Bush Military Career: Lingering Questions

January 23, 2004

1. SPECIAL AFTERNOON MIS-LEAD:
   Questions About Bush's Military Service Linger
   
   Questions about President Bush's military service were raised at last night's Democratic debate by Peter Jennings who called charges of desertion from the Texas Air National Guard "reckless" and "not supported by the facts."1 However, meticulously collected evidence suggests that there are continuing questions.
   
   ABC News anchor Peter Jennings questioned General Wesley Clark about whether he should have disputed supporter Michael Moore's assertion that President Bush was a "deserter" from the Texas Air National Guard in 1972. Mr. Jennings said, "At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush - he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a 'deserter.' Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so."2
   
   Despite Mr. Jennings characterization, the facts relating to the president's military service, beginning in 1968, and abruptly ending in 1972 -- two years prior to his six-year commitment -- are not at all clear.
   
   Investigative reporters with the Boston Globe looked into Bush's service during the 2000 presidential campaign, in an article that appeared on July 28th.3
   
   A retired member of the Air National Guard has obtained several memos and official letters regarding Mr. Bush's military service, and provided an analysis of whether the president "did the duty necessary,"4 as he maintains.
   
   A scanned copy of President Bush's request to be transferred to an inactive postal Reserve unit in Alabama (he requested the transfer to work on a U.S. Senate campaign) can be viewed here: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc7.gif
   
   A scanned copy of the denial of Bush's transfer order can be viewed here: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
   
   A scanned copy of the memo confirming Bush's suspension from the Air National guard for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination can be viewed here:http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif
   
   The full analysis can be viewed here: http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154
   
   
   Sources:
   
2. "New Hampshire Democratic Debate," 1/22/04.
   
3. Ibid.
   
4. "REPUBLICAN TICKET LETS A MILITARY CONNECTION SLIP," Boston Globe, 7/28/00, p. A1.
   
5. "BUSH DEFENDS GUARD RECORD, DISPUTES REPORT OF MISSING DUTY," Boston Globe, 5/24/00, p. A8.

[BFrank]

It's all true:

[crawjo]

I read through the argument, and the accompanying documents. I have to agree with Jennings. There is no evidence to support the charge of "desertion." The argument contained in the final link, the "full analysis" is riddled with problems.

The main problem is this one:

And on May 15, 1972, Bush simply "cleared this base" according to a written report by one of his two Squadron supervising officers, Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr.

I invite anyone to click through the link and read the full written report. In fact, the report is dated 2 May 1973, not May 15, 1972. And it says he has "cleared this base" AND "has been performing equivalent duty in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp..."

The report in other words, is not damaging, if you actually read the whole thing and don't cherry pick one comment out of it. This looks to me like a status report, nothing more, nothing less. It says nothing at all about "desertion" but rather that a "civilian occupation made it NECESSARY FOR HIM TO MOVE TO MONTGOMERY" and that he was "performing equivalent duty."

Again, this report is not from May 15, 1972, as anyone who reads the document will see. It is dated one year later. This is a crucial mistake. Because then he goes on to say that Bush's application had been denied, which it had, but on 24 May 1972. The author wants you to believe that this denial took place 9 days after Bush "cleared this base" but in fact it was nearly a year before that report was made. And the report from May 2, 1973 mentions nothing about Bush being derelict in his duties. In fact, it specifically says that "he has been performing EQUIVALENT duty." So obviously, for whatever reason, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama, since this May, 1973 report includes no reprimand or suggestion that he is a deserter, but in fact notes that he is performing equivalent duties elsewhere.

Because the author got his timeline mixed up (and I will--with must hesitation--assume that this was an honest mistake) most of his argument falls apart. Bush did fail a medical examination in August, 1972, but again, that is months before the May, 1973 report, which specifically indicates that Bush was performing equivalent duties elsewhere.

Bush may or may not have had a substance abuse problem at the time this was taking place, and that may have been the reason why he failed a medical examination. But I don't see that as being particularly germane to the issue, given Bush's honorable discharge and the fact that, contrary to this author's innuendo, he was not a "deserter." If Bush was having personal problems that prevented him from passing his medical examination, I don't see why that is such a serious issue. We're talking about something that happened thirty years ago. If Bush lied about his service in the Texas Guard, that would be an issue, but I don't see where he has lied. Again, Peter Jennings was right. There is no evidence that Bush was a deserter.

Next time, Chris, click through the links and read the original documents. You might have spotted this canard if you had done so.

[Gary Sisco]

There is all the evidence in the world that he is a deserter and there is nothing reckless about the charges.

There is no record whatsoever of Bush showing for service for the last seventeen months of his alleged National Guard service. No one has been able to find a single enlisted guy or officer in either the Texas or the Alabama Nat'l Guard who served in his alleged units at the time who can recall serving with him. (Not something one would be likely to forget, let's face it, having been stationed with a guy who later became president.)

Under the UCMJ (Uniform Code Of Military Justice), which is the only law that governs military affairs, the Constitutional rights of citizens being suspended while in uniform, very specifically specifies that one is AWOL for 30 days or less. After 30 days, one's AWOL becomes desertion, the most serious of military crimes, and one for which there is no statute of limitation. None. And the charge is a capital offense, punishable up to death.

There is a simple way to solve the problem: Have Bush produce his DD-214, which records every day of service, what kind of service it was, and etc. Have him produce his service record. There is always a record of service and when it was or wasn't performed.

Seems simple enough. The repubs are insisting that they can look into essentially anyone's various affairs whenever they like for reasons of "national security," and as far as I know, Junior is one of the category of "anyone."

All he has to do is put up or fess up. It would be interesting as hell if Kerry had enough balls (he doesn't) to put his service record up for public view and challenge Bush to do the same.

I recall back in the 80s, the guy that published Soldier Of Fortune magazine was challenged in this way, consistently, for years, and he always refused to publish his DD-214, which would have shown conclusively whether or no he was the Viet warrior that he wanted everyone to believe he was. Why one like himself would refuse to show documentation of his service if such existed, when challenged, is a question that's really "unanswered."

Bush's service record exists. Many people are still alive who served at his alleged stations in those years. He'd have no problem establishing his record, if he wanted to. What's the problem? I've never known a single vet who's served honorably that would object to a viewing of one's record of service. Normally, it's a source of pride, not secrecy. Unless there's a reason why one *doesn't* want his record read.

[BFrank]

'The Deserter'

When muckraking filmmaker Michael Moore recently called President George W. Bush a "deserter," journalists and pundits recoiled in distaste. Peter Jennings, to take one example of many, said Moore had leveled "a reckless charge not supported by the facts."

Moore has countered by assembling much of the public record about George W. Bush's absence without leave (AWOL) from the National Guard. It includes mutually reinforcing reports by The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The Dallas Morning News and other mainstream media, citing everyone from combat veterans in the Senate to the National Guard's own documents. The bottom line: At a time when the nation was at war in Vietnam, Bush was AWOL for at least several months from his States-side military post.

Is that desertion? Click here for a PDF file of the US Army Research Institute's 2002 publication, "What We Know About AWOL and Desertion: A Review of the Professional Literature for Policy Makers and Commanders." The second page, under the headline "What is a Deserter?", states: "Currently, any soldier who has taken an unauthorized leave from his/her training or duty station is considered AWOL. On the 31st day of AWOL, this status is officially changed to Dropped From Rolls (DFR), or desertion. This can be considered the 'administrative' definition of the term. From a legal standpoint, individuals are considered deserters when they have been convicted of the crime through a court martial."

So was Moore reckless in saying George W. Bush is a deserter?

I suppose it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[crawjo]

Did you guys even notice the post that I made, that basically shredded the argument being put forth that Bush was "away without leave?" There is no army document that says he was AWOL that I have seen. The one that says "he has cleared this base" as I demonstrated in the above post, was not suggesting he was AWOL. All I've seen is that he failed a physical, and that he didn't complete all the hours in the plane he was supposed to. But in any event, the Guard, to my knowledge, never defined him as a deserter or as being "away without leave." I have yet to see any document that indicates that somebody wanted to know where the hell airman Bush was, etc. Facts, people, facts.

Facts, people, facts. - Crawjo

Oh my, Crawjo, OH MY!!!!

Facts are Kryptonite to the liberla.

Have you learned nothing so far?

[crawjo]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Oh my, Crawjo, OH MY!!!!

Facts are Kryptonite to the liberla.

Have you learned nothing so far?

This is why I'm starting to feel that conservatives, Republicans, and decent-thinking Independents need to vote for Bush even though he's been a royal fuck-up in a lot of ways lately. These people just don't *deserve* victory. I'd love to see them have to put up with the goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, non-elected Bush regime for another four years.

I'd love to see them have to put up with the goose-stepping, Hitler-loving, non-elected Bush regime for another four years.

You know, you're starting to make a lot of sense, Crawjo.

[walto]

"Did you guys even notice the post that I made."

Why not respond to Gary's post rather than just sling mud? He certainly responded to yours.

Originally posted by walto
"Did you guys even notice the post that I made."

Why not respond to Gary's post rather than just sling mud? He certainly responded to yours.

• They have no intelligent response, so they resort to the Dolan/Monte petty patter retort. It's how their see-no-evil* minds work, I guess.

* opposing view/fact.

[crawjo]

There was little of substance to reply to in Gary's post. The fact that people can't remember serving with Bush is irrelevant. The question is whether he was a DESERTER, which means, leaving without permission. Again, where's the evidence? Why is the burden of proof on Bush? The only people making these claims are wackos like Michael Moore or hack journalists who can't even get their facts straight (like citing a Guard document as coming from 1972 when in fact it is clearly dated 1973). He might as well produce evidence that he wasn't in on the Kennedy assassination. There have been no substantive allegations that I have seen.

[crawjo]

Just to be clear: in order for Bush to have been a deserter, you'd have to find someone in the Army saying that he was supposed to be serving when he wasn't serving. The only Army documents that I have seen cited (that should be Guard documents, but whatever) are either ones that indicate he was doing EQUIVALENT service in Alabama, or the notice that he failed a medical screening. Neither of these constitute, in any way, shape, or form, "desertion", particularly in light of Bush's honorable discharge in 1974.

[crawjo]

Also, why does the author of the linked article that started this discussion gloss over the fact that Bush volunteered for duty in Vietnam, but was turned down? Because of his anti-Bush bias, he just assumes that this was a cynical action and that Bush knew he wouldn't be selected. Again, no evidence to back it up.

There, have I responsed now?

Now, it's your guys turn. Somebody quote this sentence that I am typing right now, and dispute my assertion that the author of the linked article got his timeline completely screwed up by citing a 1973 document as a 1972 document, and that he also cherry-picked one particular quote from the document that implied a desertion when in fact if you read the entire sentence you see that the document is not condemnatory of Bush at all, but notes that he was doing equivalent service in Alabama. Has not the author been discredited by these egregious errors? And if not, why not?

[walto]

"Now, it's your guys turn. Somebody quote this sentence that I am typing right now, and dispute my assertion that the author of the linked article got his timeline completely screwed up by citing a 1973 document as a 1972 document, and that he also cherry-picked one particular quote from the document that implied a desertion when in fact if you read the entire sentence you see that the document is not condemnatory of Bush at all, but notes that he was doing equivalent service in Alabama. Has not the author been discredited by these egregious errors? And if not, why not?"


I don't dispute your claim that the article is poor and the author may be biased. But these desertion charges against Bush have long predated this particular piece. Gary's been making this accusation for years right here at JC. I know, it's America and people are innocent until proven otherwise, but whoever may have the burden of proof in a court of law, this is politics. If these charges are total bullshit and it would be as easy to explode them as Gary indicates, why not do it? Bush's reticence on this matter isn't exactly confidence-building, IMHO.

Anyhow, this failure to forthrightly respond to this pretty serious charge seems to me to be a bit more important than whether or not the author of the article you object to got a date wrong.

But these desertion charges against Bush have long predated this particular piece. Gary's been making this accusation for years right here at JC.

Since about July 28, 2000, Walto? The day The Boston Globe reported it?

I agree with Crawjo in the sense that Gary often opinion laced facts are rarely worth refuting because so many of them remain baseless when he refuses to give sources other than his own fevered imagination. Or the seemingly ubiquitous "newspapers".

And I understand exactly where you are coming from Walt, your questions are quite valid, I'll agree. But so is the question of, why was he able to serve 36 days from May of '73 to July of '73 if he had previously been listed as AWOL?

And how in the hell does someone who IS AWOL receive and honorable discharge.

You must admit Walto, those questions are just as perplexing as the ones you ask. Of course, you could just go the fact filled route of Chris A and claim that daddy bought his son the discharge.

But then again, thats just my petty patter retort.

"Anyhow, this failure to forthrightly respond to this pretty serious charge seems to me to be a bit more important than whether or not the author of the article you object to got a date wrong."

• A good point, Walto.
  
  Wasn't there also something about vital Bush service records having disappeared mysteriously from the files? I seem to recall that.

Wasn't there also something about vital Bush service records having disappeared mysteriously from the files? I seem to recall that.

What a shock that you SEEM to recall it.

Do you mean these, Mr. Conspiracy?

http://www.awolbush.com/

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

My, what a mysterious disappearance. Into the deep dark abyss of the internet.

Yes...

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
And how in the hell does someone who IS AWOL receive and honorable discharge.

• Possibly in very much the same way a dim-witted guy makes it to the finishing line at Yale. Unlike most of us, you would be amazed to learn how having the "right" family ties can be like having a skeleton key in the closet.
  
  Here's a better link for you. I suggest that you also check out the sources listed at the end.

[Monte Smith]

The military? Get paper work right? That’s funny. As my wife still receives a paycheck (for $0) on a biweekly basis ten months after leaving active duty, and as she has received more than one set of new orders in the same space of time, I'm not at all surprised that no one in the Texas Air National Guard can put their hand on a piece of paper from thirty-five years ago. And to think that they are our first line of air defense against the Mexicans!

And to think that they are our first line of air defense against the Mexicans!

Characteristically lame, Monte. Looks like all these revelations regarding your appointed "president" and his regime have taken the bombast out of you!

Well, you do have your court jester.

[Monte Smith]

OK, Sunshine. Now you promise to let me know the minute anything I post meets with your approval, you hear?

I for one am glad that we have Chris here to rate our posts.

He tells me what I'm thinking, which is obviously quite beneficial to me. A man of his intelligence and scope is a rare thing indeed.

I mean that.

Thinking??????

[walto]

"And I understand exactly where you are coming from Walt, your questions are quite valid, I'll agree. But so is the question of, why was he able to serve 36 days from May of '73 to July of '73 if he had previously been listed as AWOL? "


I agree that those are good questions, Scott. & I certainly don't have the answers to them. (I know almost nothing about this entire matter, actually.) I was just responding to Crawjo's (hyperventilated) challenge. I mean, his discovery of a biased(!) article (wowee!!) hardly settles the matter once and for all, does it?

Kind of like the discovery (through MEMRI!) that there are whacko articles and op-ed pieces written in the Middle East. I mean, we've got Howie Carr writing 'em several times a week right here in Boston.

Originally posted by Chris A
Thinking??????

Truly the most honest post I've ever seen from you, Chris. You've come so far...............

[crawjo]

Originally posted by walto
"Now, it's your guys turn. Somebody quote this sentence that I am typing right now, and dispute my assertion that the author of the linked article got his timeline completely screwed up by citing a 1973 document as a 1972 document, and that he also cherry-picked one particular quote from the document that implied a desertion when in fact if you read the entire sentence you see that the document is not condemnatory of Bush at all, but notes that he was doing equivalent service in Alabama. Has not the author been discredited by these egregious errors? And if not, why not?"

I don't dispute your claim that the article is poor and the author may be biased. But these desertion charges against Bush have long predated this particular piece. Gary's been making this accusation for years right here at JC. I know, it's America and people are innocent until proven otherwise, but whoever may have the burden of proof in a court of law, this is politics. If these charges are total bullshit and it would be as easy to explode them as Gary indicates, why not do it? Bush's reticence on this matter isn't exactly confidence-building, IMHO.

Anyhow, this failure to forthrightly respond to this pretty serious charge seems to me to be a bit more important than whether or not the author of the article you object to got a date wrong.

I don't get it. Gary Sisco makes a challenge, and the president of the United States must have a response? Please. This is a guy who thinks he shouldn't have to pay taxes for public schools because he doesn't send his own kids to school. Since he himself hasn't produced any evidence to back up his charges, why should I listen to him? What credibility does he have?

And just to clarify: the author's misidentification of a date DOES undermine his entire piece, because it undermines the timeline he sets up that proves Bush's "desertion." Furthermore, the author also completely undermines himself by his cherry-picked quote from the officer's report on Bush. It is question of bias, and it is a serious one. Since it is the piece that kick-started this entire thread, I for one am going to need to see better evidence than that, or than the rantings of a Gary Sisco before I demand the President make a response.

Also, I've got a question for you guys who think this is a big deal: If David Robinson (the basketball player) ever runs for political office will you call him a deserter because he only served two years of his six-year commitment to the Navy? Like Bush, he was also "honorably discharged" from the services. So what the hell is the difference?

[walto]

"the author's misidentification of a date DOES undermine his entire piece"

I didn't claim that THE PIECE wasn't undermined by your (major) discovery. These charges, by the way, were not first leveled by Gary Sisco. As Scott has already pointed out, they've been widely available in the national press at least since 2000.

I don't know any more about David Robinson's situation than I do about Bush's (or than you do, apparently), but if it were widely suggested that he was a deserter, I bet he'd at least try to refute the charge (if he could). Bush hasn't.

[crawjo]

Originally posted by walto
"the author's misidentification of a date DOES undermine his entire piece"

I didn't claim that THE PIECE wasn't undermined by your (major) discovery. These charges, by the way, were not first leveled by Gary Sisco. As Scott has already pointed out, they've been widely available in the national press at least since 2000.

I don't know any more about David Robinson's situation than I do about Bush's (or than you do, apparently), but if it were widely suggested that he was a deserter, I bet he'd at least try to refute the charge (if he could). Bush hasn't.

Walto,

I hate to break it to you, but it has not been "widely circulated" except among the fringe left, which Bush is not trying to win over anyway.

If David Robinson were running for President, I would not be surprised if somebody tried to paint him the same way they are painting Bush. Robinson was a standout basketball player at Navy, drafted number one in the NBA draft. Like all other Midshipmen, when he joined the Naval Academy Robinson agreed to a six-year commitment to the Navy upon graduation. The Navy waived this for him and made it a two-year commitment. So there's four years he promised to serve that he didn't serve. Why didn't he? Probably the same reason as Bush: favoritism. In both instances, however, the body responsible for determining if Robinson or Bush were "deserters" instead "honorably discharged" him. That's all you need to know, frankly. The rest is just heated partisan rhetoric and rank speculation.