This guy remembers every drill??
Give me a break.
His pay records say he was only paid for 9 days…he worked for free?
Here’s a link to astory which includes a picture of LTCol (Retired) Calhoun. Is it just me, or does he look gay?! Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Well, speaking again from experience, when you get Guard pay it comes in spurts. There is a regular paydate for UTAs served, but there is no regular date for RUTAs, FTPs, or EQTs, and if you do a whole bunch of days at a stretch, if the guy in charge of turning in the RUTA sign-in sheet to finance waits a while, say, until it’s full, then you could get a whole bunch of days paid at once, because keep in mind that just because you’re there doesn’t mean that there are a lot of people there with you. I’ve done RUTAs where I was the only person in the office before. So there is the potential that he was the only one signing in for an extended stretch, though it is unlikely.
It may be that the pay record you’re referring to is indicative of only a portion of the actual time served.
/Just like before, only reporting the facts.
Well, if you are predisposed to believe one witness claiming one thing over several claiming another, then it’s a “slam-dunk”. Otherwise, what you have is conflicting testimony with more people still on one side than the other from what I understand…Far from a slam-dunk. And, this is amongst a group, military folk, that are a prime Bush constituency.
Notice, by the way, how reduced expectations operate here once again. Basically, on the Iraq thing, the Bush-supporters got things to the point where finding one corroded canister of chemical weapons somewhere would have been proof positive of everything Bush had claimed…even though this was far removed from the level of the original argument. (Of course, in this case, they couldn’t even produce that.)
Now, since we noted that not one person has come forward to corroborate Bush’s being there while several (including commanding officers) have said that he wasn’t there (or that files were destroyed or whatever), the fact that one has now come forward in the heat of crisis is supposed to be definitive proof…a “slam dunk”…that’s all she wrote. We can all just pack up and go home and call it a day. Hmmm.
So let me get this straight… When a guy comes out and says that, in his 35 year old memory he can’t recall seeing George Bush, a person he didn’t know at the time, on a base with 800 people who work weekends and come and go, that’s supposed to be serious evidence, right?
And if a guy comes out of the woodwork and claims he heard a couple of guys talking in another room about ‘sanitizing’ documents, his word is to be taken at face value (a witness who turned out to have lied, btw).
But when a guy comes forward who says he worked in the same office, remembered him well, even described what he liked to read and talk about, THIS guy is to be treated with extreme suspicion, right?
Just trying to understand the witness evaluation method here.
So because he says what Bush liked to read makes it true?
How good is your memory from over 30 years ago? Would you remember every drill and who was there?
Bush himself ought to remember just a little about it, shouldn’t he? He was with himself for every minute. But he hasn’t offered any personal recollections about just what he did in the Guard in Alabama. Got any good guesses why not?
Sam, a guy isn’t “lying” just because he contradicts your strongly-preferred version of events (and pointing out your gaps in logic as well as your active filtration of facts is quite a cottage industry on this board, isn’t it?). One of the guys that Burkett reported seeing with the Texas records just says, pretty emphatically at that, that he just doesn’t remember it. That, of course, is the only answer that one can give if he doesn’t want to get caught up in corroborating facts yet to be revealed. Nor, of course, does the coincidentally-timed appearance of one corroborating witness “trump” that of a number of others with no apparent axes to grind, except among those of you who are so desperate to believe something that facts don’t matter (speaking of your posting habits and board cottage industries).
The “completeness” of these records compared to that of others from the similar time frame ought to be significant.
What ElvisL1ves said. I am not claiming that any one witness should be viewed with any less suspicion than any other. You are the one who seems to be counting one witness as trumping all of the others.
I don’t claim to know all the facts. But, I also don’t go around talking about “slam dunks” every time one new piece of evidence or witness emerges, conveniently ignoring all of the rest.
No axe to grind? You might want to read this.
Sounds like a stable, unbiased witness when it comes to Guard topics, huh?
In the meantime, it’s not just one person disputing Burkett’s account:
Then there’s Scribner:
So let’s see what we have here… A guy with a vendetta against the Guard, who has been demanding medical benefits, is promoting a juicy story about guard incompetence. His OWN FRIEND contradicts the story. One of the other people supposedly present claims it never happened.
But you guys lapped this up without question. Today, someone else comes forward with a story that backs up Bush’s claims, and suddenly you’re all about witness integrity and won’t believe him without further corroboration. Uh huh.
Jshore: I said if the guy’s not lying this would be a slam dunk. I never claimed any sort of belief in this guy’s statement. Rather, my argument here is that YOU GUYS are cherry-picking your witnesses. You’ve been hanging on the vague memories of a guy from 35 years ago about a person he never knew at the time, while instantly dismissing a very specific counter-claim from someone else.
Sam, it’s called weighing the evidence. That includes considering real and possible motives, not only of the persons in question but of those who choose to believe anything they want to hear and dismiss anything defamatory toward a hero of yours as “shown to be lying”. That means you, and no, once again, it is not a personal attack to point out flaws in your selection of facts or use of logic, you know, so you can drop that avoidance crap right now.
Now try rereading your own damn OP. We’re all “conspiracy-mongers”, “the whole thing is dead”, and so forth. Sound familiar? Now it’s “I never claimed any sort of belief” and “YOU GUYS are cherry-picking”. Back up and take another look before you say “slam dunk” again. No, we don’t know for sure, yet, but neither do you, and you’re only hurting yourself in every way to use terms of such emphatic certainty. Why are you doing that?
Well, it’s nice that Bush is releasing his records. I really don’t see why he should, but I guess it’s nice to give all these muckrakers something to do.
I assume that if this ever goes beyond speculation and innuendo, and anybody actually finds proof that Bush did do something wrong or illegal, I will eventually hear about it.
This story first got attention in what, 2000? Since then there’s been a lot of specious accusations, but no proof, no case. Making the accusation without the proof is pretty irresponsible.
I remember back when I was a mere whelp, and reporters like Woodward and Bernstein would actually go out, and do research and interview people, and examine records and actually get the story. Once they had it, they’d write it and publish it in the papers. Then, one could read and see.
The current state of affairs seems somewhat lazy to me. I kind of think you need to have the story before you write it. I guess 4 years wasn’t enough. Nobody has it (and I think you really need to have the story first.)
The next thing I wonder, will this new coach potato form of reporting style “Make an accusation and try to get the guy to prove it’s not true” follow through on Bush’s opponents?
Well, in the case of Kerry’s latest intern scandal, or affair, or whatever the hell it is, the answer seems to be “YES!”
Kerry by accusation is guilty. He will have to now prove otherwise.
Presumably, the press now has the right to demand access to Kerry’s credit card records, the security cameras at his wife’s mansion, his phone records, etc etc so that the reporters can actually go and get the story, right?
Is this the way it is now?
It would be if the press were balanced in its sleaze, but it’s not.
For instance, when this Burkett guy came forward with a lurid story that was offered without proof, the media was all over it. The guy was on every news channel, interviewed on Hardball, etc.
When the news about Kerry broke, the mainstream media stayed deathly silent. It wouldn’t be right to air charges without corroboration, don’t you know. Suddenly the media got all high-minded about its responsibility.
Scylla:
Let us say, for the sake of a valid comparison, that Kerry claimed to have fought in the Vietnam war; that he had served in such-and-such a regiment; that he had served for x number of months; and that he had eventually received an honorable discharge.
Let us further say that a rumor began to circulate that Kerry had in fact done no such thing. Reporters, dutifully double-checking Kerry’s background, found one credible witness who testified that he was present when Kerry’s military records were edited, discovered that the regiment’s commanding officers had no recollection of Kerry, and were unable to locate a single soldier in that regiment could remember seeing him. Let us further assume that Kerry himself refused to grant public access to his military files, releasing only selected portions of it at a time, while relentlessly attacking those who asked open questions regarding his service as “muckrakers.”
Are you seriously arguing that these discrepancies in Kerry’s record wouldn’t be worth investigation? I submit that the US would be poorly served by a press corps that chose to ignore these questions.
However: at this point, at least, Kerry’s alleged relationship with an intern is derived from a single, unsourced Drudge report. Kerry, to my knowledge, has not responded to the allegations. Were he to say, “This is a private matter, and is nobody’s business,” he would be completely right. There is a difference, after all, between a person’s private life, on the one hand, and his public service, on the other.
And this just in…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40964-2004Feb13.html
**Many Gaps In Bush’s Guard Records **
Released Papers Do Not Document Ala. Service
"Files released by the White House last night from President Bush’s Vietnam War-era service in the National Guard show that the future president was an exemplary pilot whose military record contains numerous gaps in the last two years of his six-year commitment. "
[znip]
“And the records show officials from Bush’s home base in Texas declining to provide details of his activities between May 1972 to April 1973, even though such documentation was requested by National Guard headquarters.”
"But the tone of Bush’s military file changed abruptly, and with no documented explanation, in May 1972, when Bush sought to transfer to Alabama. That began a period of months in which, the documents suggest, Bush did not actively pursue Guard service and the Guard did not actively pursue him.
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. "
(Note: I would be interested to know why the word gratuitous appears in quotes. Does this mean he was deliberately awarded points he did not earn? To what end?)
[znip]
"There is no evidence Bush reported to the reserve unit. Retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, the commander who wrote Bush’s acceptance, told the Birmingham News that Bush never showed up. “He was looking for a place to hang his hat, but he never came by,” Bricken said.
On July 31, 1972, the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center overruled Bricken and returned Bush’s application, calling him “ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron.”
And so on, and so forth. Operation Candor.
Why? Let us say Kerry is being accused of sleeping with a woman who is not his wife. He denies it?
Bush is accused of failing to complete his guard service. Bush claims he did.
It’s accusation/denial.
I see no reason to make up a hypothetical.
Scylla:
I repeat:
There is a difference, after all, between a person’s private life, on the one hand, and his public service, on the other.
C’mon. Again you’re trying to draw a self-exculpatory equivalence where there is none. The Kerry “news” (being very indulgent in letting you use that word, given its total lack of substance) is about a single guy looking to get laid, nobody else’s business. Bush’s “service” is pretty directly about his public responsibilities. The case isn’t proven, no, but the existence of people who were there and the lack of documents to show Bush was too amount to just a little more than what you’d like it to be. If the suspicions turn out to be factual, then it’s hardly “sleaze”, is it? Except to the pre-fooled, that is. No, the balance of press coverage has yet to catch up with where it needs to be.