It's amazing how many times the Bushies release all the documents. http://www.navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-472767.php October 26, 2004 New documents reveal more about Bush’s Guard service By Matt Kelley Associated Press Unearthed under legal pressure, three-decade-old documents portray President Bush as a capable and well-liked Air National Guard pilot who stopped flying and attending regular drills two-thirds of the way through his six-year commitment — without consequence. The files, many of them forced to light by Freedom of Information lawsuits by The Associated Press, conflict with some of the harshest attacks Democrats have levied on Bush’s Vietnam-era service, such as suggestions that Bush was a deserter or absent without leave. But gaps in the records leave unanswered questions about the final two years of his military service in 1972 and 1973. Chief among them: Why did Bush’s commanders apparently tolerate his lapses in training and approve his honorable discharge? Bush’s commanders could have punished him — or ordered him to two years of active duty — for missing drills for six months in 1972 and skipping a required pilot’s medical exam. Instead, they allowed him to make up some of his missed training and granted him an honorable discharge. “Obviously, the commander saw the lieutenant’s interest in the guard was waning,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., a former head of the Air National Guard. “Had he been good before? Yeah. Does that mean he should nail him to the wall? No. The culture at the time was not to enforce that.” But the culture apparently did not apply to everyone. Although no records mention any punishment against Bush other than being grounded, the Texas unit’s files show another airman was ordered to involuntary active duty in March 1972 as punishment. There are also unresolved questions about what, if any, work Bush did while temporarily assigned in 1972 to an Alabama unit and why the future president suddenly switched back to training jets shortly before giving up as a pilot. White House spokesmen say Bush fulfilled all of his obligations and was never disciplined for any wrongdoing while he was in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973. While Bush did not meet requirements for pilots in 1972 and 1973 and skipped months of training, there is no record of his commanders ordering him to active duty or initiating an investigation. Bush has been dogged by questions about his military service since he first ran for Texas governor in 1994, and some Democrats have alleged he deserted without fulfilling his obligation. Democratic challenger John Kerry has said he respects Bush’s Guard service, but frequently notes he engaged in combat in Vietnam. Bush’s spokesmen and the Pentagon had insisted all of the president’s files were made public last February when the White House released records it hoped would put an end to the questions. AP, however, identified large numbers of documents that should have been produced under the Guard’s 1970s regulations but had not been released, such as flight logs and mission orders. It sued in both federal and Texas state court to get answers. The Pentagon and Texas National Guard responded by conducting sweeping new searches that turned up more than 100 pages of new documents since August, including Bush’s long-sought flight logs and dozens of orders showing what work the future president attended or missed. But even when the government insisted in sworn affidavits that all documents about Bush had been made public last month, AP persisted and won permission to allow two law professors to review boxes of files in Texas to make sure nothing was missed. The professors found dozens of pages of new memos overlooked in the government’s searches. The government’s only explanation was that dust and rat excrement in the boxes made it hard to review the files. “This is a lesson that the routine use of the Freedom of Information Act is very helpful when you’re trying to report important stories to the public,” said Lucy Dalglish, an attorney and executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
It's amazing how many times the legitimate documents still show nothing that would damage the President. Perhaps you'd all better get the DNC to call up Rather again. Courage.
IROC it, please detail to me how many times and in what instances that documents that are released by the government pursuant to a FOIA request turn out to be fake. Thx in advance
Thanks for proving my point, Fisher. Try and "get it" next time. These docs show nothing but the same. Bush served more than the minimum required in his final years... after serving near double the required hours in earlier years.... thus, he got an honorable discharge. Nice try libs. And for those (like SAM) that didn't get my point... stick with falsified forgeries when trying to lie about a soldier's honorable service record. Call Dan... He's not running for anything.
IROC it, if you are not questioning the legitimacy of government records released pursuant to a FOIA inquiry, I request that you edit your original post to avoid such misunderstandings. Thanks for your help on this.
The slow dripping out of data still shows that Bush should have been punished for not being capable of flying. Other airmen in his unit were punished by being sent to Vietnam. It still doesn't change the fact that his father pulled strings to get him higher priority in the list of potential Texas Air National Guard recruits.
Great strategy by the Dems. Bring up the National Guard nonsense again. I mean, it worked so well in the Governers race, the 2000 race, and of course this race a couple of months ago.
Righties and Lefties, leave it alone. Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush have undistinguished, highly suspect military careers from 30+ years ago. It doesn't matter. John Kennedy was a war hero. Bob Dole was a war hero. George Bush the Elder was a war hero. George McGovern was a war hero. But their service records had nothing to do with their respective aptitudes for being the President. Get it?
I agree that their war records are not what we should be focussing on. I disagree that John Kerry has an undistinguished highly suspect military career. The man won medals, saved lives, and killed enemy. He was also wounded. That to me is distinguished.
The Swift Boat Veterans would disagree, and some of those "medals" are suspect. However, my point is this: their suspect records don't mean a hill of beans. If we as Americans focus on what the candidates will or won't do on domestic and foreign policy, we as a voting populace will be better served. It's time to put away the tit for tat and embrace the give and take. Neither candidate is my first choice, but they are our only choices for now. Both want to serve their country. We have to choose which one will do the best job.
The swift boat veterans have been contradicted time and again, but you are correct that as far as the office of President is concerned we should look at other things. I agree with you.
Some of you remind me of Steve Francis. He never "got it" either. Quit majoring on the minors. Look at both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush as they are TODAY. Focus on the hard core issues at hand -- there are plenty of them. Look where they stand -- not where they stood. Believe me, we all have feet of clay.
I don't think any of us are majoring on their military records, but at the same time there is nothing wrong with correcting the lies and inaccuracies that are being spread about the candidates past, even if it's not one of the more important issues in the campaign.
Go ahead. Lefties and Righties, please continue to sanitize the past, sweeping any inconvenient facts under the rug. When all is tidy and history has been edited to your satisfaction, then I hope there is time for thought regarding issues that are important. Your future may depend on it.
I'm not having any trouble "getting it". I'm disagreeing with you. I don't think that people change as much as you believe. I think people's life experiences and situations force them to adapt and evolve, but at their core - I don't think they change. This thread is about the candidates histories... there are quite a few other threads about issues.
Think. Were you different 30 years ago? Were you even alive 30 years ago? Think. You're just out of college and you're say, 23 years old. Do you really believe your viewpoints, attitudes, perspectives, needs, desires, mobility...won't change in 30 years? No, IMO we are not concentrating enough on the real issues like medical care, trade imbalances, full employment strategies, tax equalization and collection, changes in the judiciary, etc. etc.
