I also never said he was awol or a deserter. My point is that a man who with his chance to serve our country in a time of hostlities didn’t serve. But he has no problem sending off men and women to die for a trumped up cause.
Just what is the cause this week Sam?
Dont know quite what you mean about the “guards personnel officer”. Certainly it can’t refer to this quote, from above:
"…"But attendance records of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron in Alabama do not show that Bush ever was there. “I never saw the man, I never met the man,” Kenneth Lott, the squadron’s personnel officer at the time, told Newsweek. "… (emphasis added)
That can’t be who you mean, right?
There you go…facts again. Stop confusing the man!
Sorry, Sam, but why does this sound so familiar? Start an OP (titled, by the way, as if all the records have been released), target a specific person, use phrases like “going on about,” and “conspiracy mongers,” and then claim later to have a more moderate position than you are being perceived to have. Hmmm. Maybe I’m just a conspiracy monger, though.
Elucidator: No, I was speaking of Albert Lloyd Jr., a personnel specialist with the guard who evaluated Bush’s record and said:
That fits in with what I think happened. Bush stopped flying, and at that point didn’t really care much about the guard. The war was winding down, and he wanted to go to college. So he slack-assed around, put in the minimum time he could get away with, put in for an early discharge, and left.
Just to point out the obvious, Colonel Campenni was a squadron mate with Bush in 1970-1971. Bush’s accused absence was in 1972.
The closest association Campenni admits to having with Bush in 1972 is the fact that Flight 49 out of Montgomery was hijacked on about November 10, 1972, while Campenni himself was in Pittsburgh. Bush appears to have been in Texas at the time, as NewsMax implies that Bush’s four days of November 1972 service in Alabama were over the Thanksgiving weekend two weeks later.
Campenni’s story about the Flight 49 hijacking was published in early December 2003 in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Prior to that, he had engaged in a letters-to-the-editor flame war in the diminutive Herndon Observer. Campenni is obviously a local boy there, an engineering consultant in military contractor-strewn Herndon, Va, about thirty miles outside of Washington, DC. This is obvious because he calls one of his flamers a “liberal Democrat from Reston (a triple redundancy!).” A wise reporter would mind exactly what sort of contracts Campenni wins in 2005.
The Herdon Observer is also noteworthy for having reported the apprehension of a young Sofa King for vandalism in the early 1980s. Today, Saddam Hussein rots in jail.
OK, fine. As far as I’m concerned, which ain’t much, that can settle it. But keep in mind, Sam, that absent futher documentation, you have made pretty much the best possible case. Technicly, GeeDubya is not guilty of any actionable action or lack thereof. But it still remains shaky, a shakiness that could be entirely dissipated by a release of records consistent with the standard applied to Bill Clinton.
So heres the picture that develops: GeeDubya knows his service was minimal, lackadaisical, and privileged to be free of the onerous restrictions ordinary people have to deal with. That is what he was hiding. Not that he might be technicly guilty of some infraction, but that the truth is bad enough.
But, no, he wasn’t AWOL. He wasn’t a deserter. But he wasn’t much.
And that’s the best face he can put on this.
Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot to say that Reston is one of the original “planned communities” and is the next town over from Herndon. That’s how it is obvious to me that Campenni is a local, aside from the fact that it’s mentioned in several of the cited articles.
And here is the NewsMax article.
And for those of you who pronounce the “b” in “subtle,” my final comment in the above post was to remind readers of yet another example of conflated facts being used to imply evidence which does not exist. Campenni didn’t know shit about Bush’s record when he was absent. Bush probably wasn’t in Alabama when that plane was hijacked.
However, I really was nailed for spray-painting a dumpster in Herndon, and the incident made the police report in the Observer. And no valuable lessons were learned from that long-past incident, either.
Jeez, Sam, you ought to be embarrassed to drag that letter in here! You think maybe this guy has an agenda?
“…While…Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda”
“…Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard…”
“…So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off…”
Are you serious? You put this forth as testimony without so much as a blush?
(This is a kind of delayed response, I though Sam had posted something I’d already seen, didn’t pay attention until Sofa King (Herndon’s own Rebel Without a Clue) called my attention to it.)
So what we all seem to agree on is that Bush was a slacker guardsman who gamed the system and pulled strings to get special treatment. Of course, he did actually qualify to fly planes, which is nothing to besmearch.
Somehow, I doubt that if it had turned out he was nominated by his fellow guardsman as the “most punctual” member of the team, had accolades from his commanders, and volunteered to fly rescue missions in 'Nam, that he’d be getting 'luci’s vote in Nov.
And what does that leave us with? Well, the actual issues that seperate Kerry and Bush, of course.
Yeah, this whole thing has a certain Dallas-like fascination, and “character” can be an inssue in and of itself, but in the end this is unlikely to sway votes one way or the other. It’s the kind of thing that could bring down a candidacy in the early stages, but once the guy gets past a certain point (like already being elected president) is really not an issue anymore.
What the hell is this? A debate nearly concluded by consensus?
Hell, John and elucidator, we oughta form a think tank. I’ll be the one serving coffee in a red leather jacket, heheheh.
From calpundit, a description of what the so-called “un-torn document” really is. Let me say that I know nothing about calpundit or Bob Rodgers.
Anyhow, for me, the main point of interest, as others have stated, is not that he may have wanted to get out of serving in Vietnam, but instead why he will not simply come clean before the American public if that was his intent, rather than lying and obsfuscating. And also, the hypocrisy demonstrated by those who criticized Clinton for doing essentially the same thing, but who now refuse to call Bush on this, is endlessly amusing.
Hmm…this thing is becoming more interesting:
Calpundit spoke to the ex-officer (Bill Burkett) as well.
Further transcript of that conversation pending here.
But more than that. This is only half the issue. The other half is that he has been incredibly deceptive about these issues.
Again, why can’t Bush utter some specific description of his service? Why are all his assertions about his own life sourced to a faulty INFERENCE about what his honorable discharge means? Why be so misleading about a simple truth in which he did nothing wrong?
I agree that there is unlikely anything behind this which was flat out illegal, though its certainly possible that he got special treatment so as to avoid normal disciplinary action. And perhaps that’s what they want to hide. After all, flying a plane is probably the one event in Bush’s pre-governor life in which he actually achieved anything that wasn’t simply handed to him on a silver platter because of his family and crony capitalism: and they wanted something to stand out and be proud of instead of a diversion for which he quickly lost interest in favor of getting back into family politics and business.
Given my experience, the only people permitted to go Non-Current are people in DNIF status (that being Duty Not Involving Flying) or people who are in extended TDY status in which they were not able to fly due to circumstances beyond their control. My commander has stated for the record that he will not look favorably upon extending people who are unable to do the mission. It could be that Bush was ordered into a position that did not involve flying, but if he were that would be easily substantiated with orders.
The thing is that we’re mixing apples and oranges, though. It’s been 30 years and there were a lot of changes after Vietnam. What earned Bush an honorable discharge 30 years ago would earn me jail time today. We are allowed by law (if not by regulation) to miss one weekend a year. After that they can either fine you, activate you, or imprison you, whichever. Either way you’re in a lot of trouble for unexcused absences. How that worked during Vietnam is beyond me. If it was acceptable, it was amazingly undisciplined. Thank God things have improved.
The one thing that I noticed nobody has asked for is Bush’s DD 214. Everything you need to know should be on that, and that should cut to the heart of the matter.
Read somewhere else that this is what reservists get instead of the DD-214 when they separate. Supposedly, the only things missing are the re-enlistment code and list of decorations. Can you clarify that?
Well yeah. I thought that was pretty much a given. The question, despite your cowardly attempts to avoid it, is whether he bothered to put in “the minimum time” at all whilst working for whatever Pubbie’s Senate campaign. Every shred of evidence thus far indicartes that Your Hero was a Big Giant Slacker.
Which is cool with me, except he’s now also a Big Giant Liar.
For me (and for plenty of other too, I reckon) this has ceased to be directly about Bush’s service, and more about whether he can be trusted to mean what he says.
The other day, he made a simple promise to open his military service records. Now we’re getting the dribs and drabs they want to show us. Medical records? No! But if there’s a record of a dental exam that in some way makes their point, here it is.
I have no idea whether the file was ‘sanitized’ earlier (though I wouldn’t put it past them). I’ve just got to wonder why in heaven’s name they’re screening it now.
We know Bush isn’t a man of his word on this; he’s already broken Sunday’s promise (Saturday’s, actually; that’s when they taped the Russert interview), since Bartlett’s saying this:
My reason for wanting this to stay in play is simple: I know Bush has essentially no regard for the truth, or his word, or any of the above. And most of us here have figured that out too. But this is only starting to sink in with the electorate. I view this as part of their education. If they haven’t been paying attention over the past year, this is their remedial class. 
But I’ve also got to wonder, what the devil are they hiding that’s important enough for the President to break his word on a seemingly minor matter like this, with the country actually paying a bit of attention?
Like we don’t know the answer to that question already?!?
Oh, okay, yup…We’re in total agreement here. I sorta thought that Bush and Clinton had worked a “deal”…Bill gets to lie and deceive about his personal life and GW gets to lie and deceive about everything else. It seemed like a pretty generous deal for GW to me, but it looks like GW is now honing in on Bill’s territory.
