Bush's Lost Records Found

[lynn]

Pentagon Finds Bush's Guard Records

(Caption with picture) Newly discovered payroll records from President Bush's 1972 National Guard service were released by the Pentagon Friday, July 23, 2004. The records shed no new light on the future president's activities during the summer months when Bush was working on the senatorial campaign of a family friend in Alabama. Like records released earlier by the White House, the newly released computerized payroll records show no indication Bush drilled with the Alabama unit during July, August and September of 1972. Pay records covering all of 1972, released previously, also indicated no guard service for Bush during those three months. (AP Photo/Dept. of Defense)


July 23, 2004 06:08 PM EDT


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Friday released newly discovered payroll records from President Bush's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard, though the records shed no new light on the future president's activities during that summer.

A Pentagon official said the earlier contention that the records were destroyed was an "inadvertent oversight."

Like records released earlier by the White House, these computerized payroll records show no indication Bush drilled with the Alabama unit during July, August and September of 1972. Pay records covering all of 1972, released previously, also indicated no guard service for Bush during those three months.

The records do not give any new information about Bush's National Guard training during 1972, when he transferred to the Alabama National Guard unit so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend. The payroll records do not say definitively whether Bush attended training that summer because they are maintained separately from attendance records.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush kept his service commitments, pointing to the fact that Bush was honorably discharged in 1973.

The White House says Bush attended enough training during other months in 1972 to fulfill his service commitment for that year.

The release came three days before Democrats begin their national convention in Boston to officially nominate Sen. John Kerry as their presidential candidate. Military veterans are being tapped at the convention to help tell Kerry's story as he prepares to accept the party's nomination next week.

Democrats have sought to contrast Bush's National Guard service with Kerry's Vietnam War record. Kerry enlisted in the Navy, volunteered for combat in Vietnam and earned several medals including a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. After returning from Vietnam, Kerry became a prominent anti-war activist.

The Associated Press had asked a federal judge on July 16 to order the Pentagon to quickly turn over a copy of the pay records. The AP had sued under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain the records from a state library records center in Texas.

Records of Bush's National Guard service released previously did not explain the apparent gaps in his Guard service in 1972 and 1973.

Bush had transferred to an Alabama National Guard unit while he worked on the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.

The Pentagon had said that the payroll records for that time period had been inadvertently destroyed.

"Previous attempts to locate the missing records at the Federal Records Center had been unsuccessful due to the incorrect records accession numbers provided," the Pentagon's Office of Freedom of Information chief C.Y. Talbott said in a letter Friday to The Associated Press.

"The correct numbers were obtained ... and the records were found."

Talbott wrote that the Defense Department "regrets this inadvertent oversight during the initial search and the delay it caused in your receipt of these materials."

--------------------------

Well this certainly doesn't help Mr. Bush. He can't account for his time.

"The White House says Bush attended enough training during other months in 1972 to fulfill his service commitment for that year."

I knew a guy that missed two weeks of Reserve duty and and they sent him active. What is the deal here.

The deal here is that the Bush people have once again been caught in the act of deceiving the American public.

[Dr Dave]

Yeah, but as long as the Right can chant "Sandy Berger, Sandy Berger" it doesn't mean shit. I wish some of the people who want to see Sandy Berger tried for high crimes and misdemeanors were as eager to see who outed Valerie Plame.

[Ron Thorne]

I'll bet someone checked Sandy Berger's socks and found these "lost" records. Now the shit will really hit the fan!

[willy]

There's one person who knows for sure who outed Valerie Plame. Only he isn't telling. If it was that big of a deal he would be brought into court and forced to reveal the leak or go to jail.

If this is such a big deal then keeping one's anonymous sources a secret is wrong, and the media is not above the law.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

I'll bet someone checked Sandy Berger's socks and found these "lost" records. Now the shit will really hit the fan!

Berger not only stuffed papers in his socks but in his pants. He gave new meaning to the term, "inside the beltway."

The last thing I read about Berger is that four times he nixed attack on Bin Laden as National Security Advisor to Clinton, according to the 9-11 Commission report.

Dr. Dave, you could have also asked why the people who are so concerned about who outed Valerie Plame aren't concerned as to why her husband lied when he said she didn't recommend him got the Niger mission to investigate whether Saddam tried to purchase uranium there.

Chris, you turn a blind eye whenever an anti-Bush politician or a liberal Democrat deceives the American public.

Dr. Dave might like this article from July 7, in NRO online by Bruce Bartlett, one of my favorite journalists. Bartlett, a pro-market pundit, waxes nostalgic for Bill Clinton, after 3.5 years of living through Bush's betrayals of free-market economics. I admit to having the same feeling over the last few months. I still support Bush over Kerry but I'm not rooting very hard.

Bartlett column

[willy]

I agree on Clinton. He championed NAFTA which is/was the right thing to do, even though the left hates it now. According to them all of our jobs have left the country.

[Dr Dave]

You guys are just too good at changing the subject.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

You guys are just too good at changing the subject.

Hmmmm. I thought that was you in post #3.

[lynn]

The typical M.O.

Slight of hand, smoke and mirrors. Doesn't change the records. Bush was absent without the proper leave to do so. His respect for the military has followed him to the White House.

[Gary Sisco]

One can only be AWOL for 30 days or less. If absent without leave for longer than 30 days, the charge is desertion. Period. That's the law under the UCMJ.

Once again, however, they keep focussing on pay records. The real shit is in the *service record,* of which the pay record is a very small and not very important part. I simply can't believe how lame this generation of journalists is.

In the service record we'd find out the real shit about why he stopped flying (more accurately, being allowed to fly by the Guard), his performance review marks from superiors, and etc. That's when the real fun would begin. Who cares if a silver spoon brat got paid or not? As if that's the only way to establish one's service history. Duh.

An enterprising journalist could also do some research and try to find even one other guy in the whole of National Guard history who was disallowed to fly and subsequently allowed to transfer to another state's Guard, with a nonexistent deskjob, so he could work on a family friend's political campaign. Even one, and I'll shut up about this subject forever.

[Uli]

This scandalous behaviour of our war president is deserving of at least a little bit of appropriate indignation by even Mr. Olewnick.

[Brian Olewnick]

Indignation duly registered.

As with most things of this type, I think Bush would have been better served by simply laying out whatever the facts were, up to and including any preferential treatment he received. Probably would've been shrugged off by most voters (they didn't seem to mind the alcohol and cocaine addictions too much, what's the big deal here?). Should have also admitted that his reason for serving in the Guard (to the extent he did) was, obviously, to avoid any chance of going to Viet Nam. You may recall that Dan Quayle did the same thing and admitted to it!

Even if worse comes to worse with this scandal (for GW), I doubt it'll have much resonance with the voters.

[Captain Hate]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I simply can't believe how lame this generation of journalists is.

I can't believe you're incredulous about this; the evidence has been right in front of your eyes that they are lazy fucks who have insight into nothing. They are the biggest examples of boomer stupidity and hubris. That they're even employed is a job corp for the submediocre.

[tippy]

As a layperson, explain to me why these records don't reflect that his standing was sufficient for him to receive pay during this period? I don't understand why finding these records is a negative, if they are merely inconclusive.

[Uli]

The point is, Tippy, that there is no conclusive evidence anywhere in Bush's military records that he ever showed up for his duty during a certain time period.

[tippy]

Yeah, I remember this from 2000, Uli. I'm just saying there's nothing new here except to prove that he got paid so if anything it's makes his record appear more legit from my point of view, not less.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Hmmmm. I thought that was you in post #3.

Who, me?

[willy]

I actually agree with Tippy on something

When a charge is made the burdon of proof is on the accuser. It is not up to the accused to prove he's innocent.

Also, I'd like to say a few things in regards to Dave's assertion that we are focusing on Sandy Berger to draw attention away from the Bush Administration. Sandy Berger stole classified documents that nobody is supposed to take. He knew this. He's not as clumbsy or as dumb as some on the left are trying to make him out to be. He knew what he was doing when he took those papers. The questions that need to be answered are what did the papers say and why did he take them.

Berger himself admitted to taking the documents. There are eye witnesses who saw him stuffing them into his pants. There is no shread of evidence, however, of Bush being AWOL. Only an accusation. Not being able to come up with pay stubs from 30 years ago doesn't make a very strong case here. How many people here who are old enough have pay stubs to prove they worked at a certain place during certain months 30 years ago? Do you have dental records from that time as well (remember the week long media blitz about Bush's dental records while in the National Guard?)


How lame. We need something a little more substantial here for this Bush AWOL thing to be taken seriously by the American people.

[BFrank]

BUSH RECORDS UPDATE....Two weeks ago the White House announced that George Bush's National Guard payroll records from the third quarter of 1972 could not be found because of the "inadvertent destruction" of certain rolls of microfilm.

Today, the White House announced that their previous announcement of "inadvertant destruction" was actually an "inadvertent oversight." The records have been found after all.

That's a lot of inadvertent-ness. The result, however, is the same as always: Bush didn't show up for drills of any kind during that period. There's still no evidence one way or the other about what he was doing from May-October of 1972.

—Kevin Drum 5:54 PM




July 23, 2004 -- 07:04 PM EDT)
A couple weeks ago we noted reports that a group of payroll records, which might have clarified President Bush's Guard service during a part of 1972, had been "inadvertently destroyed" in a tragic microfilm accident.

That grabbed my attention because from my history research days I knew that the sort of microfilm accident described is exceedingly rare. Indeed, this is the reason so many institutions still use microfilm, even though its been around for something like a century -- because of its excellent archival value, which for various reasons still far outpaces various new digital storage media.

Today though we have an example of just how archival microfilm is. Even after having been destroyed, the files in question managed to turn up at the Pentagon late Friday afternoon.

Now that is archival!

In any case, as announced this afternoon the announcement that the documents in question had been "inadvertently destroyed" itself turned out to be the product of an "inadvertent oversight." (And, no, in case you're wondering, I'm not making this up. Those are quotes.)

And the AP has written the story up with this lede ...

[The Pentagon on Friday released newly discovered payroll records from President Bush's 1972 service in the Alabama National Guard, though the records shed no new light on the future president's activities during that summer.
A Pentagon official said the earlier contention that the records were destroyed was an "inadvertent oversight."

Like records released earlier by the White House, these computerized payroll records show no indication Bush drilled with the Alabama unit during July, August and September of 1972. Pay records covering all of 1972, released previously, also indicated no guard service for Bush during those three months.

The records do not give any new information about Bush's National Guard training during 1972, when he transferred to the Alabama National Guard unit so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend. The payroll records do not say definitively whether Bush attended training that summer because they are maintained separately from attendance records.]

I have to say that I think I'm with Atrios on this one: I don't understand.

I concede the point that payroll records may have been wrong, or rather simply not have recorded times when the future president showed up for duty. But no new information? These new documents seem to provide at least some added confirmation that the president never showed up for drills as he said he did, right? What am I missing?

-- Josh Marshall

[willy]

"The result, however, is the same as always: Bush didn't show up for drills of any kind during that period. There's still no evidence one way or the other about what he was doing from May-October of 1972."


If there's no evidence one way or the other about what Bush was doing from May-October of 1972 how does this person come to the conclusion that Bush didn't show up for drills of any kind during that period? No evidence one way or the other is proof that he was AWOL?

This wouldn't get you very far in court.

[Dr Dave]

Willy, if there were records showing Bush was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be, you can be sure they would not be "lost."

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Willy, if there were records showing Bush was where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be, you can be sure they would not be "lost."

Exactly my thought. Mr Bush's pay records indicate only that he was enlisted in and was being paid because he was an enlisted man in the National Guard. Nobody disputes that. They dispute his actual service record, which seems pretty murky to me.
If Mr Bush had distiguished himself during his enlistment with the National Guard, in any way, you can be sure that his handlers would be crowing about it. As it is, the only thing that is certain is that he enlisted in the National Guard to avoid being sent to Viet Nam. Not only that, but having secured a berth in the National Guard, he didn't seem to think that that venerable institution merited any sort of real patriotic effort on his part. Having been trained, at public expense, to be a fighter pilot, he didn't think that was important enough to pass the physical, in order to actually serve his country as a military pilot.
Putting all that aside, there seem to be very few, if any, co-enlistees who remember serving with Mr Bush, which strikes me as extremely odd, considering that he was from such a prominent family and that his father was elected President. There are always those who want to claim closeness with prominent people with whom they have been, even coincidentaly associated in the service. Where are these people??
His pay records would tell the people far less than anecdotal information from co-servicemen. Where are they???

[lynn]

Originally Posted by willy

"The result, however, is the same as always: Bush didn't show up for drills of any kind during that period. There's still no evidence one way or the other about what he was doing from May-October of 1972."


If there's no evidence one way or the other about what Bush was doing from May-October of 1972 how does this person come to the conclusion that Bush didn't show up for drills of any kind during that period? No evidence one way or the other is proof that he was AWOL?

This wouldn't get you very far in court.

Is there any statement from the Bush camp as to what Bush was doing during those three months? He could have been on a huge bender.

[tippy]

You present interesting common sense points, patricia. My question was a logistical one because I know that no one would continue to cut me checks if I weren't performing my duties so I was saying that from the point of view of at least one person (myself) who has not served, these pay records would refute rather than support that President Bush was lapsed in his service. For me, no additional light has been shed on this controversy in four years time and I'm pretty certain that it will remain stagnant. I know what I think--that there is something to hide and that Mr. Bush received special privileges in avoiding his service. This is what I thought four years ago and that is what I continue to think now--nothing has changed. I would note too that it did not make enough of an impression on voters last time and I doubt that to anyone who would continue support Bush at this time, meaning mid-Iraq, that they'd give a damn about it now.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tippy

You present interesting common sense points, patricia. My question was a logistical one because I know that no one would continue to cut me checks if I weren't performing my duties so I was saying that from the point of view of at least one person (myself) who has not served, these pay records would refute rather than support that President Bush was lapsed in his service. For me, no additional light has been shed on this controversy in four years time and I'm pretty certain that it will remain stagnant. I know what I think--that there is something to hide and that Mr. Bush received special privileges in avoiding his service. This is what I thought four years ago and that is what I continue to think now--nothing has changed. I would note too that it did not make enough of an impression on voters last time and I doubt that to anyone who would continue support Bush at this time, meaning mid-Iraq, that they'd give a damn about it now.

Particularly since he has dubbed himself the "War President".
George W Bush was a slacker, in the classic sense and IMO is still a slacker.
People compare John Kerry to "Lurch" in the old Munster series. Lurch was actually the only dignified character in the Munster series. I would think that that comparison would be preferable to being compared to "Alfred E. Neuman" or "Howdy Doody".

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Willy, I'm not sure about the details of the law, but I'm pretty sure the burden in this case is on the Pentagon to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.

[groover]

July 23, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Foolscap and Favored Sons
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/23/op...23alex.html?th
By CAROLINE ALEXANDER

It had come late in the day, but it was more than I had hoped for. Scanned from the original document held by the British Public Record Office, Admiralty File 29/5 contained the complete service record of a man whose life I had been researching for more than two years: William Purcell, carpenter, had concluded 25 years of naval service on Dec. 31, 1812. The last of the 16 ships on which he had served was the Boscawen; the first, on which he had mustered on Aug. 27, 1787, was the Bounty.

The Admiralty archives are a superb resource, if notoriously difficult to navigate, and the holdings are uneven. Nonetheless, in the course of researching the history of the Bounty, I was continually astounded that so much material had survived from the 18th and early 19th century.
So when the Pentagon announced that critical pay records that could have shed light on a gap in President Bush's service record in 1972 and 1973 had been inadvertently destroyed several years ago, it struck me as particularly incredible; apparently it is easier to reconstruct the 25-year career of a British Naval seaman in the 18th century than the National Guard service of a president. Not only does this gaffe deny the American public information that could answer questions about the president's past, but it is also a loss to future historians.

The Admiralty archives taught me a great deal about William Purcell, whose cantankerous ways plagued Lt. William Bligh throughout the voyage (though in the end, he proved loyal to his captain in the mutiny that deprived Bligh of his ship). From contemporary descriptions, I had imagined Purcell to have been an older man, with a long naval record behind him. Now I learned that the Bounty was his first ship. The new information also made it possible to check the muster rolls, log books, pay records and captain's letters of his later ships. These would reveal at the very least the parts of the world Purcell later visited, under which captains he had sailed, whether his home port changed over the years.

The same trove of Admiralty papers revealed that George Simpson, the quartermaster's mate on the Bounty, had died in the ship's hammock, and his personal effects returned to his father in the Lake District, and that a pardoned mutineer, James Morrison, had gone down with all hands on the Blenheim. The Greenwich Hospital records, folded and stacked in neat piles tied with faded ribbon, included both the dates that the Bounty's armorer, Joseph Coleman, had been admitted and a list of every ship on which he had served.

As anyone who has conducted even amateur genealogical research knows, a single entry on a single scrap of paper can be revelatory. Often the bald fact provides not only a nugget of hard information, but also the means to connect dots leading to other webs of information.

Stark facts in the records of a Bounty midshipman, Peter Heywood, for example, were very suggestive. Brought before a court-martial, Heywood was found guilty of mutiny, although he was later pardoned. His surviving records revealed the curious fact that the years he had spent on Tahiti as a fugitive had been credited toward the years of service required for his promotion to lieutenancy. A little more digging prompted by this anomaly disclosed the fact, little known even in his time, that Heywood enjoyed the good fortune of being related to one of the highest naval figures in the kingdom, Admiral Lord Howe.
The records of the men who served on the Bounty reveal more than the prosaic facts of their individual careers. They add to the evidence of a relentless campaign to rehabilitate young Peter Heywood. Cumulatively, they tell a whole new story - the real story, as opposed to the version spun by his defenders.

The Admiralty papers are part of the Public Record Office's armed services holdings, which are punctuated by numerous painful lapses; soldiers' records from World War I, for example, casualties of the London blitz, are almost wholly lacking. The lost service records of President Bush, according to a Pentagon spokesman, were casualties of "deteriorating microfilm" and a failed preservation strategy.

Timing aside, the disappearance of Mr. Bush's service records is important for reasons that go beyond mere politics. Military records are a cornerstone of a nation's archival history. Buried among the lost papers are the records of other men, in whom other researchers at another time might be interested, whose simple facts of service might contribute to the building of a larger historical picture that could clarify the stories spun by the politics of the time.
Clearly the Department of Defense needs to raise the standard of its record-keeping. Perhaps future records should be kept on foolscap paper tied with ribbon: these seem to last for centuries.

Caroline Alexander is the author, most recently, of "The Bounty: The True Story of the Mutiny on the Bounty."

[patricia]

Military records don't just "get lost", and Mr Bush's records would have been with those of the other men who served in the National Guard at the same time that he did. I would assume that his were not kept separate. If everyone else's records were there, then Mr Bush's would be there also. This nonsense about misplaced, or destroyed records would be upsetting, to say the least, for the other soldiers and the story just didn't ring true when it was first presented and doesn't ring true now.
It seems more likely that, like the newly "classified" information which was requested for the 9/11 hearings, the service record was simply not information that the White House wanted made public. Wouldn't it be nice if we could simply bury unflattering, official information about our less steller experiences?? Well, apparantly, Mr Bush can...........and is doing just that.
I think that the pressure should remain on him to produce his service records and he would be better off finding those who have anything interesting to say about his time in the military. Surely that would help him bolster his claim of being a "War President"...................or not. Let the people decide.

[willy]

"Willy, I'm not sure about the details of the law, but I'm pretty sure the burden in this case is on the Pentagon to comply with the Freedom of Information Act."

The Pentagon is denying access to Bush's records? If this is true then bust their asses!!