From my understanding, the documents weren’t released to the public. They were made available for viewing (but not copying) by reporters under controlled supervision.
Do you really not get it, or are you simply pretending not to? Such an action would be entirely out of character for a rich young man interested mainly in beer, pussy, cars, and perhaps a little blow. It does not fit for someone who’s supposed to be in another state, on duty in uniform. The duration, exactly six months, and lack of repetition of the experience in any other discernible way that might reflect a change in life attitudes, rather a return to catting around until about the age of 40, also bespeak a certain lack of conviction on his part - or is that more likely the *presence * of a conviction? Perhaps with a first-offender expungement of the record after six months of community service? Go with Occam.
Yes, that matters. A cocaine conviction would invalidate him from holding a security clearance. Remember the carefully-worded non-denials on that point from the last campaign, when those same questions were asked of all candidates and answered directly by all but one?
The new documents, of course, do not even prove he was in Alabama during the period in question, despite your confident assurance - not to mention your adamance about applying *legal * standards of evidence to the court of public opinion, which this certainly is.
MMI, the rush to bug out of Iraq would seem more likely to be paced by the election, wouldn’t it?
SG, good, thoughtful description. From Guardsmen I know, it isn’t always entirely different today, either.
Actually ElvisL1ves I was just making a flip suggestion that had we known the truth about GWB’s TANG record, we might have suggested that he lacked the stick-to-it-iveness necessary to run a foreign policy. Yes, I agree that the election cycle has a good deal to do with the Iraq schedule. As apparently it did with GWB’s TANG performance, no? 
It was really just a cheap shot throwaway line though.
You stop the wife-beating or are you still in denial?
That’s right. Your preconceptions don’t fit the facts. An intelligent man would reexamine his preconceptions.
Yeah. They could be forgeries. That’s for you to prove.
My point exactly. The accusations are irresponsible. They don’t have to be responsible. The issue isn’t whether Bush did something wrong or did not fulfill his Guard duty. It’s about trying to make people think he did for political purpose.
Like I said in my OP: It’s baseless irresponsible partisan muckraking. You need to have evidence before you make the accusation.
What facts? You have facts? Facts that would support an image of a deeply conscientious frat boy throwing himself whole-heartedly in community service? Oh, dear, in your haste you neglected to include them. Well, here’s another opportunity!
Neatly done! You evade the question of the absence of records by implying forgery, and challenge him to prove the unproveable. Really, classic Scylla. Might have worked if we were stupid. Didn’t.
It isn’t? Really? But they aren’t accusations so much as questions, questions for which we were promised answers. Answers which have not, and are not, forthcoming. You keep trying to phrase this as a criminal accusation, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt from the accuser.
We have oodles and gobs of documentation before the time in question, the same after, and in the middle - an absence. The most prominent feature of a doughnut is the hole.
Doubt has been raised, entirely valid doubt. Questions are asked that have not been answered, nor does it seem likely they will be, after the recent “Operation Candor”. An accusation woud indeed require evidence, a question merely requires a desire to know.
No doubt you are aware, sharp-eyed and impartial as you are, that questions (or baseless slanders) have arisen regarding a possible “cleansing” of GW’s ANG records. For an overview, go here: http://www.calpundit.com/
This is not a court of law, no one is suggesting that GW be charged 30 years after the fact. That would, indeed, raise the bar to convincing proof, and you would be right. But it isn’t, and we haven’t, so you’re not.
Yeah, what he said! Only better.
Seriously, Scylla, do you not know the difference between an allegation and a question, or is it simply inconvenient?
Fact: You and Elvis both characterize Bush as some kind of selfish, n’eer do well, iresponsible frat boy.
Fact: Bush is a Yale graduate, was considered a superior pilot in his service in the Guard, received an honorable discharge, devoted time to charity, and attended Harvard Business school.
You’re seeming to claim that the facts don’t fit the characterization. I agree. As I said, an intelligent man would consider whether his characterization was correct, because the facts are what they are.
You wish to say Bush was not in Alabama. He has pay stubs from Alabama. Do you believe they are falsified? What evidence do you have to support your assertion.
This thread is supposed to be about making your case. We have lots of threads about unsupported speculations. Here, I’m asking you to support them, demonstrate that they are true.
You’ll need to cite that. I don’t recall Bush promising to prove whatever it is your asking. I recall he promised to release his records, which he appears to have done.
We’ve already discussed the level of evidence necessary. So far, you haven’t offered anything to support your allegations. Your allegations only have the absence of evidence to lend them even the possibility of being true. All the actual evidence indicates Bush did as he was supposed to.
Since I did phrase the Op as “The case against Bush” and stipulate that support would be required, you really can’t complain that it’s unfair now.
This is the Straight Dope. This is about fighting ignorance. You have to demonstrate that your contentions are true. Surely you just don’t expect me to accept your speculations as an article of faith, even though that’s what you have seemed to do.
Again, this thread isn’t supposed to be about questions. Indeed, we have a forum specifically for questions. This thread is about proving assertions, making a case.
If you don’t have one, that’s ok.
Again, this is about supporting contentions. If you wish to have another thread where speculations are simply accepted as articles of faith, be my guest.
Sure I do. See the title of this thread and the OP?
Does it say “Post your questions?” or does it say “The case against Bush” and invite you to make one?
So yes, it is inconvenient that I have to address this. Your questions belong elsewhere. Your contentions and support, belong here.
e:
Truer words have never been spoken. I’m still trying to locate the relevant section. However, the gaggle/briefing from Feb. 10 appears promising.
Anyway, this report in the WP seems to substantiate my claims as well:
This was a couple of days before the document dump, however, and they might have changed their mind in the interim. If Bill Bartlett’s accusations are true, the entire file wouldn’t contain any incriminating evidence anyway, since it was “scrubbed” in 1997. See below.
Scylla:
Pe-yew! That’s some might smelly posting. Would you mind not waving around all that offal in public?
On the contrast, this accusation is well-substantiated. A long-time friend of the Bush family, well-placed in the military, testified before Congress that he intervened on behalf of Bush to assure him a slot ahead of 500 other pilot applicants.
No, from what I understand, it was for the first 1/3 to 1/2 of his service term.
Or got into some sort of trouble, possibly involving drugs or alcohol. We don’t know.
We know for a fact that his original request for a transfer was rejected, hands down. This is the second time I’ve pointed this out to you, and I’ve even linked to the document in which his transfer was denied.
We also know that he moved to Alabama anyway, which in and of itself isn’t so damning, as far as I can tell. But he nevertheless failed to show up for a mandatory physical examination in July. This resulted in loss of flight status in August. We have good reason to believe that such a chain of events would have led to the initiation of some kind of investigation regarding Lt. Bush’s whereabouts and possible dereliction of duty. The file released by the Casa Blanche does not contain reference to such an investigation. It is reasonable to request an official explanation for this curious discrepancy.
The fact that the 187th didn’t have any F-102s is neither here nor there, as far as I can tell. Bush’s military contract obligated him to be flight ready regardless of where he was stationed. Even if he was stationed as a postal clerk in Bumfuck, Arkansas, he would be required to be flight ready.
No. See above.
You’re not paying attention. Try again.
Regarding the “speculation” that Bush would have suffered disciplinary action – or, to be technically correct, that he would have been subjected to some kind of investigation or “probe” – we have the testimony of Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., and Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, two National Guard bigwigs, mentioned now by me for the third time in four posts. They did not seem to be “speculating;” rather, they appeared to be stating matters of fact. We therefore have reason to demand from Bush either the results of the investigation which should have occurred, or a reasonable explanation for why it didn’t.
The (current) accusation is that certain “embarrassing” elements of Bush’s military record were redacted in 1997, while he was governor of Texas, by certain high-up members of the TANG, namely: General Daniel James, Adjutant General of the Texas National Guard, along with General John Scribner and General Wayne Marty. These actions were allegedly taken at the behest of Joe Allbaugh, Bush’s Chief of Staff at the time.
That, sir, is speculation. And in fact, to continue this repetitive post, the document I linked to above denied Bush his transfer specifically because it was not a “Ready Reserve” position. This is the second time we’ve gone through this.
I would accept this as a possibility as well, but would like to point out that at this point we have no real way of knowing which of these two versions of the story is closer to the truth. We don’t know if Bush was subjected to an investigation, or disciplinary action, or not.
The “general laxness” you refer to actually undercuts your case, since it would seem to imply that technically, Bush should have been investigated, but was not due to ANG’s sloppy standards. That might be the case as well.
That’s ridiculous. Accusations are often made without evidence. One needs evidence to determine whether or not the accusations are true. That evidence, thus far, is not forthcoming. The released documents appear to have no bearing on Bush’s service in Alabama; for some reason, even his DD-214 appears to be missing. Thus, 400 pages later, we’re left with precisely the same questions as before.
The fuck you say. Getting Bush to release those the few records that have thus far come to light has been an arduous task of tooth-pulling. To this date, he still hasn’t signed a waiver to publicly release his files.
We have an accusation that some members of the TANG, at the recommendation of Bush’s gubernatorial staff, scrubbed his records clean in 1997. In 2004, the released records are apparently incomplete, particularly with reference to a time frame in which Bush appears to have been mysteriously absent from his Guard service. Whatever else you claim, you certainly can’t claim that the lack of records from that period somehow vindicates Bush, or proves his innocence.
Svin:
I’m not aware a string was pulled on Bush’s behalf. Do you have a cite for this testimony?
As for your rehashing of the physical thing, it is as you said previously, a Mexican standoff of conflicting cites.
Yes, and a waiver is required because these matters are private and not subject to scrutiny unless the person in question puts them out there.
That you and others wish to violate or seek entry into Bush’s private records is one thing. His reluctance to release them for general perusal is really his choice. He’s not obligated to to satisfy idle curiosity.
And in fact Bush allowed his medical records to be viewed by members of the press.
There are many reasons why he might wish to keep them nonpublic, ranging from “none of your business,” to “I don’t want the details of my Hemmorhoids leaked to the press.”
There’s a reason why those records are private. Even a President is entitled to some degree of privacy. Any cooperation he is willing to show with (let’s face it, people that are out to get him) is to his credit.
I wouldn’t release my health records. It’s too personal.
So bitching about his reluctance here to release them as evidence of wrongdoing is really baseless.
Absence of proof is not proof of wrongdoing.
A good friend of mine was an Air Force pilot in Viet Nam. A Republican, he truly hated Clinton, for any number of reasons. He disagreed with Clinton’s policies, of course, but it was also something personal. I mean, he just didn’t buy the guy’s act. He had a visceral problem with Clinton he didn’t have with, say, Carter. Or any other democrat, for that matter. Bubba just really rubbed him the wrong way.
(I’ve always found that the majority of people who hated Clinton, really hated Clinton. I mean, sure, people hated Carter, but they didn’t hate Carter. I mean, as a human being. But anyway.)
One day, we’re done with work, sitting at our favorite bar, and I start talking about Clinton and all the allegations of draft dodging. I expect my friend to get on that horse and ride it for all its worth.
My friend just shakes his head and changes the subject, something about genetic material, a dress. I say, Hey, whoa, wait a minute, doesn’t that bother you, this guy maybe dodging the draft and now serving as commander-in-chief, ordering people to do something that he was unwilling to do himself? I should think that would bother you, I mean, of **all ** freaking people.
He sips his beer, and looks at me, says. "No. "
I say, “No?”
He says, “No.”
I say, “Why not?”
He sighs, says:“We were all kind of crazy then. Nobody knew what the hell they were doing, what they should do, whether they were right or wrong, whether they’d later be proven right or wrong. I’ll say it again: Nobody knew what the hell they were doing. If it was right. Everybody was scared. I mean, I wanted to be a general some day, so I guess that’s what I was doing. I won’t speak for anybody else.”
I was stunned.“What, are you saying that he gets a pass from you on this? On this ?”
“Joe,” he says. “We all get a pass on those days. And as for being commander-in-chief, you serve the office, and the constitution, not the man. So, screw it. Doesn’t matter.”
Then he started talking about presidential spooje again.
A couple thoughts here:
In the military, and I know this because I was, whenever you move from one location to another location, you receive a set of orders that you carry with you. These orders are used to check you in to your new location. Sometimes you need a set of orders just to change Commands located on the same base. Then when you leave that location, you receive a new set of orders sending you to that new location. If you never change Commands or location, your original orders stay in effect. During the times inbetween, which could be years, in my case, there is a vast blankness in your “record”.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not one definable record in one location, so it is not that easy to come by. I’m not at all surprised that years later, we are only able to partially piece the President’s record together. Gaps are par for the course. That doesn’t mean that you are AWOL or a deserter. I was never AWOL, but I have only a handful of documents that refer to my military service. And it is only since recently that you would get an official paper Honorable Discharge certificate when you left.
There is an SRB (Service Record Book), which is a loose collection of exams, physicals, qualifications, and random stuff. You take it with you when you leave. It is very disposable. I lost mine two moves ago.
My father was in the National Guard. He was there during his college years. In essence, he did avoid the draft by doing that. But bounce the President’s record up against Clinton’s.
The Airwing during the Vietnam war had the highest per capita fatalities than any other group. Bush was not shirking his duty when he was flying jets.
What I don’t like is that lack of actually seeing these documents through the media. We simply get their hyperbolic rhetoric from their summation of the charges. Meanwhile, anyone who has gone through the US’ military machine could sit down and plot a timeline of the President’s service within an hour.
OK, about the flight physical.
Flight physicals are mandatory. Period. If you’re a flyer and you don’t get one within your allotted time (starting three months before your birthmonth up until the end of your birthmonth) you will be grounded and you will NOT get paid for UTA attendance. The only exceptions are if you’re DNIF or TDY, and if you’re TDY you’ll get it either before you leave or immediately upon returning. Frankly, if Bush wanted to fancy himself a pilot, he should have taken the steps to maintain his ability to fly. Why he didn’t is not my concern, but it’s a poor reflection upon himself and the United States Air Force. Officer or not I would have had more than a few things to talk to him about had I been around then. That is completely unacceptable.
Bush was a very, very poor officer. Different times and different circumstances don’t change that fact. Given all of the things I have read, the hard copy stuff, I’m in awe that he didn’t get sent off to be the mess hall officer in Thule for two years.
Thank God things have changed. Nowadays my Wing Commander would never stand for that kind of thing.
But when it constitutes qualifications for a job we’re hiring him for, sure it does. Is the guy with his hand on the button entitled not to let us know if he’s an alcoholic or drug abuser? You can’t even get a job flipping burgers if you refuse to answer that one on a job application, ya know.
Again an evasion of the point from you, to where your own motives are in question. The problem isn’t the medical records that do exist, but the ones that don’t, because he refused to take the exam, even forfeiting his ability to fly, and won’t say why. The other part of it is why he was working in a community center in Houston when he was supposed to be campaigning, and serving Guard duty, in Alabama. The release of paystubs showing 9 days of credit there for an entire year hardly settles it to the less-decemberish of the world, now does it?
That was a charming attempt at explaining why he couldn’t have been an irresponsible playboy just because he went to Ivy League schools. You *must * know better than that. Hell, he’s admitted it himself, albeit obliquely.
Scylla:
I’ve read it here on the boards, in one of the many threads that have hashed over this issue, but haven’t been able to relocate it yet.
That’s been happening to me a lot, lately.
I agree, in general, but Bush did in fact publicly promise to release all of his military records on Meet the Press. That’s a promise he appears to have reneged on.
Just to be clear, I agree with you on that point. However, by the same token, absence of proof is not proof of right-doing, either. So, from my perspective, it’s still to early to pass judgement, although I freely admit that I suspect the worst. But then again, as an American, I am just naturally suspicious of those in power – and I think that it is the job of a free press to be suspicious as well, and to ask critical questions.
I’ve misunderstood the thrust of your OP; I thought you were simply asking for a general discussion of the circumstances surrounding Bush’s service record, etc. I’ve not been systematically trying to build a case to prove that Bush is guilty of anything; I simply leave it open as a possibility, and would inspect the historical record critically (but hopefully fairly).
Still, were I to start a thread entitled “The Case for Bush,” in which I required participants to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bush had done nothing wrong during his time in the ANG, it might not seem like a very fair set-up to you, no? If I were to then dispute the evidence that existed in his favor, and conclude that those who supported Bush were simply mindless right-wing partisans, you might feel that the presuppositions underpinning my thread were slightly biased, n´est-ce-pas?
P.S.: Spavined, by coincidence, I also did my basic training at good old Fort Lost-in-the-Woods. What a dump.
P.S.S. Hi, Joe! Welcome to the SDMB!
To pre-emptively prevent Scylla from pulling a smarmy “a-ha!”, I believe this is the reference you’re looking for:
Since this was testimony taken under oath, I’d imagine there’s a record of it somewhere in the Texas statehouse. Anyone want to go digging?
Dammit, rjung, you cur, you bounder… I went Googling around, trying track that down, finally a chance to out-cite Svin…and I come sailing back here with the cite in my teeth, only to find you here with a smug look on your face…
Well, this will have to do:
As to the issue about the obsolescence of the airplane the gallant Lt. Bush flew:
http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=165
(Disclaimer: the source of the links is entirely partisan, no question. The links are what they are.)
In his autobiography, Mr. Bush explains that when he applied to Harvard Business School in 1972, “I was almost finished with my commitment in the Air National Guard, and was no longer flying because the F102 jet I has trained in was being replaced by a different fighter.”
“His unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974 [Boston Globe 5/23/00] “If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out” said retired Major Bobby W. Hodges, “But I don’t remember him coming back at all”’.
· “Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972, there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit’s records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102 in 1973.”Boston Globe 5/23/00
(emphasis gleefully added)
Airman Doors:
Interesting. Elucidator’s cite confirms that the standard you say exists now existed then.
That same cite however, says that A Bush spokesman says that Bush was unable to take his physical because his paperwork hadn’t caught up with him. Is this possible?
Rjung:
“Preemptively smarmy?” How about when I do something you can bitch about, but until then, if whine you must then ignore you I shall.
Elvis:
You, as well are not up to the standard that earns the work of a substantive response in your post. “Decemberish” “Motives in question?” Go play in the pit.
Svin:
Maybe. Should we consider medical records military records?
It appeared to me you actually constructed a case on page one. At any rate, if I had a complaint, I would have let you know.
I probably would have pointed that we don’t prove innocence, we prove guilt, that absence of guilt is an inherently difficult thing to prove since there is almost always the possibility of wrong doing, and that is why innocence is assumed and responsible accusations are not made until there is evidence to support them.
One should simply not lightly make an accusation against another.
So, I would have thought it would be a stupid thread and probably wouldn’t have bothered trying to prove the impossible: an absence of wrongdoing.
However, I think that supporting allegations is a reasonable topic. Hence this thread.
Elucidator:
That is a surprisingly good link. It is as you suggest a partisan link presenting a one-sided view.
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.
As for the obsolescence issue, what is there gels with some of the other things we know.
First off, it appears that the planes were obsolete and in the process of being phased out (which happens to be what Bush said.)
We note that it was possible that Bush could have gone back to Houston and conceivably flown the planes since his old unit was still using them. However, he didn’t. He asked for a transfer to Alabama which was granted, and he applied for an early release to go to Harvard which was also granted.
I haven’t double-checked the time frame of these events, but presumably Bush would have found it difficult to fly in Texas while going to school at Harvard.
We may consider that the most diligent and patriotic way to complete his Guard duty would be to stay in Houston and fly obsolete jets until his commitment was over. However, we can hardly consider it a case of wrongdoing if Bush applies for a transfer that is granted and an early release that is granted and does these things.
If the Guard was willing to grant him his release there is no wrongdoing in accepting it.
Now let’s jump back to the exam which was supposed to have been completed by June 16, 1972. Where was Bush at this time?
According to your cite Bush “cleared” his base in Houston on May 15, 1972 for Alabama.
Presumably Bush could have taken his physical before he left. For whatevver reason, he didn’t. Seeing as he didn’t, having “cleared the base” in Houston, yet not yet due to report in Alabama until after the time where he would be suspended it appears that this lapse was bureacratically inevitable.
As far as I’m concerned this clears up the mystery of the physical and subsequent flying suspension, unless I’m missing something.
While clearing up one mystery, it does create another.
Here’s the issue.
Bush “cleared the base” in Houston on May 15, 1972. I’m not sure what this exactly means but I would guess it means he had permission to go. 9 days later his transfer request was denied because the unit he was transferring to was “inactive.”
Now, I don’t know how he was allowed to “clear the base” without a transfer in hand, but it appears he was. Is this unusual? I dunno. Then his second request for transfer on Sept 5, was granted. I don’t know if this means the request was dated Sept 5, or granted on Sept 5.
At any rate he was supposed to report on the 15, and Turnipseed his new commanding officer doesn’t remember him.
Now, I don’t know what this means either. If they granted his request on Sept 5, it’s possible the order took more than 10 days to catch up to him making compliance possible. Or maybe those Alabama pay stubs say “September 15.” Do we have dates on them.
At any rate Bush apparently showed up, got teeth cleaned and collected pay stubs in some fashion that the guard found satisfactory.
I guess the big question was how was Bush able to “clear the base” without a transfer destination in hand? Is this usual? Did the Guard do this?
Nor am I sure what “Clearing the base” means. It could mean he had orders to vacate, or it could me he took off at a dead run without permission while his laundry was in the machine, with Police in hot pursuit…
or anything in between.
But I would guess it would mean that he was allowed to leave.
Now, as for “pulling strings,” this appears to be a good cite on the subject.
Maybe somebody can explain this to me because these two statements seem mutually exlusive. From your cite:
So he said he helped him and said he didn’t help him?
Reading on, apparently Sid Adger a friend of George Senior’s contacted Barnes who contacted somebody with pull in the Guard on behalf of Bush JR. Apparently neither Bush asked him to, and this was done on his own recognizance. That’s the story the Bush’s are sticking to anyway.
Hmmm.
Bearing in mind the partisan nature of the cite, and the fact that it seems to be presenting partial excerpts to favor it’s interpretation rather than the complete story… what we are left with seems reasonably indicative that Bush got help getting his Guard post.
Based on this, and subject to revision if the rest of the story is hidden somewhere or this cite is contradicted, I wil say the following:
It appears to me that the accusation that Bush received undo help or special attention getting his guard position is one that can reasonably be made.
The firsthand evidence is compelling enough for us to believe that it is true.
So, I’ll happy concede that point.
(Now if only you bastards would concede that paystubs from Alabama are reasonable evidence that Bush served in Alabama instead of stonewalling me, we might actually get somewhere.)
At that point Bush was not a flier. The physical. He was suspended from flying. Remember?