# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/121 "2004-02-17T02:41:41Z")
Denial is also a river. There is none so blind as those that will not see. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/122 "2004-02-17T02:48:01Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > …Even if Bush, who was trained on a slightly different aircraft than the F4 Phantom jets flown by the squadron… The F-4 is ‘slightly’ different from the F-102? :rolleyes: Nice cite, **Reeder**. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/123 "2004-02-17T02:48:06Z")
Stupidity is also a small town in Nevada. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/124 "2004-02-17T03:28:40Z")
[Moderator Hat ON] I hear Stay-on-the-Topic-Which-Is-Not-Amusing-Place-Names-That-Can-Perhaps-Be-Taken-as-Personal-Insults is the translated name of a small borough in Germany (Staydëntüpicasnosprechenstüpicas). [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/125 "2004-02-17T05:35:46Z")
Boiled down, the question of “privilege” > [@](#): > > …If the Guard was willing to grant him his release there is no wrongdoing in accepting it… Just so. That GeeDubya recieved, and almost certainly expected, a military committment with little of the vexations common to that committment. I refer you to the previous post, where linked to a cite reviewing some of the documents in question: "For Bush’s fifth year in the Guard, May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a total of 41 “points” for his service and was granted another 15 “gratuitous” points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records showing he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972. " This paragraph, to my partisan mind, says that in the year from May 72 to May 73, GeeDubya was below the minimum requirement for the year, and was simply “…granted another 15 gratuitous points by his superiors…”. Unless, of course, in some arcane semantics “gratuitous” means “awarded due to exceptional diligence”. I think not, I think it means what it means in English: simply just plain given. All in all, it paints a picture of minimal effort, minimal concern, and an eye on the “gentleman’s C”. **Scylla** valiantly defends the innermost barricade, that there was no actionable wrong-doing, or at least none that we Google hounds and blog sniffers will ever prove. Quite probably so, I wouldn’t doubt it. But if all you can do is offer a defense of genteel mediocrity, of a committment to perform to the legal minimum (unsuccessfully, it would seem), so to protect GeeDubya from a charge of actual criminal neglect of duty…well, its a small enough smattering of dignity to cling to. Whyever should you bother? ---
**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 18, 2004, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/126 "2004-02-18T06:45:07Z")
Another blow together for the ‘bush was AWOL’ crowd. Remember the good General Turnipseed? The one who blew this case wide open with his flat-out statement that Bush wasn’t there? Well, it turns out that Calhoun says that he was introduced to Bush by none other than Gen. Turnipseed. And guess what? Turnipseed can’t disagree with him. See, he’s got alheimers. [Bush ‘Guard’ Accuser Admits Faulty Memory](http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/17932.htm) And here’s what else [Turnipseed had to say today](http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1076755550203710.xml): > [@](#): > > Calhoun said he had difficulty believing retired Gen. William Turnipseed’s quoted remarks that he didn’t remember Bush showing up at the 187th’s headquarters in 1972, because it was Turnipseed who sent Bush to his office. > > Turnipseed said Friday his memory just may be bad, and he would be inclined to believe Calhoun’s report. He said he worked with Calhoun for years and believes him to be truthful. > > “I have no reason to think that he would tell it any other way than like it is,” Turnipseed said. > > Initially, Turnipseed said he believed he would have remembered Bush if he’d shown up for training. But Friday he said, “The more I hear of this, the more I’m convinced that my statement that I would have remembered Bush is inaccurate. And that hurts me.” ---
**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 18, 2004, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/127 "2004-02-18T06:46:21Z")
Alzheimers. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/128 "2004-02-18T07:11:58Z")
from link: > [@](#): > > recanted his statement that he couldn’t remember if Bush reported for duty, now saying his memory is faulty because he’s in the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s disease. So 4-5 years ago he’d have been what, about as far along as Reagan during his second term? The alzheimers bit calls into question the recantation more than it does Turnipseed’s initial statements. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/129 "2004-02-18T07:32:12Z")
That’s nice, **Sam.** Now, would you like to talk about Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop, two members of the Alabama National Guard who insist Bush never showed up? Neither of _them_ have Alzheimers… > [@](#): > > [**ON GUARD – OR AWOL?**](http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=2837&onthefly=1) > Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him late in that year and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain. > [@](#): > > “THERE’S NO WAY WE WOULDN’T HAVE NOTICED a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him,” insists Mintz, who has begun poring over such documents relating to the matter as are now making their way around the Internet. One of these is a piece of correspondence addressed to the 187th’s commanding officer, then Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, concerning Bush’s redeployment. > > Mintz remembers a good deal of base scuttlebutt at the time about the letter, which clearly identifies Bush as the transferring party. “It couldn’t be anybody else. No one ever did that again, as far as I know.” In any case, he is certain that nobody else in that time frame, 1972-73, requested such a transfer into Dannelly. > [@](#): > > “I talked to one of my buddies the other day and asked if he could remember Bush at drill at any time, and he said, ‘Naw, ol’ George wasn’t there. And he wasn’t at the Pit, either.’” > > The “Pit” was The Snake Pit, a nearby bistro where the squadron’s pilots would gather for frequent after-hours revelry. And the buddy was Bishop, then a lieutenant at Dannelly and now a pilot for Kalitta, a charter airline that in recent months has been flying war materiel into the Iraq Theater of Operations > > “I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush,” confirms Bishop. . “In fact,” he quips, mindful of the current political frame of reference, “I saw more of Al Sharpton at the base than I did of George W. Bush.” Even the current claims by Bill Calhoun that he saw Bush are suspect: > [@](#): > > Even in media venues sympathetic to the president, doubt was cast almost immediately on aspects of Calhoun’s statement – particularly his claim that Lt. Bush was at the 187th during spring and early summer of 1972, periods when the White House itself does not claim the young lieutenant had yet arrived at Dannelly. > > Mintz and Bishop are both skeptical, as well. > > “I’m not saying it wasn’t possible, but I can’t imagine Bill not introducing him around,” Mintz said. “Unless he [Bush] was an introvert back then, which I don’t think he was, he’d have spent some time out in the mainstream, in the dining hall or wherever. He’d have spent some time with us. Unless he was trying to avoid publicity. But he wasn’t well known at all then. It all seems a bit unusual.” No Alzheimer’s here, sorry: > [@](#): > > “Maybe we’re all getting old and senile,” Bishop said with obvious sarcasm. “I don’t want to second-guess Mr. Calhoun’s memory and I would hate to impugn the integrity of a fellow officer, but I know the rest of us didn’t see Lt. Bush.” And a bonus for **elucidator:** those “gratuitous points” Bush received don’t look so good, either: > [@](#): > > For whatever reason, the elusive Lt. George W. Bush was awarded 41 actual points for his service in both Texas and Alabama during 1972 – though he apparently was given 15 “gratuitous” points – presumably by his original Texas command – enough to bring him up from substandard. **That would have been a decided violation of the norm,** according to Rambo, who stresses that the awarding of gratuitous points was clearly meant only as a reward to reservists for meeting their bottom line. But don’t let me interrupt **Sam’s** delusions; I’m sure he’ll have some excuse for why we should ignore these guys; after all, they’re _daring_ to speak ill of _El Presidente!_ ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/130 "2004-02-18T12:37:29Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > All in all, it paints a picture of minimal effort, minimal concern, and an eye on the “gentleman’s C”. **Scylla** valiantly defends the innermost barricade, that there was no actionable wrong-doing, or at least none that we Google hounds and blog sniffers will ever prove. Quite probably so, I wouldn’t doubt it After reading this thread, the links, and many articles, this seems to be the most truthful, sensible conclusion to reach. Bush was not AWOL, he was not a deserter. What he was was a lazy, spoiled, political hack with a rich, powerful Daddy and the sense of duty to his country of a tree stump. Through his Daddy’s influence, he was able to jump over 100,000 people on the waiting list and get an assignment to the Texas National Guard. When he was needed for the next big election for a buddy, he requests a transfer to Alabama, it gets denied. He then re-requests a transfer, which is then miraculously granted. He then goes to Alabama, shows up for a couple times (possilbly), doesn’t get his physical, and skips most of his requirements. Ah, but here’s the rub. They aren’t really requirements. More like “guidelines”. When it appears he may not be able to get the early release he wanted, he gets a few “gratutitous points” that allow him to leave early. I don’t believe he did anything that would amount to desertion or being AWOL. What he did was take full advantage of a lax system that was, at that time, a babysitting service for rich kids. He met all the “requirements” of his stay, in the end because they weren’t really “requirements”. And, oddly enough, I’m not sure I would have done any different were I in Dubya’s father’s place. What really gets my goat though, what makes me seethe with anger when I think about this, is how different his political rhetoric is currently when compared to his actions in the National Guard. His current nationalistic, “if your not with us, you’re against us”, “war presidency” is almost the opposite to his avoiding actual service in Vietnam, relying on Daddy’s power, and doing less than the minimum actions of his youth. But hey, some people change. I’m sure he’s grown up and learned to love his country. God knows it couldn’t be because he wants to get elected. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/131 "2004-02-18T18:27:58Z")
If that’s really the bottom of it, I’d agree with you despite the administrative details of AWOL and desertion, and wonder why Bush refuses to acknowledge it. He has, after all, said things in the past about being “young and irresponsible”, and the, well, stonewalling preceded his commitment of Guard troops to Iraq. Which is why I still smell a drug arrest connected to it, that has the potential to be exposed if the layer of the story over it is ever removed, and political fallout that would be far more serious. But that’s suspicion only, based on the timing and the inner-city community center this spoiled rich kid was somehow drawn to, as well as his careful nondenials, nothing more. The drug story wouldn’t bother me personally, either - it’s the hypocritically inconsistent treatment he propounds for drug users today, and the lesson about the responsibilities of privilege that he has yet to learn. ---
**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 18, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/132 "2004-02-18T19:21:51Z")
Well, I suspect that’s the crux of it, **Elvis**. It’s ironic; those of us who press hardest on the issue – that is, we pinkos – are also that group which would probably be least concerned about a youthful indiscretion or two. But there is a group of voters out there who are extremely stringent in their views of such things: voters for whom duty, service, patriotism, and moral piety are central. _They_ are the group most likely to react negatively should it turn out that some of these allegations are true. They are also among Bush’s most ardent supporters, and I suspect that’s why Bush & Co. are trying to stonewall on this issue so tenaciously. If you see what I mean. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2004, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/133 "2004-02-18T20:18:04Z")
In relating to the last couple posts, I can say for myself also that whether Bush blew off his Guard duty, or snorted coke, or drunk himself blind before getting the wheel of a car, will have no effect on my reasons for not supporting his reelection. It does effect my assessment of his character in that he is being such a weasel about the whole issue, and it makes me scoff at the hypocrisy of his supporters, but it doesn’t effect my vote. I oppose Bush because of his policies, both foreign and domestic, which I believe have been disastrous for the country and for the world. I oppose Bush because of his continuous pattern of secrecy and deception on vital national issues. I suspect the vast majority of people who oppose Bush do so for similar reasons. The whole Guard controversy is incredibly small potatoes compared to manipulating (“cherry picking”) intelligence and deceiving the U.S. public, Congress, the UN, and NATO about the reasons for prosecuting a “damn fool,” preemptive war…among the numerous other examples of gross misconduct and mismanagement perpetrated by our current president and his administration. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/134 "2004-02-19T00:38:59Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > The issue of Bush’s National Guard service first received attention in 2000. During that time no proof of wrongdoing occured, and the matter sunk below the surface until… > > the next election where it could be revived for political purpose. > I have read threads indicating there is damning evidence of wrongdoing. > > I think that after four years of investigation it is reasonable of me to ask: > > … > > What exactly is Bush being accused of, and where is the proof? > > After four years I would expect those who are willing to make accusations against Bush’s Guard service to have a firm case, defining the accusation and demonstrating guilt. > > If such a case is extant I would like to hear it. If such a case is not, I conclude that it is simply accusation for political value, and the worst form of irresponsible derogatory muckraking. No laws were broken and there is no case of unpunished offence, of course. However, this seems to be an episode that makes Bush look not so good. It was mostly overlooked in 2000 because situation was different then. Now, we are, indeed, “at war”, as many Republicans constantly remind us, therefore it is only fair to re-evaluate Bush military record. If a Republican veteran were running to unsit a Democratic president with a similar record as Bush has right now, we’d hear about such an issue constantly and in detail, especially on the radio. Would it be “the worst form of irresponsible derogatory muckraking” then? It is, indeed, an “accusation for political value” and is intended to bring Bush down a bit, and make him look bad vs. Kerry. I think it’s a fair play. In a sense Republicans were asking for it when they were trying to build Bush up as a “war president” and filling the airwaves with such nonsense as “Thanks God for Bush!” after 9-11. The whole thing is highly politicized and extremely inflammatory, but what else an issue in a political campaign can be? At least this is a real issue, not some bogus “LIES!!!” or “NO WMD!!!” hysteria. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/135 "2004-02-19T01:16:04Z")
Elvis: > [@](#): > > Which is why I still smell a drug arrest connected to it, that has the potential to be exposed if the layer of the story over it is ever removed, and political fallout that would be far more serious. But that’s suspicion only, based on the timing and the inner-city community center this spoiled rich kid was somehow drawn to, So if Bush was convicted and sentenced as you say, there would be a public record of it seeing as he was past the age of majority. Well… ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/136 "2004-02-19T01:23:19Z")
> [@](#): > > So if Bush was convicted and sentenced as you say, there would be a public record of it seeing as he was past the age of majority. > > Well… You say that like no one past the age of majority has ever had their record expunged. It does happen you know. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/137 "2004-02-19T01:40:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Let us note within that link that it does confirm that Bush had permission to go to Alabama. He was denied his first request. His second was accepted. We didn’t know that until now. We knew his first application in May for a transfer to Alabama was denied because the unit he was requesting transfer to was inactive. Then, he misses his physical and gets grounded around the end of July. Then, from the details discussed in this thread, we knew that Bush was ordered to report to Alabama in September. Now, is your contention simply that we didn’t know before that Bush himself requested this transfer? Question: Could there be a link between missing his physical in the end of July and waiting a month before re-applying for a transfer to a different unit in Alabama? Could his grounded status have helped with the second application for transfer? I read that the Pentagon started random drug-testing around April 1972. Let me state clearly that it does not mean Bush missed his physical because of that but it is a fact to be considered while building up a case. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/138 "2004-02-19T01:40:56Z")
> [@Reeder](#): > > You say that like no one past the age of majority has ever had their record expunged. > > It does happen you know. I suppose it is possible that Bush was arrested, sentenced and convicted then served a community service sentence, and then later the record was expunged, and then the record at the inner city group was then expunged, and subsequently everyone who ever had knowledge of it, either died, had their memory altered or forgot so that there is absolutely no trace that it ever happened. I am essentially open to the idea, just as I was essentially open to the idea that Bush had his family pull get him the Guard appointment. I am not an unreasonable human being. I just need you to show why believing it to be true is the most rational interpretation of events. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/139 "2004-02-19T01:52:07Z")
> [@litost](#): > > We knew his first application in May for a transfer to Alabama was denied because the unit he was requesting transfer to was inactive. Correct. > [@](#): > > Bush misses his physical and gets grounded around the end of July. Then, from the details discussed in this thread, we knew that Bush was ordered to report to Alabama in September. Now, is your contention simply that we didn’t know before that Bush himself requested this transfer? You’ve got the sequence of events wrong. Bush “Cleared the Base” in Houston on May 15. He was not yet reassigned at the time he was grounded, his first request having been denied. By the time his second request got approved he was already grounded. I have no idea whether he could have taken his physical somewhere else though, but he was no longer in Houston and not yet reassigned when the time to take his physical expired. Bush claims that his paperwork had not caught up with him, and it was bureacratically inevitable that he was unable to take his physical due to his transient status. [quote] Question: Could there be a link between missing his physical in the end of July and waiting a month before re-applying for a transfer to a different unit in Alabama? Could his grounded status have helped with the second application for transfer? [quote] I think the dates are referring to when the transfer requests were acted on, not when they were made. I base this on the fact that the transfer request referred to as the Sept 5, one had him supposed to be reporting on the 15th. If Bush only applied on the 15th and it got reviewed approved and mailed back to Bush in 10 days that would be very fast, indeed. So, I assume the Sept 5 refers to the approval date and not the actual date Bush applied. > [@](#): > > I read that the Pentagon started random drug-testing around April 1972. Let me state clearly that it does not mean Bush missed his physical because of that but it is a fact to be considered while building up a case. I guess. On would need to connect that fact with Bush having missed his physical in some way in order to make it anything but an idle speculation though. I’m happy to consider it as a possibility. That’s still far from an assertion, though. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2004, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231/140 "2004-02-19T02:30:43Z")
Here’s an interesting article about community service…well…it was a press conference. Why couldn’t Scott McClellan just answer yes or no? [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2004\_02\_08.html#002555](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002555) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-case-against-bush-national-guard/229231.md?page=8)