# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/61 "2004-02-15T05:40:19Z")
Tris: In these kinds of things, it’s always a toss-up. There are two paths you can take assuming you are innocent of any wrongdoing. Knowing that you are the President means that people are going to be constantly muckraking against you. When you respond and fight an accusation, you give it credence. I don’t hold Bush responsible to prove he is innocent of any and all allegations that are thrown at him. I expect the people making the allegations to prove them. I place Bush under no onus to assist in fishing expeditions. ---
**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 15, 2004, 9:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/62 "2004-02-15T09:24:59Z")
**Scylla** : To begin with: an almost readable copy of the order denying Bush’s request to transfer to the 9921st can be found [here](http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif). Next, regarding the revocation of Bush’s flight status: at this point, to my knowledge, we’ve got something of a Mexican standoff. In one corner we have Bartlett, who provides a plausible _prima facie_ explanation of Bush’s decision to simply let the physical slide. On the other hand we have the testimony of a couple of National Guard bigwigs, who claim a reserve pilot can’t just decide, on his own, to not take a physical, for whatever reason. In addition, we have common sense – admittedly, not always the best guide – but which would lead one to suspect that, after spending close to a million bucks training a fledgling reservist into the highly specialized and dangerous job of fighter pilot, the US military would require its pound of flesh. In other words, as a layman in these matters, I nevertheless have a hard time believing that the Air Force would allow a pilot to decide, “Nahhh….I think I’ll be a mailman instead,” half-way through his tour of duty. We also have testimony that, while the 187th Recon didn’t have F-102, they _did_ have Phantoms, which Bush conceivably could have flown. (Please don’t ask me to cite that, I just read it somewhere in all this mess.) Regarding the “probe” that should have been conducted: > [@](#): > > - I’m not sure this is correct. The Vietnam was over. Bush was leaving the guard. His aircraft was obsolete. It seems pretty straightforward.\* Well, to be clear, when Bush lost his flight status he still had two years (give or take) left before he could muster out. He lost his flight status in August of 1972, but he wasn’t scheduled to leave ANG until sometime in 1974. But like you, I don’t know if a probe would be necessarily initiated for this infraction or not, myself. The _Boston Globe_ claims that it should have. Again, maybe **Airman** could shed a bit of light on that question. Anyway, your repeated assertion in this thread that Bush didn’t take a physical because he was “almost done” with his service doesn’t hold water; in July, he still had a couple of years of service left. And then we come to the gist of the issue. Discussing the question of the missing physical with **Big e** you opine: > [@](#): > > - Yet apparently, the Guard didn’t have much of a problem with it. I honestly don’t know if this was a mere formality, or technicality, or a case of gross negligence. I’m assuming that because the Guard treated it as a formality that could be ommitted, and because I have a cite saying “there was no reason to take it,” that it was a formality.\* And the thing is, _we don’t know that_. Neither you nor I know if the Guard had “much of a problem with it,” because, despite promises to the contrary, _Bush refuses to release his entire military record_. So there is the distinct possibility that the Guard did have a problem with it, and that the White House is trying to keep that problem from public view. Meanwhile, some other folks are beginning to come out of the woodwork and testify that they saw Bush at one point or another during the period in question. None of the 25 to 30 pilots who were serving with the 187th Recon remember him, however. And the currently most well-known witness, John Calhoun, claims to have seen Bush at drills between May and October of 1972; _yet Bush wasn’t assigned to the 187th until Sept. 15_. In fact, in May, Bush was still trying to get assigned to the 9921st. Need I mention that Calhoun is a confirmed and enthusiastic supporter of the Republican Party, or would that be out of bounds in this discussion? I only ask because of the enthusiasm with which **Sam** attacked Bartlett on the basis of his history of conflict with the ANG. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/63 "2004-02-15T17:44:12Z")
In the growing blither of cites and counter-cites, I’ve become confused. **Big Svin** avers in his latest “… because, despite promises to the contrary, Bush refuses to release his entire military record…” I was under the (perhaps false) impression that this latest avalanche of documents was offered with the promise that these _were_ the complete records. One would expect so, if only because of the degree of minituae attested to. Are they not? And if they are not, what explanation are we offered? If there are documents being witheld, and yet we are graced with information regarding GW’s hemmorhoid treatments, what are we to make of this? For instance, it stands to reason that GW’s failure to submit to this flight physical simply _must_ have generated some paper. What gives? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/64 "2004-02-15T18:01:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > For instance, it stands to reason that GW’s failure to submit to this flight physical simply _must_ have generated some paper. What gives? Not necessarily. [National Guard records in disarray:](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/7959761.htm) > [@](#): > > The controversy over President Bush’s time in the Air National Guard has exposed one not-so-secret aspect of the Guard’s record-keeping: It has been full of gaps and inaccuracies for years. > > Contrary to the military’s general image of orderliness and discipline, the process of documenting the service of Guard members and reservists has long suffered from disorder and incompleteness, according to people both inside and outside the Pentagon familiar with the records system. You’ve been insisting for quite some time that the US military is a paragon of fastidious record keeping. The NG, at least, belies that assertion. I’m not saying this exonerates Bush, but can we at least stop with the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” line of reasoning? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/65 "2004-02-15T18:06:18Z")
Svin: > [@](#): > > To begin with: an almost readable copy of the order denying Bush’s request to transfer to the 9921st can be found here. And as it clearly states Bush had explicit permisision to “Afgle et '; fionfu” so I don’t see what the problem is 😉 > [@](#): > > Next, regarding the revocation of Bush’s flight status: at this point, to my knowledge, we’ve got something of a Mexican standoff. In one corner we have Bartlett, who provides a plausible prima facie explanation of Bush’s decision to simply let the physical slide. Yes. It is a Mexican standoff. I guess the question becomes an examination of Bush’s specific circumstances compared to other pilots with similar circumstances who were in the guard at the time, to see if Bush’s actions were unusual or derelict on a comparative basis with the norm. > [@](#): > > Well, to be clear, when Bush lost his flight status he still had two years (give or take) left before he could muster out. He lost his flight status in August of 1972, but he wasn’t scheduled to leave ANG until sometime in 1974. Right, but wasn’t the military downsizing at this time? Their laxity and inclination to let him out isn’t necessarily unusual. > [@](#): > > And the thing is, we don’t know that. Neither you nor I know if the Guard had “much of a problem with it,” because, despite promises to the contrary, Bush refuses to release his entire military record. So there is the distinct possibility that the Guard did have a problem with it, and that the White House is trying to keep that problem from public view. Again, like Elucidator, I was under the impression that the whole Tamale is now out there. Is this incorrect? > [@](#): > > Need I mention that Calhoun is a confirmed and enthusiastic supporter of the Republican Party, or would that be out of bounds in this discussion? I guess that kind of goes without saying. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/66 "2004-02-15T18:18:20Z")
Well, not _quite_. The military is an example of _compulsive_ record keeping, not necessarily a paragon thereof. Big difference. As to the “absence of evidence”, I’m sure such a stipulation would be greeted with gracious acceptance on the part of the Bushiviks. There are gaps in the records, sloppy record keeping may be the answer. But it isn’t the only possible answer. Are we given to understand that we have “the complete records” as promised? Because otherwise, we are left with examining just those records which the WH house vetted and found undamaging. Not exactly my definition of entire candor. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/67 "2004-02-15T18:28:34Z")
It’s up to **Mr. S.** to prove his assertion with a credible cite. Until then, I see no reason to believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/68 "2004-02-15T18:29:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m not saying this exonerates Bush, but can we at least stop with the “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” line of reasoning? I dunno, the index of that particular heuristic took a big uptick with the whole Iraqi WMD thing. Why _not_ apply tools that have a track record of success in regard to the president’s prior claims? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/69 "2004-02-15T18:47:00Z")
[http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/13/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/) "About 400 pages of what officials have been able to find of his military records – from 1968 to 1973 – were released early in the evening. " [snip] “The documents released contained only one statement related to his service between May 1972 and May 1973, after Bush asked for a transfer from Texas to Alabama so he could work on the Senate campaign of family friend Winton Blount.” Note well: firstly, the phrase “have been able to find”. To my mind, this does not rise to the point of saying “you now have _all_ the records”. Secondly, as to the crucial period of time, there was only one document pertaining thereto. So, what you have is a massive release of irrelevant material. Of course, this is CNN’s phrasing, not the WH’s. A quick Google search does not offer any further clarification, that is, I find no story that has any WH official declaring that everything is out there, which, were it so, they would certainly not be reluctant to state. Curiouser, Alice, curiouser. ---
**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 15, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/70 "2004-02-15T19:06:31Z")
**S & e** : The whole tamale? Well, perhaps, in which case, we’ve come to the end of the line. But there are so many unanswered questions rolled up in that tamale, I must say I don’t know what to make of it myself. Anyway, I’m in the process of tracking down the press meeting in which these things were discussed. I specifically remember McClellan explaining that the White House had received Bush’s file, and that Dan Bartlett was going through it prior to its release – so as to make sure that only the “relevant documents” were exposed. One member of the gaggle/briefing asked if Bartlett had been “burning the midnight oil” pouring over the file prior to its release, and McClellan, as usual, gave one of his standard non-replies. I’m still trying to locate that exchange, however, and will have to get back to you on it. I’m sorry if I sound so suspicious these days. I just don’t trust anything that comes slithering out of _Casa Blanche_ without some sort of independent confirmation. It appears that there should be documents in the file that are missing – but is this due to ANG sloppiness, or a result of an infamous “Shrub Scrub?” Can’t tell you. According to CalPundit, the released file should have contained a DD-214 Separation Report. That report, Mr. Drum tells us, would solve the entire mystery. Yet after the dump on Friday, the NYT reported: > [@](#): > > \*\* But the hundreds of pages of National Guard files contain no new evidence and are unlikely to change the basic standoff between Mr. Bush and the Democrats, which is where, when and how often the president showed up for duty from May 1972 to May 1973…. > > The only document in the two-inch-thick stack that puts Mr. Bush in Alabama in that period is a document that the White House released on Wednesday, a copy of a dental exam performed at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery on Jan. 6, 1973.\*\* So, I’m at a loss. Finally, all of this confusion could be averted if Bush would simply sign a waiver and allow the press access to his personnel file directly, under the FOIA – although, admittedly, that might be asking for a bit much. On the other hand, one would think it would be in Bush’s own best interest, especially if his service is as honorable as many here assert, to simply open up the file to public scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/71 "2004-02-15T19:12:16Z")
Of interest, perhaps, if not of direct relevence, the results from CNN Weekend Poll, asking whether or not the recent releases have “cleared up” the issue. 86% no, 14% yes. Oh, dear. Karl Rove sleeps like a baby: he wakes up every two hours, shits his pants and cries himself back to sleep. Me, I’m ordering new dancing shoes. Sometimes a patriot has just _got_ to boogie! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/72 "2004-02-15T19:14:30Z")
**Svin** , I caution against looking over all those press conferences, they are enough to drive one mad. Evasion upon evasion, it reminds one more of a display of bull fighting than anything remotely connected to fostering clarity. You _will_ end up tearing your hair and annoying the local caribou. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/73 "2004-02-15T19:26:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Of interest, perhaps, if not of direct relevence, the results from CNN Weekend Poll, asking whether or not the recent releases have “cleared up” the issue. 86% no, 14% yes. > > Oh, dear. Karl Rove sleeps like a baby: he wakes up every two hours, shits his pants and cries himself back to sleep. Me, I’m ordering new dancing shoes. Sometimes a patriot has just _got_ to boogie! [This](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/7950330.htm) might help a bit with the sleeping problem. 🙂 But a more relavent poll better describes why [Demos [are] wary on military issue](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/7959766.htm): > [@](#): > > a Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 66 percent of all voters believed that questions about Bush’s Guard service were ``not a legitimate issue.’’ This view was held even by 56 percent of all Democrats. Eighty-two percent of all Republicans and 66 percent of all independents did not think Bush’s Vietnam War-era history was relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/74 "2004-02-15T19:41:50Z")
> [@](#): > > **elucidabop** : Me, I’m ordering new dancing shoes. > Sometimes a patriot has just got to boogie! Right on, good rocking daddy, so watch this **patriot** go. > **[Dancing Bush - A free Political Game](https://www.miniclip.com/games/dancing-bush/en/)** > > Make Bush dance the night away! This year Mr. Bush has many many good reasons to be happy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/75 "2004-02-15T19:44:55Z")
I have some sympathy with that stance, as I’ve stated. If GW would simply say “I was young and full of shit, I fucked up” I, for one, would be inclined to take it off the table. Its not like we have any lack of ammo, Heaven knows. Kerry himself has already stated his disinterest, and I agree with him. But if GW is attempting to shift the focus as a cover-up, that’s a different kettle of piranha. And, for another thing, the damage has been done. At the very best, GW comes off as lackadaisical and disconnected, any comparison to Kerry’s service record is laughable. That leaves them with gay marriage and Jane Fonda. As for Nader, forget it. No way. There’s a big, big difference between 2000 and now. As I’ve said before, GeeDubya fooled _me_ as well. I wasn’t that het up about the election, it seemed to be center right against center left, nothing to get all twisted up about. But not now. The progressive wing of America is solid, roused, and spoiling for a fight. Nader’s bid for an irrelevant but symbolic vote will go nowhere, big time and down town. Perhaps some day the lines of division in America will be between the Democrats (conservative) and the Green/Trotskyist Alliance. Wouldn’t that be swell! ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/76 "2004-02-15T19:50:22Z")
Sure, **John** , the Guard service and Vietnam \*themselves \* are so far in the past that they’re not important - _themselves_. The _cover-up_ is current, though, and will prove to be the damaging factor if he keeps it up. Current also is the casualty count in the war he sent so many people into so frivolously. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/77 "2004-02-15T20:00:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Sure, **John** , the Guard service and Vietnam \*themselves \* are so far in the past that they’re not important - _themselves_. The _cover-up_ is current, though, and will prove to be the damaging factor if he keeps it up. Current also is the casualty count in the war he sent so many people into so frivolously. It’s over. You can call the release of 400 pgs of his military record a “cover-up”, but I doubt that anyone not of the extreme partisan stripe will agree with you. This issue is dead by the end of the week (at the latest). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/78 "2004-02-15T20:41:54Z")
Not given the \*absence \* in this “full record” of anything about Bush actually serving in Alabama (which is apparent), and leads to a closer examination of his “decision” to spend that time at Project PULL (which it has, and will at this rate). The only way this or that really disappears is if Bush does say something along the lines already suggested, that he was young and irresponsible, didn’t want to cause his family embarrassment, and he’s sorry and asks our forgiveness. That’s all it would take, but without it this is hardly going away completely - even if it isn’t in the papers every day, his reputation for irresponsibility and arrogance is being reinforced, not dissipated, and at a time when undecided voters are starting to pay attention. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/79 "2004-02-15T22:58:59Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You can call the release of 400 pgs of his military record a “cover-up”, but I doubt that anyone not of the extreme partisan stripe will agree with you. Quantity, not quality, eh? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2004, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/80 "2004-02-15T23:11:36Z")
Well, now, **John** , it doesn’t strike you as being the least bit odd? Out of 400 pages of documents, only one…count 'em, _one_!..has any bearing at all on the dates in question, and that one had already been released. Nothing strange about that? Nothing at all? What are the odds of cutting a pack of cards 20 times and only once turning up an eight, a nine, or a ten? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231.md?page=5)