Hoo boy.
Sam Stone, if the charges aren’t valid, why can no one simply come forward and say Bush was where he claims to have been? Why won’t he give an interview to the Boston Globe to refute the charges?
He’s already said that he did his service. Why should he have to keep making the same claim all over again? Just where is the burden of proof here?
Why didn’t Clinton keep granting interviews to all those right-wing guys that thought he had Vince Voster killed? Perhaps because he knew that any publicity given to this wacky claim would only serve to validate it, or at least make it more prominent in public perception?
As for no one remembering him… Please. I used to go swimming every weekend 20 years ago. I saw many of the same people every time I went. But if you put my picture up and offered a $3500 reward to anyone who could prove that I was there, you wouldn’t get any takers.
Air bases are large. Bush only worked weekends. He didn’t have assigned duties, because he wasn’t trained to do anything but fly, and there were no planes there that he was qualified in. So he was probably a gopher, and no one paid much attention.
Isn’t it good enough for you that the personnel officer that they contacted looked up Bush’s records and said that he completed his enlistment requirements satisfactorily? If not, what are you suggesting? That there is a conspiracy within the guard to cover up for AWOL officers? That someone paid off the enlistment officer? That the records were modified?
Let’s apply Occam’s razor here, shall we? Bush says he served out his term properly. The military agrees. We have on record his honorable discharge. On the other hand, we have a ‘veterans group’ who claims that he did not show up at his posting, and that this was covered up. Their evidence? A base commander who ‘can’t recall’ Bush after 30 years.
Just where does the burden of proof lie?
From today’s Boston Globe:
You can read the entire story [here](http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/306/nation/Kerrey_blasts_Bush_on_service+
.shtml). I am sure that Sam will continue to make up excuses for Bush. I’ll just have to apply Occam’s Razor.
MR
I’m not making up excuses for Bush, I’m simply putting the burden of proof where it lies - with the people making these charges. We have plenty of documentation that says that Bush completed his term satisfactorily. Specifically, we have discharge papers from the guard that say, “Lt. Bush completed his term satisfactorily.”
If someone wants to bring up anecdotal evidence that Bush did not, not only do they need to provide some proof of this, but they have to explain why the Guard did nothing about it THEN. Or was the Guard so lax that you could sign up, vanish for two years, and during that time be promoted and then honorably discharged?
I’m not a partisan here. I left a message in this very thread defending Al Gore. I don’t think there’s a whisker’s difference between either of them when it comes to where the U.S. will be four years from now. And I’m not an American.
But I’m tired of the never-ending flood of conspiracies. And I hate hypocrisy. Some of you on the Democratic side have been frustrated for years by the muckracking the Republicans have done on Clinton. But it would appear that your own personal standards are no higher. I predict that if Bush is elected, the very same people who have been denouncing Kenneth Starr and the Whitewater investigations will be the first to stand up and cheer if it turns out that Bush had a tryst with an intern somewhere, or if you found evidence of a 20-year old shady stock deal, or whatever. And I predict that Bush will face at least one independent prosecutor sometime in the next four years, or at least the serious threat of one.
In this particular case, it really seems like much Ado about nothing. Even if Bush didn’t technically meet his enlistment requirements, he certainly came close. He trained and flew F-102’s for several years. He volunteered for Vietnam. He put in WAY more than the minimum required hours in the first couple of years of service, which could easily explain why people looked the other way at the end of his term if he missed a drill here and there. It’s a technicality, IF it happened.
Wouldn’t you rather discuss substantive issues? That’s what you claimed to want to do back when Clinton was the guy who was being accused of everything under the sun.
It’s not merely a matter of anecdotal evidence. There is missing documentary evidence. Bush’s own friend signed a document saying he was unable to assess Bush’s performance as an officer because he had never shown up. Bush was not an outdated pilot, for the F-102s were in operation one year after Bush’s supposed service.
I am not crying out for conspiracy, Sam. I don’t think this should detract from the issues, about which I am a prolific poster. I believe that this little mix-up is indicative of the character of George W Bush, and I would like this story to receive an approrpiate amount of media coverage.
MR
FWIW, I am in the ANG, and I have seen no less than three instances in my unit where someone just wuits coming to drill. After enough time goes by, and enough second, fifth, and eighth chances are extended (retention being what it is these days) the people are simply discharged. Once the determination to get someone out the door is made, it’s a swift process, so as to get more people in the door. They are given a general discharge which can be rubber stamped to honorable by basically filing an appeal after 2 years. (Perhaps 5, I am not sure.) In any case, this is a documented action, although I doubt it is of the kind that produces documents that are indefinitely, as are discharges and the like.
How this compares to the way things were run in the Viet Nam era is beyond me, but I just wanted to say that for those of you who have seen too many movies where MPs show up at your door and drag you off for not reporting to duty, it is indeed possible that it is just ignored until it goes away.
You missed the part about Bush being promoted a grade during this period. How can you be promoted when no one has seen you for a year?
The posting in question was when Bush requested a transfer so he could work on a Senatorial campaign. If Bush was just shuffling papers and no one on the base really needed him, it’s possible that a phone call from a Senator might just have resulted in someone saying, “Sure, keep him. We don’t need him around here anyway.” Or something like that.
There are many, many possible explanations for this stuff, up to and including the possibility that this whole thing is a fabrication. An over-zealous reporter finds out that a base commander can’t remember Bush, and a document search turns up no record of Bush. The rest is all supposition.
If you want to convict someone based on missing documents, I suggest you string up Hillary and Bill. Both of them have ‘lost’ mountains of documents. Their memory of Whitewater was exceedingly bad, since under oath they kept repeating, “I cannot recall that.” Susan MacDougal did a couple of years in jail for her faulty memory.
Yet when the special counsel went after them for this, the same people attacking Bush now were screaming to high heaven that such ‘character’ issues were off-limits.
I thought all this sounded vaguely familiar, so I decided to give my Old Man a call. Dad got a pretty full dose of the military. He went to school on a Navy scholarship and then lost it due to poor grades. But he had to complete his obligation to the Navy.
Then, when he graduated as a mechanical engineer (“aerospace engineer” apparently wasn’t in use at the time) he got drafted. I think that in 1962 you could do six months active and then bail for the Guard, which he did, but my details might be a little off. Anyway here’s the important part:
In '63 or '64 Dad got transferred by his company to do rocket stuff in Utah. When he got there, he asked his boss how to go about transfering to the Utah National Guard. To quote my father: “My boss said, 'Jesus Fucking Christ, are you crazy? Utah is always first to volunteer in any war. If the shit flies in ‘Nam, you’re going.’ I was not excited about that prospect.”
So they worked a deal out where he could go back to Virginia to serve his Guard time. When he showed back up in Virginia at the appointed time, he mentioned what was going on to his superiors. They, in turn, agreed with him that he was pretty short, that he had already done a year cumulative in the Navy, that they didn’t need him, and that it was bullshit that a rocket scientist designing ICBMs should have to get his ass shot off in some godforsaken jungle. So they told him they’d keep him on the books, and to not bother showing up. End of story.
The Old Man thinks this is a pretty regular thing. My family’s “influence” is exactly none. His integrity and personal courage are pretty damned large. And yes, I know that the war in Vietnam wasn’t at full steam yet. But I think this is the first similar example cited in this thread, and I offer it for your consideration.
Like I’ve said before, there are plenty of reasons not to like Shrub, plenty enough to not have to harp on dubious issues such as this one.
There have been and are still promotions that are basically time-served promotions, given after you’ve passed a certain anniversary date. I have no idea how it works (or worked then) for pilots. I don’t know what happened with Bush back then. I don’t think the evidence is conclusive, but the document wherein his supervisors refuse to give him an efficiency rating because he hadn’t shown up in either unit for a year seems pretty damning. All I want to do is dispel the idea some people seem to have that this sort of thing where someone just disappears and isn’t disciplined in any way couldn’t have happened. From my experience, it isn’t at all farfetched.
According to http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html ,
much of this controversy could be cleared up if
W would release his “private military records”, as
McCain and Clinton did.
It puzzles me that he hasn’t done so: should I be puzzled?