…When his lips move – and Hugh Hewitt catches McAuliffe in yet another whopper of a lie – this time that George W. Bush "never served inour military" despite President Bush’s National Guard service – a lie that’s not only false, but head-smackingly so. As Hewitt puts it:
McAuliffe’s decision to deny that service in the national guard is service in the military even as thousands of national guard have served in Iraq is a blunder larger than any of his others, and trafficking in discredited urban myths gives you a glimpse of McAuliffe’s desperation to turn the conversation to anything except Kerry’s way left voting record or his role in the Dean meltdown or the failure of Wes Clark to capture any significant support outside the loon caucus.
For the record: President Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard from May of 1968 to October of 1973. The long-ago discredited allegations that the president was awol are a feature of the Michael Moore crowd who point to a period of months when Bush was working on a campaign in Alabama, from May to November 1972 and did not fly. As the New York Times reports this morning and has reported in the past: "A National Guard official and Mr. Bush’s spokesmen have said that he made up the missed dates, as Guard regulations allow."
RNC Chair Ed Gillespie labeled McAuliffe’s lies "slanderous," "despicable," and "reprehensible," which they are, but not even the dimwits in the national press corps are going to chase that rabbit, so only McAuliffe and the party he leads look bad as a result. I hope the RNC provides a 24/7 cable show for McAuliffe, and in the interim, invites all those outraged with yet another clownish moment from the Alfred E. Neuman of American politics to skip the getting mad and go straight to the getting even via a donation at www.georgewbush.com.
I like that idea – in fact, from now on I’m going to create a fund and add 10 cents everytime I hear a Democrat lying about Bush’s record or otherwise slandering the President – then again, by the end of campaign season, I’ll probably have hit the FEC limit for campaign contributions…
The long-ago discredited allegations that the president was awol are a feature of the Michael Moore crowd who point to a period of months when Bush was working on a campaign in Alabama, from May to November 1972 and did not fly.
No, the period is from May 72 to April 73. The campaign is 5 months. What about the other 6?
Is working on a campaign reasonable reason to skip service? Is that a benefit that all Guardsmen are entitled to?
These are hardly refutations. Hand-waving isn’t going to make this issue go away.
Yes, in fact, a National Guard member can miss drills so long as they make the time up within the same quarter – which is exactly what Bush did.
All the attempts at painting this as some kind of scandal when the New York Times, the Annenberg Center, and just about every other credible source that has examined the matter and found nothing reaks of desperation.
All the attempts at painting this as some kind of scandal when the New York Times, the Annenberg Center, and just about every other credible source that has examined the matter and found nothing reaks of desperation.
Neither of those sources, as I recall from reading them the first time, concluded that all of the allegations were without merit, only that some of them were. There’s plenty of unanswered questions about Bush, his missing time, and his early discharge.
You know, I wasn’t a Clinton supporter either, but at least he could admit that he dodged the service.
The New York Times found records confirming that Bush did serve in November and December 1972, after the campaign had finished, as well as sporadically from January through May. There’s absolutely no scandal here, nothing that couldn’t be found in any number of similar National Guard records. Furthermore, his early discharge is no mystery either, he applied for it and it was granted so he could go to Harvard Business School.
Again, there is no scandal in any of this. Bush did serve sporadically in that year-long period, but there is absolutely no question that he fufilled his obligations as a member of the ANG. No amount of speculation, or any other attempts to spin this into something it is not can alter those basic facts.
Bush did serve sporadically in that year-long period, but there is absolutely no question that he fufilled his obligations as a member of the ANG.
Oh, I’m sure that he fulfilled the letter of his service. The question that you haven’t addressed is, was that enough?
If somebody uses a legal loophole to evade punishment, was justice served? If somebody uses a legal loophole to evade service, have they served their country?
Um, yes. It’s a binary choice. Either you served your term of duty or you did not. Thousands of Guardsman have records similar to Bush’s and no one every questions their service. There’s nothing particularly unusual about Bush’s record, other than so many want so desperately to turn it into something it is not.
In case anyone was curious, these are the facts, and they are apparently not indispute:
1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect. Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.
2. He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.
A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”
3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard. Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.
4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign. The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service. In August 1972, Bush was grounded — suspended from flying duties — for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn’t he take this exam from a doctor?)
5. During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty. But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim. Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”
6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period. On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment). He then went to Harvard Business School.
MoveOn.org concludes:
Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War. The Army defines a “deserter” — also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf.
Seems pretty damning to me. Also, I note that the Army’s definition of “deserter” doesn’t say anything about having to be charged with anything.
Again, MoveOn is not a credible source. They are a politcal hatchet organization. They have no credibility, and 90% of everything they publish is an outright lie.
For example, #4 states that Bush was denied transfer. This is an outright lie. Bush was granted the transfer – the official notice of approval can be read here. Furthermore, there’s a very good reason why he didn’t take his flight physical – he had no need to. Why would he travel all the way across the state from his campaigning job to take a physical when he couldn’t fly in Alabama anyway. Bush was rated for the F-102 Delta Dagger, which was not in the inventory of the Alabama ANG. Would you travel all that way to take a physical when you couldn’t fly anyway? Of course you wouldn’t, and such things happen all the time with Guard members.
#1 and #2 also distorts the truth. Bush did score poorly on the pilot aptitude portion. However he did better on the navigation section (60%), and was in the top 5% of the Officer Aptitude Exam. That alone would be enough to get someone a commission, and usually the top 11% on that test are offered commissions.
Furthermore, the demand was for trained fighter pilots. It’s patently idiotic to argue that the military is going to take someone who barely passed their pilot aptitude test and put them in the cockpit of a multi-million dollar aircraft in combat. The argument is absolutely ludicrous, which shows just how low MoveOn will reach for a partisan accusation.
#3 is also incorrect. Bush’s records from 1971-May 1972 have been accounted for.
As for #5, there’s no reason why Turnipseed would know that Bush was the son of a congressman, and Turnipseed himself admitted that he hadn’t been on the base during much of the seven months in question. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that says conclusively that Bush did not serve during his time in Alabama, and while he did admiss missing some time, his records show that he made it up later – all of which is perfectly acceptable for a member of the ANG.
As for #6, there’s nothing undue about Bush’s discharge either. He couldn’t have served in Vietnam since the F-102 had been phased out of combat, and many Guard members are given expedited discharges to attend school. Furthermore Bush had already accumulated enough service hours to fufill his duty to the Guard.
Furthermore, the final point is equally invalid. The “deserter” statute only applies to the regular Army – it has absolutely nothing to do with the National Guard. ANG members can and do miss drills. The only time a Guard member can be said to be AWOL is if they A:) miss their two-week yearly drill session, which Bush did not or B:) fail to report for mobilization. This does not apply to Bush since his unit was never activated for Vietnam service.
In short, none of the arguments made by MoveOn hold any water. Lacking any available evidence which contradicts Bush’s service record there is no justification in fact or evidence for accusing the President of either being AWOL or desertion. Case closed.