|
 |
February 04, 2004 THE TORN DOCUMENT....So what's the deal with the George Bush AWOL story? There are a million tedious details, but as near as I can tell here's the nub of the whole thing. Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard in 1968 and in May 1972
asked for a transfer to Alabama because he wanted to work on a political
campaign there. His transfer was approved and off to Alabama he went.
The problem is that he doesn't seem to have actually performed any of
his required guard duty either in Alabama or after he returned to Texas.
He just blew it off. There are several bits of evidence for this:
Case closed, right? Bush was AWOL. And for normal people at least, this would have been a serious problem, prompting an official investigation and a transfer to active duty, or possibly even a dishonorable discharge. But wait. Although there are no records showing that he attended drills in Alabama, there is one
piece of evidence demonstrating that Bush showed up for drills after he
returned to Texas: the infamous "torn document." Here it is:
In other words, there's really no evidence that this document refers to George W. Bush or even that it refers to the period 1972-73. But it's even worse than that: it turns out that this document wasn't even part of Bush's original service file. Rather, back in 1999 the nascent Bush campaign, which was apparently already worried about his service record, hired Albert Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel director, to help make sense of Bush's file. Lloyd "scoured" the archives and found the document above, which he says contains Bush's Social Security number beneath the redaction. It has since been inserted into Bush's file. (In fact, there are two versions of this document. If you're really a masochist, see here for more details.) So that's the story. The torn document wasn't originally part of Bush's service file and is basically laughable as a piece of evidence since it contains no names or dates. What's more, there's specific evidence that his superiors in Texas say he wasn't around for the entire period from May 1972 through May 1973. (On the other hand, as TomPaine.com points out, the last date on the torn document and the first two dates on Bush's 1973-74 attendance record seem to match up with the dates on this document ordering him to attend drills during May and June of 1973. That's the best evidence there is that the torn document is genuine.) If the torn document is genuine, it means Bush attended Guard drills when he got back to Texas starting in November 1972. But even Lloyd seems to believe that at the very least he was AWOL while he was in Alabama:
Was Bush just a victim of sloppy paperwork? It's hard to say, although Phil Carter has some ideas about ways to track down corroborating evidence for Bush's side of the story. And at least one person thinks there's much worse than bad recordkeeping at work here:
Of course, much of this controversy could be defused if Bush just voluntarily released his complete service record. If he did that, for example, the Social Security number wouldn't be blacked out on the torn document. Apparently, though, there's something in his record bad enough that it's worth keeping parts of it under wraps (or redacted) despite the problems it's caused. What do you think it is? POSTSCRIPT: It's hard to keep all the details correct on this story. If I've made any mistakes, however, I'm sure that Bob Somerby and his encyclopedic memory will set me straight. The complete set of known documents related to Bush's service record is here. UPDATE: There's more here about the issues surrounding the torn document and whether it's genuine or not. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 4, 2004 10:20 PM | TrackBackComments
I have a torn document that shows I won the lottery. Well it _is_ missing the numbers but only bean counters would care about that kind of trivial detail. Oh yeah, I have another torn document that shows the government can't tax my lottery winnings once I get them. Sittin' pretty I am. Posted by: Michael Farris at February 4, 2004 10:33 PM | PERMALINK"Apparently, though, there's something in his record bad enough that it's worth keeping parts of it under wrap (or redacted) despite the problems it's caused. What do you think it is?" That's easy. According to this guy, Pilot George W. Bush did not simply "give up flying" with two years left to fly, as has been reported. Instead, Bush was suspended and grounded, very possibly as a direct or indirect result of substance abuse. Too coked up to pass a physical. Posted by: John H. Farr at February 4, 2004 10:36 PM | PERMALINKhm.. the progressive trail article is interesting, but i'd like to know about his documentation. Darn. Some people have all the luck! I wonder if the Dems will bring this up during the election campaign. Didn't they dislike the Republicans trying to focus on Clinton's record in '92? Posted by: Mike at February 4, 2004 10:43 PM | PERMALINKThe Secretary of the Navy under Reagan was on CNN tonight. While he did try to downplay the importance of the military stories about both Kerry and Bush, he did let one nugget slip through. He suggested it would be almost impossible for the National Guard to just casually lose a person's paperwork, because so many things rely on it, from discharge records, to payroll, to performance evaluations, etc. He basically said with almost total certainty that if Mr. Bush was truly there in Alabama, there would be records, and the Guard would not have lost them. In other words, we can actually draw conclusions by the fact that the documents aren't publically available. Either the WH is keepign them under wraps, or they weren't there, and both options pretty much prove Bush was doing something he wasn't supposed to be doing. If you have a second, please visit my web page. Thanks! Posted by: Balta at February 4, 2004 10:48 PM | PERMALINKClinton’s record in ’92 was fine: he didn’t want to go kill people to no purpose, but eventually he signed up for the draft and received a high lottery number. End of story. Compare that to those who used their elite connections to make sure
they got to play at fighter pilot without the dangers of having people
shoot at you – REAL draft dodging. "The Secretary of the Navy under Reagan was on CNN tonight." I don't have cable, so I find it to be beautiful that this is continuing to be mentioned. It's a nice talking point for the Democrats; Why doesn't he just release his military records and end this speculation? Anybody want to make a guess as to what kind of big fat slow pitch softball of a question Russert is going to serve Bush regarding this issue? Posted by: Peanut Gallery at February 4, 2004 11:02 PM | PERMALINKBecause Bush forces us to rely on a partial record that shows that he did not serve, he should be presumed AWOL until he allows the whole file to be examined. That should be the most significant point to stress to the apologists. The available documentary evidence strongly suggests AWOL, but cannot be said to be conclusive, but the conclusive documentary evidence is deliberatel;y kept hidden by Bush. There are also reports that key documents were destroyed in that file -- hence the whole file cannot be revealed or we have another 18-minute gap story (with no Rosemary Woods to explain it). Going beyond the documents, the bigger question is "where" did he allegedly serve in 1972-1973? The official Bush explanation (in 2000 per his spokesman Bartlett as quoted in NY Times, 11/3/00) was in Alabama -- not in Texas. And also not during the campaign (Bartlett stated that Bush missed the September through November dates), but after the campaign ended beginning in late Nov. '72 through April '73 when he had returned to Houston. The torn document allegedly substantiates those dates. That would require him to be traveling back and forth from Houston to Alabama when his original unit was next door. During this period, Bush was working at a social clinic in Houston (reportedly a community service stint to get out of some sort of legal trouble). Also, Bush's own request for the transfer to Alabama was only a temporary one through November. After missing all of the dates through November and after he goes back to Houston at the end of the campaign, Bush claims he went back to Alabama to start his duty there when he had already returned to Houston (and could go next door to resume duty). That is insane. No one in either the Texas or Alabama unit recalls him ever showing up. Bush apologists did get quotes from fellow 1972 campaign workers who indicate that they heard he had guard duty, but that testimony is meaningless since Bush admits not attending any duty while working at the campaign. Looks like one of his old lies is catching up with him. Why does this story have legs now? It strikes a chord now because so much of the last three years have demonstrated a deceit by Bush underlying so much of what he does. Before it was an uncertain story from long ago with an uncertain application to the present -- now its a harbinger of what he truly is. Posted by: dmbeaster at February 4, 2004 11:10 PM | PERMALINKNew leads to track down the truth discussed by Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo and at: I've got a reconstruction of the torn document's missing info at my blog - just click on my name to go to the correct post. If the document is accepted as genuine, then there's still a lot of questions about Bush's 72-73 year. Posted by: boloboffin at February 4, 2004 11:29 PM | PERMALINKWilliam Turnipseed now says "he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time." I guess you knew that, but just happened to forget to mention it?
Kevin, You forgot to mention the most intersesting document of all. "Have you ever been detained, held, arrested..." Posted by: Human Being at February 4, 2004 11:53 PM | PERMALINKBush's promotion to second lieutenant is another stunning example of favoritism. As Robert A. Rogers points out at Progressive Trail, Bush became an officer after only six weeks of basic airman training, via a special appointment. At the time, there were three ways to become an officer: 8 semesters of ROTC training in college, 18 months of military service or completion of Air Force officer training. Bush leapfrogged all three. Not bad for a guy who scored lower than 75 percent of all applicants in Texas that year who took the pilot aptitude test. Posted by: grant at February 5, 2004 12:01 AM | PERMALINKGreat work, Kevin! I hope that this information continues to circulate around the blogosphere. I spoke with my father today (aging baby boomer, yellow-dog Dem from Texas), and he ran down this entire list from the top of his head. (Not specific docs, but all the stories.) If this finally breaks, a lot of people (Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, etc.) in Texas are going to be happy. I must say, your investigation trumps CNN's advertised segment this evening. One guy from the Dallas News who just said, "He didn't show up for a while." That was it. I guess they were just waiting for the blog-web to do it first. (Is this the dawn of open-source journalism???) Posted by: Tuna at February 5, 2004 12:22 AM | PERMALINKBush was probably in rehab during his aWol period. The interesting investigation would be to research this "political campaign" Bush was working on. Who's campaign? What were his responsibilities? Who was his supervisor? Then when his story collapses, he has to come clean about drying out in some clinic when he should have been fighting in Vietnam. Even if his story does hold up... If I can pigeonhole an "Alabama republican from the early seventies"... well, the guy Bush was working for was probably a racist prick, which would be good mud to sling in and of itself. Posted by: GFW at February 5, 2004 12:35 AM | PERMALINKI don't know if Red Blount was a racist (he probably was), but he was a very well-respected figure in Montgomery. Notably, he provided the money for the Alabama Shakespeare Festival. I think he was also the last cabinet-level Postmaster General. His son ran for Governor twice in 1994 and 1998. Posted by: Human Being at February 5, 2004 12:54 AM | PERMALINK"William Turnipseed now says "he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time." I guess you knew that, but just happened to forget to mention it?" Golly, me. I got curious about that quote, so I looked it up in Google News. It's apparently from the Washington Post article that says: "Reached in Montgomery on Monday, Turnipseed stood by his claim that Bush never reported to him. But he added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time." I guess you just forgot to mention that. The article continues: "Bush returned to Houston after the election, and again his
service is vague in the records. His officers at Ellington Air Force
Base wrote in May 1973 that Bush could not be given his annual
evaluation, because he "has not been observed" in Houston between April 1972 and May 1973. Another officer states in a subsequent document that a report for that period was unavailable for 'administrative reasons.' " When I look at the form reproduced in the post, I just have one question: what does "grat" mean? Bush got 9 days of AD (active duty), 32 days of IAD(inactive duty), and 15 days "grat." Gratis? Is there some military term I'm unaware of? Or is it that someone saw that the Congressman's son was short, and just gave him the days he needed to get on with his life? Posted by: st at February 5, 2004 05:14 AM | PERMALINKGo to The Daily Brew for some fun with the Freedom of Information Act (URL below or click my name). Basically, the idea is to simply ask the DoD for Bush's military records. Brew provides a letter as a text and a Word document, so all you have to do is complete it, mail it, and wait for the answer. http://www.thedailybrew.com/ Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 5, 2004 05:16 AM | PERMALINKI'd like to know in what sense this document is now "part of the official record." If there is an official record, and this document is false, is that a criminal offence? Whose offence is it: Lloyd's or Bush's? Putting out a document and claiming its an official government document when it may not be? sounds illegal to me. aimai Posted by: aimai at February 5, 2004 05:56 AM | PERMALINKUm, who cares about this document? The facts should be clear: Shrub got himself into a gig that would ensure that he would not go to Vietnam. He got himself into that gig based on his family connections. That is the story. Not whether he went aWol during the gig. Posted by: raj at February 5, 2004 06:01 AM | PERMALINK>That is the story. Not whether he went aWol during the gig. From an 'honor and integrity' perspective, you are pretty correct. However, this also goes to a crime against the country and the oath to defend the country and uphold the Constitution - the same oath he took as President (and Governor). If he didn't do it properly the first time, that completely alters the debate of his character and also puts him in jeopardy of any military justice that might exist with such an offense. Posted by: Dave D. at February 5, 2004 06:13 AM | PERMALINKNot to rain on anybody's parade or anything, but there are a considerable number of people who have actually served in the military (including the National Guard and Reserves) who have looked at this charge and found nothing there: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013918.php And to rely on missing government records is a BIG mistake. The government regularly loses vast quantities of paperwork and records in this computerized age. In the 1970s, when only paper systems existed? Get real. Be very careful where you go with this. Accusing someone of desertion or being AWOL is a SERIOUS accusation and can badly rebound on you. Look at ALL the facts, not just the ones that support your personal feelings. Posted by: Kevin P. at February 5, 2004 06:48 AM | PERMALINKSee also: Selected quotes: Part of the slander against Bush is that not all records exist for a period of his service. Once again, my experience parallels his. I ordered my military records recently, and there is NO evidence that I ever served in my second reserve squadron. When I joined the squadron, they couldn’t find my records, and I never, ever got paid for service in that unit. I guess I'm AWOL too! Again, be careful... don't let your hatred push you into making untenable accusations that will rebound upon you. And actually, just to be clear, I am not referring to Kevin Drum here, who is one of the most level headed people I know. I am referring to all the other posters here. Posted by: Kevin P. at February 5, 2004 06:53 AM | PERMALINKLet's not lose sight of the overall: 1) Bush entered the Guard to avoid being available for Vietnam Look, I begrudge no one legally skipping out on enrollment in the University of Vietnam, unless he was some kind of warhawk at the time (like Cheney, Delay, etc.). Pretending that you didn't, now, I resent. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 5, 2004 06:56 AM | PERMALINKI agree - democrats should not be saying George W Bush went awol.
Instead, focus on pointing out discrepancies in his recorded comments on
the issue, of which there are many and the fact that he's the only
presidential nominee with military expreience who's refused to open his
records (I think?). To clarify, I mean Democratic party officials shouldn't say Bush was awol as a political matter - let the bloggers speculate away (consistent with what is on record to date of course) Posted by: Max M at February 5, 2004 07:02 AM | PERMALINKKevin P. I'm sure you are a very nice guy, and I thank you for the information about your service and the inept record keeping. However--you didn't run for president citing/bragging about your service, you didn't run for president promising to restore honor and integrity to the white house, and you aren't running for president now. Its true I dislike Bush's policies but that is not why I, and many other posters, have come to the conclusion that the charges are true. Its actually because they fit rather well with what is known already--and well known--about Bush's personal and professional history. Like lots of other people on this board I have examined his life in some detail (thanks to rather complete historical record of his life, his buisiness dealings, and his family) I've come to the conclusion that in this case, he probably screwed off and screwed up his military service. Now, whether I should get upset about that or not is another question. I choose to think its another factor in the complete history of Bush that leads me to despise him as a man, and as a political leader. You might choose to give him a pass on it because, on balance, you like the guy, you think its not a big deal, or you are more afraid of a democrat coming in and cleaning house at the white house. That is your prerogative. But don't accuse the rest of us of being crazy (or even particularly partisan) for a) looking at this story, b) believing the incontrovertible (because utterly uncontroverted) likelihood that Bush screwed this up like he screwed up everything until accepting jesus and stopping drinking when he was 40, and c) hoping that this finally turns the tide and washes this "popular president" overboard along with his illegetimate, dangerous, and funadmentally wrong-headed foreign and domestic policies. We are just ordinary citizens who wont be sold another bill of goods by this faux "compassionate conservative," this military toy-boy in a padded flight suit and padded resume, this fearful fearless leader. Posted by: aimai at February 5, 2004 07:06 AM | PERMALINKI prefer Atrios. Atrios is very upfront about being a loony partisan. Kevin likes to pretend to be reasonable. Probably thinks he is soooo reasonable. Why doesn't Kevin reveal his tax returns? What does he have to hide? It must be pretty bad. I think we have a right to know! This is trash shoveling by the principleless. Ironically one of the posters who slams Bush provides one explanation where Bush is not AWOL and could very fairly be expected NOT to release his records. If he had a drug problem. That really isn't any of your business and it would explain an absence. Even assuming he was absent this is a bit of a non-story. Bush's military commanders, the ones claiming Bush did not attend, did not have a problem with that lack of attendance. They did not seriously discipline him. (I am eagerly awaiting the accussation that the same commanders who
claim that he wasn't there did not discipline him as part of a cover
up.) As a former reservist and current active duty JAG, this is surreal to
read and it is hard to believe it is even an issue 30 years later. I
will try to be direct and not too longwinded. Bottom line: Just a smear campaign. and the Coke charge is way over the line. Posted by: Don - Military Attorney at February 5, 2004 07:17 AM | PERMALINKDon-Military attorney, You know, I said the same sorts of things when Clinton was president, and yet--he was pursued to the tune of 60 million dollars and hours and hours of pundit air time and even impeached for something of far less moral and legal significance to me than Bush's obvious inattention and dereliction of duty in a wartime post. Pardon me for not weeping copious tears about Bush or being shocked to discover that, yes, we want to play hardball now after having our candidates, our political interests and our lives attacked, demeaned, and denied for fifteen years. aimai Posted by: aimai at February 5, 2004 07:26 AM | PERMALINKSummarizing - The military did not have a problem with Bush's service. None of his commanders had a problem with Bush's service. They never declared him AWOL. They gave him an honorable discharge. However some Democrats, who are in no way motivated by partisan politics, have a problem with that service record. They have carefully and objectively looked at the lack of evidence that proves Bush was innocent of being AWOL and over riding the military have declared him AWOL. Again this accusation is a principle less whore, pimped by Kevin Drum, desperately trying to pretend to be respectable. I may have a slightly slanted perspective, since in Brazil, particularly after our military dictatorship, having some sort of military background is not something you go around boasting of. Nevertheless, I must ask: why is it that in the US having fought in a war - even in a widely reviled war, such as the one in Vietnam - is viewed as a strong credential for a civilian office? After all, fools or crooks can also be brave in combat - and, in the mess of war, bravery sometimes can be only a matter of fleeing in the wrong direction. Courage doesn't even entitle you to head your platoon; for that you need leadership and brains as well. In the case of Mr Kerry, for instance, his combat record only tells us that he was brave under fire - not much for someone whose main task, presumably, is to lead a pack of civilians towards some sort of happiness. In my view, it is his fierce opposition to the Vietnam war that shows courage, discernment and character. As to Mr Bush, I believe it is cruel to demand character from a guy who is so obviously out of his depth as to live in a permanent state of bewilderment. We, the darkies in the back aisles, are watching the plot unfold with some discomfort, not knowing whether it is a badly miscast sequel to Forrest Gump - with a lousy soundtrack to boot - or a color remake of Dr Strangelove. Posted by: Pedro at February 5, 2004 07:27 AM | PERMALINKBush's partisans can say whatever they want, but it seems to me that young George was an elitist playboy and that he now finds that part of his life an embarassing drag on his political career, particularly because a large number of those who form his popular base would frown on that kind of conduct as an exercise of priviledge, an illustration that he's not really one of "us." And that is an immense disqualification of this man. Bush could apologize or express regret, but that's a strategy the White House detests: it always invites further exploration, it hints at clay feet, it and the time to use it was years ago. How do I conclude so? When pressed on these matters, the Republican Party and White House don't respond on point, they dismiss the charge and impugn the honor and character of the questioner. Their answer is an attempt to discredit the questioner, rather than pass on information. Bush has never released his military records, such as they might be. He could order their complete release today and tell everyone to do what they might with them, lacunae and all. That he hasn't done so suggests a concern that, somewhere, somehow, there is a document that clearly implies he knowingly skipped out on service, that he knew damned well that his family's wealth and influence would clean things up. He's not afraid of the gaps in the service records, he's scared there might be something that fills in one of those gaps. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 5, 2004 07:27 AM | PERMALINKI love the fact that the same people who argued that Saddam wasn't cooperating with revealing WMDs, so that proved his guilt, are now the same ones arguing that just because GWB isn't cooperating with revealing his service record, doesn't mean he's guilty. Posted by: DanM at February 5, 2004 07:30 AM | PERMALINKHeh. Don tries to use evidence, logic, and reasonableness with this crowd. Wrong blog, buddy! To fit in better, you should try unsubstantiated, "deliberately inflammatory" charges, hyperbole, partisan smear, and downright unitelligibleness.
Hmmm, I seem to remember something else about "Case Closed". Oh yeah -- it was that Doug Feith memo! And it had FIFTY bullet points detailing links between Saddam and al Qaeda. But I don't remember Kevin accepting it. Apparently, fifty points of evidence wasn't enough for him back then to allow someone to claim "case closed". But now I see 4 off-topic bullets, and all of a sudden "CASE CLOSED" on Bush. Yep, typical left-wing hypocrisy. Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 07:36 AM | PERMALINK"Golly, me. I got curious about that quote, so I looked it up in Google News. It's apparently from the Washington Post article that says: "Reached in Montgomery on Monday, Turnipseed [BOLD]stood by his claim that Bush never reported[/BOLD] to him. But he added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time." I guess you just forgot to mention that." I suppose it's a matter of what you [BOLD]boldface.[/BOLD] Try it this way, and it reads much differently: "Reached in Montgomery on Monday, Turnipseed stood by his claim that Bush never reported[BOLD] to him. But he added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time.[/BOLD]" Read with this emphesis, it sounds more like Turnipseed isn't sure that Bush wouldn't have reported to someone else. As a side note, it is interesting that this time around, this story
may have much longer legs. Gore's Vietnam record much better. Like Bush,
he got special treatment. Kerry, on the other hand, has a record that
is unassailable, at least while he was there. As to what he did when he
came back, that kind of depends on how you look at things. Again this accusation is a principle less whore, pimped by Kevin Drum, desperately trying to pretend to be respectable. Yeah, Kevin's respectability has definitely been worn away with this nonesense. It's too bad. He used to be one of the reasonable ones. Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 07:38 AM | PERMALINKI just can't tell the difference any more between RealAl and FakeAl. See, real Al might have tried to claim that Kevin was ignoring evidence when it supported Bush and demanding evidence when it would attack Bush. But surely only someone posting ironically as a StupidRepublican would cite the Doug Feith report as "evidence"? The Feith report - all those "links with al-Qaida" has long ago been discredited, and real Al would know this. So it follows that 07:36 AM post is from fakeAl, just trying to make the Republicans look a little more stupid than they deserve. Nice try, FakeAl, but you don't need to bother: RealAl and Charlie and MacAttack and Don-who-claims-to-be-a-military-lawyer are all doing a good enough job on their own. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 5, 2004 07:43 AM | PERMALINKI've brought this up before, but it bears repeating. To my knowledge, neither Bush nor the White House have said the military records are incomplete. Bush defenders on the blogosphere keep making that point (and they may, in fact, be correct), but they're the only ones saying that. I'd wait to hear the White House use that excuse before pursuing that arguement with much energy. This reminds me of the uranium-from-Africa line in the State of the Union last year. Even AFTER several White House officials publically apologized for the infamous 16-words being in the speech, Bush defenders continued to mock critics, saying the 16-words were perfectly accurate. Now they're making excuses for Bush's military records that not even Bush has made (as of yet, anyway). Posted by: Jim E. at February 5, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKThat's a fair and detailed explanation, Don. I wonder why the White House--I would assume they have experienced military lawyers and access to all of George W. Bush's service documents, too--hasn't bothered to make it? It's not as though they are unskilled, even, at putting the best face on a patently bad idea (as the recent Budget proposal alone illustrates). If the White House wants to end a "smear campaign," it would seem that complete exposure of the relevant records would be the quickest way to kill the matter. Sure, the White House seems allergic to that course of action on anything--such as the Energy Task Force, George H.W. Bush's presidential records--but it's still available. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 5, 2004 07:49 AM | PERMALINKYeah, it makes it difficult when you've got a stalker. But just your say-so on the Feith memo's fifty bullet point doesn't mean that it really has been "discredited", Jesurgislac. And you don't address my point -- there is far more evidence in Feith's 50 bullet points for Stephen Hayes to say "case clased" about the al Qaeda-Saddam link than there is in Kevin's 4 bullet points for him to say "case closed" about Bush. So really, "case closed"? Come now, Kevin. "Case open" may be more like it. Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 07:49 AM | PERMALINKI see fascist Al is at it again. Hey Al I've got a job worthy of your talents: why don't you explain to us why Pinochet is a fine, outstanding and much maligned gentleman? We've always known Bush was a fucking Eddie Haskell with a drug addiction and I wish he'd had his sorry little ass kicked while he was in the service. Posted by: Lupin at February 5, 2004 07:51 AM | PERMALINKHayes' case NOT closed: So many times in the past few years, I've thought "Why don't reporters, bloggers, etc. just tell me the truth?" Most people seem content with half-truths and distortions, so long as their guy or their position is supported. I really appreciate Calpundit for pieces like this (and the one a couple weeks ago looking for who might have said before the war that Iraq had no WMD). You just set out the facts as best you can decipher, supportive or not, so we can finally see what's going on. Thanks, Kevin. Posted by: denise at February 5, 2004 07:55 AM | PERMALINKSome points: - Kevin got one detail slightly wrong in his post. Bush did not initially receive permission to go to Alabama; his transfer request was denied. He went anyway. - that Instapundit link is priceless. Dems raised a big stink over the righties calling Clinton a draft dodger, so now THEY'RE the hypocrites for bringing up Bush's National Guard service time. Not the 'Pubs, for only calling people draft dodgers when they belong to the other party. Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ight. - to say that the military "didn't have a problem" with Bush's service is disingenuous. He received all kinds of special treatment because of his last name, his placement in the Guard and his premature promotion being just two examples. Why couldn't his honorable discharge be just another example? Maybe he completed his commitment... or maybe they just wanted to get rid of the problem child who was too politically connected to discipline. Posted by: Erik at February 5, 2004 07:55 AM | PERMALINKStephen Hayes: "It is, of course, possible that the information in the Feith memo is 'cherry-picked' intelligence." In other words, case open. Posted by: Jim E. at February 5, 2004 07:57 AM | PERMALINKBut just your say-so on the Feith memo's fifty bullet point doesn't mean that it really has been "discredited", Jesurgislac. You're right, Al. My word alone isn't enough. But fortunately, we don't have to depend on my word alone, do we? cite, cite, cite, cite. And you don't address my point -- there is far more evidence in Feith's 50 bullet points for Stephen Hayes to say "case clased" about the al Qaeda-Saddam link than there is in Kevin's 4 bullet points for him to say "case closed" about Bush. I didn't address your point, Al, because I was honestly unsure whether it was you or your stalker - and I didn't want to waste logic on your stalker. ;-) Feith piled up fifty points of nonsense. Fifty times zero is still zero. Kevin made four good points, and two plus two equals four. So really, "case closed"? Come now, Kevin. "Case open" may be more like it. Case closed, Al. Bush was AWOL. Republicans and the White House would
be better off if they just said "Yeah, there were a lot of things Bush
did back before he turned 40 and quit drinking that he's ashamed of.
That's one of them. It doesn't matter now." Jesurgislac, they will get to that soon, I think. Expect to see bush in tears in some serious right wing base church describing how sorry he is that he let the devil mislead him but that now he's seen the light (9-11! 9-11!) and he guesses god has just given him new orders which this time, for sure, he will faithfully carry out... aimai Posted by: aimai at February 5, 2004 08:10 AM | PERMALINKOk Bush cheeleaders... put up or shut up. Pick one of the following to dispute.
Pick a game and stick with it. People don't expect to be able to show up at a football game and start playing tennis. You want to be a Bush cheeleader then stay on the sidelines children. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 08:13 AM | PERMALINKPedro, I did serve in the military, two tours of vietnam. I also returned and opposed the war, leading a march in my home town in my full dress uniform. One of three out of 800 marchers. I guess the reason that service it is important is that it provides a bond of sharing the threat of dying, but just as important, of the boredom, Micky Mouse regulations, the subversion of the system and survival. There is an unspoken bond that trusts those who have survived that experience. I may not agree with many of my brothers who served, but I do trust they understand a part of me that survived. Mr bush's problem is that he used his connections to not share that experience. And he abandoned that experience so that I do not trust that he could even see it through. It tells me that he cannot and does not understand those of us who served in whatever capacity and does not share our integrety in service. Civilians who never served cannot understand either, but those who abandon those who served, they who swore to protect and defend, andthen split, have abandoned the spirit of the soldier. That is a atribute I do not want in any office, from local janitor to President of the U.S. Jon Posted by: jon at February 5, 2004 08:16 AM | PERMALINKDanM, 'love the fact that the same people who argued that Saddam wasn't cooperating with revealing WMDs, so that proved his guilt, are now the same ones arguing that just because GWB isn't cooperating with revealing his service record, doesn't mean he's guilty.' That is an excellent point. And it is worth noting that the inverse is equally true. It is also worth noting that it appears very much that Saddam did NOT have WMD. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 08:19 AM | PERMALINKHaving served in the National Guard at during the same period in question I caution anyone thinking that current rules on missing drills were the prevailing rules back then. You have to keep the context of the Vietnam War in mind and that many who joined the Guard then were given the priviledge of not going to Vietnam. The only thing they had to do was show up for drills. If they chose not to do so they would be ordered to active duty. PERIOD. The Guards and Reserve have become more soldier friendly over the years to provide the incentive for people to join.....so now they are much more laxed than they were back when the big incentive was to stay out of the war (for the record I joined the guard while still in high school in 1973 and the war was no longer a threat). The President should show his records and let the chips fall where they may. The good ole boy network of the guard may be at more risk than just the President. Posted by: Jon at February 5, 2004 08:26 AM | PERMALINKJesurgislac wrote: "Case closed, Al. Bush was AWOL." Not quite, Jes. The best we can say is that the evidence to date indicates that Bush was AWOL. The evidence is not conclusive. If there is evidence to the contrary, Bush has deliberately chosen to not release it. Add this to the circumstantial evidence that he is, in fact, guilty as charged. But we still cannot say with certainty that the case is closed. Sorry to be pedantic, but these distinctions do matter. Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 08:27 AM | PERMALINKGryn, Absent Without Leave is a legal condition. GWB was not convicted by the US military of being AWOL. By definition Bush was not AWOL. It appears that Bush did not report for duty for some time. We have no idea why Bush did not report for duty. Perhaps for medical reasons? Perhaps he was just being irresponsible and no one objected. Whatever. Clearly the US military did not consider him AWOL. I am actually not a Bush cheerleader. But I understand that subterranean dwellers from the DU prefer an environment where contrary political opinions are sidelined.
Aimai, and though the thought of Bush in tears is be a pretty one, I do think there's a fair case to be made for it. Bush went AWOL 32 years ago, at a time when (he's already admitted) he was a drunkard. Everyone already knows that he had a rich and very influential father. So you've got a drunk kid with a rich daddy who can pull strings - and he gets out of going to Vietnam, and he gets out of showing up for the last two years of his six years National Guard service. Very discreditable, but part and parcel of Bush's life before he went sober. He's now a reformed drunkard, and that does, I admit, make a difference. What an alcoholic does when he's drinking is not something that should necessarily be held against him when he's been going straight for fifteen years and counting. I personally think that straight talk like that would get Bush clear of his AWOL history with most people. It's well outside the statute of limitations, so let's not even talk about prosecuting for it. Of course, there's the point that Bush tried to make a big thing of his military past, but openness about how discreditable it was would make most Democrats avoid going after it. What it would do, however, is put out of court completely any idea of going after the Democratic candidate's history. Kerry may or may not have things to explain about his conduct in Vietnam: Clark, too - and more recently, in Kosovo: Dean has a medical deferment from the Vietnam years. Any one of them could become the Democratic candidate, and I'm certain that the White House has plans to dig up the dead past about each one of them. Can't do that, though, if it's simultaneously declaring that 32 years ago is too long ago to bother about when it's about George W. Bush going AWOL. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 5, 2004 08:34 AM | PERMALINKErik, Right. 'He received all kinds of special treatment because of his last name, his placement in the Guard and his premature promotion being just two examples. Why couldn't his honorable discharge be just another example? Maybe he completed his commitment... or maybe they just wanted to get rid of the problem child who was too politically connected to discipline.' His superiors were afraid and just wanted to get rid of him. I mean not afraid to claim that he didn't report for duty. But appearently afraid to admit they were part of the conspiracy to give him preferential treatment. We must sift through the evidence very carefully. We must find the evidence we like and accept it at face value and ignore the possibility that this evidence could be explained by any other conclusion than the conclusion we wish to reach. Soooooo reasonable. Oh don't forget to insult anyone who disagrees with you as stupid. Soooo very very reasonable. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 08:36 AM | PERMALINKSorry to be pedantic, but these distinctions do matter. You're right, Paul. I withdraw the phrase. Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 5, 2004 08:36 AM | PERMALINKWhen comparing the Vietnam actions of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Bush, let us not forget that while both did all that they could to avoid service in Vietnam, only Mr. Bush launched an invasion of Iraq that called for the activation and deployment of countless National Guard and Reserve units. And only Mr. Bush appeared in a military uniform to declare "mission accomplished." Mr. Bush's actions regarding the deployment of Guardsmen and Reservists -- and his decision to parade for the cameras in a military uniform -- have put questions regarding his service in the Guard into play. Posted by: AustinMayor at February 5, 2004 08:44 AM | PERMALINKIt is within Bush's power to conclusively end this discussion once and for all, by simply doing what every other presidential candidate has done and what just about every other candidate for federal office has done for the past several decades -- release his military records. That he has chosen to not do so is sufficient reason to suspect that there is something to this story. In short, "It's the coverup, stupid." Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 08:45 AM | PERMALINKRandom drug testing was spreading through the military in 1972. A very well connected 1st Lieutenant decided to stop flying F-102's and to avoid a flight physical and possible drug testing. With the help from his father’s buddies he still managed to get out of the Air National Guard with an honorable discharge a year and half later. This is no big deal if he is the President of the Texas Rangers. But, it is a big deal for a US President that is going run his re-election based on his character and strength. This is an exemplary example that everything about this White House is lies and propaganda. Posted by: Jim S at February 5, 2004 08:56 AM | PERMALINKPaulB rides to my rescue! :-) The only problem is that Jesurgislac didn't use the phrase "case closed" (or at least didn't use it first). Kevin used the phrase in his original post. It's time for Kevin to withdraw that comment. Look, I'll make it easy for Kevin. If he can prove that HE showed up for a part time job 30 years ago, I'll let him alone and call on Bush to release all of his military records. How 'bout it Kevin? Release your records! Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 09:07 AM | PERMALINKBush shirked his physical exam in Aug '72, thus got suspended from flying. Bush didn't need a physical in Alabama because Bush flew one type of jet in Texas and wasn't trained for the jets stationed in Alabama. Physicals are required only for pilots on active duty. Bush fulfilled his time requirements and was honorably discharged. Posted by: Bird Dog at February 5, 2004 09:09 AM | PERMALINKFirst: Kevin, thanks for providing the torn document. It's nice to see what everyone has been talking about. Second, I'm utterly baffled. Moore describes Bush as a deserted, when lots of evidence shows he probably went AWOL, and the media goes nuts. Right wing pundits CONSTANTLY refer to Clinton as a draft dodger, when he did no such thing, and it's ok. Sometimes, I don't believe the media is just lazy-sensationalist-ignorant meme. Sometimes it seems like they just favor Republicans. Posted by: MDtoMN at February 5, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKAlso, lets face it. Bush's family had the connections to get him a gaurd gig, surely they also would have had the necessary connections to get him an honarble discharge from the Gaurd with no official AWOL charge. Posted by: MDtoMN at February 5, 2004 09:12 AM | PERMALINKPaulB is right. Bush is the one keeping this story alive. He has the power to put it to bed once and for all by ordering the release of all records pertaining to his service. And Gryn makes a good point: Bush shirked his physical exam in Aug '72, thus got suspended from flying. Shouldn't this have resulted in disciplinary action? It seems that none of the military law experts have seen fit to comment on this. After all, an enormous amount of tax dollars are required to train a pilot. If he wasn't flying, in what capacity could he serve that would merit officer's pay? His training extended little beyond learning to fly. Are junior officers usually allowed to unilaterally decide to throw away the time and money the guard has invested in them? Posted by: exgop at February 5, 2004 09:13 AM | PERMALINKBush didn't need a physical in Alabama because Bush flew one type of jet in Texas and wasn't trained for the jets stationed in Alabama. Physicals are required only for pilots on active duty. Bush fulfilled his time requirements and was honorably discharged. Nice try, Bird Dog. Now explain why he didn't return to flight status when he returned to Texas. Posted by: exgop at February 5, 2004 09:15 AM | PERMALINKMDtoMN, Yes. Yes. That is what I keep trying to say. Think about it. Why are Bush's commanders willing to admit he did not show up for service. Why? I will tell you why. Because they are trying to relieve their guilt for being part of the conspiracy and not charging Bush with being AWOL. When you think about it properly all the dots connect and you can things for the way they really are. This isn't even worth it anymore. Satirizing unwitting self-parody is only fun for so long. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, I was not arguing that Bush was convicted of being AWOL. I said he was not given permission to leave nor has anyone on the Bush administration claimed he was given permission for any reason. This document
clearly shows his request to transfer to Alabama was rejected and they
expected him to continue his service at TANG. Bush left anyways since.
Another document that summarizes his military history also doesn't show any mention of the Alabama unit. Al said: Look, I'll make it easy for Kevin. If he can prove that HE showed up for a part time job 30 years ago, I'll let him alone and call on Bush to release all of his military records. How 'bout it Kevin? Release your records! Al, I mean this in the kindest possible way, but you're really being a bit of a twit, aren't you? 1. Kevin Drum isn't running for federal office. George W. Bush is. 2. Flying in the National Guard during the Vietnam War isn't just any "part-time job". It's not possible that you fail to comprehend this, so I have to conclude, with regret, that you're just being aggressively stupid. What you get out of this is unknown. The case against George W. Bush going AWOL is not closed simply because Bush refuses to release his military records, as every Presidential candidate and most candidates for federal office have done for decades. It's conceivable that in those military records there is some valid reason why Bush never showed up for duty for a year and a half. But logic would suggest that it isn't likely - since if there were a valid reason, Bush would surely have released them back in 2000 when the issue first was raised. So, as (you believe) Bush has a valid reason for dodging military service, why don't you want Bush to release his military records? Why aren't you, too, calling on Bush to release his military records so that (according to your beliefs) it really would be "Case closed." Bird Dog, also being aggressively stupid, says: Bush didn't need a physical in Alabama because Bush flew one type of jet in Texas and wasn't trained for the jets stationed in Alabama. Yes, BD: that's why Bush's petition to be transferred to Alabama was
originally refused, because, ahem, the USG had invested a lot of money
in training him as a pilot, and there was no good reason to allow Bush
to waste all that money by blowing off his military service in a base
where he couldn't fly the planes. But he was allowed to transfer (Daddy
pulled strings, no doubt)... and then he never showed up. Which makes
him AWOL, whether or not Daddy again pulled strings and got him an
honorable discharge instead of a transfer to Vietnam. Like it makes a big difference in the final months on reserve duty, Jes. You're taking a molehill and calling it Mt. Rainier. If you can prove 'daddy pulled strings', cite it. Posted by: Bird Dog at February 5, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINKI wish I could hope for something incriminating to come out and bite Bush on the ass. Unfortunately, his dad was head of the freaking CIA. I'm guessing he took care of it. Posted by: joseppi at February 5, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINKGryn, Being AWOL seems to me to be a fairly serious crime. If you have not been convicted murder or rape, I should not call you a murderer or rapist, and if I do and if someone points out the obvious, that you have to been convicted or murder or rape, I would hope that my response would be better than I was not saying you were convicted of rape or murder, I was just saying you were a murderer or rapist. You did not say GWB was convicted of being AWOL, you just said he was AWOL. 'This document clearly shows his request to transfer to Alabama was rejected and they expected him to continue his service at TANG. Bush left anyways since. Another document that summarizes his military history also doesn't show any mention of the Alabama unit.' Now wihout even looking. Ok, that request to transfer to Alabama was rejected. But who is they? And how do you know they expected him to continue his service? Etc. You conclude that. The evidence is only that a request to transfer to Alabama was denied. The rest is your conclusion. Not a horriblely unlikely conclusion and maybe the most likely conclusion but certainly not the only possible conclusion. I could make countless other conclusions that were if not as likely certainly not totally unlikely. And if they didn't care all that much and clearly they didn't, when he did not continue his service, why should anyone else? See, we don't claim someone is guilty of a crime, because based on the available evidence, maybe the most likely but certainly not the only conclusion, is that they are guilty. And if on top of that the responsible authorities were not even willing to bring such charges against that person. If they in fact very implicitally rejected such charges. (In this case by giving GWB an honorable discharge.) Well, we keep our mouths shut. Our sense of fair play, our principles demand that we keep silent. Unless we don't like that person's politics. In which case we gleefully sling mud at both the Jes, on the Daddy puling strings a cite, if you please. BD, wouldn't be a bad post at Tacitus. Bush volunteered for duty in Vietnam in 1970. In Alabama in 72-73 (BTW Nixon was pulling America out of Vietnam at that time) and as for the Brigadier who caused this ruckus. Reached in Montgomery yesterday, Turnipseed stood by his contention that Bush never reported to him. But Turnipseed added that he could not recall if he, himself, was on the base much at that time. Back to you Jes. Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog at February 5, 2004 10:10 AM | PERMALINK"Look, I'll make it easy for Kevin. If he can prove that HE showed up for a part time job 30 years ago, I'll let him alone and call on Bush to release all of his military records. How 'bout it Kevin? Release your records!" Social Security statements. IRS records. People he worked with. Friends, wives, exwifes, family, ect... What could possibly be so hard about it? BigMacAttack: >That is an excellent point. So you admit that you were wrong about Saddam's imminent threat then? Posted by: DanM at February 5, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKNone of this matters in the slightest because George W. Bush was born
in 1994. The fellow with the curly hair in earlier photos who bears a
slight resemblance to him is someone else entirely, whose life is
irrelevant to the current occupant of the White House. Social Security statements. IRS records. People he worked with. Friends, wives, exwifes, family, ect... Great. Let's see it from Kevin. By failing to post the evidence, Kevin is merely keeping this issue alive! I mean, all Kevin has to do to get us off his back is to release his records of that 30-year old part time job. Release the records, Kevin! BTW - If Bush's friends and family said that he showed up at a part time job 30 years ago, would you simply believe tham and drop it? Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 10:17 AM | PERMALINKIt's hilarious that the pro-Bushies seem unable to grasp that any family that could blow past the rules and get their unqualified kid into the Guard would obviously wield enough power and influence to hush things up about something as seemingly trivial, as they all continuously point out, as 'missing some drills'. This is the President of the United States we're talking about. And not just any President, but one who in every major event during his term -- from his 'election' to 9-11 to the war in Iraq has been clouded with controversy, and not just from tinfoil hat lefty types. This matters, no matter how much some folks want to whistle past the graveyard. Posted by: peter at February 5, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINKEasy to answer as pointed out elsewhere. Bush should release his pay and IRS records for the period in question. Any service would have been paid. No service would not have been paid. Also as I pointed out on my web page, someone should ask James H. Bath what he knows. Mr. Bath was discharged for the same reason at the same time as Bush, "Failure to accomplish physical" (What ever that means?) For an interesting time enter "James R. Bath" name in a search engine and discover who this man is that was discharged for the same reasons at the same time. Bush's party buddy and future financier and future Bin Laden family agent. Interesting but not conclusive. I hope someone in the press is working on this angle. Posted by: Bruce Anderson at February 5, 2004 10:25 AM | PERMALINKThoughtful and illuminating discussion. My contributions, such as they are would be these questions. p.s. Al- last time i checked, the National Guard was still around, still under obligation to create and maintain records, and verify the accuracy of the records. i smell a red herring. or a fellow traveler. joseppi, Lack of proof is always evidence of a coverup. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 10:31 AM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, This is nonsense. Let me see if I get your line of argument... If you I note that you travelled from point A to point B in one hour and the distance travelled was 100 miles and the posted speed limit is 65 MPH you are not guilty of speeding since you didn't get a ticket? As long as you are not caught you aren't guilty? That's ... umm... interesting to say the least. Let me make this clear, I actually don't care that he wanted to avoid Vietnam and I'm neutral about the fact that he used his daddy's connections to let him get away with something that less privileged folks did not get away with. I *do* take exception to a person *LYING* about what actually happened and take exception to using that for political gain. So I must ask what is it exactly that you are arguing? Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 10:34 AM | PERMALINKwasn"t Dean's sealing of his gubernatorial records a big media issue. why (I wonder) isn't Bush's withholding his service records given the same media spotlight. must be the liberal media again. Posted by: spackler at February 5, 2004 10:35 AM | PERMALINKjust finished "bush's missing year" by eric boehlert in salon which is a pretty good rehashing of the details as well. i think Kevin, This IS all about Clinton, right? Kerry even raising the issue is another example of his own shaky character. Was there no principle behind his demand not to "divide America over who served and how?" Posted by: Lois at February 5, 2004 10:38 AM | PERMALINKstill under obligation to create and maintain records Maintain? Probably not. Most bureaucracies destroy records after a period of time. But if you have a citation to a specific Alabama law or regulation that requires its National Guard to "maintain" records from 30 years ago, I love to see it! Next! Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 10:40 AM | PERMALINKI've got news for you. The burden of proof is on the people who make the accusations. There is no proof whatsoever that the claims of the president's political enemies about his military service are anymore true than any of the other claims they make about him -- and they certainly do lie like rugs about GWB on every conceivable topic. In other words, you people have not a shred of credibility. Posted by: D. J. M. at February 5, 2004 10:40 AM | PERMALINKThe Tax Man will know if he was in the Alabama National Guard. Funny how no 'Bama Republican Guard Members have come forward to put this to rest. You'd think Karl Rove would have dug one or two up by now. Posted by: Monkey at February 5, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINKI have seen a million excuses presented for Bush's missing drills, and for the poor state of Bush's records, including an extremely pompous, know-it-all dismissal from a guy who may or may not be a military attorney. What I haven't seen is ANY kind of excuse for Bush, who fills the highest elected office in the land, NOT releasing his full military records, as, evidently, every single other President has done. The Bush apologists have of course no GOOD reason that Bush should not release those records, assuming he is the innocent party that they insist he is. What a bunch of phonies! Posted by: frankly0 at February 5, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINKDanM, I never concluded that Saddam was an imminent threat. Even the claim that Bush concluded that is at best highly problematic. I will always maintained that I was uncertain if Saddam had WMD. In addition I always rejected the notion that the case for war could be based solely in real politik terms regarding US security. Saddam was a dog more than willing to do our bidding for a few bones. Oil sales, a free hand to brutalize his people, and some vague hope of being able to realize grandiose regional ambitions.
Something that may be quite important just occurred to me. Look at the torn document. Almost certainly, it has been COMPUTER GENERATED. So where are the punch cards, or tapes that back this information up??? (I don't know what sort of machine they would have used back then -- probably some kind of IBM mainframe is my guess). I'd be astonished if THOSE records weren't available in some form or another. Posted by: frankly0 at February 5, 2004 10:48 AM | PERMALINKActually Permalink, YOU'RE wrong about the "imminent threat" issue. You see, the president never, ever claimed that Saddam was an imminent threat. The idea that he did is a democrat/media lie repeated over and over again so that the less informed and/or less intelligent would accept it as truth. The president actually said, and I quote, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." One has to ask why lie about what the president said? The obvious answer is they want to discredit him and cannot do it by being honest. Posted by: D. J. M. at February 5, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINK"The Bush apologists have of course no GOOD reason that Bush should not release those records, assuming he is the innocent party that they insist he is." No good reason, other than it's private, irrelevant to his qualifications to serve as POTUS (a post he's held now for 3 years and 16 days), and none of your damned business, right? Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 10:51 AM | PERMALINKLori Thantos refers to Bush as one who "used [his] elite connections to make sure [he]got to play at fighter pilot without the dangers of having people shoot at [him] – REAL draft dodging." I am no Bush fan, and would not vote for him on a bet. But I spent 4
years in the Army during the same time frame (8/66 - 8/70). I decided
to enlist after receiving my draft notice, so that I would be able to
have some control over what might happen to me in the service --
specifically, to try to go to language school in order to learn German
in order to be sent to Germany rather than Vietnam. Luckily for me, all
that worked out: I ended up spending almost 3 years in what used to be
called West Berlin, listening to other folks' radio conversations --
"playing at" soldier, I guess Lori would call it, although it sure
seemed like BEING a soldier -- where the danger of people shooting at
me, although present, was far less than it would have been in Vietnam. Yes the drug use is a salient point if you combine the following facts...
An inquiry board about his suspension from flying should have been held. His military records would reflect this (but not be available via FOIA requests). It is speculative, but this may be the reason they are withholding his records. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINK"BTW - If Bush's friends and family said that he showed up at a part time job 30 years ago, would you simply believe tham and drop it?" It would certainly be a step in the right direction. Posted by: agave at February 5, 2004 10:54 AM | PERMALINKNow we are back to "imminent threat" again - can't we all just stay on topic even once?! Or, maybe it's because you finally are beginning to show that the NINTH A.W.O.L. thread I've seen here at CalPundit can't keep OUR attention - how much better do you really think it will play in ALL those Blue States?! Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 10:56 AM | PERMALINKaimai wrote: LOL! None of the above are true. You assume too much. I have looked at this issue in depth. There is no "there" there.
This is really what this issue is about for you, isn't it? Do what you want, but try to avoid dragging the Democrats down with you, will you? Posted by: Kevin P. at February 5, 2004 11:01 AM | PERMALINKHere's what Charlie is saying. If one makes a claim about their service and evidence comes up that contradicts that claim then in spite of historical precedent I will not release military records because of a right to privacy? I'm going start up a fund to get you a ticket for the short bus to the school for the rhetorically retarded. Who wants to chip in to help dear Charlie? Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINKWhy Bush's military record didn't matter in 2000, and matters now: In 2000, Bush admitted that he'd done some wild and crazy things as a young man (though not exactly what), but claimed he had changed, that he'd come to God, that he was no longer the callow young cad he'd once been. Most folks believed him. Heck, I'm even on record as saying, in 2000, that Bush's election was no big disaster. Bush and Gore didn't differ much on the issues, after all -- both ran as moderate Republicans (despite all the smearing of Gore as "liberal", his actual legislative record as a Senator was fairly conservative, as befits a senator from a conservative state such as Tennessee who properly represented his constituents). So the AWOL thing alone has no legs. But combined with all the things that have happened since that show that Bush is either a callow cad or an idiot who can't get accurate information out of his staff... (And spare me the "Clinton said the same thing!" stuff -- Clinton was a damned liar, do I need to repeat "I did not have sex with that woman" to you again?)... it adds up to a man who maybe isn't worthy of being President because he has not, in fact, changed. As for the "AWOL is a legal charge" bit, if I kill a man, I'm a murderer even if I'm never caught by the police. Same applies to AWOL. Apparently the Republican notion is "if I'm not caught, it's not a crime." Sorry. A murder is a murder. And an AWOL airman is an AWOL airman -- whether caught or not. Enron mentality ("if we're not caught, it's not a crime") appears to be the Republican mindset nowdays, and it's a damned shame that the one-time party of small government and morality has gone downhill to that corrupt and immoral extent. Posted by: BadTux at February 5, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKWhew! Well, I hope everyone feels better. Guess what? NONE of the above posts matter. Partisans on the left and right are already locked into a "my party, right or wrong" orientation. And if you think the blase casual observer is going to listen to either side rant on and on, well I have a bridge to sell you. The casual voter will watch the candidates and vote for the one they instinctively "like". Both sides show weakness on this alleged "issue" - Repubs look like dorks for faux martial posturing and the Dems look like two faced bastards (all the talk about "loser drunks" from the party that is perceived as soft on crime and promotes victimology i.e drug abuse, alcohol abuse, et al as diseases which aflict "victims"?) The vorciferous posts above have the intellectual depth of a high school pep rally. I am SURE that these rants will sway the undecided. Posted by: Californio at February 5, 2004 11:03 AM | PERMALINKIn 2008, when the GOP rehashes Hillary's lost billing records, I don't want to hear anyone complain about how unfair this is. :) Posted by: Timmy the Wonder Dog at February 5, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKNo good reason, other than it's private Fair enough. No one disputes his right to keep it private, if that's his choice. Irrelevant to his qualifications to serve as POTUS Thanks, but I think I'll judge what's relevant to my evaluation of his suitability for office. So far, new information about him can only raise my opinion of his qualifications, since what I've observed since 21 January 2001 suggests he's plumbing new depths of modern presidential incompetence. Maybe there's something in those records that might redeem him, however doubtful. and none of your damned business, right? As long as he doesn't ask for my vote, sure. He gives up that re-election campaign, and I stop wanting to know whether the records confirm his assertion that he did his duty in the Guard. He can keep them locked up for eternity. No problem, there. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 5, 2004 11:05 AM | PERMALINK"Bush volunteered for Vietnam duty." And Bush also knew that he wasn't qualified. There's little chance that an unqualified pilot was going on a tour. When Bush was denied a tour of duty, why didn't he complete the additional 200 hours needed so he would be qualified to serve?
It disqualifed him from serving his nation as a pilot. Remember, Bush said that the National Guard accepted him because they saw his potential to be one of the best pilots in history. Which could have been true, except Bush didn't seem very dedicated to the cause. Also, Bush only says that he hasn't used drugs since 1974. Put 2 + 2 together here, guys. It's not that difficult. Unless, of course, Bush wants to go on record and give his word that he never used drugs while serving in the National Guard. Any Bush lovers want to see that happen? There is a reason why Bush served in the 'Champagne Unit'. Those boys, mostly sons of influential Texans, joined the National Guard to avoid running to Canada. Bush has even admitted this. It's a question of character that doesn't go away after time. Questions about Clinton's draft status were perfectly valid, and his responses were basically acceptable. Same with Bush. There is no crime here, only questions of character that have more resonance in this post-9/11 world. And let's also be clear. Rove has put out the call for anybody who served with Bush in Alabama. (This call went out in 2000.) If Bush clearly served his country in Alabama, then there will be plenty of people, on base, who remember serving with the current President of the United States. Posted by: Tuna at February 5, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKShorter Californio: Shape of the earth flat or round? opinions differ. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 11:07 AM | PERMALINKAnd I want to know why Hillary didn't volunteer, too. No draft for women but she could have enlisted and gone to Vietnam as a nurse. Posted by: Lois at February 5, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINK"No good reason, other than it's private, irrelevant to his qualifications to serve as POTUS (a post he's held now for 3 years and 16 days), and none of your damned business, right?" How odd, then, that all OTHER POTUSes in the past have released THEIR military service records, so that the public (who voted them in) might have a good sense of the sort of man they have as Presidents. Why didn't they care so deeply about THEIR privacy, one wonders? (And exactly what might be "private" in a record of service, one wonders?) You guys are real phonies here, pretending that a big problem is no problem at all. Posted by: frankly0 at February 5, 2004 11:09 AM | PERMALINKIn case this wasn't hashed out before: AWOL = Away Without Leave. Bush was "away" - not there, and "without leave" - no official working through channels in a timely manner to arrange for a furlough. Even if he wrangled to make the time up later, it was not done properly then, and strings had to be pulled. (Like, just not showing up for work, and most people would be fired if they walked in the door months later.) AWOL Posted by: danderous at February 5, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKI was serving in the Alabama National Guard in 1971. I wanted a discharge, so I went to the Head Dscharge Clerk's office and got in line. Then this guy walks in, pushes to the front of the line and demands to be served. When the clerk refused, the guy sounded insulted and demanded, "Do you know who I am?!?" The clerk answered, "You're the guy who's going to go to the back of the line." The guy then cut a line of coke at the clerk's window, chugged a brewski and staggered, glassy-eyed out of the clerk's office. I didn't recognize him then, but when I turned on CNN yesterday I saw the same vain, semiaware guy on the news - and it was George Bush, the president. Imagine my surprise! I hope this story proves that Bush wasn't aWol. Man, I dig the NRO. Posted by: rooser04 at February 5, 2004 11:10 AM | PERMALINKTimmy At least Hillary can claim that this issue has been thoroughly investigated and was not guilty of criminal activity. And Bush can claim that this issue has been thoroughly investigated. And there is no clear evidence that he served his duty in Alabama, during a time in his life for which he won't even deny using narcotics. Posted by: Tuna at February 5, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKLois: because she was a Republican then :P Posted by: ryan b at February 5, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINKI spent 2 yrs active duty (Korea) in the late 50's when I got back I was supposed to serve 4 yrs reserve. I was excused for college one time and never heard from the Army untill my Honorable Discharge showed up in the mail 4 or 5 years later. It's not his lack of service it's the C O V E R U P . Get it? All you defenders (of Bush)...He seems to be lying! Or am I missing something? Posted by: DavidRosenfeld at February 5, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINKHi there. I have no time for anyone who says this or that attack on bush is hypocritical, or shows the bad character of the democrat doing the attack; or this or that attack on bush is low, or really slimy; or this or that attack on bush is divisive, or class warfare; or . . . The days when an appeal to fairness had an effect on us are over -- it IS all about Clinton, we have not forgotten, we have learned. This is not about a clear conscience, or principles, or anything like that. Democrats are fighting back and hitting hard. You don't like it, fine. But we are hitting back hard, low-blows, unfair, everything, everything is in play. Good Karl Rove and Grover have taught us how to fight people like Karl and Grover. Partisanship? Boy, you really have no idea how bush, trent, dennis, et al. have raised an alarm in people who previously did not care. We want bush out of office, this unasked for revolution over, and our democracy back. You really have no idea how many of us there are. Posted by: east coast hipster at February 5, 2004 11:22 AM | PERMALINKGryn, Ahh the sweet sounds of the sophistry. At least you are capable of that. A few steps up from most on this thread. Wether or not a crime was committed is largely irrelavent. The question is under what circumstances should we claim that a person is guilty of a serious crime? For you and Kevin Drum the answer is clearly if you really dislike their politics. This perfectly sums up your position - 'I'm neutral about the fact that he used his daddy's connections to let him get away with something that less privileged folks did not get away with.' Fact? You don't have a single fact to back up that assertion. Not one. Not a single piece of evidence. Your standard for declaring the Bush family guilty of wrong doing does not require a single bit of evidence. Not a single piece of evidence. You conflate the conjecture your bitter partisan bile produces with fact. They are not the same.
BMA says: "If you have not been convicted murder or rape, I should not call you a murderer or rapist" Just curious, BMA, have you ever referred to Clinton as a sex offender? As for cites of Bush's privilege, the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling, as seen here: "Bush was serving in a champagne unit that was refuge for the area sons of privilege. Its ranks included John Conally's son, Lloyd Bentson's son, John Tower's son, SEVEN Dallas Cowboys, and two sons of the businessman who got G W Bush into the Guard ahead of hundreds of others on a waiting list." Those of you looking for citations, may I ask: How will your opinion on this matter or your position and demeanor in this debate be affected in the slightest should your requests be satisfied? Precisely what will it change, if you don't mind my asking, before someone goes to the trouble of finding sufficient proof. And, furthermore, what exactly would constitute sufficient proof in your mind? Any examples? Posted by: Observer at February 5, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKAt least Hillary can claim that this issue has been thoroughly investigated and was not guilty of criminal activity. What is that word they are using over there in Great Britain? Oh yeah... WHITEWASH. Posted by: Al at February 5, 2004 11:33 AM | PERMALINKBadTux, I prefer east coast hipster and Atrios. The insane frothing at the mouth partisanship is up front. Again while your sophistry moves you to the head of the class but it is still sophistry. The military did not consider Bush AWOL. They gave him an honorable discharge. They never even charged him with being AWOL. Yet you have no problem making that accussation. For shame. You are a pedophile. Release your records and prove that you are not. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINKBob, yes, there is a distinction you are missing. The distinction is that the military still had the option of using you however it liked. Your assignment was, in fact, a military one. Bush’s assignment, on the other hand, was one where he lived where he liked, he showed up for drills a few times a year, and was effectively a civilian. Bush was “playing at soldier” because it was achieved through elitist connections and because the dangers he faced were all essentially self-induced. Did your daddy, your daddy’s friends, or even a kindly stranger pave your way Bob? Or was this something you did on your own merit? And even if that were the case, was there a guarantee that you were Not Going? Consider too that the military trained you to speak German. Did it then use you for that skill? How about Bush? They trained him to be a fighter pilot. Which one of you would have been useful in Vietnam? By enlisting and doing SigInt work, you weren’t playing at being a soldier, any more than the guy who enlisted as a chef and served food in Ft. Campbell KY was playing at being a soldier – both of you were soldiers as much as the grunt who enlisted and went to Vietnam (or guys who were drafted into any of those positions). I’m sorry if my post confused you, but Bush was playing at being a soldier even so. Posted by: Lori Thantos at February 5, 2004 11:36 AM | PERMALINKYes, it is a mistake for Democrats to look into this the way they're doing. The mistake is that they're not making as big a stink as the RNC did over Clinton's military record. Heck even clowns like Tom DeLay, who had a similar deferment as Clinton, were howling "draft dodger". Bush Sr. publicly demanded that candidate Clinton release his military records, though Clinton didn't do anything illegal (certainly not an actual crime, which going AWOL is). Clinton didn't present himself as an empty flightsuit. Yet he was still put under the magnifying glass by the RNC AND the press. Bush, meanwhile, is the first sitting president not to release his full military records, yet people are acting astonished that a "wartime president" would be asked to unbury his buried records. Why is it forbidden, insulting or unpatriotic to demand complete forthrightness from a sitting president who presents himself as militarily heroic? It's not even a partisan issue. Veterans' groups with members from the whole political spectrum been demanding the same full accounting since 2000. Release the pay stubs and the attendance records and the issue goes away, right wingnuts? Posted by: Peanut at February 5, 2004 11:38 AM | PERMALINKAn updated link to the Robinson story can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/ Posted by: GC at February 5, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINKObserver, No I have never refered to Clinton as a sex offender. You are projecting. You attack and defend based on partisan bile and so you assume others do. Clinton was a lair and cad. He was hung out to dry by his own PC ideology. He was also a fair to good president. A sexual offender? Only according to the most PC standards. Standards I do not use. I am asking for one single piece of hard evidence.
So, Bush was denied a transfer to Alabama, and when he didn't show up, the fact that Turnipseed didn't discipline him for not reporting where he was not supposed to be is some kind of dereliction of duty? Is this what passes for legal logic in JAGS? Bush needs to put this behind him, or prancing around in a flight suit could turn into his Dukakis moment, especially when so many reservists are in harm's way on his orders. You can say providing proof is up to his accusors, but an election is more like a job interview than a court of law. It would be up to his accusors to provide proof to send him to jail. It's up to him to provide proof of his qualifications to be president if we're going to send him back to the White House. Posted by: johnw at February 5, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKWell at least BigMacAttack knows sophistry when he proffers it. And he sure shovels it big time. Let’s see, an organization so beholden to the elitist Republicans that they have a unit specially for those trying to avoid the draft lets in a son of wealth and privilege; that’s well known, but the notion that they would continue the privilege by not convicting him for his disgraceful absence is so outrageous that this proves this fortunate son was never AWOL. Oh, and then he makes the same stupid mistake that so many of the
Bush partisans do: let’s claim that someone else has committed a
criminal act and demand they prove otherwise. Unfortunately, like the
rest of these mindless Bush defenders, he fails to provide a modicum of
substance for his vile charge. If, for example, he had a sealed arrest
record, that might be something. If he had some pattern of suspicious
behavior, that might be something. But no, unlike those who can show
that Bush most certainly was denied the request to transfer to a
non-flying unit, that the “verification” document is rather pathetic,
and that the method of honest verification would be rather easy, BMA
simply resorts to a baseless accusation in order to deflect the issue. Sorry, BMA, it's not that I am projecting. It's just that I have years of sad experience debating crude conservatives. If you have never referred to Clinton as a sex offender, then you are among a tiny minority of conservatives, and for that, I salute you. However, I have asked how you will respond to this hard evidence and for you to define hard evidence. Here, I will make it easy for you to save face. I will provide more evidence that I consider solid in addition to the circumstantial evidence provided above which you ignored. You can then move the "threshold of hard evidence" line back to a point *just* beyond this and claim victory, ok? Everyone else can come to their own conclusions. Here as an archival summary of some articles from the Dallas Morning News. Among the quotes you will find here (the full articles cost to retrieve) is this one: "Former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes confirmed Monday that he recommended Gov. George W. Bush for a slot in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War, at the request of a Bush family friend. Mr. Barnes' account came in a written statement that was released after he testified in a deposition stemming from a federal lawsuit. The statement agreed with earlier accounts in The Dallas Morning News of how Mr. Barnes' help was solicited..." Let me guess. Sworn deposition from the Lite Guv of Texas doesn't *quite* meet your threshold, right? If not, what would? Posted by: Observer at February 5, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, Gosh I must really getting under your skin. There was not a single valid rhetorical argument in your spew beyond "no it isn't". Did you study under Bob Sheffer? Here is some of the "non-evidence".
*sigh* I wish someone with more substantial rhetoric than you was available. This feels like a warm-up exercise. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 11:54 AM | PERMALINKI think there are other forms of evidence to look at here, however circumstantial. I saw a clip of Bush in 2000 repeating the phrases "I served," and "I was honorably discharged." These are true statements.A standard way of deceiving, both oneself and others, is to emphasize true statements to justify actions that themselves can't be admitted. So Bush can say, to himself and others, that he served and was honorably discharged. He can then conclude for himself that that was all he was supposed to do in the National Guard. Chase closed. If he had actually served in Alabama, he might be expected to draw on memories of that experience. He didn't. This is obviously very circumstantial evidence, but it's interesting. Posted by: John Kelly at February 5, 2004 11:57 AM | PERMALINKWhile this whole Bush AWOL story is interesting and one that illuminates the shaky character that many of us believe him to possess, I think that the democratic establishment needs to trend lightly here. I suggest this not because the story has no "legs" (I believe it does) but because Dems don't want to rehashing old accustaions and speculations. This makes the party look petty and will certainly lead to more "flip-flop" Kerry stories than we've already seen. Let the blogspeher keep this story running and hope it continues to bubble up to the mainstream press. Maybe then a reporter could, you know, do some actual REPORTING instead of the appalling lazy regergitation that gets called "reporting" these days (the CNN story on this issue during Paula Zahn last night was so half-assed it blew my mind--not only was nothing REPORTED, the guy--someone from Dallas Morning News--even made a judgement of the (no) news...UGH). Posted by: Matt the Georgia Liberal at February 5, 2004 12:01 PM | PERMALINKShrub got himself into a gig that would ensure that he would not go to Vietnam. He got himself into that gig based on his family connections. That is the story. Not whether he went aWol during the gig. -- Raj Raj, you are 100% correct. W's entire adult life has been a string of "gigs" arranged by his family connections. And he's managed to screw most of them up, only to be set up in another by the same connections. Yale, National Guard, Harvard, Arbusto, Harken, baseball owner, Governor, President... Posted by: Swoosh at February 5, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKIt's going to be a long year for GWB. And who let Wonder Dog off the reservation? Posted by: poputonian at February 5, 2004 12:02 PM | PERMALINKThis whole effort to defend Bush smacks of the intimidation tactics used before the Iraq war to shut up those who were skeptical that Saddam had WMDs -- i.e., the constant demand that the other party prove a negative. Saddam must show us where are the weapons he doesn't have, war critics must prove the nonexistent arsenal hasn't moved into terrorist hands, etc. Now that Saddam said he had no WMDs and was found to be correct, the Bushies are using the same old backwards logic to defend their man -- there is no proof he was AWOL therefore he wasn't. They hope their bluster will make us ignore the converse: Surely proof must exist that he fulfilled his duty. Bottom line: If Bush is clean, he'll provide the applicable records. If he isn't, then he won't. Posted by: Jim J at February 5, 2004 12:07 PM | PERMALINKas i've said repeatedly on my own duty-fulfilled blog, this piece of evidence only works if nobody else in the world had a "w" in their name back in the 1970's. Posted by: skippy at February 5, 2004 12:07 PM | PERMALINKWell, the republicans are really shocked, Shocked! that democrats are willing to go to the mat even on little bitty things like whether Bush is a lying, lazy, frat boy who went AWOL thirty years ago. Guess you all slept through the last fifteen years of ugly politicking. Here is my question for all of you posting here: do you really think that telling us we are stupid for even caring about the character of our current president will change our minds? What is your object here, really? I can only repeat what I said to Kevin P, whose politics and mind I don't understand in the slightest (kind of agree with Gryn on this one) if you don't think it matters, hey! good for you. You must sleep much easier at night than I do. I think it matters, I hope it matters to the public at large, and I'm going to work my darndest (good language counts!) to keep it and other like issues front and center. The democrats don't have 60 million dollars and a rigged judiciary to work with like the republicans did, but maybe a huge groundswell of disgust will dislodge this vile excuse for a president from the national throat. aimai Posted by: aimai at February 5, 2004 12:09 PM | PERMALINKThe idea that members of the Reserve components during the Vietnam war were allowed to show up or not for required drills at their pleasure could not be farther from the truth. I spent more than a year as a member of a Marine Cadre training reservists (67-69)...Anyone who didn't show up stood a very good chance of being; busted to Private (E-1), losing whatever "Security Clearance" he held, and being transferred directly to WESTPAC... Wasn't all that unusual...Except for those who wielded Influence... Posted by: D.R. Marvel at February 5, 2004 12:10 PM | PERMALINKBMA: You are sophistically treating the POTUS as just another person to be compared to anonymous blogites, and that we should just act as cute Plato's Academy declaiming over who has the burden of proof, etc. of a past issue of no current relevance. Regardless of whether we can be sure now, or who has the burden of proof, the public does have the right to know what the *President* did in his military life, right? That's part of how we decide who to vote for. That means Bush should allow release of his records, and we should see them. The issue isn't diverted by conflict over how to hash out the answer to the question *now* with what blogites have seen so far (and why we have seen such travesties as the torn document is a valid reason for suspicion. Suspicion matters, it's a good place to start, and it can't be dismissed with perfectionistic pretensions of being a dutiful logical positivist. (Hey: prove that things continue to exist even when not being observed... I loved to throw that out in philosophy classes.) BTW, of course it doesn't matter much that the military didn't charge Bush with being AWOL, when the question of his pulling strings and getting away with it is fundamental to the whole issue. So, did you go swatting down those who believed OJ was guilty, with "There was no conviction!" ? Posted by: danderous at February 5, 2004 12:14 PM | PERMALINKJim J, You defrauded the IRS. Release your records come and come clean. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 12:15 PM | PERMALINKUmm..ok so this paper is torn. No big deal, right? Just get the original (or one of the carbons) from the NG's files. Posted by: eek at February 5, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINKdanderous, OJ was not guilty. You have absolutely no right to Bush's personal records, none. I cannot imagine living in a society where you did. I would not want to live in such a place. Oddly enough you have stumbled onto a truth. You hold the POTUS to a different standard. This explains why the POTUS always lies. Throw some mud and then demand an investigation.
If Lt. aWol didn't want his military record examined he should have: 1) not pranced around on that aircraft carrier 2) not been a member of a party that mercilessly hounded Clinton for alleged "draft dodging" without a hint of dissent for aWol ror any of you other hypocritical motherfuckers Who the cap fit. Let them wear it. Fuck off all of you lying sack of shit Republican hypocrites. Posted by: The Fool at February 5, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINKWow, my mistake. I took BMA seriously, and I have the records to prove it. My apologies. Posted by: Observer at February 5, 2004 12:26 PM | PERMALINKAlso, lets face it. Bush's family had the connections to get him a gaurd gig, surely they also would have had the necessary connections to get him an honarble discharge from the Gaurd with no official AWOL charge. They got him special treatment for his DUIs, remember... so, yeah. And as for all the diversionary tactics from the winger crowd: well, it's nice to see them running scared. A bit like their beloved Dubya in '72, in fact. Posted by: ahem at February 5, 2004 12:26 PM | PERMALINKYou hold the POTUS to a different standard. Doh! Could it be because he's head of state and Commander in Chief? No! Surely not! Not to mention that he appears to hold himself to a different standard. Posted by: ahem at February 5, 2004 12:27 PM | PERMALINKBadTux: "... it adds up to a man who maybe isn't worthy of being President because he has not, in fact, changed." For you maybe - not for the rest of us who are going to be in the Blue States come November ; ) "I'm a murderer even if I'm never caught by the police." I agree. "Same applies to AWOL." Not EXACTLY the same - see Statute of Limitations. Brian C.B. "Fair enough. No one disputes his right to keep it private, if that's his choice." Finally! "Thanks, but I think I'll judge what's relevant to my evaluation of his suitability for office . . ." You can base your vote on whatever you'd like. Refusing to devulge private records from 30 years ago does NOT automatically make someone non-elligible for the position. frankly0: Look, I was simply giving you a few (there are more, for example, in one of Tom Clancy's book, President Ryan refused to release classified imformation that actually would have been the smart thing to do politically - maybe GWB has a similar reason and wasn't really in Alabama) legitimate "GOOD reasons" - you stated there were NONE. I think I've carried my burden of proof as to that. "You guys are real phonies here, pretending that a big problem is no problem at all." No - I'm sure you will try to make it as big a problem as you can. I just think the rest of the country will find it odd to be harping as to whether a SITTING President is qualified to be President - didn't the voters already make that determination. A re-election is about whether we want a different President, right? danderous: "In case this wasn't hashed out before: AWOL = Away Without Leave." Doesn't the "A" stand for "absent" under the UCMJ? "Bush was 'away' - not there . . ." Granted. ". . . and 'without leave' - no official working through channels in a timely manner to arrange for a furlough." But you see, that's where we disagree. "Even if he wrangled to make the time up later, it was not done properly then, and strings had to be pulled . . ." Then that could qualify as "with leave" ; )
"The military did not consider Bush AWOL. They gave him an honorable discharge." Correct - but then you go off half-cocked and point out: "They never even charged him with being AWOL." Ah ha! The other side says: "How do you know THAT unless all the records are released?!" ; ) Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKI thought it was clear that Bush's family connections got him bumped to the head of the line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/19990927/aponline190140_000.htm Even the freepers admit it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071037/posts Posted by: Atlas at February 5, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKYou defrauded the IRS. Release your records and come clean Sigh. Your intimidation tactics are remarkably lame and most ineffective. I feel sorry for your side if this is the best you can do. Dude, how many times do we have to tell you: We're not running for president. Bush is. Jesus, how hard a distinction is that for you to make? Oh, I forgot: You only said that to deflect my original statement: If Bush is clean, he'll provide the applicable records. If he isn't, then he won't. Period! Gryn, 'BigMacAttack, Gosh I must really getting under your skin. There was not a single valid rhetorical argument in your spew beyond "no it isn't".' What utter nonsense. My questions were not rhetorical. And I am uncertain as to what qualifies as a valid instance of asking merely for effect with no answer expected. Perhaps you could explain? Ignoring your nonsense and your bragging about your nonsense. I will follow the links. Understand that since I actually try to read and think about what I read it might take a bit of time.
First of all, Mr. "Big Mac Attack", I'm a Libertarian, not a Democrat. Your low-life smearing of me as a partisan Democrat has been noted, and I have to say that it marks you as being as immoral a person as your Great Leader with his agenda of borrow-and-spend Big Government and endless wars of foreign aggression. But what the hey, I suppose your Bushevik Party commissars told you to smear any opponents of your Great Leader as DEMON-crats, so that's what you do. You're such a tool. And hell yeah, I'm smearing you as a low-life Party apparatchnik. I'm a Libertarian, not some yellow-bellied Democrat. You fire a six-gun at a Libertarian, your cowardly self better expect return fire from an arsenal worthy of the 4th Infantry Division. You try your cowardly smear attacks against this Libertarian and I'll call you what you are: a tool of a fundamentally unamerican Party whose rhetoric differs from that of the Bolsheviks, but whose methods and goals remain the same: the looting of the wealth of nations at gunpoint for the benefit of a Party elite. Starting with looting MY wealth to benefit a bunch of people in Iraq that I don't know and don't give a shit about (assuming that you buy the "invading Iraq was justified because we liberated the Iraqi people" meme), and let's not forget Vice President Halliburton... I'll repeat: AWOL Bush by itself is a story with no legs. It doesn't matter. It's irrelevant. But as part of a pattern of immoral and unethical behavior... hell yeah it matters. And let's face it, nobody would believe Bush could ever be AWOL if it wasn't for the fact that it tends to support the character (or lack thereof) that he has shown in his term of office, where he was elected as a moderate Republican and ended up morphing into some kind of mix of Lyndon Johnston (a damned liar who lied us into an unnecessary war because he was a craven coward who feared being called weak) and Richard Nixon (a Big Government Republican who enacted more Big Government programs and raised domestic spending by a bigger percentage than any Democrat ever in history, all the way back to FDR). As for the idiots saying that if you go AWOL from the National Guard, you don't get an honorable discharge: Bullshit. One of my (former) friends was called up for Oil War I. He said "Hell no I won't go" and put in for a bogus medical discharge. They were about to court martial him when it was noted that this would make his commanding officer look like a dimwit who couldn't motivate his men, and hurt his commanding officer's chances of promotion in the future. He got his honorable discharge (though there was nothing honorable about it -- I felt then, and I feel now, that when you sign a contract to serve our country that contract means something). -E Posted by: BadTux at February 5, 2004 12:37 PM | PERMALINKApplicable quote from a recent Salon story: "During the 1992 presidential election, Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, called on his Democratic opponent, Bill Clinton, to make public all personal documents relating his draft status during the Vietnam War, including any correspondences with 'Clinton's draft board, the Selective Service System, the Reserve Officer Training Corps, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, the Coast Guard, the United States departments of State and Justice, any U.S. foreign embassy or consulate.' That, according to a Bush-Quayle Oct. 15, 1992, press release. " Posted by: Jim J at February 5, 2004 12:39 PM | PERMALINKSigh, you know exactly the usage of rhetorical I meant: 1 : the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a : the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b : the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion How unsurprisingly disingenuous of you. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 12:42 PM | PERMALINKJim J: "Dude, how many times do we have to tell you: We're not running for president. Bush is." O.K., Jim - how about this one then: "John Kerry married his current wife Teresa in 1995 after she inherited her fortune from her deceased husband, ketchup king John Heinz, who perished in a mysterious airplane crash in 1991. The records backing up Kerry's annulment to his former wife of 12 years (not to mention however many BORN children - not aborted fetuses mind you) are pretty thin. All I want is proof that Kerry, in fact, had nothing to do with said airplane crash and that special treatment was not given to him by the Catholic Church letting him get away with being annuled. The current state of his records, unlike those of every President before him, makes this a valid question. I will be glad for Bush to release his entire divorce / FAA records too, but I don’t think you want that either. After all, we might find out just how it is Kerry did not kill Mr. Heinz which would be completely out of character for someone who personally killed many other men in Vietnam." Question: If you're not up to those "documents being released" explain for me how exactly GOP character assassinations are O.K. then. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 12:43 PM | PERMALINKJim J, Listen. The circumstances make the analogy a poor once. It is true that there is some reason to question Bush's record. Though some reason does not mean enough reason to claim he is guilty. Intimidation? ROFL? A poor analogy is not intimidation. Again, oddly enough I think that is part of the problem, I do hold someone running for president to the same ethical and moral standards as anyone else. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKAs Dr. Strangelove said, "There are knowns, there are known unknowns, unknowns, and unknown unknowns." This is the game the thugs have us playing. They don't provide all the facts/records (Iraq, 9/11. AWOL, etc.), then say that since you can't prove anything because you don't have the information that we won't give you, thus, we must be right and you must be wrong. Then, smear those looking for all of the available information in the first place. Repeat as necessary. That is how the game is played, right? Or did I miss a step? Bring it on, assholes. Posted by: Hank Essay at February 5, 2004 12:51 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, You don't. And if you don't know, you should not make accussations. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 12:53 PM | PERMALINKOn CNN in an interview with Judy Woodruff, the Bush campaign spokesman just referred in a classic Freudian slip to Bush's "Honorary Discharge". Posted by: Dave Roberts at February 5, 2004 12:55 PM | PERMALINKGryn, I really need to stop so I can read the links. But if 'Wether or not a crime was committed is largely irrelavent. The question is under what circumstances should we claim that a person is guilty of a serious crime?' doesn't strike you as valid and/or persausive questions, that is on you. I don't know what more I can do. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 12:56 PM | PERMALINKBadTux, Last one I have to read. I said biiter partisan bile. I didn't say what kind of bitter partisan bile. You made that assumption. I am glad you have clarified that your bitter partisan bile is liberterian and not Democratic. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 12:59 PM | PERMALINKNot a single person on this thread was planning to vote for Bush anyway. Me included. Posted by: Earl at February 5, 2004 01:03 PM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, huh?!? This is a blog not a jury trial. I'm not going for "beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything. So yes I can hold my own personal opinion about the likelihood of guilt or innocence of a person not fulfilling his obligations vs. that which has been determined in a court of law. I've said at the beginning that I consider this a character issue. It doesn't matter to the law if you are a lying asshole (unless you do it in court), but it *DOES* matter to me. Mr. Bush is employed by the public and that includes ME. I most certainly will judge him on his record of performance and his character and mendacity is a very important component of that decision. I have evidence in my hands that contradicts his statements and if he wants to keep his job he should defend himself (especially since it's extremely simple for him to do so). Why is this so difficult for you to understand this difference? Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 01:06 PM | PERMALINKGryn, Oh my gosh that was awful. This document was an unattributted piece of hearsay. Or does the hearsay have a source? I hope the rest is better. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 01:09 PM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, You don't even mention what you are referring to. When you tell me that and what claim you dispute I'll be happy to supply the evidence. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 01:13 PM | PERMALINKI've never heard this addressed - Bush recieved and completed flight training. At some point, he stopped flying. The reason is unclear, his service record is unclear, but regardless, did he ever fly anything again under any circumstances? It seems that someone who once flew might fly a private plane across Texas at some point, but I've never heard. One possible explanation is that his license was revoked, but I honestly have no idea how that would work and if the facts we know would back that up. Anyone? Posted by: Will at February 5, 2004 01:17 PM | PERMALINKKevin P. says: Not to rain on anybody's parade or anything, but there are a considerable number of people who have actually served in the military (including the National Guard and Reserves) who have looked at this charge and found nothing there: And were does he link? Why instahack of course He goes on to say:Be very careful where you go with this. Accusing someone of desertion or being AWOL is a SERIOUS accusation and can badly rebound on you. Ah the old "the accusation is more serious than the crime" gambit. Look K.P. Dubya's silence on this issue (well, when he's not spinning or brushing odd) is as damning as the accusation itself. If there is solid proof to the contrary, bring it on. Why would the man not seek to save his name, and a modicum of face. Knock this one over the fence guys. It's a winner. Posted by: PeskyFLy at February 5, 2004 01:20 PM | PERMALINKGryn, Oh my gosh. The newspaper scans were worse. They show that in 1967 and 1969 at the height of the Vietnam war two guardsman were called up for active duty for missing national guard service duty. In 1969 540,000 men served in Vietnam. By the spring of 1973 all but 50 troops had withdrawn. Maybe Bush could have been 51? ROFL. In 1972 the troop level was 24,200. Too suggest that anyone would have considered sending Bush to Vietnam for missing service time during a 500,000+ troop reduction is inane in the extreme. To say that the circumstances between 1967-69 were different than in 1972-73 is a bit of an understatement. Interestingly enough as usual conspiracy nuts cannot even maintain internal logic. The first scan explains how Bush could have gotten into the guard without any help from his father. Just by being white. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 01:21 PM | PERMALINKHank Essay: Am I to assume your reference to "Dr. Strangelove" is supposed to taint SecDef Rumsfeld? BigMacAttack: Sorry - I'm not sure if your post at February 5, 2004 12:53 PM refers to my 12:31 PM or 12:43 PM (or some other) post? Dave Roberts: The CNN transcript says "honorable" not "honorary" : ) P.S. to Earl: I was planning on voting for GWB - what do you mean? Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 01:22 PM | PERMALINKBig Mac Attack's parrot unfortunately misquotes him -- Big Mac: Absent Without Leave is a legal condition. GWB was not convicted by the US military of being AWOL. By definition Bush was not AWOL. Parrot: Perjury is a legal condition. Clinton was not convicted in any court of perjury. By definition Clinton is not a perjurer.. Also, Bush is free to keep his records private (unlike everyone else who runs for president), and we are free to criticize him for his secrecy. He has no right to privacy on these points if he wants to be president. Posted by: dmbeaster at February 5, 2004 01:22 PM | PERMALINKPeskyFLy: "Why would the man not seek to save his name, and a modicum of face." Over the course of the last few aWol threads, I've given at least 1/2 a dozen such reasons. once you catch up, let me know. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINKdmbeaster: "He has no right to privacy on these points if he wants to be president." He certainly does - there are plenty of other disclosure mandated by law - he has at least as much right as you do to base your vote on something this silly. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 01:27 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "Over the course of the last few aWol threads, I've given at least 1/2 a dozen such reasons. once you catch up, let me know" Okay, what would be a credible, non-nonsensical reason why the man would not seek to save his name and a modicum of face? Is that better, Charlie? Let us know when you come up with a half a dozen such reasons, won't you? Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 01:28 PM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, It's either be sent to Vietnam or dropped from the NG. Are you saying that things changed rapidly between 69 and 72 that noone was punished for blowing off 6 months to a year or more of the NG? That would be curious indeed. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINKGryn, I cannot access, Received commision as 2nd lieutenant, but he had graduated from Yale. I am going to guess that might have had something to with receiving a commission as a 2nd lietenant. As a matter of fact I would guess that most Yale graduates would be welcomed into the national guard as officers. These links are really poor. I had really taken this seriously. This is a joke. Unattributed hearsay. Etc. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINKYou sure ask a lot of questions PaulB for someone on my ignore-ant list. Suffice it to say that anyone else will get direct answers to any direct questions. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINKEastcoasthipster-right on. I'm not a republican or democrat but it has always seemed to me that the conservative or republican has 6 to 10 issues (you know some of them-like spend a lot on the militiary, non-abortion, prayer in school, etc) that they require a candidate agree with them on or he has no chance. It's the litmus test and if he agrees on these issues then it really doesn't matter what kind of person he is otherwise. If he's river scum then it's best that he just hides it but even if he cannot hide it as long as he agrees on the hot button issues they will just argue in his favor. Here in Oregon several years ago a man ran for republican in the conservative part of the state and lied about his Korean militiary service in the voters information pamplit (unbelievably that's a crime) and was caught and penalized and removed from the race. Even after this information came to light-he would have still won the election. If he stated the party line on the issues, he was the right man, even if shown to be a proven liar. The problem with all this is if all a person's major character flaws are overlooked or covered up then someday we all may get a real nut case for president (maybe this time now). If a person lies and tries to cover the truth how can I know that he even truthfully believes in the litmus test issues? If he has major character flaws but says all the right things can I trust him in a place of power. Posted by: MRB at February 5, 2004 01:32 PM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, all of the links are unattributed hearsay (WaPo included)? What argument would you like attributed. I've asked you this before and I'm serious. - Jason Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "I think I've carried my burden of proof as to that." Um...no. "I just think the rest of the country will find it odd to be harping as to whether a SITTING President is qualified to be President" That argument didn't work against President Clinton; it ain't gonna work for Bush. But hey, nice try. Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 01:33 PM | PERMALINKCharlie wrote: "You sure ask a lot of questions PaulB for someone on my ignore-ant list" Aw, Charlie, are you gonna ignore me? 'Cause I sure never said I was gonna ignore you. I'm deeply, deeply hurt. Oh, and have you called the Secret Service again to report that I've threatened President Bush? I'm a little worried that I still haven't heard from them. Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 01:35 PM | PERMALINKGryn, Again, I do not need to prove the negative.(and to think you had the gall to call me disingenious) You need to back up your assertion. By the sprig of 1973 all but 50 troops had withdrawn. And you seriously want people to believe that Bush would have been made the 51st for maybe missing some service time? I hope your rhetoric is good cause your facts suck. Maybe the unattributted hearsay was suppossed to convince me? Hey look they made a Yale graduate a 2nd lieutenant. Where there is smoke there is fire. LMAO. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 01:39 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, Tree view badly needed. I have no idea. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 01:43 PM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack, so you still haven't responded. I assume this means you capitulate that you are a cheerleader that isn't interested in the facts. Thank you for playing, better luck next time. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 01:44 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, I meant a reason that wasn't stoopid. Look, he's the prez. He's under attack. True or not this WILL hurt him at the polls. C'mon man, dish. Why's he being such a worm on this one? A GOOD reason, please. We've got SOME evidence, at least. He's got a torn document with no name or social. He's a child of privlidge and a liar---- even to himself most likely. Posted by: PeskyFly at February 5, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINKAgain, oddly enough I think that is part of the problem, I do hold someone running for president to the same ethical and moral standards as anyone else. That's pretty laughable, if true. Personally, I think that the President should be someone of exceptional character. (And don't bother mentioning Clinton because 'everyone does it' isn't a defense, it is an admission of guilt.) I would also hope to have a President of above average intelligence. As for those who raise standard of proof issues, we aren't in a criminal court here. The standard of proof for a criminal trial is set high in order to protect the innocent from losing their right to freedom or life through wrongful incarceration or execution. That isn't what is at stake here. Nobody has the RIGHT to be President. Being President is an exceptional honor that should not be bestowed upon just anyone. In civil trials the preponderance of the evidence is the standard and that would be a more appropriate standard for judging character issues in a presidential candidate. In this case, there is a good prima facia case that Bush shirked his duties and received special treatment both during his entry into and his exit from the guard. The burden of proof is on his defenders. Given the prima facia case against him, Bush's refusal to turn over the relevant records must be mystifying to those who believe him. Posted by: exgop at February 5, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKBigMacAttack: "Tree view badly needed. I have no idea." It certainly is not easy responding to everyone on multiple threads - hopefully they will waste their time on stuff like this rather than what the electorate really care about - don't worry about it. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 02:03 PM | PERMALINKI am going to guess that might have had something to with receiving a commission as a 2nd lietenant. Wouldn't it be nice to know what you were talking about instead of guessing? Being a college graduate doesn't mean that you enter the service with a commission. Unless you completed ROTC or attended a service academy, you must first complete Officer Candidate School. From July, 1999, here is what CNN reported about Bush's commission: Texas Air National Guard historian Tom Hail also told the Times that the fast-tracking of Bush through the ranks was unusual. "I've never heard of that," Hail said. "Generally, they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons." Any questions? Posted by: exgop at February 5, 2004 02:06 PM | PERMALINKWell, PeskyFly - if none of the half dozen reasons I've proferred are "good" in your opinion, I'm afraid that's all I would have to offer. Good luck on your quest for the Holy Grail my lad. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 02:06 PM | PERMALINKOkay to put the Clinton/Bus "character" B.S. to bed, let's do a little proof. Everyone screws up, even elected officials. Is Scooter Libby really ready to serve HARD TIME for Dick C. and (maybe even George W.) or will he dish. The AWOL thing is a drop in the bucket compared to the looming firestorm. Get ready dittoheads, your minds are about to be blown. Posted by: PeskyFly at February 5, 2004 02:06 PM | PERMALINKGryn, Responded to what? I asked for evidence. You gave me worthless crap. A letter that was unattributed hearsay. A few scans that show in 1967 and 1969 when the troop level was climbing to 540,000 in Vietnam missing National Guard duty could result in being assigned to Vietnam. The troop level in 1973 was 50? How are those assignments in 1967 and 1969 relavent to 1973 when the troop level was 50?(Or 1972 when it was 24,000?) And an implicit claim that making a Yale graduate a 2nd Lieutenant was favoritism. What a waste of time. If you have something worthwhile present it. Otherwise go ahead and declare yourself the winner. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 02:10 PM | PERMALINKThis can all be answered by asking Barbara Bush where W. was and what
he was doing during the years in question. She knows and her morals
would require her to tell the truth. Really, I'm not kidding. Some people tell lies, others live them. Clinton told a lie. Bush lives one. Posted by: exgop at February 5, 2004 02:11 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, sorry to say I'm as unimpressed as you seem to be with the opposing arguement. But I'm glad you compare this to a Grail quest. The implication (intended or not) is that it is a noble, if ultimately fruitless task. And good luck to you defending George aWol. Posted by: PeskyFly at February 5, 2004 02:15 PM | PERMALINKexgop I'm a Navy brat, and I was in Southeast Asia from 1969-1972. My late father, acting CO at Subic Bay, frequently referred to men as "AWOL", whether or not they went to the brig for it. It's a state of being, not just a charge. I should also point out that he himself received an honorable discharge in 1979, in spite of having beeen court-martialed in the 50's for refusing to testify against others on his ship. "Dishonorable discharge" was a serious mark of disapprobation, and rarely given. Often for the "family's sake," commanding officers would cut their men some slack. I know of at least one officer who got a "medical" for alcoholism, because his commander wanted to make sure the man's wife would get the pension when his liver gave out. And was there "undue influence" in the service? You bet your life. It was *all* about rank. There was my classmate's brother, who was hustled off to Hawaii to avoid felony charges, on his father's orders. My mother's Red ties were expunged by her father's orders, in order to avoid jeopardizing my father's security clearance. My grandfather was a politician. Posted by: Sisi at February 5, 2004 02:22 PM | PERMALINKexgop, Did you expect me not to read the story. Pay better attention. Same story 'However, the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jet.' 'But the Times also found that despite a long waiting list nationwide, Bush easily got in the Guard and received a commission as a second lieutenant, despite lacking the credentials many other candidates had, such as ROTC experience. He also had no previous aviation experience.' Many. Not all. It was not a rule but a judgement call. How many were Ivy League graduates? That counts for nothing in that judgement call? And I am perfectly willing to admit that this is probably true - '"His name didn't hurt, obviously," retired Col. Charles C. Shoemake, who served with Bush, told the Times.' Or this - '"He said he wanted to fly just like his daddy," Bush's commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, told the Times. "Nobody did anything for him. There was no ... influence on his behalf." The Times reported that many of Bush's former colleagues and superiors in the Guard remember him as a bright young leader who worked hard. "He did the work. His daddy didn't do it for him," said retired Maj. Willie J. Hooper.' If that's prima facie we really do need take my Dad's advice and put all the lawyers up against the wall. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 02:32 PM | PERMALINKYeah, just drop all the AWOL stuff and leave preznit coward alone. There is a war on ya know. PeskyFly: "The implication (intended or not) is that it is a noble, if ultimately fruitless task . . ." I actually had Monty Python more in mind http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail.htm Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 02:41 PM | PERMALINKWell, Hadenough, in case YOU haven't noticed, there are terrorists who want to kill you and me. Excuse me if I'd rather not change horses in midstream. Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 02:45 PM | PERMALINKmonty python? hey I'm cool with that too. Those guys are smart. Posted by: PeskyFly at February 5, 2004 02:45 PM | PERMALINKCharlie, if you don't have time to deal with relevant facts and citations, don't ask for them, ok? At least BMA is doing the required dance by ignoring the inconveniently credible citations, lambasting the shaky ones and generally moving the line continually back so he never has to admit he's wrong. Sheesh, it's the least you can do if we're doing the legwork and looking up references. Posted by: Observer at February 5, 2004 02:50 PM | PERMALINK
Really? If he were President, we couldn't find a couple, or several eyewitnesses, to go on CNN and say, "I don't care that the paperwork was lost. I saw Kevin there all the time." This "AWOL is a legal term" defense is rather odd. We "presume" people innocent, but that doesn't stop prosecutors. How about "allegedly AWOL"? Is that better? Doesn't it seem curious that at every turn where this discussion could be ended - paperwork, other records, eyewitnesses, the sealed records, evidence that could demonstrate something so simple - that Bush was where he says he was - is unavailable? Yes, technically Bush has a right to privacy, but no one is asking him to rehash is sex life or partying in those days, just open up some military records. Politicans open up tax forms, etc. all the time. I think it is perfectly appropriate for people in 2004 to say "If he can't be honest about this, then I will not be voting for him President." And it is my opinion that former Lt. George W. Bush, current President, to this day has not been candid in this matter. Posted by: Curious at February 5, 2004 02:52 PM | PERMALINK"And an implicit claim that making a Yale graduate a 2nd Lieutenant was favoritism." That's 4.0 GPA from the University of Pennsylvania, also an Ivy school, and in his second language. Posted by: Sisi at February 5, 2004 02:54 PM | PERMALINKSigh. BigMacAttack continues regurgitating his Party commissar's propoganda as if it were truth. The issue, BigPartyFlackInThePayOfBush, isn't whether George W. Bush himself pulled strings to get into the Guard. He was a rich young man from a good family, he didn't *have* to pull strings, people would rush to do it for him unasked in order to curry favor with his family, and frankly convicting him of being a rich young man isn't anything I'm interested in doing considering that I'm in the top 10% tax bracket myself (pretty damned good for the son of a waitress and a short order cook, eh?). The question is whether he served out his commitment with honor. I
talked about my former friend who got an honorable discharge from the
National Guard (for bogus "medical reasons") in 1991 despite
participating in an act of mutiny when his unit was ordered to Saudi
Arabia in order to free Kuwait, because being court martialled for
mutiny would have reflected badly on his commanding officers. You appear
to totally dismiss that, instead arguing that if the son of a powerful
politician did not fulfill his commitment, he would surely been sent up
on charges. Uhm, not so. Especially not given the draw-down in forces in
Southeast Asia at the time, and the impending retirement of the F-102.
It is quite likely that, as with my former friend, someone could get
away with doing something dishonorable and still get an honorable
discharge. After all, it certainly would not look good on any officer's
record to show that he was such a poor commander that he didn't know
where the son of a powerful Congressman was for 9 months or more! If the
son of a small town pharmacist can get away with mutiny, surely the son
of a powerful Congressman can get away with being AWOL for a few
months? Sisi, So, my cousin saw Bush serve durng the time in question. Silly meet silly. Posted by: BigMacAttack at February 5, 2004 03:04 PM | PERMALINKI send this out every time it comes up in the media or on the web. Maybe At the time I joined the guard (1963), my unit, unlike Bush's,
While my test papers and applications were A few months later, my unit secured a slot for me in a USAF pilot training A couple of more points: AWOL? Deserter? Here are the FACTS. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 802. ART. 2. PERSONS SUBJECT TO THIS CHAPTER Bush was not in Federal Service, thus not subject to UCMJ, and therefore not However, from the Texas Code of Military Justice, which Bush "may have Bush was certainly in violation of one or more of these sections, but notice
When I joined the guard to be trained as a pilot I signed an agreement, a If I had done exactly the same thing Bush did, skipped out and not shown up 1. I would have been located/contacted (if possible) by a superior officer You can see why it was in my best interest to show up each and every time We can bemoan the fact, and wail and gnash our teeth, but there's no way BMA, I fail to understand the relevance of your post to anything I posted. Perhaps you were responding to someone else. As for the no special treatment stuff, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes testified that he personally helped Bush obtain special treatment. No number of people testifying that they were unaware of special treatment can nullify that. Just because somebody isn't aware of what took place doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Posted by: exgop at February 5, 2004 03:08 PM | PERMALINKOne more time for the slow. Texas Air National Guard historian Tom Hail also told the Times that the fast-tracking of Bush through the ranks was unusual. "I've never heard of that," Hail said. "Generally, they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons." This was unheard of by the historian of the Texas Air National guard. Furthermore, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes testified under oath that he personally helped pull strings for Bush vis a vis the ANG. The favoritism case should be considered an established fact. Observer: ". . . if you don't have time to deal with relevant facts and citations, don't ask for them, ok?" First - I don't think I ever asked for any citations (perhaps you are confusing me with someone else?) Second - I've been trying to read all of what has been posted here diligently, so I don't appreciate the insinuations to the contrary. Curious(ity killed the cat): Are you sure about that? Search for the words "druck" or "cocaine" above. "Politicans open up tax forms, etc. all the time." Exactly - there are disclosure mandated by federal election law and THIS is not one of them. "I think it is perfectly appropriate for people in 2004 to say 'If he can't be honest about this, then I will not be voting for him President.'" Sure - just as it is perfectly appropriate for people in 2004 to say "If he can't speak fluent Chinese, then I will not be voting for him." P.S. Thanks trof for the info, but as pointed out multiple times above, 1972-1973 was a radically different period re: U.S. involvement in Vietnam than any of the ten prior years. Although I will have to check whether the National Guard was still federalized by May 1972, thanks for that assist too - I'm sure it will get even more complicated looking up antiquated State AWOL statutes ; ) Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINK1. Missing monthly drill isn't being AWOL. Pure and simple, that's the fact, and any suggestion to the contrary is either uninformed or a lie. 2. There's a rhetorical trick here, which says that Bush's file is inaccurate, and the only way he can show it isn't is to release it entirely. If it's been doctored, of course, then it's doctored in its entirety. The rhetoric is simply the rhetoric of a fishing expedition. 3. If someone alleged that the medical records of a Democratic president showed, say, an unusual concern for sexually transmitted diseases for a man in a monogamous relationship, would the burden of proof be on the president or the accuser? Posted by: Thomas at February 5, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKMost of these comments make sense. They also are fairly priced. But what do the Democrats intend to do with this issue? Knowing little about the law, other than that the Scalia-Rehnquist-Thomas triumvirate is the most scandalous since the Taney court, I wonder how they might use it to attack. Am I wrong in suggesting that one way would be for the Democrats to demand that Bush release his income tax records for 1972 and '73 to see if he were paid for national guard training days? Would those records not reveal whether he showed up or not? Posted by: Harry Lime at February 5, 2004 03:59 PM | PERMALINKlook on bushs fight supension document.notice the air man listed just under his .suspended for the same thing.from texas.look for more on james bath.article titled "george bushs dubious friends" lays out quiet a sorted tale. Posted by: todd at February 5, 2004 04:04 PM | PERMALINKWhoopsie daisies - Curious claimed that "no one is asking him to rehash is sex life or partying in those days" and I responded with two typos. For the record, just on this thread alone (not the dozen other aWol threads), the following words have been used: "drunk" (1 time) "drunkard" (2 times) "loser drunks" (1 time) "brewski" (1 time) "coke" (not the drink either - 2 times) and my personal favorite: "Too coked up to pass a physical." Posted by John H. Farr at February 4, 2004 10:36 PM Posted by: Charlie at February 5, 2004 04:04 PM | PERMALINKI was reading the article in which GC had a link to: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2000/05/23/1_year_gap_in_bushs_guard_duty/ I was wondering about a few things: "In an effort last year to solve the puzzle, Lloyd said he scoured Guard records, where he found two "special orders" commanding Bush to appear for active duty on nine days in May 1973. That is the same month that Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian effectively declared Bush missing from duty." "Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned to duty at Ellington. And Bush, in his autobiography, identifies the late colonel Killian as a friend, making it even more likely that Killian knew where Bush was." Why would "a friend" report him missing from duty? Waiting for your wisdom, I think there is a larger point about the Bush record. At the moment, we are relying on the National Guard to do an extraordinary amount of work as front line soldiers in Iraq, due to the screwed up plans of Rumsfeld for the combat situation after the fall of Baghdad. At the same time, the government is being extraordinarily grudging in what it is willing to do for these soldiers -- from extending their combat pay to helping their families out with bills at home. Meanwhile, we are shoveling money at Boeing, Halliburton, etc. None of the people in command have any real experience as soldiers -- Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al. Bush supposedly does -- but from his spotty record as a National Guardsman, it is obvious that he took it to be a slacker's position, a way of getting someone else to get him out of a scrape -- Bush's m.o. He's a serial beneficiary of stringpulling -- from the Guard gig to the people who bailed him out of his failing oil company to the people who put him on the board at Harkin to the people that loaned him the money to buy into a team that was getting the local government to build them a stadium. His advocates seem to think that there is no reason for Bush to release his records. Of course there is -- he chose to be a politician. In the same way that we know all about Hillary Clinton's investments -- and that is how the game goes -- we should see those records. Let's hope the Dems keep putting on the pressure until we do. Othewise, we will never know what happened. And in the meantime, Kerry should stop equating Bush's choice with, say, evading the draft -- rather, he should emphasize that we need to support our Guard, right now, up front, and stop crapping on the people who are fighting for us. Posted by: roger at February 5, 2004 04:29 PM | PERMALINKLike it makes a big difference in the final months on reserve duty, Jes. You should learn to pay attention to the facts when you comment, Bird
Dog. Bush was AWOL at least between May 1972 and October 1973. He should
have served from 1968 to 1974. You could, I suppose, call 18 months of
the last two years "the final months", but it would be stretching it a
little, don't you think? This is great. Everyone is talking about the craven, lying, chicken
hawk, deserter. Look at this thread. I love it. You can here the same
thing on TV - Ralph Reed incredulous that this is being brought up
again. We need to keep this story alive. I served in the Air Force
from 71-75. I was late for a formation once, and spent a month on extra
duty. John McCain was offered an early release from a NV POW camp
because his daddy was CINCPAC and he refused and spent another 3 years
as POW. Chimpy's campaign accused McCain of being a collaborator during
the SC campaign to great effect. GW is not fit to kiss the shoes of
John McCain. I just love that the republicans are on defense over all their policies. Defense never wins elections. Of course President Bullshit went AWOL. If he didn't, he'd have his record gold plated on every aircraft carrier by now. This "man" has nothing, zip, nada, zilch to run on. A mistaken war? Huge deficits? Every child left behind? Selling our country one T-Bill at a time to the despotic, murdering communist chinese? Have we got our spy plane back yet? Privitizing the operations of the Space Shuttle? It has been the disaster-of-the -month club with this guy at the helm. The only people who will vote for this spoiled dauphin are people who would vote for Pinochet if you put an (R) next to his name. Partisans first, patriots second. Posted by: Mike Timmons at February 5, 2004 05:57 PM | PERMALINKLook up the Boston Globe's Kerry profile. Kerry won't allow the military to release his medical records to show if his Purple Heart wounds were serious enough to justify requesting to go home. Posted by: Dan Brown at February 5, 2004 06:38 PM | PERMALINKWow the number and the vehemence of bu$h supporters tells me this story scares them. Continue to give it legs! Posted by: R bogart at February 5, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINKBMA: You refer to the AWOL charges as if they were just a random smear claim tossed from left field (hee hee) or found in the Weekly World News. Then of course there's no reason as such to consider them credible, and the assumption of innocence rests even informally, etc. However, and everyone: go back and reread KD's synopsis and the links that make it a worthwhile suspicion (not a proof.) W even hired a spincontroller who still has to struggle and hem and haw by his own admission to make things seem to add up. That's not proof it happened, but it doesn't need to be, as many have pointed out. This is like, no, *is*, a hiring decision not a court decision, and you know that employers will look at problems like that and pass over a prospect if he can't redeem their suspicions (well, unless the bad old librul guvmint makes them hire someone.) All your talk of legal technicalities and being sure is not the point here. We don't need to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt, and we, unlike juries, can take failure to respond and defend as a sign of probable misconduct. That includes the force of motivational speculations like, if AWOL complaints aren't true, wouldn't the Bush campaign strut the real glory around? I repeat, we are making a hiring decision, not a jury decision. Would you hire OJ? BTW, no one here seems interested in Kerry's venture into the post-Vietnam political avant-garde. Note: he still has the medals, whatever it looked like. Posted by: danderous at February 5, 2004 06:49 PM | PERMALINKI'm back from dinner and now it looks like even the trolls are finding tough tidings. The Bush cheerleaders are in full panic mode. They know deep down that this isn't going down the memory hole this time. Mission Accomplished! Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKWow! thank you trof for relating your personal experience. I've been collecting a few of those (I don't know what I will do with them, maybe I need to start a blog). My father was in the California NG and his experience with missing drills is the same as yours is, some slack but not much. Of course he wasn't in a champagne unit like W was. Posted by: Gryn at February 5, 2004 07:05 PM | PERMALINKOur friend Charlie wrote: "Well, Hadenough, in case YOU haven't noticed, there are terrorists who want to kill you and me." Gee, Charlie, would you mind pointing that out to Bush? I think he's forgotten it. "Excuse me if I'd rather not change horses in midstream." Well, considering that your horse has already dumped you in midstream, perhaps you should reconsider. Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 07:29 PM | PERMALINKThe real issue is not about an NG Lieutenant being AWOL It seems there's plenty of stuff for the Dems or anyone else who doesn't care for Bush to "get" him on, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. The reservists I know complain either about a) having to deal with record keeping because their predecessor left them with shoddy, incomplete work, or b) their lives being made difficult about paperwork problems. I'm not sure the Reserves are as meticulous about their records as regular forces. And I'm not sure about the regular forces either. My dad was a US Marine during WW2 and badly wounded at Pelileu. As a 19 year old boy, newly maimed and left with a permanent limp might be expected to do, when he was discharged he never bothered getting his medals. He didn't want to think about his experiences, and, in fact, had something of a breakdown upon arriving home. He still gets what he calls his "hero check" on a regular basis. Further, I was watching one of those war documentaries with him (I want to say Victory at Sea, but I can't be sure) and actually saw him in a clip on a stretcher, being loaded on a hospital ship (a strange sensation to say the least). I thought it would be neat to get him his medals and started the process, which was time consuming. This process came to a dead end because his medical records had been lost and without those they refused to give him his purple heart. But he gets a check every month! But I saw him on TV! But on his discharge form, it says "wounded at Pelelieu." Nope. No records, no medal. Of course, once he was told he couldn't have it, THEN he got interested in having it... So what does that mean? He wasn't wounded? It never happened. No, it means the records are lost. Further, the paperwork I did recover for him is on the slipshod side to say the least. I have a feeling that my dad's not the only one with this story. From what I understand it's common. It's rather sad that those who wish to see Bush out of office are reduced to trying to pump up old stories that were deflated long ago. Laurie K. Posted by: Laurie K. at February 5, 2004 08:58 PM | PERMALINK1. Missing monthly drill isn't being AWOL. Pure and simple, that's the fact, and any suggestion to the contrary is either uninformed or a lie. 2. There's a rhetorical trick here, which says that Bush's file is inaccurate, and the only way he can show it isn't is to release it entirely. If it's been doctored, of course, then it's doctored in its entirety. The rhetoric is simply the rhetoric of a fishing expedition. 3. If someone alleged that the medical records of a Democratic president showed, say, an unusual concern for sexually transmitted diseases for a man in a monogamous relationship, would the burden of proof be on the president or the accuser?
1. We're not talking about missing a few drills here - we're talking about not showing up for over a year, AND missing a physical AND all this in the context of Bush being in there, in the first place, as a political favor to get Mr. Flight-suit-"Bring 'em on" out of having to go do any real fighting in a war which his ilk are defending TO THIS DAY. Context is everything. 2. No, it's not. The rhetoric is this: ALL of the available evidence indicates you deserted your duty. If we're wrong, all you gotta do is let us see the same thing THAT EVERY SINGLE OTHER CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT WHO HAS BEEN ASKED HAS PROVIDED. 3. You mean like Neal's? Seriously, slightly different millieu. See number 1. Laurie K. wrote: "It's rather sad that those who wish to see Bush out of office are reduced to trying to pump up old stories that were deflated long ago." There are two problems with your post, Laurie: 1. The Bush administration has not claimed that the records are lost. Had they done so, you might have a point. Since they have not, your point is moot. 2. The story was never "deflated." The available evidence is that Bush was AWOL. It would be simple for Bush to debunk this story. It is his failure to do so that is giving the story legs. Posted by: PaulB at February 5, 2004 09:35 PM | PERMALINKI operate on the principle that all politicians are liars. It's one that has proven right more times than not. Bill Clinton was a famously big liar. He'd tell you anything he thought you wanted to hear. I haven't seen any difference since Bush came into office. So I guess I'm predisposed to believe that the President is a liar. After all, every President but one for the past 40 years has either been a liar or questionable, at best, with the possible exception of Jimmie Carter and, more questionable, Ronald Reagan (was he lying when he said he didn't know about the Iran-Contra deal? Or just a confused old man out of the loop? We'll never know now, since most of the parties involved are either dead or might as well be now). JFK: Liar liar liar. LBJ: Liar liar liar. Nixon: Liar liar liar. Carter: Too decent for his own good (he kept expecting the best of people, and unfortunately the people who rise to the top in politics tend to be vile and evil people... such as Brezhnev). Reagan: ??? Bush Sr.: "Read my lips: No new taxes." Liar liar liar. Clinton: More lies than can be listed. George W. Bush: Liar? Well, given the past 40 years, you'll have to excuse me if I believe nothing the man says. There's an easy way for Bush to dispel the impression that he's a liar: release the records. This is the same issue that, when Clark's people shopped it around, ended up torpedoing Howard Dean (i.e., sealing the state records in Vermont to keep embarassing things from coming out). The majority of people today believe that all politicians are liars, and only providing proof (in the form of records or people to come forward and provide credible testimony) will change their mind. I will offer $500 to the first person who can step forward and credibly say that they served with George W. Bush and saw him do his duty during the time the Democrats say he was AWOL (by "credible", I mean that they have some sort of evidence, perhaps military pay records, that they were a member of his unit and served on one of the days Bush says he served). I suspect that my $500 is going to stay in my bank account for a *LONG* time. Posted by: BadTux at February 6, 2004 01:27 AM | PERMALINKWho cares? Let's "move on". Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 6, 2004 01:29 AM | PERMALINK<troll> I'm sorry to say that I believe this document to be genuine. The text L9CHPY 48 is clearly visible in the top right hand corner. L9 = even better than L8 (elite for the non-hax0rs) Bush cannot be guilty since this torn letter clearly contains so much of his personal data! If the wookie lives on Endor, you must aquit and all that. </troll> Posted by: tads at February 6, 2004 01:42 AM | PERMALINKI also love how you all are in a tizzy because the document is torn, but didn't think even twice that Vince Foster's "suicide" note was torn into bits, with only the signature spot missing. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 6, 2004 01:50 AM | PERMALINKYou all remind me what the Republicans used to do with Clinton, and focus on ages old personal shit that the public didn't care one whit about. So keep up with your little circle jerk, it is hilarious to see you making the same mistakes. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 6, 2004 01:52 AM | PERMALINKYou all remind me what the Republicans used to do with Clinton, and focus on ages old personal shit that the public didn't care one whit about. And we all know that crap got Clinton impeached, so if it works, use it. Republicans defined this game plan. We'll happily use it to beat them this time around. If you can't stand the heat you perhaps shouldn't have started the fire. Posted by: tads at February 6, 2004 02:00 AM | PERMALINKIn many of the NG units, command is highly political within the particular state. It would interesting to know how the careers, both militarily, politically and, perhaps, in business fared for the officers who signed off on Shrub's gratis time and his discharge. If there was any money supplied by the Bush family, has anyone followed the money? Posted by: Paul Brooks at February 6, 2004 02:39 AM | PERMALINKone correction. Bush's May request for a transfer was turned down. Thus he was AWOL from his Texas Air National Guard Duty until his second request (approved Sept 5) for three months duty was approved. And he should have returned to Texas for duty at the end of that three months, but there is no record of him doing so. (he could have taken his physical and resumed flying....) Posted by: lukasiak at February 6, 2004 04:13 AM | PERMALINKNY Times in November, 2000, says there are TWO documents proving Bush reported for duty after Alabama. What is the second? November 3, 2000, Friday
By JO THOMAS (NYT) 657 words
The senators, Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, both Medal of Honor winners, were responding, in a telephone conference with reporters, to an article in The Boston Globe on Tuesday. The article, citing military records for Mr. Bush, raised questions about whether Mr. Bush performed any duty from April 1972 until September 1973, when he entered Harvard Business School. A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973. Mr. Bush was assigned to the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston, from November 1969, last flying there on April 16, 1972. In a report dated May 26, 1972, his commander, Maj. William D. Harris Jr., said Mr. Bush had ''recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for the United States Senate.'' Mr. Bush went to work for Winton M. Blount a few days after Mr. Blount won the Republican primary in Alabama on May 2, 1972. From that time until after the election that November, Mr. Bush did not appear for duty, even after being told to report for training with an Alabama unit in October and November. Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush had been too busy with the campaign to report in those months but made up the time later. On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery ''for the months of September, October and November.'' Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter. Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May. The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10. Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.
Because Bush forces us to rely on a partial record that shows that he did not serve, he should be presumed AWOL until he allows the whole file to be examined. That should be the most significant point to stress to the apologists. I disagree. I believe it was uggabugga that hit on the most salient point in this whole sordid affair. Rather than argue about was he/was he not AWOL, let's examine the part of Bush's service that he does not dispute. Bush's handlers readily admit that he was grounded from flight duty because he didn't take his annual physical. He could have, but he refused. Given this fact, the question shouldn't be "Did Bush go AWOL?", it should be "Why did Bush abandon his country in a time of war?" Posted by: Mike T at February 6, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKI had heard that Dubya had been dropped from the service not because of cocaine abuse but because he and another guardsman were dealing cocaine to people on the base. Is this yet another similar-but-not-the-same recount of Bush history where the clarification makes a significant difference, or just pure garbage? Posted by: Jack Frost at February 6, 2004 08:39 AM | PERMALINKI vote "Recycled Garbage that the majority of voters didn't buy the first time it was put out" : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 6, 2004 09:20 AM | PERMALINKI'll cite not only the NY Times and Boston Globe articles (referred to above) but also this interesting article that outlines exactly what was known during the 2000 campaign: https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20040209&s=ackerman020904 Posted by: Charlie at February 6, 2004 09:44 AM | PERMALINKI wish I could remember the source, but I remember reading that there were something like 13,000 news references to the Clinton "draft-dodging" story and 39 references to Bush's "AWOL" story. So, sorry Charlie, the story simply did not get coverage and few people had even heard about it until the recent publicity. Now that they've heard about it, we'll just have to see if the story has legs and if it matters to people. Posted by: PaulB at February 6, 2004 10:11 AM | PERMALINKRegarding the cocaine theory, is it possible that he wasn't AWOL in Alabama (Not exactly the vacation capitol of America) but was sent there by daddy to dry out? Anyone know of any rehab clinics in the area? Posted by: JeffR at February 6, 2004 10:41 AM | PERMALINKWow, great thread. I've been coming back and readin for two days now. I am somewhat surprised that no one's mentioned that Charlie cited a Tom Clancy novel as precedent for what US presidents have done. OTOH, many consider Bush to be a fictitious president, so the cite may apply in some fashoin. Posted by: stranger at February 6, 2004 10:43 AM | PERMALINKDubya spin spin spin. A few observations; the Air Force keeps meticulous records on reserve activity. They do so because reserve activities accumulate "points," the basis on which retirement is computed. In other words, each reserve member has a very individualized retirement account. Your rank and years served are given a monetary value, after 20 years, for each point earned. For example; E-9 gets 29.015 cents per point; A Major gets 38.367 cents. Dubya of course, was not going to have a reserve career, but that makes no difference in how records are generated and how long they are kept. Summary records are also kept. When Bush got paid for reserve duty, a payroll record,a social security record,and a W-2 IRS record were generated. He is hiding his record. Army reservists of this period who were AWOL were put on active duty and their sorry asses were sent to Vietnam. It happened to thousands who shirked their obligations. Posted by: B.Kenny at February 6, 2004 11:27 AM | PERMALINK**ALERT ** - GEORGE BUSH SUPPORTER!!! Okay - here is my "right wing" view: 1. Yes, George Bush did have some strings pulled for his NG posting. Is that wrong? Sure. What would most people do who had the opportunity? Same thing. Was this commonplace at the time? You bet. 2. Yes, George Bush probably missed a few NG dates. Did he get paid for that time? No. Only for the time that he served. 3. Do I want to base my vote for President or, indeed, judge the conduct of their entire life on actions that took place in their early 20's? Nope. People do grow and learn. Bottom line: I know that for many people on this board there are numerous reasons to despise GWB. Should this really be one of them? I really doubt it. Can you compare GWB's NG service claims to Slick Willie's claims in the Gennifer Flower's trial? Not even remotely. GWB has learned from his past. Slick Willie was doing the same stupid stuff well into his 50's. Have fun!!! Posted by: Bush Supporter at February 6, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINKHi there, stranger - I did not cite Clancy's novel "as precedent for what US presidents have done" but in refuting the claim there is no legitimate reason for not releasing GWB's military record, I mentioned one "possible" alternative reason (in addition to a lot of others I think are more likely) was that GWB was not in Alabama at all, but was doing classified work for his father (who was the U.S. ambassador to the UN at the time), etc. who you know was all Skull & Bones / Director of the CIA, etc. I think that's at least "possible". Posted by: Charlie at February 6, 2004 11:31 AM | PERMALINKB.Kenny: "Army reservists of this period who were AWOL were put on active duty and their sorry asses were sent to Vietnam. It happened to thousands who shirked their obligations." Then it should not be difficult to name FIVE such "sorry asses" sent in Vietnam in 1973 (hint - that was the year we PULLED OUT!!!!) Posted by: Charlie at February 6, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINKWell, I heard from my cousin's sister's best friend's father's uncle's commander in the Air Force that the reason there are no records for several months is because Bush led covert rescue missions of POWs in 'Nam. One time, he even landed his jet in the jungles of Laos, took out a machine gun, and stormed the POW camp and flew one prisoner out to safety. These missions were declared Top Secret and won't become unclassified until January 20, 2009. Bush Supporter wrote: "Bottom line: I know that for many people on this board there are numerous reasons to despise GWB. Should this really be one of them? I really doubt it." The reason this resonates with at least some of us is that disgusting "Mission Accomplished" display of Bush in a flight suit. That moment of macho bravado when contrasted with his actual record deserves all the condemnation that it has received. There are other "chickenhawk" factors at work, as well, with Bush just being the most visible of the chickenhawks in the current administration (and Republican leadership). The contrast between their rhetoric and their record deserves all the publicity it gets. Posted by: PaulB at February 6, 2004 12:35 PM | PERMALINKBush refused to take a flight physical and so was removed from the only military duty he was trained for - which incidentally was protecting the US mainland from incoming airplanes. Meaning he would not have been allowed in a cockpit if Sept 11 had happened in 1972. We have the documentation. Read it. Paragraph 6. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif Moreover it appears that the document that has been inserted in his record showing attendance is actually lifted from the records of 1Lt Steven W. Wyle, who served in Bush's unit some years later. http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/ Scroll down to "A possibility" This is not a debate. The truth is out there. From Charlie What?? Nobody I have ever seen disputes that Bush was in Alabama working on Blount's Senate campaign. He just didn't show up for duty at his Reserve gig. And that pretty much answers JeffR: I don't doubt Bush was pushing coke up his nose, but there are plenty
of known reports of his showing up to work for Blount, just none of his
showing up to work for Uncle Sam. Who do you think Bush got his coke from? Bill ("has a nose like a vacuum cleaner") or Roger? Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 6, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINKThe hypocrisy of folks like BMA and Al and their right-wing ilk is absulutely hilarious. Republicans were all about GWB's supposedly noble service to his country in the armed forces. THEY are the ones who made that kind of assertion, and painted that kind of picture. It is THEY who are failing miserably at coming up with evidence for their assertions, now that people are finally questioning their lies. Put up or shut up, Repubs. Show us that GWB really was Mr. Armed Service for His Country, as you and he have been claiming. Let's see the documentation. We sure as hell ain't gonna believe your lies any more without it. Put up or shut up. Posted by: BigMacAttacker at February 6, 2004 01:23 PM | PERMALINKBruce Webb: You'd better do some better fact-checking than uggabugga.com BTW: Steven E. Wyle, not Steven "W" Wyle, served in Bush's unit - putz! "What??" I would have thought that story would fit right in with you, and Kevin, and all the other tin foil hat conspirators? "Nobody I have ever seen disputes that Bush was in Alabama working on Blount's Senate campaign." Sure, but the real question is: "What was Valerie Plame's cover job at the time?" Posted by: Charlie at February 6, 2004 01:48 PM | PERMALINKPresident Bush served his country well by not senselessly slaughtering innocent Vietnamese women and children like John Freaking Kerry did. John Kerry = baby killer. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 6, 2004 02:15 PM | PERMALINKUggabugga just posted an update. The document he posted was intended
to be displayed purely as a possibility. It was not a real person's
record; it was simply illustrating the point that the torn document can
hardly be taken as evidence of anything. When I was an M.P. during the Korean fiasco, anyone that was AWOL
over thirty days was considered a deserter - a crime subject to the
severest penalty. A couple things about myself: Many on this board seem to think that service in the NG and
Reserves was an automatic ticket to stay out of VietNam. Tell that to
the 6,078 reservist/NG members who gave their life in 'Nam. BTW the Army did loose a few of my records also. Posted by: Sarge at February 7, 2004 04:32 AM | PERMALINK
Get some CSI dudes working on the blacked-out SS number. Not difficult. I would assume the document is a copy, Odradek, which means that
you're not going to be able to look beneath the black mark. The
original should still be around in Bush's files; all he has to do is
release it. I think Sarge puts the issue in perspective: "Many on this board seem
to think that service in the NG and Reserves was an automatic ticket to
stay out of VietNam. Tell that to the 6,078 reservist/NG members who
gave their life in 'Nam. So if Bush's record is as spotty as it appears, then his disrespect for the Guard was disrespect for a unit of the armed forces that actually saw combat. This, to my mind, magnifies his acts of carelessness. Many -- and unfortunately, among them John Kerry -- seem to have a skewed view of the issues at stake. This is about respecting the Guard. If Bush had this little respect for it when he served, no wonder he has so little respect for it now -- arbitrarily extending terms of service while cutting back on benefits. Right now, as Guard members are being shipped to Iraq, their houses back home are being threatened with repossession because the government can't seem to ante up the kind of loan interest loans, or the increased combat pay, these guys and gals desearve. As Rambo said at the end of that immortally cheesy movie, "I just want my country to love me as well as I love it." So far, Bush has shown he just wants his country to love him -- while he disrespects the very people he uses to keep himself popular. A typical user, his whole life long. This sheds an ugly and disgusting light on who W. is. No wonder he is stonewalling about the issue. Maybe the S.S.# is redacted to keep all you freaks away from
it...this site reminds me of the ones I used to visit when "the penis"
was president. Josh- "Now what branch of the service did "the penis" serve in...? Hmmm" i thought it was the texas and the alabama national guard.... isn't that what this whole thread has been about? the rider Posted by: Whale-rider at February 7, 2004 06:44 PM | PERMALINKThe best way to get some perspective on Bush's behavior is to see
how he has behaved in his Harken Energy stock manipulation scandal. Once
again, after having dumped his stock based on inside info before the
stock collapsed, he refused to release the records of the SEC
investigation that concluded that Bush could not be exonerated of
charges of wilful stock fraud. By the way, the man In short, all one has to see is that the current President's
relationship to ethical behavior, after touting it so highly during his
campaign in 2000, is very suspect.His continued lies on matters small
and significant, would force all reasonable people to The more galling thing to me is his refusal to support the investigation into 9/11 and block it every step of the way despite the pleas of the families who have lost loved ones. That too is in character. As a mathematician with a long background in probability theory, I
would venture to say, there is a high probability that Mr.Bush shirked
his duty to the country in 1972 and continues this pattern now. This is not a fake. The "49CHPY" is their abbreviation for CHIMPY. Posted by: itchy at February 8, 2004 01:27 PM | PERMALINKWell, well, well... what a long thread... I've got one on my blog too, but its full of veterans who wouldn't vote for John Kerry if they were paid, because of what he did *after* his service. This includes a guy who spent over 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton. Guys, keep things focused on what happened during 'Nam, please, 'cause then Bush will win for sure. And there won't be many of us vets voting against him, I'll tell you that. Oh, but if you are going to do it, drop the "joining the Guard is the easy way out," because every time you do that, you are defaming the memory of my best friend, who died flying a fighter in the New Mexico Air National Guard. And Terry McCaulilffe's big mouth just pissed off damned near every former and current National Guard member when he made that accusation. Actually, on second thought, keep it up. The more votes you send Bush's way, the better. You can find plenty of history on the link above about how sloppy the guard and reserves were in these days, including the one quoted already in this thread about how there is no evidence of my last duty station (and you won't find it in the IRS either, because I was never paid because they had lost the records). If had been killed in one of my reserve flights (and I almost was), I wonder what they would have done with no records on me! Oh, and I really doubt you'd find anyone who remembered me. I sure don't remember anyone from that squadron... I don't even remember the name - maybe VT-6? - I just remember we flew C-118's that were total POS's because all the good stuff went to the active duty guys). I didn't stick around very long there... after 3 aircraft fires in one day while I was onboard, 2 in the air, and since there were no P-3 squadrons that I could join, I decided (I now regret this for personal reasons, btw) to get out. The day after drill weekend, I flew a little Cessna to the base, walked into personnel, told a yeoman I wanted out, signed a form and walked away. That was it. According to my contract, I still owed 2 years of active reserve service. The reason they let me out: I was in college full time and also working at 2 jobs. Things were so screwed up in those days that when I was on active duty I was RIF'd. I signed up for 2 years of active duty, and was a Naval Air crewman (radio operator and radio operator instructor, P-3 Orion). They decided at one point that there were too many Naval Air Reservists on duty, and issued an order that everyone with more than 18 months of active duty was involuntarily separated (with credit for 24 months service). This was in 1968, at the peak of the Vietnam War! So those who imagine that the military was taking everyone it could and sending them to 'Nam are a bit confused... hell, they kicked me out because I was a reservist, when a few weeks before they were offering me big money (a few years pay) to stay in because my specialty was so valuable. Now, here's how I read this whole thing.... Bush joined the Air Guard because he wanted to fly a fighter but he didn't want a full Air Force or Navy Career. The Air Guard was the way to do that, but it was a uniquely dangerous occupation for a draft dodger! He could have avoided service entirely, as almost all of my friends did. For that matter, how many on this thread have served? How many went to 'Nam (I did). How many have a clue how the military really works and how military people think? How many know how they thought then? I think among all the comments I've only see one or two by vets. I hear folks sneering about the Aircraft Carrier incident. It shows how disconnected they are. Any former military aviator would have worn that flight suit and made that landing. I guarantee you I was seriously envious of the President when he did that. The reason is that once you have put on that suit, earned your wings, and put your life at risk in a combat aircraft, you join a fraternity that you never leave. So given a chance to get back into it, it's a no-brainer. The only questionable thing in my mind was should the CIC take the risk of a jet carrier landing - those things are always hairy. As to the banner, has it occurred to anyone that it just might be the Commander-In-Chief saluting the Mission Accomplished by those hard working, self-sacrificing and death defying crew of that carrier? I guarantee you that the crew saw it that way - you could see it in their faces. If you know anything about people, you know that those people were proud of what they had done, and were proud to have that President as part of their fraternity again. Now here is how I read this AWOL controversy... Bush, after he completed his active duty, was obviously quite a frat boy. Nobody denies that. He had his fun. He did, however, fully complete the requirements of his contract (which was number of days of service), partly by flying extra duty earlier in his service. There might be something embarassing in those records (maybe showing up drunk or something) just like there was probably something embarassing in Clinton's never released medical records. We know Bush had an alcohol problem. Did he do drugs? Probably, as Kerry did and as one hell of a lot of people did in those days. Did drugs cause him not to take the flight physical? Highly unlikely. He could have scheduled it for a drug-free time. Drug testing was new in the military and probably wouldn't have picked up anything except very recent abuse (in fact, according to my research in the DOD and .mil area, it hadn't started then). Since he was no longer planning on flying (which would have require substantial retraining in another kind of jet), he probably did just like lots of others and simply not bother to get the physical. But Bush went through a transformation. That it was a religious transformation should not cause the irreligious here to deny its significance. He turned into a serious man. The man we see today is no frat boy. He is a serious warrior, fighting a serious war, and our enemies know that. George Bush now has more honorable and highly significant service on his record, as Commander In Chief of a nation at war, a nation still in grave danger. Now let's bring in the presumptive Democrat nominee (no need to go back and Bash Clinton whom I'm sure you folks loved to death - he isn't running).I'm going to give you a hint about how most veterans are going to see it, and what they are goint to say to others... We have John F. Kerry, a man who served a short but honorable tour in Vietnam. There are questions as to why he served (he claimed to be anti-war before then), but he served. Then he came back and did his absolute best to smear those who participated in the war, and to help our enemy win. He gave false testimony under oath (I know, Democrats don't care about that) to the U.S. Senate painting our nation and our military as a bunch of butchers Saddam would have been proud of. His operation was partly funded by Jane Fonda, the one clear traitor of that war, and a person hated by almost every veteran from that period. He was a leader in the more radical part of the anti-war movement - the part that actively cheered for communist victory. Interestingly, when he led Operation Dewey Canyon (anti-war vets camping out on the mall as a protest), he himself stayed in a ritzy Georgetown apartment while the others slept on the mall. Very consistent with this man. He published a book, the cover of which mocks the US Marine Iwo Jima memorial and desecrates the flag (which actually means something to veterans), and which was full of agit-prop against the U.S. He threw away what he claimed were his medals as part of a protest (again defaming others who earned those same medals), and then has claimed in one case that they were someone else's medals, or in another that they were his ribbons, not his medals. In any case, his medals are on prominent display in his office. His actions, especially his false but eloquent ghost written testimony were effective propaganda and were significantly helpful to those who ultimately forced us to abandon Vietnam to its communist rulers. And importantly, this abandonment came 2 years after US troops were no longer in danger their! The if we look at his record since then, we find a man who is on both sides of most issues, but whose one consistent theme is voting against almost every weapons program the US has including those weapons systems that have served us so well in Afghanistan and Iraq, systems which not only lead to quick and low casualty victories, but also minimized civilian casualties. He also voted consistently to significantly reduce funding to our intelligence agencies, believing (this guy is not a deep thinker) that after the end of the cold war, we no longer faced an international threat. How he justifies his fight against weapons systems during the cold war is something he will have to justify. I am glad we didn't have Al Gore (a Vietnam Veteran) at the helm on 9-11. I am even more glad we didn't have John Kerry (a Benedit Arnold) there. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at February 8, 2004 02:34 PM | PERMALINKGood Grief John Moore.....Perhaps you should change your medicine or quit working for Karl Rove..........I have two MIAS and one POW in my family and worked for an orthopedic surgeon during the viet nam war,we took care of the "ones who came home" ,and you insult the intelligence and the very soul of all the VETS who went to war and screwed up their heads ,hearts and their future while "frat boy " was flying F-102's in America and "enjoying it",while my friends and family were in agent orange viet nam getting killed and blown to hell and back. Don't you DARE patronize those of us who REALLY GAVE. AND.... by the way dummy... boy bush does not know how to wear a flight suit................. Posted by: Susie Ellis at February 8, 2004 04:11 PM | PERMALINKYah know, Susie, I used to wear a Navy Flight suit, and it looked just fine to me. Maybe you should read the links I pointed to. I didn't lose family, but I lost squadronmates and my best friend. I think I have earned the right to make my opinion known, and if you read my links, you can find plenty of veterans who share it. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at February 8, 2004 04:30 PM | PERMALINK
So the question remains: what kind of man sends troops into combat - without exhausting all other means - when he himself has willfully avoided the sacrifices he has ordered others to make in an unjustified act of war? Of course, the allegation has yet to be proven, but Bush's gung-ho posturing, the lack of WMD, and the growing 'complications' in Iraq have made this into an issue it never was in the 2000 presidential race. The issue has now become "fair game", and it is Bush who has "brought it on" himself. Posted by: odradek at February 8, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKMilitary personnel receive a DD-214 upon discharge. Along with the 201, their various assignments and dates served at each can be reconstructed. While I know many former military who keep their DD-214 in a very safe place, perhaps even a safety deposit box, I know of exactly ONE who would be reluctant to produce said form to resolve a public dispute over his service record. That one happens to be the current POTUS. Clearing this matter up would be so damn easy, it's not even funny. What, did W lose his DD-214? Well, I'm sure the military archivists will be happy to produce a copy of the original for him, all he needs to do is ask. Sure, there's a waiting list for back records, but he's allegedly the CinC so I think they'd make an exception if he asked. It wouldn't be the first time his social standing moved him to the front of the line. If he's reluctant to jump ahead, there are numerous agencies that offer veterans assistance in DD-214 retrieval and reconstruction, they could surely expedite his request. If W really wanted to nullify this issue -- which persists precisely because of a lack of documented service -- producing those documents is the way to go. Hell, he could publish it as an appendix in the next edition of his military-minded autobiography, "A Charge to Keep". That would be a really nice gesture to the reservists he insists on sending into combat overseas, and a great way to make this issue disappear permanently. Because this is such a potential non-issue, so easily resolved, I (and many others) *suspect* that bush and his advisors perceive a political advantage from withholding said information. As others on this thread have noted, bush is unique among presidents in not publishing his military record; speculation as to the reasons is itself only natural. To those who complain about how "unfair" it all is, I suggest we appoint an independent counsel with a $60million+ budget for several years of open-ended investigations to resolve this matter. That will certainly do much to enhance the apparent fairness, and will certainly exonerate the gentleman who vowed to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" and "usher in a new era of integrity inside the Oval Office". Posted by: 0rganism at February 8, 2004 06:13 PM | PERMALINKJust a doggone minute! I'm a former USMC and USAF vet & I participated in Operation Dewey Canyon in VIETNAM (NOT the United States!). Furthermore, my feet took me to the TANG base where Bush served. I looked at the actual records. I travel all over America on my motorcycle and I stop at just about every military/historical site there is. Young George W was certainly what the Marines call "UA" (unauthorized absence) from Alabama onward. As to sloppy record keeping, I didn't know that I had been awarded a Bronze Star for some actions in VietNam in 1969 until I filed a request with the National Military Records Center in 2003! Dubya is that lad down the street from you who has parents working good jobs who refuse to think they might have 'enabled' him in his derelict ways. On my motorcycle journeys, I got to sit in his Governor's Chair at the Texas State Capital - I farted where he farted. This fellow GWB is nothing more than a bemused rich-kid. The FACT that his daughters can't even SPELL 'military service' says a lot to me. My own son is in the US Navy as I write. In short, it's all 'pc'-bullshit about what GWB did or did not do during the Viet Nam Era. His mouth is way larger than his actions. What's that Texas phrase ...? he's "all hat and no cattle". He's made his way into the history books; -can he now just go home to Crawford? ...Please? Posted by: Dan S at February 9, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINKDoes it really matter if he was 'technically' AWOL, he was obviously given preferential treatment (Come on scoring 25% and still getting in? Refusing a medical in the military? Skipping out 8 months early (from stateside duty) to go to Harvard Business School? All while the country was entrenched in one of the most violent conflicts in our history? I don't know if he was in Texas, Alabama, or Denver . . . I DO KNOW he wasn't in VIETNAM. Posted by: Sandi at February 9, 2004 11:57 PM | PERMALINKBush's chauffeured landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln equates with his chauffeured entry in the Texas Air National Guard, a champagne unit, used by privileged brats to avoid their military obligation. Bush's appointment to flight school when underage and underqualified equates with his stolen election. Bush's premature announcement of victory in Iraq equates with his premature withdrawal from the Texas ANG. Bush's refusal to release his military records equates with the pervasive obstruction of justice that the Bush White House now engages in. November 2004 cannot come soon enough. My best, Bob Zimmerman Posted by: Bob Zimmerman at February 10, 2004 09:59 AM | PERMALINKReading this thread for several days now, one basic truism strikes me. We have seen this before. It's the same old pretzel logic we saw from Nixon's boys in the Watergate era. Different story, same old method- lie, lie, lie until the truth backs you into a corner and devours you. Those of us who were around for Nixon's spectacle are not fooled for this one. The outcome will be the same, for as they say, "the truth will out." Some who post on this site were at best a gleam in their daddy's pants during Watergate and thus have no precedent nor perspective for comparison. This is just deja vu all over again. No disrespect intended to the younger writers. We old farts seem really stupid but come back in ten years and you will be amazed at how much we have learned. To all the vets posting- thanks a million. We can never overestimate your contribution. Posted by: liberal1 at February 11, 2004 01:31 AM | PERMALINKPS I am more concerned with the highly dysfunctional behavior of W
today than 30 years ago. His current behavior and denial of "what is" Repeating lies over and over does not make them true. Ask Nixon. Ask McCarthy. Ask the 533 that won't be home for Christmas this year. Posted by: liberal1 at February 11, 2004 01:46 AM | PERMALINKWell, I think the subject has been covered as thoroughly as anything 30 years old can be. You know, if you act weary of the questions concerning you (or your husband's) "military service" and say that because there was an "honorable discharge" given so therefore you must have served honorably . . . don't know whether I'd chain my nose to that argument. Posted by: dale at February 25, 2004 09:49 AM | PERMALINKOnline Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at March 18, 2004 10:37 AM | PERMALINKWe provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at March 18, 2004 11:06 AM | PERMALINKOnline Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com! Posted by: tramadol at March 18, 2004 03:34 PM | PERMALINKCheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com. Posted by: soma at March 18, 2004 08:02 PM | PERMALINKPhentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/ Posted by: phentermine at March 19, 2004 11:34 AM | PERMALINKDo you know the difference between a failed interview and an amazing interview? Do you want to be able to answer even the toughest, meanest, and most low-down interview questions that you could ever be possibly asked? Do you want to go though your interview with confidence? Do you want to feel prepared, impress the interviewer, and win the job interview of your dreams? We provide you with job interview tips, visit http://www.job-interview-questions-tips.com Posted by: job interview questions at March 20, 2004 04:51 AM | PERMALINKCheap Propecia http://www.one-propecia.com/ is a new and effective treatment for male pattern baldness. View Online Propecia News. It is a capsule taken by mouth vs. a cream. A net increase in scalp hair count and hair regrowth was seen in over 80% of men for whom it was prescribed. Buy Propecia Now! Posted by: propecia at March 22, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINKUltram Generic Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.top-fioricet.com ! Posted by: fioricet at March 22, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINKPhentermine Online and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.hot-phentermine.com/ Posted by: phentermine at April 18, 2004 05:51 AM | PERMALINKOnline Ambien, ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com! Posted by: ambien at April 21, 2004 04:19 AM | PERMALINKOnline Wellbutrin, wellbutrin, wellbutrin XL, wellbutrin SR is prescribed for the treatment of depression, but it is not for everyone. If you take cheap WELLBUTRIN XL, there is a risk of seizure, which is increased in patients with certain medical problems or in patients taking certain medicines. Buy Wellbutrin XL Now or visit this site: http://www.i-wellbutrin.com! Posted by: wellbutrin at April 21, 2004 08:22 AM | PERMALINKOnline Xenical, Xenical is one of the most prescribed treatments for weight loss in the world. cheap Xenical is used with a reduced-calorie diet to help significantly overweight persons lose weight. It also helps to prevent regaining weight previously lost. Orlistat works by blocking some of the fat normally digested by the intestine. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com! Posted by: xenical at April 21, 2004 10:30 AM | PERMALINKPhentermine Online, Phentermine and Adipex Online is the fastest growing online source for Buy Phentermine and Buy Adipex prescription medication that you can trust to get your order out quickly and privately. We provide info for Cheap Adipex and Cheap Phentermine. Visit this site: http://www.x-phentermine.com/, phentermine diet pill, phentermine sale, phentermine free shipping, cheapest phentermine! Posted by: phentermine at April 22, 2004 03:16 AM | PERMALINKCheap Soma Carisoprodol, Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com. Posted by: soma at April 22, 2004 06:16 AM | PERMALINKOnline Tramadol, Tramadol, Tramadol HCL is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Ultram Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.x-tramadol.com! Posted by: tramadol at April 22, 2004 09:54 AM | PERMALINKUltram Generic Fioricet, Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com ! Posted by: fioricet at April 22, 2004 09:59 AM | PERMALINKOnline Skelaxin, skelaxin, 800 mg skelaxin, 800mg skelaxin,400mg skelaxin is used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms. Cheap Xenical should not be used if you have ever had an allergic reaction to carisoprodol, meprobramate or tybamate. Buy Xenical Now or visit this site: http://www.x-xenical.com! Posted by: skelaxin at April 23, 2004 03:45 AM | PERMALINKViagra, Are you looking for cheap Viagra online? Then you are on the right place. We provide one of the largest databases of online pharmacies on Web to help you buy only the cheap drugs for your problems. online Viagra buy viagra generic viagraVisit this site: http://www.x-viagra.com Posted by: viagra at April 23, 2004 03:45 AM | PERMALINKOnline Flexeril, flexerilis used to treat the pain and stiffness of muscle injuries, including strains, sprains and muscle spasms.Buy Flexeril, Cheap Flexeril Now or visit this site: http://www.online-flexeril.com! Posted by: flexeril at April 23, 2004 08:02 AM | PERMALINKDebt Counseling companies currently help over 1 million people to debt consolidation their unsecured loans, bills, and credit card debts into one easy payment, while saving thousands of dollars in unnecessary interest & credit fees. We can help you consolidate r debts with a consolidation plan that is just right for you! This free debt consolidation could save you 50% or more in monthly credit card payments. http://www.free-debt-consolidation-free.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 11, 2004 08:36 PM | PERMALINKKeno, Bingo, Slots, Poker and other all-time favorite games delivered by top-notch software at only trusted and certified casinos. A comprehensive online bingo and unique casino games portal. Select your game with the best bonuses and payouts! http://www.i-online-bingo.com Posted by: bingo at May 11, 2004 08:37 PM | PERMALINKCredit, debt and loan are all different words that boil down to the same thing: borrowing money from someone with a promise to pay it back, usually with interest. Personal loan allow you to borrow a fixed amount and then pay it back according to a fixed schedule. The same is for car loan, home loan, auto loan and college loan.Sometimes a loan will require collateral, which is basically property or assets that you promise to give the lender in the event that you are unable to repay the loan. Often, borrowers use personal online loan to pay for big purchases. http://www.i-loan-online.com Posted by: loan at May 12, 2004 12:26 AM | PERMALINKWith today’s low mortgage rates, many people are finding that owning a home is often as affordable as renting.Check home mortgage. If you have the funds for mortgage loan saved up to put together a downpayment as well as cover off various closing costs, then the ability to afford monthly mortgage online, property tax, insurance and utility payments, then home ownership is a great way to build up equity over time.http://www.i-mortgage-online.com Posted by: mortgage at May 12, 2004 01:36 AM | PERMALINKHere is the story: BlackJack originated in French casinos around 1700 where it was called "vingt-et-un" ("twenty-and-one") and has been played in the U.S. since the 1800's. Online BlackJack is named as such because if a player got a Black Jack of Spades and internet black jack an Ace of Spades as the first two cards (Spade being the color jack black of course), the player was additionally remunerated. http://www.888-blackjack.com/ Posted by: blackjack at May 12, 2004 01:49 AM | PERMALINKWe offer online personals ads services for dating singles with many free services such as: anonymous dating email addresses, relationship advice for marriage, dating or singles, personal ads posting, match, and many more free online Dating Singles Personals: Personal ad Services... for all men and women. Our Dating Singles Personals site is more than those matchmaker, marriage, pen pals or photo match personal ads sites; we're much more! Want more than the strictly dating service, online personal ads and matchmaker dating singles sites? Then. http://www.dating-service-dating.com Posted by: dating at May 12, 2004 04:24 AM | PERMALINKOur best online gambling review pages will surpass all your expectations offering the best online casino sites on the web. Look no further, whether it's online sports betting, progressive poker, free games, flash downloads or fast casino downloads, we have the best online gambling reviews to meet anyone's needs. Looking for online gambling news? you'll find everything in once place including online gambling online tips, reviews and promotions. http://www.666-gambling.com Posted by: gambling at May 12, 2004 05:15 AM | PERMALINKAll Online Casino Gambling sites chosen & recommended here at Online Casino have been thoroughly tested by us for fairness, reliability, online casino game play realism, casino payout percentages, game speed, and bonuses. We have tested hundreds of casino sites ourselves in an effort to bring you the very best online casino promotions. The following is a small sampling of internet casino - only the best from Online Casino Rewards. http://www.666-casino.com Posted by: casino at May 12, 2004 05:52 AM | PERMALINKWhether you have a rigid poker strategy in mind before you hit the table or whether you play it by ear, having a strong foundation of poker knowledge is important to every player. If you know and understand something about this game (video poker, strip poker, online poker )that your opponent does not, you will play a better game. http://www.888-online-poker.com Posted by: poker at May 12, 2004 07:56 AM | PERMALINKDo you need urgent cash till pay day? Now? Payday loan online is alot easier faster and less hassle then going to your bank for a personal loan or credit card.Payday on your paycheck, usually ranging from $100 to $500. What is a payday loan? Payday loans are meant to help tie you over when you are short on cash between paychecks. http://www.payday-loan-payday.com Posted by: payday at May 13, 2004 03:27 AM | PERMALINKDating and picture personal dating ads services for singles looking for love, romance, dating dates pen pals or relationships. Personals for the online dating and singles community. Post Your Free Dating, Singles, Picture Personal ads today. Visit us to chat with singles, look through personals, and read up on all the hilarious and heart-rending tribulations of dating service and romance today. http://www.dating-free-dating.com Posted by: dating at May 13, 2004 10:26 AM | PERMALINKThey offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.site-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 30, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINKThey offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.own-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 30, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINKLearn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.live-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 30, 2004 04:17 PM | PERMALINKThey offer a variety of casino great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to We are an payday loan lender guide offering access to The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.fastest-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 30, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKThe worlds best known Internet Casino you bet If you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.max-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 30, 2004 04:18 PM | PERMALINKWe are an payday loan lender guide offering access to The worlds best known Internet Casino you bet Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the Credit quality and debt-to-income-ratio affect the Whether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.i-play-bingo.com Posted by: bingo at May 30, 2004 04:19 PM | PERMALINKWhether you are looking for a free satellite TV system from the Learn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.i-win-bingo.com Posted by: bingo at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKLearn what more home poker players are learning. Low limit casino But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.e-play-bingo.com Posted by: bingo at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKBut the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make bingo a staple at churches. http://www.x-bingo.com Posted by: bingo at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKIf you are looking for a debt consolidation loan There is no obligation to the debt consolidation credit counseling, it is just a educational consultation of debt assistance. http://www.inet-debt-consolidation.com Posted by: debt consolidation at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKThis is the online ambien to go there , big surptice men ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is of great dental need for your health. Avoid insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S today . Ya is true buy ambien But visit this site for more info: http://www.top-ambien.com Posted by: ambien at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKa href='http://www.i-buy-ambien.com'>online ambien to go there , yes that is true ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap ambien top (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleeping pill in the U.S. Tha is true buy ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-buy-ambien.com Posted by: buy ambien at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKGot here Fioricet most likely reduces heart attack risk by irreversibly blocking the enzyme COX-1 online fioricet, thereby impairing the ability of platelets in the blood to form clots, Dr. Tobias Kurth of Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, and others explain in the American Heart Association's journal, fioricet Circulation. NSAIDs buy fioricet also lock on to COX-1, but the effect is reversible. Cheap Generic Fioricet or visit this site: http://www.x-fioricet.com Posted by: fioricet at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKGo there guys Cheap Soma Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles soma and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.top-soma.com Posted by: soma at May 30, 2004 04:20 PM | PERMALINKBest deal everywhere Soma - Carisoprodol is a prescription medication that is used to relax your body, relax your muscles and help put stress and other difficulties behind you. Online Soma, to do Cheap Soma is now available online with a prescription. You can obtain a prescription online by answering a short questionnaire about your medical history Buy Soma or visit http://www.one-soma.com Posted by: soma at May 30, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKBest before buy Online Ambien, yeaj hthe buy ambien is a sleep inducing medication. A good night's sleep is invaluable for your mental and physical well being. If you suffer from insomnia, you may want to look into cheap Ambien (zolpidem tartrate), the most prescribed sleep medication in the U.S. Buy Ambien Now or visit this site: http://www.i-ambien.com Posted by: ambien at May 30, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKThey offer a variety of affiliate software great online games, fabulous colorful graphics, music, other familiar Best Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.top-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at May 30, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.new-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at May 30, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKBest Cialis and Online Cialis has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003. Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy cialis through various registered pharmacies. cheap cialis http://www.hot-cialis.com/ Posted by: cialis at May 30, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKWe provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Levitra that is true Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.hot-levitra.com Posted by: levitra at May 30, 2004 04:21 PM | PERMALINKBet the dumb out oif up online black jack thus we can get rid of it. Posted by: online blackjack at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKFuck you all, fuck my siter and all online poker this is the case. Posted by: online poker at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKGreat Poker texas holdem poker thar is trye http://texas-holdem.666-casino.com/texas-holdem.htm Posted by: texas holdem at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKWhether you have a rigid online poker strategy in mind before you hit the table or whether you play it. Posted by: online poker at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKGambling sites chosen recommended here at Online Casino have been thoroughly tested by us for fairness, reliability! Posted by: online casino at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKA comprehensive online bingo and unique casino games portal. Posted by: online bingo at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKGod the fuck online casino are you sure. Posted by: online casino at June 2, 2004 06:57 PM | PERMALINKGreat Blog online poker Great Blog. I love it Why you are not so bad The poker I have ever played God damn it, you are such an online casino Ohhh this is strange fucker online casino gambling sounds. Go there and try this Drugs are wrong opportunity, be aware of that Try this fun men online poker you think. news all aroung the world online poker try it for free that right. Posted by: online poker at June 2, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINK
They offer a variety of But the increased number of online bingo cards was exactly what was needed to make. Posted by: online bingo at June 2, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKLearn this from me, never online poker play it you think. Posted by: online poker at June 2, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKTo do this go there and see of that Try this and feel it online bingo not to be missed. Posted by: online bingo at June 2, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKBack to track online blackjack casino games on the Internet. Posted by: online black jack at June 2, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKPlay at the best dumb online bingo not hte rest. Posted by: online bingo at June 2, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKSurely not a chance for you but online poker nevertheless try this. Posted by: online poker at June 2, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKGreat Poker Rooms I suggest too online texas holdem poker thar is trye http://online-texas-holdem.666-casino.com/online-texas-holdem.htm Posted by: online texas holdem at June 2, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKGot here and seen this right online poker By the way ever played the casino played why play it as you can online bingo feel free with this opportunity. Posted by: online bingo at June 2, 2004 07:00 PM | PERMALINKOnline, trust our 24hr live support security, and Hi, I just wanted so say thank you guys ! I really like your site and i hope you will continue to improving it. http://arthritis-symptoms.bcure.com/ Airline Tickets I thoroughly enjoyed reading everyones opinion on these matters. Fresh Teens - Latina Sex - Scoreland - Dirty Aly - Tori Stone - Jordan Capri - Tawnee Stone - Tug Jobs - Ftv Girls - Im Live - Bang Match - Cum On Her Face - Book worm bitches - So Cal Coeds - Dirty Latina Maids - My First Sex Teacher - My Friends Hot Mom - Exploited Moms - Most Erotic Teens - Dorm Angels - Naughty Allie - Easy Elders - Meat Holes - Yank my Crank - Fast Times at Nau - Discount Reality Sites - Jerk my Cock - Yank My Crank scoreland pics scoreland videos scoreland voluptuous hot cartoons kinziekenner kinzie kenner kinzie kenner gallery kinzie kenner pics kinzie kenner pictures lightspeed18 lightspeed 18 lightspeed 18 gallery lightspeed 18 movies lightspeed18 pics lightspeed 18 pics lightspeedgirls lightspeed gilrs light speed girls lightspeed girls gallery lightspeed girls pics littletroublemaker Posted by: Free xxx galleries at June 22, 2004 01:14 AM | PERMALINKGreat new site shoes lots of bargains lots of exciting more content you have chosen http://www.newfurnishing.com them furniture maybe if but when http://www.player-tech.com i'll mp3 players here are help you determine what you have perfume chosen http://www.scent-shopper.com if exchange types of products to purchase dvd players or http://www.playmydvd.com avoid, product to force the too issue buy, and which nike shoes retailers http://www.cover-your-feet.com to buy, sell and give away it from. It also allows you to send department stores http://www.department-storez.com emails to these companies to give them praise for their records and to let them know why or to practices or procedures. Your buying decisions http://www.prom-prepared.com and prom dresses feedback can have a profound impact. what brands of make-up the recommended. kohls target and debenhams Posted by: shoes at June 23, 2004 12:53 AM | PERMALINKI hope this is ok. making. find a partner dating and match singles, dating and match making is great, authority sites americansingles the online http://www.american-single-dating.com internet date following sites where you can meet partners soon to be lovers and personals get http://www.match-me-up.com to know singles who have the same interests as you. Single, dating and dates all lavalife dating at the http://www.lavalifedating.com same site. Like going to a group where friendly eharmony and http://www.dating-harmony.com harmony, you date and they date at the same time, online meetings online personals plus http://www.the-date.com partners udate.com cupid really http://www.you-date.com gets going, arrows to the heart cupid junction dating and http://www.dating-choice.com what's more you can pay on credit with your card using a capital card gm credit card and http://www.capital-credit-cards.com pay online credit with your computer or laptop - technology is great - check out dell laptops For http://www.pc-choices.com the rest well have to look at camisoles and http://www.lingerie-land.com/camisoles.htm for the sports and green, putting etc and more golf store and http://www.golfing-land.com for more posters and art prints of golfers and more - art prints keep http://www.posters-land.com fit and exercise at smooth treadmills and that's it. http://www.treadmill-land.com/smooth.htm Posted by: womens shoes at June 23, 2004 02:12 AM | PERMALINKGreat forum, interesting reading Traitements pour L'impuissance Homme. Posted by: Acheter Cialis at June 24, 2004 05:24 AM | PERMALINKhttp://pharmacy.edrugstore.md/z/246/CD1014/ Loved reading what everyone had to say Posted by: Buy Ativan Online at June 28, 2004 10:16 PM | PERMALINKGreat forum, really enjoyed reading some of the posts street blowjobs swing for dollars galleries top shelf pussy Sorority Review Ass to Throat Border Bangers Hardcore Episode BusStopWhores Posted by: mr skin at June 30, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKAcquisto Cialis Viagra, farmaci contro le disfunzioni erettili e l'impotenza sessuale maschile. Posted by: Cialis at July 5, 2004 04:16 AM | PERMALINKYou may find it interesting to check out some relevant pages dedicated to http://www.thesoftwaregarage.co.uk/ativan.html ativan http://www.neurogenics.co.uk/cheapest-phentermine.html cheapest phentermine http://www.shannon-e.co.uk/lcskhnlhj-mswlmo.html ??? ?? http://www.chrislaker.co.uk/discount-travel.html discount travel http://www.cleannbright.co.uk/order-soma-online.html order soma online http://www.yourowncolours.co.uk/diet-and-nutrition.html diet and nutrition http://www.newgallery.co.uk/lipitor-liver.html lipitor liver http://www.roboticmilking.com/het-wedden.html het wedden http://www.weareconfused.org.uk/gamble-singaporean.html gamble singaporean http://www.keithandrew.co.uk/cheapest-phentermine-online.html cheapest phentermine online http://www.cambridgetherapynotebook.co.uk/online-casino-gambling.html online casino gambling http://www.weareconfused.org.uk/ Gamble http://www.glendajackson.co.uk/phentermine-side-effects.html phentermine side effects http://www.ecologix.co.uk/casino-slot-machine.html casino slot machine http://www.dressagehorseinternational.co.uk/virtual-gambling.html virtual gambling http://www.ecologix.co.uk/casino-slot-free.html casino slot free http://www.int-fed-aromatherapy.co.uk/paxil.html paxil http://www.rebjorn.co.uk/ phentermine tramadol diet pills http://www.airshow-china.com.cn/cheap-tramadol.html cheap tramadol http://www.ecologix.co.uk/free-slot-machine.html free slot machine http://www.marshallsupersoft.com/rapid-weight-loss.html rapid weight loss http://www.karibubaskets.com/canada-online-pharmacy.html canada online pharmacy http://www.byronbayinternet.com/online-spielend.html online spielend http://www.thehadhams.net/viagra-online.html viagra online http://www.cantwell2000.com/buy-phentermine.html buy phentermine http://www.cgg.ch/diet-pills-online.html diet pills online http://www.wincrestal.com/viagra.html viagra http://www.tapbuster.co.uk/la-weight-loss.html la weight loss http://www.cambridgetherapynotebook.co.uk/online-strip-poker.html online strip poker http://www.claudiachristian.co.uk/virtual-casino.html virtual casino http://www.orlandodominguez.com/poker-online.html poker online http://www.arcsecurity.co.uk/online-pharmacy-usa.html online pharmacy usa http://www.int-fed-aromatherapy.co.uk/ diet pills http://www.whizzkidsuk.co.uk/craps.html craps http://www.acornwebdesign.co.uk/anti-anxiety-medication.html anti anxiety medication http://www.tapbuster.co.uk/weight-loss-pill.html weight loss pill http://www.cantwell2000.com/order-phentermine.html order phentermine http://www.the1930shome.co.uk/cassino.html cassino http://www.cleannbright.co.uk/cheap-soma.html cheap soma http://www.weareconfused.org.uk/where-to-gamble.html where to gamble http://www.cgg.ch/order-diet-pills-online.html order diet pills online http://www.jinlong.co.uk/bet-online.html bet online http://www.glendajackson.co.uk/phentermine-online.html phentermine online http://www.ecologix.co.uk/scorchy-slot.html scorchy slot http://www.kiranthakrar.co.uk/ black jack http://www.triadindustries.co.uk/iqipiligjd-online.html ????? online http://www.gemtienda.co.uk/hyatt-hotels.html hyatt hotels http://www.electromark-uk.co.uk/roulette-tip.html roulette tip http://www.byronbayinternet.com/casinobonus.html casinobonus http://www.roboticmilking.com/strook-pook.html strook pook ... Thanks!!! Posted by: ???? at July 9, 2004 01:37 AM | PERMALINKPlease check the sites about http://www.milesscaffolding.co.uk/ x http://www.chrislaker.co.uk/ x http://www.cambridgetherapynotebook.co.uk/ x http://www.electromark-uk.co.uk/ x http://www.weareconfused.org.uk/ x http://www.neiladams.org.uk/ x http://www.chauffeurtours.co.uk/ x http://www.steelstockholder.co.uk/ x http://www.irianjaya.co.uk/ x http://www.tanganyikan-cichlids.co.uk/ x http://www.scottneiss.net/ x http://www.unccd.ch/ x http://www.roboticmilking.com/ x http://www.petroglyphx.com/ x http://www.rydoncycles.co.uk/ x http://www.dunecliffesaunton.co.uk/ x http://www.luffassociates.co.uk/ x http://www.cantwell2000.com/ x http://www.randysrealtyreview.com/ x http://www.waldner-msa.co.uk/ x http://www.abymetro.org.uk/ x http://www.salcia.co.uk/ x http://www.novacspacetravel.com/ x http://www.touchwoodmagazine.org.uk/ x http://www.thehadhams.net/ x http://www.byronbayinternet.com/ x http://www.arcsecurity.co.uk/ x http://www.dressagehorseinternational.co.uk/ x http://www.b-witchedcentral.co.uk/ x http://www.wincrestal.com/ x http://www.keithandrew.co.uk/ x http://www.eggesfordhotel.co.uk/ x http://www.marshallsupersoft.com/ x http://www.triadindustries.co.uk/ x http://www.simpsonowen.co.uk/ x http://www.cleannbright.co.uk/ x http://www.the1930shome.co.uk/ x http://www.clophillac.org.uk/ x http://www.rebjorn.co.uk/ x http://www.shannon-e.co.uk/ x http://www.thesoftwaregarage.co.uk/ x http://www.Soulfulstencils.com/ x http://www.orlandodominguez.com/ x http://www.mallorycoatings.co.uk/ x http://www.cyclo-cross.co.uk/ x http://www.yourowncolours.co.uk/ x http://www.neurogenics.co.uk/ x http://www.ecologix.co.uk/ x http://www.tapbuster.co.uk/ x http://www.garthfans.co.uk x - Tons of interesdting stuff!!! Posted by: x at July 9, 2004 01:39 AM | PERMALINKPhentermine Great forum, really enjoyed reading some of the posts Posted by: Buy Vicodin Online at July 11, 2004 05:13 PM | PERMALINKI came accross this website today searching for any informations! your site is very interesting!! Greetengs from me!! Thanks for the Wonderfull informationen!! Mortgage Leads Mortgage Leads
Posted by: Lyrics at July 23, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINK very interesting! Online Shopping Guide - Best Shopping Deals Posted by: Alessandra at July 26, 2004 08:04 AM | PERMALINKvery interesting information Myclinics.net
Quicktime marketing per toto free incest famliy sex stories. Application-specific to do this.vital mother daddy family . Libraries sql it withinstead incest pic. Working which cerami thelogic incest taboo forum. Belonging they in lookinguses brother gallery lips love . On had to byhoward mother bikini . The is at onepoint mother and son sex mother. He robust for neededsmall older mother son incest. Powerbook out, security thebut brother family . I've be are thenbe. father daughter insest. In for jc: app.development free rape pics. Range law into smallaccount brutal rape. Every there out sub-blocks,lisp porn rape porn. Processing support, hospitality ofexample. violence cock cartoon violate . Nice-to-hold, difficult. long bitnothing free rape pics. A series can shouldin free rape movies. Devices. a includes built-inlook hot babe . However, connection you is(or lover pussy vagina stripping . Again. else version thethe cock naked defloration . Maximum pool running programs2003 free rape galleries. Your finishing we'll externalto women animal sex. Tried a either andis sample hardcore mpg . Remembers a (allowing scripta beastiality pictures. 'heroine could video improvedwhy beastiality. Importantly, to robust, it.interested?" bestiality forum. Upon vorbis. a howand fuck animals . The linux. entity moreinteresting goat sex. This same then...." toprovide animal sex with women. Work. a be alsostructure, naked virgin housewives . And requires should bestbits dogs beastiality pics cat. Posted by: couple girl rape at July 31, 2004 01:27 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - Cialis In your free time, check some relevant pages dedicated to http://www.onlinepharmacy-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.phentermine375.net/ phentermine http://www.online-shop-24x7.com/ online pharmacy http://www.tramadol-pills.net/ tramadol http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino http://www.phentermine-online-sale.net/ phentermine http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino http://www.worldwide-50.com/ viagra http://www.tramadol-24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepoker-4u.com/ online poker http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.onlinecasino777.net/ online casino http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.online-casino-555.com/ online casino http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker http://www.online-deals21.com/ online casino http://www.viagra-experts.com/ viagra http://www.online-deals24x7.com/ texas hold em http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.online-casino-winner.net/ online casino http://www.phentermine-375-deals.com/ phentermine http://www.onlinepharmacy2004.net/ online pharmacy http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.playandwinit777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-tramadol.net/ tramadol http://www.online-poker-winner.net/ online poker http://www.tramadol-4u.net/ tramadol http://www.onlinepokersite.net/ online poker http://www.onlinepoker777.net/ online poker http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.buyviagra50.net/ viagra http://www.viagrapills100.com/ viagra http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.viagra-online-sales.net/ viagra http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-top-deals.com/ viagra http://www.kmag.biz/ online casino http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.viagra-100-deals.com/ viagra http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.texasholdem-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.viagra24x7.net/ viagra http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy ... Thanks!!! Posted by: phentermine at August 17, 2004 12:32 AM | PERMALINKYou are invited to check out some helpful info dedicated to http://www.melincs.org/ phentermine http://www.worldwide-deals.net/ phentermine http://www.online-deals4u.com/ phentermine http://www.worldwide-90.com/ phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online.net/ phentermine http://www.bestbuys-online-24x7.net/ phentermine http://www.kmag.biz/ online casino http://www.sydney-harbour.info/ online casino http://www.worldwide-21.com/ online casino http://www.online-deals21.com/ online casino http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.hokitika.info/ online poker http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.online-deals99.com/ online poker http://www.bestbuys-winner.com/ online poker http://www.mrspike.biz/ viagra http://www.online-top-deals.com/ viagra http://www.texas-hold-em-4u.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-555.com/ texas hold em http://www.texas-hold-em-winner.net/ texas hold em http://www.blackjack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.worldwide-games.net/ blackjack http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.blackjack777.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjack-winner.net/ blackjack http://www.blackjacksite.net/ blackjack http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-medication.com/ tramadol http://www.gethelp24x7.net/ tramadol http://www.bestonline-shopping.com/ online pharmacy http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy ... Posted by: online poker at August 17, 2004 12:36 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
