[Natoma]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4230576/

The documents, in the form of annual retirement �point summaries� and poorly photocopied payroll records, indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that Democrats have cited as evidence that he failed to meet his military responsibilities.

The White House promised clearer copies of the payroll records later Tuesday afternoon.

The point summaries had previously been released, but as recently as Monday the White House had indicated that it knew of no additional records to document Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard. McClellan said the White House learned of the pay records Monday night.

...................

McClellan said he did not know whether tax returns for 1972 and 1973 still existed to substantiate that Bush actually was paid, as the payroll records indicated. He said additional information would be disclosed if it came to light.

Indicating the hold the issue has taken on the campaign, McClellan came under nearly a half-hour of intense questioning about Bush’s Guard service.

At one point, he sidestepped four consecutive questions about why medical records that Bush would have had to have maintained during his service could not be produced, leading a frustrated reporter to demand to know why McClellan would not directly answer his question.

...................

During the Vietnam War, Guard units were rarely called up, and “the Reserves and the Guard acquired reputations as draft havens for relatively affluent young white men,� the Air National Guard says in a history posted on its Web site.

Bush acknowledged in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press� that he had not volunteered to go to Vietnam, and he called the war a “political war.� But he said he supported the government and would have gone had his Guard unit been called. “I put in my time, proudly so,� he said.

...................

Questions have been raised about whether family connections helped Bush get into the Guard when there were waiting lists for what was seen as an easy billet. Bush says no one in his family pulled strings and that he got in because others didn’t want to commit to the almost two years of active duty required for fighter pilot training.

A central issue is whether he showed up for duty while assigned to Guard units in Alabama in 1972. “There may be no evidence, but I did report,� Bush said on “Meet the Press.� “Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged.�

Another question is why he was allowed to end Guard duty about six months early to attend Harvard Business School. Bush said on NBC that he had “worked it out with the military. And I’m just telling you, I did my duty.�

The White House really must be feeling the heat over this. They normally shirk off anything people say about them.

[Natoma]

Another article at CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ary/index.html

[RussSchultz]

I don't think they're feeling the heat any more than they have, but they do want to remove any doubt to combat the repeated assaults in the media.

Plus it makes people like Clark (via Micheal Moore) look like even more of idiots when they press the 'awol' button. Kerry also has been including words (though not directed directly at the president) like "absent", "awol", etc when referring to policies, etc of the administration.

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

I don't think they're feeling the heat any more than they have, but they do want to remove any doubt to combat the repeated assaults in the media.

Plus it makes people like Clark (via Micheal Moore) look like even more of idiots when they press the 'awol' button. Kerry also has been including words (though not directed directly at the president) like "absent", "awol", etc when referring to policies, etc of the administration.

Russ, there's strong evidence he was AWOL. From having served in the OANG I've seen people just stop showing up and still get paid until they admin folks finally get around to getting authority to just boot the person out. And those are just common, middle class people, not someone from a wealthy family with political connections. Moreover a lot of those discharges are honorable to avoid the additional paperwork. The fact that he got paid proves absolutely nothing.

[Natoma]

Precisely why I bolded the portions I did. There are still a lot of questions raised by this situation. Personally I don't care about whether he went AWOL during the service or not because of the nature of the Vietnam War and what it was really about.

But if you're going to be commander in chief, you certainly have a duty to make sure there are absolutely no lingering questions regarding your own military record, if you have one. This release doesn't answer questions. It just raises a ton more imo.

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

I don't think they're feeling the heat any more than they have, but they do want to remove any doubt to combat the repeated assaults in the media.

Plus it makes people like Clark (via Micheal Moore) look like even more of idiots when they press the 'awol' button. Kerry also has been including words (though not directed directly at the president) like "absent", "awol", etc when referring to policies, etc of the administration.

Actually (if im not mistaken) MM used the deserter button. Which is even a bigger issue if it was even remotely true.

Its interesting to see the issue change depending on what side the ball is in. When clinton was president(or a candidate) dems said this wasnt an issue, and republicans said it was. Now that the sides have changed republicans think this is a non issue, and dems think its an issue. People make up your mind. BTW if dean would have been leading, then this would not have been an issue for dems, since he was skiing (with a bad back on top of it) instead of serving his country.

later,
epic

[kyleb]

but i thought he opened all his miltary records for examination back in 2000?

[John Reynolds]

Here's an example I should've mentioned earlier. One airman who served under me stopped showing. A few months went by, some phone calls to his place of residence were made, and it quickly became apparent that even though he was still being paid and drawing tuition benefits, he wasn't coming back. The 1st sgt. asked me to initiate paperwork for a dishonorable discharge and legal actions that would force the airman to reimburse *all* college tuition the OANG had paid for him since he'd failed to fulfill his six year obligation. I refused to do so because the airman was black and I knew of so many other similar situations in which the person (white) had simply been let go with no legal or financial consequences that I felt it was wrong to suddenly reverse the unspoken policy and go after this kid. And as his direct supervisor, my authority was required to initiate the paperwork, so the 1st sgt's suggestion was stopped.

Anyways, if this guy's records were checked they would show a honorable discharge and pay for a time period in which he was most definitely AWOL.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

Actually (if im not mistaken) MM used the deserter button. Which is even a bigger issue if it was even remotely true.

Its interesting to see the issue change depending on what side the ball is in. When clinton was president(or a candidate) dems said this wasnt an issue, and republicans said it was. Now that the sides have changed republicans think this is a non issue, and dems think its an issue. People make up your mind. BTW if dean would have been leading, then this would not have been an issue for dems, since he was skiing (with a bad back on top of it) instead of serving his country.

To this day I still do not know the details of what was up with Clinton and the "draft dodger" labels. What exactly was the issue anyway?

As for Michael Moore, yeah he said deserter. That's just a harsher term for AWOL. Nothing bigger about it.

As for Dean, the army rejected him epic. He went in for enlistment with all relevant doctor papers the army requests, and the army rejected him after checking his medical history and giving him a physical. So in his case, I don't think it actually is an issue. Maybe they felt that he wasn't in prime enough condition to lug 100lb army backpacks through the jungles. I dunno.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by kyleb

but i thought he opened all his miltary records for examination back in 2000?

Apparently he didn't release all of them. I'm not really privy to the details of the 2000 situation though. I hadn't heard these accusations until a few days ago.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Here's an example I should've mentioned earlier. One airman who served under me stopped showing. A few months went by, some phone calls to his place of residence were made, and it quickly became apparent that even though he was still being paid and drawing tuition benefits, he wasn't coming back. The 1st sgt. asked me to initiate paperwork for a dishonorable discharge and legal actions that would force the airman to reimburse *all* college tuition the OANG had paid for him since he'd failed to fulfill his six year obligation. I refused to do so because the airman was black and I knew of so many other similar situations in which the person (white) had simply been let go with no legal or financial consequences that I felt it was wrong to suddenly reverse the unspoken policy and go after this kid. And as his direct supervisor, my authority was required to initiate the paperwork, so the 1st sgt's suggestion was stopped.

Anyways, if this guy's records were checked they would show a honorable discharge and pay for a time period in which he was most definitely AWOL.

That offers credence to this particular section I bolded:

At one point, he sidestepped four consecutive questions about why medical records that Bush would have had to have maintained during his service could not be produced, leading a frustrated reporter to demand to know why McClellan would not directly answer his question.

If he was really there, why is there no evidence of him being there save for the fact that he got paid? Are we really supposed to believe Bush was there, without evidence of it, simply because he said he was? Sounds like the WMD situation all over again.

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by Natoma

As for Michael Moore, yeah he said deserter. That's just a harsher term for AWOL. Nothing bigger about it.

Its a bigger deal. Ask someone who has served in the military.

As for Dean, the army rejected him epic. He went in for enlistment with all relevant doctor papers the army requests, and the army rejected him after checking his medical history and giving him a physical. So in his case, I don't think it actually is an issue.

As per his interview with Chris Mathews (hardball). Dean said he came to the physical with paper/x-rays from his doctor. Something that with out he would have been enlisted, his words. He also said he was actively trying not to go, and hence his bringing in outside medical records. He also said that without those records the person who examined him for the military would have accepted him for military service. All this came from his interview. Plus apparently his back was good enough for skiing. Not sure how much harder pulling a trigger is than that.

later,
epic
ps this is still all politics, different candidates and the parties would probably switch positions.

[digitalwanderer]

Originally Posted by Natoma

The White House really must be feeling the heat over this. They normally shirk off anything people say about them.

Hell, they were feeling pressure before the interview. The interview was a bad choice that was supposed to make it all better for Bush, not open up a new can of worms!

I am enjoying Bush's failure WAY too much!

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

Its a bigger deal. Ask someone who has served in the military.

Doesn't AWOL mean leaving your post or designation without permission? Wouldn't that be the same thing as deserter?

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

As per his interview with Chris Mathews (hardball). Dean said he came to the physical with paper/x-rays from his doctor. Something that with out he would have been enlisted, his words. He also said he was actively trying not to go, and hence his bringing in outside medical records. He also said that without those records the person who examined him for the military would have accepted him for military service. All this came from his interview. Plus apparently his back was good enough for skiing. Not sure how much harder pulling a trigger is than that.

later,
epic
ps this is still all politics, different candidates and the parties would probably switch positions.

Oh well if Dean said all that and it's true, there goes that. You could argue quite successfully that he was trying to dodge, especially in light of his skiing activities afterward. That's his problem I suppose.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Russ, there's strong evidence he was AWOL.

No, there's strong insinuation he was AWOL.

This same mud was dredged up for his Texas governor run, the 2000 presidential run, and apparently for the 2004 run. If it had any legs, it would be all over every newspaper and cable tv show there was.

[Natoma]

Well there is one significant difference in this particular situation. We weren't at war at any of those times, nor had Bush staked any portion of his political life on his ability to be "Commander in Chief".

[John Reynolds]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

No, there's strong insinuation he was AWOL.

This same mud was dredged up for his Texas governor run, the 2000 presidential run, and apparently for the 2004 run. If it had any legs, it would be all over every newspaper and cable tv show there was.

I'm not sure about that because, quite frankly, I think the man's been given a virtual free pass by the major media outlets. Case in point: Neil. How many Americans even know who this man is, and contrast the lack of coverage on him to that Clinton and Carter's brothers experienced.

Anyways, back to Bush's service record:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ard/index.html

The story emerged in 2000 when the Boston Globe's Walter Robinson, after combing through 160 pages of military documents and interviewing Bush's former commanders, reported that Bush's flying career came to an abrupt and unexplained end in the spring of 1972 when he asked for, and was inexplicably granted, a transfer to a paper-pushing Guard unit in Alabama. During this time Bush worked on the Senate campaign of a friend of his father's. With his six-year Guard commitment, Bush was obligated to serve through 1973. But according to his own discharge papers, there is no record that he did any training after May 1972. Indeed, there is no record that Bush performed any Guard service in Alabama at all. In 2000, a group of veterans offered a $3,500 reward for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama Guard service. Of the estimated 600 to 700 Guardsmen who were in Bush's unit, not a single person came forward.

"His records have clearly been cleaned up," says author James Moore, whose upcoming book, "Bush's War for Re-election," will examine the issue of Bush's military service in great detail. Moore says as far back as 1994, when Bush first ran for governor of Texas, his political aides "began contacting commanders and roommates and people who would spin and cover up his Guard record. And when my book comes out, people will be on the record testifying to that fact: witnesses who helped clean up Bush's military file."

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Well there is one significant difference in this particular situation. We weren't at war at any of those times, nor had Bush staked any portion of his political life on his ability to be "Commander in Chief".

Ok, so we should make a big deal about things that happened 30 some years ago. Right?? Because this will bite kerry in the ass. Some of his testimony in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 is quite explosive.

ill paste a part of the transcripts later,
epic

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Well there is one significant difference in this particular situation. We weren't at war at any of those times, nor had Bush staked any portion of his political life on his ability to be "Commander in Chief".

If we're concerned about how well he'll do as 'commander in chief', then we have some on the job experience to examine, rather than mere indicators from his national guard experience.

[RussSchultz]

Originally Posted by John Reynolds

Anyways, back to Bush's service record:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ard/index.html

And thats the same information that was dredged up in 2000, just rehashed for your viewing pleasure.

And here's some rebuttal information, also rehashed for your viewing pleasure.
http://www.hobbsonline.blogspot.com/....html#93934189

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by epicstruggle

Ok, so we should make a big deal about things that happened 30 some years ago. Right?? Because this will bite kerry in the ass. Some of his testimony in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 is quite explosive.

ill paste a part of the transcripts later,
epic

Kerry was the one who served in the armed forces and received medals for his service. I'm sure whatever was in his testimony comes from the fact that he was pretty damn bitter about serving in a politically driven war.

I'm sure I'd be the same way. In any case, I'd like to see the transcripts when you get them.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

If we're concerned about how well he'll do as 'commander in chief', then we have some on the job experience to examine, rather than mere indicators from his national guard experience.

You said that this is the same old stuff that's been dredged up before. I'm just bringing up differences between raising this in 1994 and 2000, vs bringing it up today. Basically, why would it be politically potent today, vs the last two times it's come up.

No qualifier attached to the "same ol" label.

[RussSchultz]

Uh, no. It would be more pertinent in 2000, when we had to guess how good of a commander in chief he'd be.

Now we know, from his past 3 years of experience.

[epicstruggle]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Kerry was the one who served in the armed forces and received medals for his service. I'm sure whatever was in his testimony comes from the fact that he was pretty damn bitter about serving in a politically driven war.

I'm sure I'd be the same way. In any case, I'd like to see the transcripts when you get them.

village.com seems to be down, but here is a quote from another source

source:http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articl...med-Prince.htm this is quite a liberal source.

John Kerry, having become an opponent of the war in which he served, made a speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, describing some of what he had witnessed in Vietnam. Americans had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephone to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." I can only admire such truthfulness, but Kerry's first instinct, years before, had been to contribute to the mayhem. Only when it was politically opportune did he oppose it.

He also never tried to turn in these people in. Wheres the honor in that? Or was he lying to the committee. Time will tell, when this is brought out against him.

later,
epic
edit: i found more info on this, that might shade some light on this. Seems that he was proven wrong, but never appoligized. Ill add more later,

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Uh, no. It would be more pertinent in 2000, when we had to guess how good of a commander in chief he'd be.

Now we know, from his past 3 years of experience.

You have to remember we were coming off 8 years of Clinton, i.e. the "draft dodger". I doubt it would have really been politically killer at that time vs now, especially when one labels oneself as a "war president" as Bush did in Meet the Press.