Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

What kind of person would prefer sorting mail to flying supersonic jets?

That's the real question and one that, I think, is being overlooked. People keep writing that the relevant time period is May '72 till some later date. I think the relevant period is April-May '72. What happened that led Bush to give up the incredible rush of flying jets every other weekend or so?

"As I was walking up the stair, I saw a man who wasn't there."

Then you have to start being very careful. I always take my sister's boyfriend's approach to this sort of thing happening. After your very real hallucinatory revelation, do not mention it for awhile or that can get you into trouble.

It's much better to wait for a confirmatory hallucinatory response from someone else. I believe this is something he adapted from AA meetings, and it has worked for him, and for me also.

I guess somebody should tell the tens of thousands of Air and Army National Guardsmen who don't fly planes that their services "don't seem terribly helpful."

Well, that was a terribly dishonest interpretation of what he actually wrote.

George Bush was trained to be a pilot, not to be "hanging out in somebody's office reading magazines."

I guess Brad should be more respectful of the Air and Army National Guardsmen who hang out in offices and read magazines. Serving their country and their communities!

The sad part is the the rather obvious conflict between Mr. Calhoun's story and the known facts had to be pointed out to our exalted press corps.

I am told that a correction may be forthcoming. The press should break this fellows kneecaps for playing them for fools. Or be smarter in future.

Brad;

I can understand frustration of a citizen at the President of the country pretending to have been what he or she was not, but don't you think that you have already allocated blog space time and again to such matters as AWOL and dental work and IQ levels etc., to an extent that begins to unfairly misrepresent the caliber of your competences and the intellectual quality of this blog -- the subject matter of which is economics and economy?

".. unfairly misrepresent..."! Huf! Replace that by "..underrepresent..", which is probably far from a perfect remedy but I'm sure you understand what I intend to say here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37904-2004Feb12?language=printer
Friday, February 13, 2004; Page A08

Calhoun, a retired lieutenant colonel who said he was the group's flying safety officer and later its plans officer, described Bush as "a typical fighter pilot -- he was aggressive with his talk."

"He said he wanted a career in politics," Calhoun recalled. He said Bush used to talk about how hard he worked on the Senate campaign. "He'd come in on a Saturday morning and say, 'Man, I've been going like crazy,' " Calhoun said.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/14alabush.html
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
By DAVE HIRSCHMAN in Montgomery, MONI BASU in Atlanta
Published on: 02/13/04

"He showed up. He sat in my office. He signed in," Calhoun said. "He was very determined to be there. He was in uniform and he did what he was supposed to do."

Calhoun recalled he thought the young lieutenant was "fairly low key" though Bush told him he had been "working day and night" on Blount's Senate campaign. Calhoun asked Bush if he had political ambition. "He said, 'I don't know. Maybe.' "

--------
Low-key in one quote, typical aggresive pilot in another. Which is it?

I guess Bush was working "day and night" on the campaign.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0204/14alabush.html
Memories place Bush in Alabama if records don't
By DAVE HIRSCHMAN in Montgomery, MONI BASU in Atlanta
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/13/04

Bush was a frequent guest at Blount's home, and Blount sought him out as a tennis partner in doubles matches.

Bob Ingram, a veteran Alabama political reporter, said he never saw Bush working on Blount's election campaign, but he faced him twice across a tennis net.

"Red Blount invited me to play tennis twice that year — and both times he had young George Bush on his side," Ingram said.

Further to my notes above; the issue more significant than the fact that too much emphasis on Dubya's AWOL and what not is failing (in my humble opinion)to befit otherwise excellent qualities of this blog and its host is that, if Americans dump Dubya cause he went AWOL and had low IQ etc., it won't be worth a dime. Americans should send away Bush administration expressedly for the reason that they disapproved this administration's domestic and foreign policies, perhaps economic policies in particular.

What did I say? I said "economic policies in particular". And what is the subject matter of this blog? It is economics, economy, and, obviously, economic policies with all its national and foreign policy extensions and implications. Which has little to do with the President's having gone AWOL, and, at that, in not too critical circumctances. And, so what? Former President Clinton avoided draft, didn't he? But that didn't stop him from implementing incomparably better policies than this administration on all fronts.

And remember what Mr. Clinton said about the economy and winning the election.

This is Mr Delongs blog, he can put in anything he wants, even the maths of slipping in the mud.

The Democrats could well drop this, unless there is further evidence that points in the direction of drug use as a factor. I think Bush's service has been thoroughly discredited. If the Republicans start running ads showing Bush strutting on the carrier, however, I would like to see it come back with a vengeance.

The South will rise again: the Democrats will definitely take Louisiana, will almost certainly take Mississippi, and have a good healthy shot at Alabama. Remember you heard it here first.

I heard it from Curtis Wilkie. The Republicans don't have a clue who Curtis Wilkie is.

I registered for the draft on my 26th birthday, at the red brick Guard armory on 15th or 16th, just north of the White House. Nobody noticed the date coincidence, nor did anybody have a computer handy to check and find that I was the sort of person whose offices were regularly set fire to by the FBI. (FOIA enquiry by Ray Mungo.)

I went through the door side by side with two young black guys, and the almost-white-glove lady behind the desk, without blinking, referred us to opposite ends of the long varnished counter. They enrolled me in Draft Board #1, which had a quota of zero, and I was on my way.

White skin is good for your health.

The two youngsters were enrolled in a regular District of Columbia draft board, where the average quota was somewhere around 45%.

The whole thing sucked. Remind me to tell you about Reverend Coffin's famous speech onthe lawn at Yale some time. Fuck it, I'll tell you now: I took the train up from New York with my wife, Susie Schmidt (not the WaPo one) to hear him, and came away, having worked the crowd, with the clear conviction that a high percentage of the youngsters opposing the war did so because they were afraid. I was horrified. I damn near enlisted on the spot.

> if Americans dump Dubya cause he went AWOL and had low IQ etc., it won't be worth a dime.

I agree it would not be the ideal circumstances, but getting Bush out of the White House is worth it regardless of the point it proves. And Bush being re-elected and claiming a mandate will be a disaster for those of us who oppose him on issues.

That said, I think the main benefit of the AWOL story is that it has Bush on the defensive. A couple of weeks to distract Bush from advancing his policies (or campaign) is always good. I doubt it will be the main issue in 2004 campaign.

I agree that it diminishes DeLong's blog a little by focusing on it. But that's for him to judge. You could equally argue that Bush has been treated far too generously by people who wanted to appear above the fray.

More evidence that Bush's story is correct:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2001857853_guard14.html

----------quote-------------
By Dana Milbank and Mike Allen
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Files released by the White House last night from President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the National Guard show that he was an exemplary pilot whose record contains numerous gaps in the last two years of his six-year commitment.

[snip]

A 1971 evaluation by a superior said Bush had the potential to "promote well ahead of his contemporaries" and added: "Lt. Bush's main strengths are his eagerness to participate in the unit's activities and his ability to work harmoniously with others." A 1970 letter recommending him for a promotion to first lieutenant called him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot."

[snip]

On May 24, 1972, Bush had sought to transfer from his Houston Guard unit to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron for an unpaid assignment. The commander accepted him two days later but wrote: "The continuation of this type unit is uncertain at this time and we may last 3 months, 6 months, a year or who knows! With this in mind, if you are willing to accept assignment under these circumstances, welcome! We're glad to have you."

But there is no evidence Bush reported, and the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center overruled the commander July 31 and returned Bush's application, calling him "ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."

[snip]

The next move from Bush apparently came in a Sept. 5 letter in which he requested permission to perform "equivalent duty" with the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala. The Alabama Guard approved Bush on Sept. 15 and directed him to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed.
---------endquote-----------

Oh, so now you guys are unhappy that our host is "focusing" on this story. That because you finally realize you've lost at every point at issue?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/APWires/politics/D80N5CA80.html

--------quote------------
"Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to this unit," Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges wrote on May 27, 1971. "This officer is rated in the upper 10 percent of his contemporaries."

The documents also show no sign that Bush received special treatment either to get into the Guard when there were long waiting lists at the height of the Vietnam War or to be discharged from it nearly eight months before his six-year service obligation was completed in order to attend Harvard Business School; that he was subject to any disciplinary action while in the military; or that damaging details were hidden in his medical record.

All were questions some Democrats had said needed to be answered.

[snip]

One of the few other mentions of Alabama in the documents was in an Ellington performance evaluation, covering the period from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973, that could not rate Bush because he was absent from the base.

"A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Ala.," wrote Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr. "He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp. Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the Texas Air National Guard commander at the time, wrote at the bottom that he concurred "with the comments of the reporting official."

----------endquote------------

" I think the relevant period is April-May '72. What happened that led Bush to give up the incredible rush of flying jets every other weekend or so?"

The Vietnam War was "Vietnamized" by Richard Nixon. Which resulted in a glut of fighter pilots. As has been detailed by Col. Wm. Campenni in letters to editors and on cable news programs, and quoted by me on this blog. Also, the plane Bush flew, the F-102, was replaced on his air base, so Bush didn't have a plane to fly anyway.

Occam's Razor fellas, Occam's Razor.

" I registered for the draft on my 26th birthday "

Were you arrested for being 8 years late?

Paul Callahan:

I agree with you on all the points you make except one, well, maybe one and a half:

I'm not sure if the state of affairs is that AWOL story has put Bush on the defensive. The AWOL story is I think now occupying the capacity of public agenda with diminishing returns; it is raising a cloud of dust behind which the economic devastation looks paler than it otherwise would. And it may even be reaching the point of making Dubya look victimized.

It is of course for Prof. Delong to judge what to cover in this blog. It is at the same time my obligation, as one who values this blog, to raise a flag of alarm, as I did.

I think Brad should stay a bit aloof of politics and politicking (spell?). What do I mean "a bit aloof"? I guess it is OK for Brad to say, on this blog, things like "look, I don't know how I can trust a guy who pretended to serve in armed forces while going AWOL for two whole years, even if he is President, no, especially if he is President; there is a lot of talk about all that and WH is yet to refute any of it...". But it is not Brad's job trying to convince the public that the President of the country indeed went AWOL while in service. There should be other blogs that are supposed to cover that kind of investigative reporting stuff -- I'm pretty sure there are.

Any way, I think I have said enough on this.

Patrick Sullivan: I think it's safe to say that the typical poster to Prof. DeLong's comment boards is familiar with the principle of parsimony. I also think you're aware of this. So it seems disingenuous to keep harping on Occam's razor as if this were a substantive contribution to the discussion. If your main goal were to tutor us on Occam's razor, you could come up with a clearer case (you might start with Rumsfeld and Cheney, still pining over missing WMDs).

Moreover, if Bush's explanation really were the parsimonious one, I sort of doubt that a discussion board like DeLong's would have a loan voice of reason heroically making the case for it.

Let me repeat: If it's unfair to say Bush was AWOL, then (for example) it was more unfair to repeat the lie that Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet and or that it was inappropriate to take credit for his work in Congress promoting it at the very earliest stages (again Kahn and Cerf). BTW, Bush personally used this lie in the 2000 campaign. I distinctly remember some asinine comment he made about web pages beginning "dubya dubya dubya" (I will search for the link on demand).

The only clear difference I can see is that Bush may have been AWOL and pulled some strings to fluff it over and make up for it. That's tough to refute, and it would not surprise me particularly. By contrast, it is easy to refute the statement that Gore said he invented the Internet, and easy to make the case that he had every right to take credit for being one of the very earliest congressional supporters of an important technology. (And, yeah, he could have come up with a better way of taking credit; it's a shame he did not get the credit due him.)

This isn't science; it's politics. And the tactic of putting a political opponent on the defensive strikes me as ethical provided it does not descend into telling actual lies. The only question is whether it's effective. I think it's possible that the AWOL story has hit diminishing returns as Bulent suggests. But I also don't have a great appetite for sleaze; so contrary to my tastes, it may be a good story to keep telling.

Bush's major advantage a president has been an ability to define the narrative. Allowing this to continue will help him tremendously in the next election. So the motives of Bush's detractors are clear, and the methods, while unseemly, are not unethical. I personally never said Bush was AWOL but I wholeheartedly endorse pressing his administration to demonstrate otherwise. Surely that's my right as a citizen.

I'll make a deal (and I admit I come way too cheap). I will promise never to say that Bush is AWOL if Bush (or perhaps a cabinet level advisor) makes the public statement "Al Gore never said he invented the Internet, and he was right to take credit for being one of its earliest and most energetic proponents in Congress."

And if I can get Bush to concede "You know, it seems Scott Ritter was right all along about those WMDs" then who knows what I can offer in return.

"I guess Brad should be more respectful of the Air and Army National Guardsmen who hang out in offices and read magazines. Serving their country and their communities!"

Gee, I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone could get the impression that Brad DeLong and his sycophantic ilk drip only disdain for the service of our Guardsmen and women. Then again, if I didn't meet the weight requirements for service, I'd probably be jaded as well.

Tp Paul Callahan,

Pretty clearly the average commenter here is logically impaired. The most common error being the fallacy, ad ignorantum. Colloquially, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Given all the evidence--Bush has an honorable discharge, his records contain not a single mention of any disciplinary measures against him--the simplest explanation is that he served honorably or satisfactorily.

You seem to prefer the fallacy of the false analogy (Gore and the internet, and, btw, Bush was joking).

And, if you won't put up with outright lies, you ought to concede that the charges of being a "deserter" or being AWOL are lies. He couldn't have been either, since he was merely a week-end warrior. If he had not satisfied his obligations the only measure the ANG could have taken was to notify him he was in jeopardy of being booted out. That would have made him eligible to be drafted, until the draft was ended that is.

> You seem to prefer the fallacy of the false analogy (Gore and the internet, and, btw, Bush was joking).

They're analogous insofar as both are slurs repeated primarily for political motives.

Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain.

“I remember that I heard someone was coming to drill with us from Texas. And it was implied that it was somebody with political influence." recalls Mintz, now 62, (former) first lieutenant at Dannelly, “And I was looking for him”.

Though some accounts reckon the total personnel component of the 187th as consisting of several hundred, the actual flying squadron – that to which Bush was reassigned – numbered only “25 to 30 pilots,” Mintz said. “There’s no doubt. I would have heard of him, seen him, whatever.”

“I never saw hide nor hair of Mr. Bush,” confirms Bishop, who now lives in Goldsboro, N.C., is a veteran of Gulf War I and, as a Kalitta pilot, has himself flown frequent supply missions into military facilities at Kuwait. “It bothered me that he wouldn’t ‘fess up and say, Okay, guys, I cut out when the rest of you did your time. He shouldn’t have tried to dance around the subject. I take great exception to that. I spent 39 years defending my country.”

Mintz and Bishop retired from the Guard with the ranks of lieutenant colonel and colonel, respectively.

The above was excerpted from the Memphis Flyer.

Now we will just have to wait to see if the long arm of the Bush administration reaches out to Mintz and Bishop to help refresh their memories.

I'd like to know more about those Air National Guards, just how they were structured, how much pressure there would be to "help" someone like George Bush. Lots of light colonels with names like "Bill" and "Bobby" make it sound kind of clubby. Was the Guard an ironclad guarantee of avoiding service in Vietnam? Did Lt Bush's failure to attend his pilot's physical remove the possibility, no matter how remote, of mobilisation? What were the service records of his contemporaries? It's probably being overplayed as an election issue, but it's still a fascinating insight into privilege.

The fact that some people go by "Bill" and "Bobby" is now de fact proof that there is a conspiracy to cover up something about Bush's service in the National Guard? You people have seriously lost it.