork had been approved. Correct? Sorry, I’ve been too sick to get back to this. Anyway, the answer to that question is yes. I could move to Alaska if I felt like it, but unless I took the steps to transfer to a Guard unit in Alaska I would have to come back to Pennsylvania to fulfill my obligations until they were up. If I transferred to Alaska, I would have orders following me there, one set being a release, another set being orders indicating when I should report for duty. Also, my medical records would follow me to wherever I went. In my career thus far, all two years of it, I have been issued about six different sets of orders, for BMT, Tech School, both Survival Schools, the Altitude Chamber, and my deployment, and my name is on the Form 781 of every flight I’ve ever been on as a crewmember or passenger. There’s paperwork for everything, and we’re encouraged to keep records of all of it for verification purposes. I find it hard to believe that there is no paper trail for one Lt. Bush, Texas ANG somehwhere. There should be substantial evidence for anything you could possibly want to know. Hell, DFAS should have his address of record for pay purposes still AFAIK. If you know what to look for you can find anything out about anyone, and with the paper trail the military makes you leave it should be easy to check out. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/194 "2004-02-22T17:50:50Z")
> [@](#): > > He cut in front of people who had scored a 50 on the pilot section and 25 on the navigation section. He cut in front of people who had scored a 50 on the pilot section and a 50 on the navigation section. He cut in front of people who had scored a 75 on the pilot section and a 50 on the navigation section. And so on. Cite? How many other people out there wanted to be pilots in the guard and got better marks than Bush? For all we know, that 25 is very hard to get, and the prime ‘weeder’ of pilot applicants. Maybe the ranks of navigators are made up of people who wanted to be pilots but couldn’t manage that 25. Or, let’s say there were lots of people who scored better than 25 - who’s the better candidate, one who scored 35 on the pilot section but 10 on the nav section, or one who scored 25 on the pilot section, and 50 on the nav? Pilots in single seat fighters have to navigate too, y’know. That ‘navigation’ section is important too, and Bush scored five times higher than he needed to. And who would you rather take, a guy who scored high on the ‘pilot’ section, but the bare minimum scores on everthing else, or a guy who scored the minimum on the pilot section, but extremely well on everything else? As for the ‘pilot’ section, here’s what the AFOQT pilot section is about: > [@](#): > > **Pilot** (Minimum score requirements for pilot candidates shown below.) This composite measures some of the knowledge and abilities considered necessary for successful completion of pilot training. The Pilot composite includes subtests which measure verbal ability, knowledge of aviation and mechanical systems, the ability to determine aircraft altitude from instruments, knowledge of aeronautical concepts, the ability to read scales and interpret tables, and certain spatial abilities. One of the things they are looking at here is whether the candidate has previous flight training and experience - that can be a mitigating factor if your scores are otherwise low on other sections of the test. So it’s no surprise that Bush wouldn’t have scored well on this, since he had no previous flying training. Since we don’t know the exact makeup of the scores on that section, we don’t know HOW he got a 25. If he killed on all the stuff that measured aptitude, and got wrong all the specific questions about aircraft systems, an evaluator might just shrug and go, “Well, that’s expected - he’s never flown”. For what it’s worth, I know LOTS of people who were accepted into pilot training in the military without any previous experience in aviation. The bottom line is that we don’t know how Bush’s results stacked up against other candidates at the time. Maybe his test scores were just average, maybe they were fantastically good. My argument was that it is _extremely_ misleading to tell people that Bush scored the bare minimum required to be a pilot. He didn’t. Looking at the test as a whole, he scored way, way higher than he needed to. Only on one grouping out of five did he score the minimum, and since that group tests previous aviation knowledge, this should not have been a surprise to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/195 "2004-02-22T18:12:38Z")
Actually, having read more about the AFOQT, we CAN tell what Bush did poorly on in the ‘pilot’ composite, and it turns out I was right. Here’s what the test description says about the ‘Navigator’ section: > [@](#): > > **Navigator** This composite measures some of the knowledge and abilities considered necessary for successful completion of navigator training. The Navigator-Technical composite shares many subtests with the Pilot composite. Subtests that measure verbal ability, ability to determine aircraft altitude, and knowledge of aeronautical concepts are not included. However, subtests measuring quantitative aptitudes, some spatial or visual abilities and knowledge of general science are added. The AFOQT is made up of 16 sections. There is no ‘Pilot’ section or ‘Navigator’ section. What those scores are is a composite of the sections deemed most important for a pilot or navigator. Bush scored five times higher on the nav section than necessary for a pilot, and twice as high as necessary for navigator. The composite for navigator contains many of the same categories as for pilot, except that it leaves out the stuff on previous aeronautical knowledge. But it replaces them with sections on spatial and visual ability and general science knowledge. Since Bush scored very well on that, we can see where he bombed - he didn’t have any previous pilot training, so be bombed on the aircraft-specific questions. But all of his ‘aptitude’ scores were plenty high. In my experience, this is far more important - you can teach the knowledge to smart people, but you can’t make people without aptitude into good pilots. And as I said, I personally know plenty of people who got into military aviation without any previous flying training, so clearly the lack of specific aircraft knowledge is not considered to be disqualifying - especially since did get a passing grade on the ‘pilot’ section despite not knowing anything about airplanes. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/196 "2004-02-22T22:37:44Z")
**Scylla** : > [@](#): > > - Your first and second points are at odds. If you know nothing about Bush and charity than how can you state he’s never shown an interest in such things before and never again?\* Point the first: charity giving is not the same as community service (as others have in this thread have already pointed out). Point the second: okay, I should have been more precise and written, “_Secondly, it simply strikes me as curious that George would suddenly embark on a period of community service at one point, never before having shown an interest in such service and never offering it again, afterwards, **to my knowledge** _.” > [@](#): > > _At this point, it’s becoming silly. You can’t in good faith read a drug conviction into an absence of information. You just can’t. You should no better to make such arguments. You can talk it to death, call it a consilience of induction, but it’s nothing more than a speculation._ I’ve certainly not suggested that what we know about this question thus far indicates a drug conviction. I keep trying to tell you that I agree that all we have thus far is speculation. I can speculate that Bush was involved in a DUI, for example, but that’s nothing more than a speculation. You can speculate that Bush was just a lovin’ guy, and suddenly felt like giving, but that’s nothing more than a speculation either. Now, I personally feel that a number of factors point to _something_ mysterious going on in Bush’s life between May and October of 1972. That “something” could be a drug bust, a DUI, a religious conversion, or a simple paperwork snafu. Judging by the manner in which Bush and his various handlers have tried to deal with this something, I suspect that it’s a rather unflattering something – trouble with the law, perhaps. Beyond that, I fear, I have absolutely nothing to offer. In the first sentence of my first post in this thread, I stated that I was loath to get involved in this debate, precisely because I thought it would end like this. I have no concrete evidence to point to, only a nagging dearth of evidence, evidence that should be there. For example: Bush _should_ be able to remember at least one person he served with when he was in Alabama, even after a lapse of thirty years. That person _should_ have be able to confirm Bush’s story. But consider [this exchange](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002555) between Helen Thomas and Scott McClellan at the Feb. 13th Press Gaggle: > [@](#): > > \*\*Q: Did the President ever have to take time off from Guard duty to do community service? > > Scott McClellan: To do community service? I haven’t looked into everything he did 30 years ago, Helen. Obviously, there is different community service he has performed in the past, including going back to that time period – > > Q: Can you find out if he actually had – > > Scott McClellan: Helen, I don’t think we remember every single activity he was involved in 30 years ago. > > Q: No, this isn’t an activity. Was he forced to do community service at any time while he was on – > > Scott McClellan: What’s your interest in that question? I’m sorry, I just – > > Q: Lots of rumors. I’m just trying to clear up something. > > Scott McClellan: Rumors about what? > > Q: Pardon? > > Scott McClellan: Rumors about what? > > Q: About the President having to do community service while he was in the National Guard, take time out for that. > > Scott McClellan: I’m not aware of those rumors. But if you want to – > > Q: Could you look it up? Would you mind asking him? > > Scott McClellan: That’s why I’m asking what’s your interest in that? I just don’t understand your interest in that. > > Q: It’s what everybody is interested in, whether we’re getting the true story on his Guard duty. > > Scott McClellan: Well, you have the documents that show the facts. > > Q: I’m asking you to try to find out from the President of the United States. > > Scott McClellan: Like I said, it’s well known the different jobs he had and what he was doing previously, that we know. That goes back to – > > Q: I didn’t say “previously.” I said, while he was on Guard duty. > > Scott McClellan: But you’re asking me about 30 years ago. I don’t think there’s a recollection of everything he was doing 30 years ago. > > Q: Well, he would know if he had to take time out. > > Scott McClellan: Again, I mean, the issue that was raised was whether or not the President was serving while he was in Alabama. Documents reflect that he was – > > Q: Well, this is another issue. > > Scott McClellan: – hold on – that he was serving in Alabama. That was the issue that was raised. We went through, four years ago, other issues related to this. > > Q: So you won’t answer the question or you won’t try to find out? > > Scott McClellan: Well, I’m asking you, what’s your interest in that question? I’m just curious, because rumors – > > Q: Did he have to do any community service while he was in the National Guard? > > Scott McClellan: Look, Helen, I think the issue here was whether or not the President served in Alabama. Records have documented – > > Q: I’m asking you a different question. That’s permissible. > > Scott McClellan: Can I answer your question? Sure it is. Can I ask you why you’re asking it? I’m just – out of curiosity myself, is that permissible? > > Q: Well, I’m interested, of course, in what everybody is interested in. And we have a very – > > Scott McClellan: Let me just point out that we’ve released all the information we have related to this issue, the issue of whether or not he served while in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous – > > Q: I asked you whether he had to do any community service while he was in the National Guard. > > Scott McClellan: Can I walk through this? > > Q: It’s a very legitimate question. > > Scott McClellan: And I want to back up and walk through this a little bit. Let’s talk about the issue that came up, because this issue came up four years ago, it came up four years before that – or two years before that, it came up four years before that – > > Q: Did my question come up four years ago, and was it handled? > > Scott McClellan: Helen, if you’ll let me finish, I want to back up and talk about this – > > Q: Don’t dance around, just give us – > > Q: It’s a straightforward question. > > Q: Let’s not put too fine a point on it. If I’m not mistaken, you’re implying that he had to do community service for criminal action, as a punishment for some crime? > > Q: There are rumors around, and I didn’t put it in that way. I just – > > Q: Could you take that question? I guess apparently that’s the question, that he had to take time out to perform community service – > > Scott McClellan: That’s why I wanted to get to this because – > > Q: – as a sentence for a crime. > > Scott McClellan: No, that’s why I wanted to get to this because I want to step back for a second. I want to go back through a few things. Look, the – I think we’ve really exhausted the issue that came up. The issue that came up was related to whether or not he had served while he was in Alabama. Records have documented as false the outrageous, baseless accusation that he did not serve while in Alabama. The conspiracy theory of one individual, that the National Guard cleansed documents, has been discredited. > > Q: How so? > > Scott McClellan: _Read The Boston Globe today_. > > Q: Well, we want answers from you, not – > > Scott McClellan: _Read the Boston Globe_. No, the answers are from the people that would have knowledge of that. But read – > > Q: Why do you think this person made those allegations? > > Scott McClellan: Hang on, hang on. > > Q: What? Just read The Boston Globe – > > Scott McClellan: _Just read The Boston Globe. Read The Boston Globe_. I would draw your attention to that. What I think we’re seeing now is just politics. And we’re not going to engage in it, because there are great challenges facing our nation, and there should be an honest discussion of the actions the President is taking to make our world safer and better and make America more prosperous and secure. > > You want me to go – > > Q: – the personal record of a President is – > > Scott McClellan: No, hang on, Helen, hang on. I’ve said from this podium, if we have new information that comes to our attention that relates to this issue, we have made it clear we will share that information. You’re asking me to go and chase rumors. There was a conspiracy theory – > > Q: I think – > > Scott McClellan: Hold on, hold on, Helen. There was a conspiracy theory made by one individual, when everybody he accused of being involved in that said, it’s ridiculous, didn’t happen. > > Q: This is not based on a conspiracy theory. > > Scott McClellan: And there was a lot of attention given to this individual, and he’s been discredited. _There’s a Boston Globe article on it this morning_. And there are some – > > Q: That says what? Your point – > > Scott McClellan: You can go read it. I mean, we’ve got other things to move on to. I mean, you can go read it. But there are some, unfortunately, who simply are not interested in the facts. Again, the documents – the records document that he did serve while in Alabama. And now there are people that are bringing up issues that were addressed four years ago. > > Q: But you still haven’t answered Helen’s question. She asked you a simple question. > > Scott McClellan: There are people that want to replay the 2000 campaign all over again, Bill, and – > > Q: You still haven’t answered her question about community service. > > Scott McClellan: – there are too many important – there are too many important policies and decisions that are being made that we need to discuss. > > Q: Why does a “yes” or “no” elude you on this? > > Scott McClellan: I didn’t say that. I said that these were all issues addressed four years ago. If there’s additional information – > > Q: This issue quite obviously wasn’t addressed four years ago. > > Scott McClellan: Oh, issues – these issues were addressed four years ago. > > Q: This issue was? The community service issue was addressed four years ago? > > Scott McClellan: The issues – the issues that we’re going to here – > > Q: I don’t recall – > > Scott McClellan: This is called chasing a rumor. And I’m not going to engage in this kind of politics, Bill. > > Q: – finding out whether a rumor is true or false. > > Scott McClellan: No, this issue, absolutely – > > Q: Why can’t you say whether or not he performed community service? > > Scott McClellan: Absolutely, this issue came up four years ago. And if you all want to play politics, then go call the RNC, call the campaign. > > Q: The best defense is offense. We know that. Just, all you’ve got to say is you don’t know. > > Scott McClellan: Helen, it was – this issue was addressed four years ago. I think people that were involved in the campaign will know – > > Q: – if they know – > > Scott McClellan: – that the issue that you’re trying to bring up was addressed four years ago. It’s about chasing rumors. > > Q: It isn’t a question of four years ago. The issue has come up now, very large. > > Scott McClellan: I’m not going to get into chasing rumors. > > Q: Headlines. > > Scott McClellan: I’m not going to get into chasing rumors. > > Q: So you refuse to answer the question? > > Scott McClellan: You’re saying that people said he was forced to do something, and you’re asking me to chase a rumor. > > Q: Everything is politics today, of course. > > Q: She asked you a “yes” or “no” question. > > Scott McClellan: Look, if you all want to – this is just politics. That’s what this is. And if there’s any more information I have to share with you all, I will always – I will do that. > > Q: Scott, I have a question of this individual, and I confess, I haven’t read the Boston article. But who – what do you believe was this person’s motivation, that if they have been discredited, for making these allegations? > > Scott McClellan: Just – _I would read The Boston Globe_. Everybody that he accused of being involved in this has said it was totally ridiculous. And there are others that – > > Q: So are you saying – was it politically motivated? > > Scott McClellan: _There are others that are quoted in The Boston Globe today, that you might want to see what they said_.\*\* Now, you might note from the exchange above that McClellan seemed anxious for members of the press corps to read a certain article in the Boston Globe that morning; he mentions it not less than 7 times, by my reckoning. And what did that Boston Globe article contain? Well, in part, it contained Calhoun’s testimony that he had seen Bush 8 to 10 times between May and October of 1972. Enterprising journalists read the story after that morning’s gaggle, did the math, and decided to ask about it later that afternoon at the White House Press Briefing. Notice how McClellan suddenly [backtracks](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040213-4.html#4): > [@](#): > > \*\* Q Can I ask you a question, Scott? I just want to be absolutely clear on something here. The records that you released earlier this week on the President’s Guard service state that he did not perform any Guard service in the third quarter of 1972. That’s correct? > > MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have the records in front of you, and they state the dates on which he was paid. And you are paid for the days on which you serve. > > Q So they state that between April 16th of 1972 and October 28th of 1972 he did no Guard duty. > > MR. McCLELLAN: We’ve been through these issues, John, and we’ve provided you with the documents that show his service. > > Q And do you believe that’s correct, that he did no duty between April 16th and October 28th? > > MR. McCLELLAN: John, I don’t know why we need to go through this again. This issue we’ve been through earlier this week. > > Q Well, the reason I bring up the question is that John Calhoun, who claims he was the person in charge of making sure that President Bush reported for duty at the 187th Tactical Recon Group, says that he saw the President several times on the base between May and October of 1972, yet there is no record of him being there, in terms of what you released earlier this week. > > MR. McCLELLAN: _I don’t speak for him. You would have to talk to Mr. Calhoun. I do not know him_. > > Q We did talk to Mr. Calhoun, and Mr. Calhoun said that he saw the President several times between May and October of 1972. > > MR. McCLELLAN: And like I’ve said – > > Q So I was just wondering, can you explain that discrepancy? > > MR. McCLELLAN: And like I’ve said, the President doesn’t recall the specific dates on which he performed his duties. He does remember serving both in Alabama and in Texas. During that entire period, he was a member of the Texas Air National Guard. > > Q But the records that you released do recall quite specifically the days that the President served on. There’s no record of his being there – > > MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, these are National Guard records that document the President did serve during that time period. And that was an issue that was raised earlier this week. > > Q Right. But the records clearly recall that he did no Guard duty between April 16th and October 28th. Yet, Mr. Calhoun says he saw him on the base at the 187th between May and October of '72. So there’s a discrepancy here. I’m wondering if you can explain it? > > MR. McCLELLAN: John, again, we’ve provided you with the records and the facts are in the records that we have. > > Q A good point. Could the records be incomplete? > > MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry? > > Q Could the records be incomplete? > > MR. McCLELLAN: Direct that question to the National Guard. These are the personnel records that we’ve received. > > Q Scott, have you been through the entire personnel file now? And have you released everything you’re going to release? > > MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, that if there is additional information that comes to our attention that is relevant to the issue, we will certainly provide you with that information. That’s a commitment that we’ve made. > > Q But have you seen the entire file? That sounds like a reasonable question. > > MR. McCLELLAN: Have I seen the entire file? I don’t know the answer to that question at this point, because there is a possibility – we have expected to receive additional documents from the National Guard. I think we just very recently received some additional documents, but I’m not sure if any of those documents are new. We’re going to take a look at those. We’ll take a look at those, and if there’s new information relevant to the issue, then we will certainly provide you with that information.\*\* In other words, first McClellan insists that the reporters read this Boston Globe article; but, when it turns out that Calhoun’s story doesn’t make sense, time-wise, McClellan’s disavows any knowledge of Calhoun whatsoever. Now, I’m wondering: Calhoun supposedly spent 8 to 10 days hanging out with Bush in a room, reading magazines. Calhoun claims to remember this quite clearly. Yet Bush has no memory of Calhoun at all, apparently. He can neither confirm nor deny Calhoun’s story. Doesn’t that smell just a little bit fishy to you? There should have been some paperwork regarding the physical Bush missed. In **Airman’s** words: > [@](#): > > _I find it hard to believe that there is no paper trail for one Lt. Bush, Texas ANG somehwhere. There should be substantial evidence for anything you could possibly want to know. Hell, DFAS should have his address of record for pay purposes still AFAIK. If you know what to look for you can find anything out about anyone, and with the paper trail the military makes you leave it should be easy to check out._ The lack of such paperwork is puzzling. The lack of paperwork also fits like a glove with Bill Burkett’s story that “embarrassing” documents were removed from Bush’s file in 1997. And so forth. Bush promised to release his entire file, but as the last exchange between McClellan and the reporters quoted above makes abundantly clear, the White House only released what it considered to be the “relevant” documents. So Bush has once again reneged on his promise. He could sign a simple waiver, release his files into the public domain (as John McCain has done, for example), and put an end to the entire mill of rumors surrounding these questions, yet he refuses to. Why? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/197 "2004-02-22T23:03:14Z")
Goodness, Scott McClellan has got to be the worse press secretary ever. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/198 "2004-02-22T23:34:03Z")
I’m a bit confused on that issue as well, **Svin**. I have the distinct impression that a statement was offered to the effect that all the records had been released, with the exception of medical records, which the press were permitted to examine, but not to copy or remove. But when I stop to think, I don’t recall any specific statement:“This is it, this is all there is, you got what we got and we didn’t withold or redact anything.” Its possible, I suppose, that if they came across anything solidly exculpatory, they could release it and claim that they had never _specificly_ said that everything had been released. Further, I have to wonder about those medical records. How much time was permitted to read them? Has anyone said “I’ve checked them all out, and there isn’t anything there”? Another niggling doubt: it has been remarked here as to the lack of any documentation regarding official response to GeeDubya’s missing his physical. Which, by all accounts, should be there if we are to regard this collection as complete. Might they have been included in the witheld "medical"documents since, by a very generous interpretation, they might be construed as being documents that bear on a medical matter, however indirectly. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/199 "2004-02-23T00:58:04Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **Scylla** :Point the first: charity giving is not the same as community service (as others have in this thread have already pointed out). Is that what Bush did at Pull? What made it so different than sitting on the board of a charity? If you’re going to characterize Bush’s activities, you need to know what they were. Cute? > [@](#): > > Point the second: okay, I should have been more precise and written, “\*Secondly, it simply strikes me as curious that George would suddenly embark on a period of community service at one point, never before having shown an interest in such service and never offering it again, afterwards, **to my knowledge** You’ve indicated that you don’t have any knowledge concerning Bush’s previous charity work, or his charity work after Project Pull. My point is that if you have no knowledge, saying “to my knowledge” really isn’t that impressive a disclaimer. It’s like a virgin saying "there is no such thing as a penis, **to my knowledge** Big whoop. > [@](#): > > Now, I personally feel that a number of factors point to _something_ mysterious going on in Bush’s life between May and October of 1972. That “something” could be a drug bust, a DUI, a religious conversion, or a simple paperwork snafu. Judging by the manner in which Bush and his various handlers have tried to deal with this something, I suspect that it’s a rather unflattering something – trouble with the law, perhaps. Beyond that, I fear, I have absolutely nothing to offer. Again, what he actually are left with is that in your mind you feel **something** is going on. Correct me if I’m wrong but you’ve already admitted to having a strong predilection against Bush, so in the face of your admitted bias I really have a lot of trouble accepting your faith-based rationalizations. > [@](#): > > [this exchange](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002555) between Helen Thomas and Scott McClellan at the Feb. 13th Press Gaggle:Now, you might note from the exchange above that McClellan seemed anxious for members of the press corps to read a certain article in the Boston Globe that morning; he mentions it not less than 7 times, by my reckoning. And what did that Boston Globe article contain? Well, in part, it contained Calhoun’s testimony that he had seen Bush 8 to 10 times between May and October of 1972. Enterprising journalists read the story after that morning’s gaggle, did the math, and decided to ask about it later that afternoon at the White House Press Briefing. Notice how McClellan suddenly [backtracks](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040213-4.html#4):In other words, first McClellan insists that the reporters read this Boston Globe article; but, when it turns out that Calhoun’s story doesn’t make sense, time-wise, McClellan’s disavows any knowledge of Calhoun whatsoever. Now, I’m wondering: Calhoun supposedly spent 8 to 10 days hanging out with Bush in a room, reading magazines. Calhoun claims to remember this quite clearly. Yet Bush has no memory of Calhoun at all, apparently. He can neither confirm nor deny Calhoun’s story. Doesn’t that smell just a little bit fishy to you? No. Not at thirty years removed. Not concerning a few nonnotable days of service. 13 years ago I worked in two different boardrooms. In each case I sat in an open cubicle (no walls in the cubicle) for over a year. In each case there were 8 adjacent cubicles. For the most part they were continuously occupied by the same people. I think I can envision maybe 8 of these 16 people (actually it’ more like 20 since there was some turnover.) Those three I can name because something significant happened in each case to make it memorable with those people. Everybody else is a blank. We’re talking about 5 days a week for a year and a half. So, if we’re talking about 3-4 unnoteable occasions thirty years ago, I’m not surprised at all. > [@](#): > > There should have been some paperwork regarding the physical Bush missed. In **Airman’s** words:The lack of such paperwork is puzzling. The lack of paperwork also fits like a glove with Bill Burkett’s story that “embarrassing” documents were removed from Bush’s file in 1997. And so forth. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again; You can’t construe anything from a lack of evidence. The Guards notoriously poor record keeping has already been cited. This dog doesn’t hunt. > [@](#): > > Bush promised to release his entire file, but as the last exchange between McClellan and the reporters quoted above makes abundantly clear, the White House only released what it considered to be the “relevant” documents. So Bush has once again reneged on his promise. He could sign a simple waiver, release his files into the public domain (as John McCain has done, for example), and put an end to the entire mill of rumors surrounding these questions, yet he refuses to. Why? We’ve been over this already, just as we’ve been over the McClellen thing already. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/200 "2004-02-23T01:05:51Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No. Not at thirty years removed. Not concerning a few nonnotable days of service. 13 years ago I worked in two different boardrooms. In each case I sat in an open cubicle (no walls in the cubicle) for over a year. In each case there were 8 adjacent cubicles. For the most part they were continuously occupied by the same people. I think I can envision maybe 8 of these 16 people (actually it’ more like 20 since there was some turnover.) Those three I can name because something significant happened in each case to make it memorable with those people. Everybody else is a blank. We’re talking about 5 days a week for a year and a half. So, if we’re talking about 3-4 unnoteable occasions thirty years ago, I’m not surprised at all. Actually, I thought **Mr. Svinlesha** was referring to the actions of McClellan, not Calhoun, as being “fishy.” (Pardon if I’m wrong.) Then again, that might just be typical polticial smokescreen-ing. But that’s how I interpreted that part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231.md?page=11)