Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

A retired Guard Brigadier General, David McGuinness, is quoted in the Times today to the effect that there should be paperwork explaining why Bush was let out early. This is also evidence that he file has been purged.

This is a link to the story described by Bob H.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/politics/campaign/15GUAR.html?pagewanted=1

The thrust of this article is to set out the areas of dispute according to this reporter, David Barstow. He might want to check out some internet writers to see what they think the areas of dispute might be.

This has become pathological. Again, here's a former member of Bush's ANG unit:

" The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. "

What is so hard to understand about the above. I helped a friend apply to college in 1971, so he could get an early out from an enlisted man's position in the Marines. After he got out, he then withdrew from the college. Anyone old enough to remember the period knows what Campenni is saying is true.

Unless everyone here is trying to meet some circular reasoning criteria.

Patrick, that sounds reasonable. Any idea why Bush didn't explain it that way? Or why he didn't just show us the records where some analogous reason is given? If your argument true, then he probably did still manage to avoid combat because of connections, but the AWOL charge doesn't stand. But if it's that simple, why doesn't he just demonstrate that that's what's going on.

And just for verification, does anyone have numbers on how many pilots there were when to document the glut? I'm not saying it's not true, I'd just like some numbers to be able to see it. 'Cause it's not like these folks have never just made crap up.

No, Karl, it's not reasonable. It wasn't Bush's choice - it was the reserve's choice.

With all the uncertainty, we know for sure that: a.) Bush didn't show up for a required examination; b.) headed off to Alabama without permission at the time he left.

These were not private choices that it was Bush's right (or Campenni's retrospective right) to make or justify.

When you're George Bush, though, beneficiary of help getting into Yale and help getting into the reserve (at which point he swore his undying devotion to making piloting his life's work), it's easy to assume that you get to make the rules.

But you don't.

What Patrick says sounds reasonable. However, I have also heard something quite contradictory: that because Vietnam was winding down at the that time, ground were troops not in demand in Vietnam, but that pilots were. I am not willing to do the research to see which is correct -- but I suspect it is mostly the former.

However, that is 100% irrelevant. Being told by the guard that there was no cockpit for you and thus sent to a desk job is one thing. It is also something that doesn't describe GWB's situation in any way. GWB decided he wasn't going to be flying *on his own*, he then skipped a flight physical and went to Alabama, a place where there were no planes he knew how to fly, *without permission of TANG*. So, again, even if there were a glut of pilots at that time, it is 100% irrelevant.

I am beginning to see how so many Republicans are Teflon-coated when it comes to this kind of stuff.

Why is Bush’s behavior more than 30 years ago relevant to his fitness to be president? Perhaps if the allegations are true his behavior in 1971 reveals an immutable character flaw that renders him unfit for high office. After all didn’t Horace Mann tell us “childhood shows the man?” But if that’s the case, then many politicians are unfit to hold office. How about Senator Ted Kennedy? Was he not expelled from Harvard for cheating? And let’s not forget the incident at Chappaquiddick. But no that was a long time ago and Kennedy has a record as a Senator, if you like his record vote for him, if not vote for one of this opponents. Similarly George Bush has a record as president to vote on. Instead of reasoned argument we get this constant muckraking by the Democrats and their lackeys. Of course the Republicans and their lackeys will return in kind. So instead of a campaign we get a food fight.

I have my own tinfoil hat idea. The white house released "all that we have" or something. Bush has still not signed a release. Now what implies that "all that we have" is the whole record ? Consider the nutty idea that they asked for all files showing drills and physicals but not files recording disciplinary proceedings. How would the documents released and white house statements be different ?

A. Zarkov,
It is called payback time. Also called playing the base. It is politics. Get used to it. I'm no fan of the mr bushes admin and am getting tired of the constant harping on the topic. I have the option of just tuning it out. Don't like it, don't watch don't read about it. Works for me.
BTW I enjoy your comments. Keep it up.

Dogbert: My sentiments exactly. Thanks for the encouragement.

Whenever somebody mentions Ted Kennedy getting expelled for cheating, it makes me sad. I heard he was caught eating at Elsie's on Mt. Auburn Street while his ringer was taking the exam, and that reminds me that Elsie's closed down several years ago, hence the sadness. But now I read that it wasn't actually Elsie's, so maybe my emotions are misplaced.

Zarkov: "Similarly George Bush has a record as president to vote on. Instead of reasoned argument we get this constant muckraking by the Democrats and their lackeys."

Oddly, I've actually gained new respect for Bush via this process. The one thing I've learned, not having paid much attention to the Bush bio previously, is that at least his Guard career was more impressive than his Oil Bidness career. He didn't lose any planes....

digbert d: "It is called payback time. Also called playing the base. It is politics. Get used to it."

Yeah, but the same people who like the AWOL story are the same people who are bringing us the Bush vs. Kerry matchup this November. Thanks a bundle.

(Why does it seem like the same Democrats who dislike Bush the most on (essentially) grounds of his privileged background, are the same ones who like Dean and Kerry (and Gore) - as opposed to, say, Edwards and Gephardt (and Clinton)?).

It's hard not to be fascinated by the delusions of some people around here. Is there "proof" that Bush's record was "purged"? Nope. Is that proof of a conspiracy to cover up the purging of the records? You betcha. Absence of evidence must be evidence of absence! Yikes.

Why make a big deal of the AWOL/Flight Inquiry Board issue? Because this, out of everything liberals have thrown at the president, has stuck. That, plus the fact that failure to carry out military duties resonates with a good deal of Bush's core and fringe supporters.

Once again numerous posters are repeating falsehoods. I just checked the timeline of the number of troops. On January 1, 1972 there were only 133,000 Americans in Vietnam, down from over half a million a few years earlier. 70,000 of those 133,000 were withdrawn during 1972. By March of 1973 virtually all were gone, and we'd signed the Paris treaty.

That's the time frame we're talking about Bush's so called missing year. Occam's Razor: the military's manpower needs were drastically reduced, people were being let out of their commitments early, and Bush was one of them.

That's why there is a document in Bush's file saying he'd "cleared the base" on May 15th, 1972. He had official permission to do so, according to his commanding officer writing in May of 1973. That same document says he was in Alabama in a non-flying status.

Two Alabama ANG officers remember him being there. The ex-wife of one of them verifies that her then husband used to talk about Bush being there. An old girl friend of Bush's remembers him going to duty in Montgomery. There are pay records verifying he did duty in Alabama. A record of a dental exam on the airbase exists.

The above is evidence. There is NO EVIDENCE he wasn't in compliance with his duties. That some pilots--and Bush was not flying planes there--say they don't remember him is not evidence he wasn't there.

Officers not flying planes don't need to take flight physicals, so there is no reason to expect him to have taken one. There's no record of Bush being disciplined for not taking his physical. He got an honorable discharge. All this points to an obvious conclusion, guys.

Matt,

Wasn't Harvard's condition for not expelling Kennedy that he take 2 years off to serve in the army?

If that's not a deterrent to cheating, I don't know what is.

Patrick Sullivan states: "Officers not flying planes don't need to take flight physicals, so there is no reason to expect him to have taken one."

Once again Mr. Sullivan illustrates perfect circularity in logic. Start from the conclusion you want and navigate backward.

I suppose it makes life simpler.

As of August, 1972, George Bush had almost two years to run on his obligation. Not one person had any reason to believe that US might not be called to some other hotspot. Just as with Iraq, Guardsmen could have been called up. For one to be caught with his pants down, having been suspended from flying for the trivial reason of having skipped a physical, would have been a serious embarrassment as well as a profound disservice to this country.

As to the rest of the evidence, it's less strong than the evidence that Bush's file has been cleansed. The contradictions of Lt. Col. John Calhoun's claims have been pointed out by The Boston Globe and by Time magazine. The ex-wife's statement is extremely vague. And both of these are extremely recent witnesses, emerging only as the president's approval ratings head into the cellar.

The most interesting part of the whole story, as pointed out by both the Washington Post and NBC (summary by the Post):

May 2: Bush's evaluation form states: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama."

June: The evaluation is returned to the Texas National Guard with request for form 77a so "this officer can be rated in the position he held."

Nov. 12: Form 77a is sent by the Texas Guard's personnel office and says simply: "Not rated for the period 1 May 1972 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons."

OK. What were the "administrative reasons"?

The evaluation request was sent, by the way, by the Guard's national office. The Texas branch refused to fill it.

Howard, I wasn't actually agreeing with Patrick, just pointing out that his argument had a (certain level of) surface plausibility. I agree with you about the deeper issues of privilege and who gets to decide.

In his next post, Patrick vents about "falsehoods," presumably referring to someone having heard that, while ground troops were being reduced, pilots were still in high demand. Patrick then presents numbers of total troops, but doesn't distinguish between ground and air. So his point is ...?

Patrick, you argue from Occam's razor. Sadly for your side, this famous blade cuts more sharply in the other direction. In the last 50 years, every presidential candidate with a service record has RELEASED that record. Not had it laboriously extracted from the White House by a finally live press corps, but simply released it. Bush still hasn't released his in full. There's lots of interesting stuff there, but there's no DD-215, and as Billmon and others have noted, there are still windows of unaccounted time.

Releasing the relevant records would be easy. If they showed that he served, the release would put the whole thing to rest and make the Democrats look like slimy partisans. He hasn't done it. Occam's razor tells me there's something there that doesn't make Bush look good.

Patrick, in addition to what Bruce Moomaw points out, you stop your chronology much too sign in 1972.

On July 31, 1972, Bush's application was overruled and he was called "ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve squadron."

On September 5, 1972 Bush requests, in writing, permission to perform "equivalent duty" in Alabama, which was approved on September 15.

So i'll plead guilt to oversimplification at 12:43; let's say we know for sure that he didn't show up for a scheduled examination and we know for sure that for a 2-1/2 month period (at a minimum - we make no claims between May and July one way or the other) he was in Reserve legal limbo, living and working somewhere without approval to be there.

I have no doubt that there were many people like Bush at the time, although i suspect Bush's sense of entitlement was much stronger than most.

What I do know is that he has pretended to a valiant service that he didn't quite provide, and that enablers who say that there was a drawdown of troops in Vietnam so it was up to lieutenant bush to decide that he was surplus to requirements aren't exactly burnishing his reputation when they say so.

Oh, and as for why this is "relevant." Let's say you're the president, and your political team authorizes a campaign where a senator who lost three limbs actually fighting in Vietnam is equated to bin Laden because he voted against something you wanted. You've taken a man who paid a higher price for his patriotism than, I would guess, anyone reading this blog and called him a terrorist, a traitor.

If you thought that war was a good idea but thought that keeping yourself stateside was an even better idea, that's relevant. If it turns out you didn't even do the stuff you said you'd do to in order to avoid the risk of going over to 'Nam, then that's really relevant. It DOES speak to a character flaw, compounded by his inability to address it now.

Trent Lott and Robert Byrd both have overtly racist pasts. Byrd, while he understands the social context in which his old racist views were formed, doesn't excuse himself. He acknowledges that it was wrong then and syas he has learned. Lott can't quite bring himself to clearly condemn his former beliefs. Which one has more character? Which one do you think has really learned from his past?

Just curious, but how exactly could someone's service records be "purged"? Who has access and that sort of authority, etc... It seems like this would be difficult to do.

Matt, that seems to be Bush's problem. The military (active or NG/reserve) is first and foremost a bureaucracy, with many,many clerks filing many, many forms, on many, many things. Officers (such as unit commanders) also have to fill out many, many forms, such as officer efficiency reports. Certain personnel, such as pilots, are required to take special physical examinations on a regular basis. I don't even want to think of how much paperwork is generated by each hour of flying time.

Mealyus: Some of us like Kucinich, but most of us are ABB. Elite domination is not only a fact of American life, but -- ta-da! -- a law of history. Because if they didn't dominate, they wouldn't be an elite, right?

Zarkov -- Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations ended at Chappaquiddick. And, yes, Republicans still talk about Chappaquiddick whenever Kennedy's name comes up. No statute of limitations, sorry.

Dilbert -- you say that like it was something bad. If you're tired, take a nap.

Sean -- I haven't declared Bush guilty yet, but I'm highly suspicious, and for that reason I'm in favor of continuing the investigation -- but the investigation is what you are objecting to. Contrary to what you seem to think, you don't have to convict someone in order to justify investigating them; the investigation is an early stage of the frocess, not the final one. And I think that there's enough reason to justify investigating.

Patrick -- yes, if you accept all pro-Bush testimony and evidence, and reject all anti-Bush testimony and evidence, Bush is indeed innocent. But those rules of evidence are highly unorthodox.

Matt W -- the purge was illegal if it happened.

All: Indeed, this particular question is not being debated on the high intellectual and philosophical plane. It's gut-level politics. But nothing that George W Bush has ever been involved with has ever been conducted on the high intellectual and philosophical plane, and dirty politics (via Rove) is the guy's bread and butter.

As I have said before, high-minded Democrats should butt out. They should take holy orders and exorcise things and perform extreme unction and shit. The Democratic Party doesn't really need their advice.

Joe Mealyus,
Actually my thoughts about the process are a lot bleaker and blacker than what I posted.
I think about the process and am appalled at the quality of the people who are chosen to lead us and the process by which they are chosen. I think of the story of King Arthur and the Excalibur Test. If we only had an equivalent test to find the "True King". I know that is silly and we just have to work with what we have.
Best Wishes to all.

As Will Rogers famously said, it's the things you guys "know for sure, that just aren't so", that accounts for most of your charm:

"we know for sure that he didn't show up for a scheduled examination"

We don't know that at all, and Col. Campenni, who would be a person with the relevant experience, testifies that it didn't work that way at all. Most likely, Bush didn't schedule a flight physical because he was in Alabama in a NON-FLIGHT capacity (as an official document proves).

" and we know for sure that for a 2-1/2 month period (at a minimum - we make no claims between May and July one way or the other) he was in Reserve legal limbo, living and working somewhere without approval to be there."

So, from July 31 to September 15 is 2-1/2 months! No wonder you guys have so much trouble with this. Let's put our thinking caps on:

A document dated July 31st probably reaches Bush during the first week in August, causing him to think: " *@%!**&@ Military! They give me permission to do something, then 2-1/2 months later they rescind that permission."

What a normal person would do, I would think, would be to make some phone calls to find out how to resolve the problem. Perhaps to his CO back in Texas, where, just maybe, he might be told that there is an ANG group at Dannelly AB in Montgomery that he could check out. So, sometime in August--when he can work it in with his civilian job on the Blount campaign--he visits the base and finds out that they will accept him.

Then Bush calls back to Houston to find out the procedure to work this out now that he's found himself a temporary home. When he gets that information he completes his paperwork (or writes a letter) and mails it on September 5th. It's officially accepted on September 15. That's hardly unreasonable in 1972 with the war winding down and no one much interested in week-end desk jockeys.

This is the kind of thing I mean by falsehood:

" GWB decided he wasn't going to be flying *on his own*, he then skipped a flight physical and went to Alabama, a place where there were no planes he knew how to fly, *without permission of TANG*."

Simply not true, Bush's superior in Texas wrote in May of 1973, that Bush had moved to Alabama because of civilian employment and had "cleared this base May 15, 1972". And that he was fulfilling his service in a non-flying capacity. He had official permission according an ANG officer.

" Patrick -- yes, if you accept all pro-Bush testimony and evidence, and reject all anti-Bush testimony and evidence, Bush is indeed innocent. But those rules of evidence are highly unorthodox."

ALL the evidence supports Bush's story. There is no evidence contradicting it. If you know of some please produce it.

For those who think all the troop withdrawals were ground troops only:

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wpafb.af.mil%2Fmuseum%2Fhistory%2Fvietnam%2Fsea1971.htm

" SOUTH VIETNAM The U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam continued during 1971 and by December the USAF was down to 277 fighter and strike aircraft and 28,791 personnel from a 1968 high of 737 aircraft and 54,434 personnel. The VNAF was now responsible for 70% of all air combat operations. Enemy guerrilla activity continued to be sporadic. "

The withdrawals continued the next year, 1972, when George W. Bush moved to Alabama and a non-flying status.

Patrick, keep trying.

Why you would accept this Colonel Campenni, who has produced no bonafides that he was a national reserve decision-maker, is correct, and bush was entitled to blow off a physical over the word of Reagan defense office Korb is beyond me, but that doesn't make it acceptable. It wasn't Bush's decision.

As for your nice little version of what probably happened, yes, it's entirely possible that's what happened. On the other hand, it would be easier to accept if there were any evidence that Bush was showing up for whatever assignment he "cleared the base" in Texas for, but, in fact, there isn't.

However, i will give you credit for catching the July 31 error I made.

Bottom line: it wasn't Bush's choice to determine to blow off a physical. It wasn't Bush's right to sit there in Alabama and decide that he eventually should get straight with the National Guard rather than dropping everything.

That others may have done it (a fact of which i have no doubt) doesn't make it acceptable, nor does it make Bush's past versions of what he did acceptable. (And bear in mind that no, not all the evidence supports Bush, including the real-time evidence of what the base commanders were saying in Texas....)

Patrick:

Unfortunately, your proposed timeline doesn't match with reality.

Bush applied for the transfer to Alabama in mid-May 1972. He was denied permission two weeks later. The documents are available at the post Brad links to above.

Bush had been informed in no uncertain terms that he would not be allowed to transfer from his highly trained and valuable pilot's duty to a postal unit in Alabama. Yet come July, he skipped his physical. He was then suspended in early August.

He did not reapply for a transfer until early September.

Bush unilaterally decided he was moving to Alabama. There was no reason for him to believe the Guard had given him permission to do so, since it had explicitly denied this permission early in the game.

Ziska: “Ted Kennedy's Presidential aspirations ended at Chappaquiddick.”

The incident at Chappaquiddick occurred in August 1969. Yet Ted Kennedy’s still aspired to the presidency certainly as late as 1980 when he challenged Carter for the presidential nomination. If you recall, he crashed and burned when he was unable to articulate why he wanted to be president in a TV interview.

“No statute of limitations, sorry.”

I don’t think you have read me carefully. It’s not a question of a statute of limitations on personal transgressions; it’s a question of what one considers as relevant in evaluating a candidate. If a candidate has a recent record of job performance as both Kennedy and Bush have, then ancient transgressions don’t seem to be relevant. Recent transgressions yes (say several years), but not 33 years. On the other hand, if you have little or no information about a candidate because he has no record of performance, then even ancient transgressions might weigh in your decision because you have no other evidence. Nevertheless I recognize that many people are not forgiving, and believe that character flaws are immutable, so any serious transgressions in one’s past are disqualifying. In the latter case many other people would unfit to hold their office such as Kennedy.

Issues, you want real issues? How about this?

Bush kills EPA bid to ban MTBE

Associated Press
Feb. 16, 2004 12:00 AM

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration quietly shelved a proposal to ban a gasoline additive that contaminates drinking water in many communities, helping an industry that has donated more than $1 million to Republicans.

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision had its origin in the early days of President Bush's tenure when his administration decided not to move ahead with a Clinton-era regulatory effort to ban the clean-air additive MTBE.

The proposed regulation said the environmental harm of the additive leaching into ground water overshadowed its beneficial effects to the air.

The Bush administration decided to leave the issue to Congress.

The Associated Press obtained a draft of the proposed regulation that former President Clinton's EPA sent to the White House on its last full day in office in January 2001.

Three MTBE producers account for half the additive's daily output.

The three contributed $338,000 to George W. Bush's presidential campaign, the Republican Party and Republican congressional candidates in 1999 and 2000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since then, the three producers have given just over $1 million to Republicans.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0216fuelfight16.html

Again, great job, all.

Nobody is using the particular technical term "AWOL" anymore.

We're slowly climbing the learning curve...

Yes, Pouncer, and if people hadn't used the inaccurate terms "AWOL" and "deserter", the we'd know as little now as we did a month ago. We sure wouldn't have learned anything if we had accepted the Bush story of what happened. Michael Moore succeedsd in getting people's attention.

There's always seemed to be something fishy about Bush's Guard service, and maybe sometime we'll know enough to settle the question. One suspects that Bush would have cleared things up by now if he were able to, though, and you wouldn't have to be working so hard. Don't you guys resent the way he makes you do all the work and doesn't give you any support -- and makes you look like idiots too?

Patrick, the evidence against Bush: he was grounded and missed a physical; there's testimony that his records were purged; several Alabama Guardsmen who should have seen him can't remember seeing him (including a commanding officer); his trip to Alabama in the first place seems to have been unauthorize; one report seems to say that he wasn't where he was supposed to be in order to be evaluated; and he left the service early. And on top of this there is the absence of the normal kind of documentary evidence or testimony which could easily settle the whole question in a minute. And at least one of the three people testifying to his presence in Alabama told a story which was full of holes.

I don't regard the case as settled yet, but that evidence is not nothing. I'd say that the burden of proof is now on those who claim that there were no problems with Bush's service record. (Lots of fuckups get honorable discharges, especially if they have connections).

And incidentally -- no it's not sure what Bush is charged with. This isn't a formal legal case, and what people have been asking is whether there wasn't something fishy about Bush's National Guard career. All of a sudden a lot of Republicans have become jailhouse lawyers and only want to here about the strict letter of legal the definition of AWOL, but in the court of public opinion you don't get to play that game.

Bush is a liar. Or maybe he is just stupid and doesn't remember. Either way, what was so bad about his record that they had to go in and destroy part of it?

So has Patrick ( maybe Pouncer too) finally won this one?
I'm never quite sure whether the effort to keep the ball rolling is deliberate. It has the same effect as those bloggers who tell us "no story here, move along".
Or is it a loss? Patrick finally abandons the battle against the BushHaters...only to resume the fight at the next opportunity and win the war? Obviously I'm addicted to keeping the ball rolling...

" Patrick, the evidence against Bush: he was grounded and missed a physical;"

Not in dispute, but irrelevant, there are two documents in existence, September '72, and May '73 that say he wasn't flying then.

" there's testimony that his records were purged;"

Testimony by a guy with a very checkered career with the Texas Guard. Of the three people who supposedly could verify his story, all three deny it.

" several Alabama Guardsmen who should have seen him can't remember seeing him (including a commanding officer);"

This is the fallacy Ad Ignorantum. And the now elderly CO has withdrawn his claims. I've been on two air force bases in my life, they are big places with lots of buildings. Factor in that different pilots would serve different week-ends and it is not at all surprising that some would not have met a non-flying officer.

" his trip to Alabama in the first place seems to have been unauthorize;"

Not true, he was accepted in May of 72. There is the acceptance itself from the commander of the unit written, iirc, May 26, of 72, and the report from the CO in Texas written in 1973, that he "Cleared this base" May 15, 1972.

Btw, he wouldn't need permission to move to Alabama for civilian employment, only to perform his Guard duty there. If there weren't commercial flights between Montgomery and Houston, he could have rented a plane and flown himself back.

" one report seems to say that he wasn't where he was supposed to be in order to be evaluated;"

That is an out and out falsehood.

" and he left the service early."

Everyone did that, including John F. Kerry. The Vietnam War officially ended in March 1973, and was winding down as early as 1971. Why is this so hard to understand?

" And on top of this there is the absence of the normal kind of documentary evidence or testimony which could easily settle the whole question in a minute."

Again, Ad Ignorantum. And, according to a WaPo story, the records for National Guard service from the '60s-70s are a mess for everyone.

" And at least one of the three people testifying to his presence in Alabama told a story which was full of holes."

Not true.

All I can say about Mr. Neiwert's claims is that he is just as accurate as he is about the October Surprise. And, I'm not surprised.

" Bush applied for the transfer to Alabama in mid-May 1972. He was denied permission two weeks later. The documents are available at the post Brad links to above."

I think I have figured out the source of this misconception. Neiwert appears to be mistakenly taking a reference to Bush's application (or to its acceptance)on the form that disallowed said transfer to be the date of its official rejection.

The documents are hard to read, but it clearly is saying there are two attachments (Atch), one of which is an Air Force Form 1288 of May 24, 1972.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

The date of this document, which would be July 31st, if another poster is correct, cannot be read. But clearly it's not May 24.
Funny that this "rejection" of Bush's first transfer says a copy is being sent to "1st Lt Bush" at the 9921 "Air Reserve Sq" if he wasn't there.

Mr. Sullivan:

You are incorrect. The owner of the Web site, Marty Heldt, says that the date (illegible on the Web, but not in the original) on the HQ refusal to allow his transfer is May 31, 1972.

(See, e.g., this graphical explanation of Bush's service record, drawn from these documents. Quiddity was in contact with Mr. Heldt to confirm these dates, as have I.)

Secondarily, you posted on my site a document (from Marty's site) showing a general recommending approval of the transfer. All well and good -- except that you should know such recommendations do not make the transfers fait accompli. The official word, from May 31 to Sept. 15, was that permission to transfer had been denied. A general's recommend does not overrule that. Nor, I must note, does it in any fashion give Mr. Bush permission to skip his physical.

Finally, you yourself ignore the fact that Bush himself did not get around to re-applying for the transfer until Sept. 5 -- well after he had been suspended from flight duty.

I really recommend you try rereading Walter Robinson's recent piece in the Boston Globe.

Oh dear, it seems that Mr. Neiwert--who was recently lecturing others about not lying brazenly--has just been caught in one. Here's a legible copy of the document (scroll down):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/bushdocs/6-Reassignments_Spilt_Training.pdf

And it is clearly dated in July, not May. And it isn't rejected by the Texas ANG but by an office in Denver. Looks like some apologies are in order, David.

One thing that is crystal clear from the documents: Bush was suspended from flying, for the stated reason that he missed a physical exam. Much of the pro-Bush flailing above is simply trying to obfuscate that simple truth. And then there are a couple questions:

Why did he miss the physical? Did he WANT to be suspended from flying?

The experts say that anyone suspended from flying (and the bombing in 'Nam was still going strong) had to go through the Inquiry Board. So the next question: where's the paper trail?

Brad is right: what is most remarkable about Bush's record is all the stuff that is NOT there, and it sure looks like someone broke federal law in tampering with it. The alternative is that he got massive special treatment.

IMO, the worst accusations here are still kid stuff compared to what we know he has done in office: committed what are, by any reasonable definition, war crimes. And he betrayed the nation by exploiting the events of Sept. 11 for a neocon agenda. But that he is willing to perpetuate or create some false "war hero" image on top of it all just makes me sick.

The UN inspectors were right, and this administration ridiculed them. Scott Ritter was right. The State Dept and Mideast experts were right. Wolfowitz and Perle and Feith were as wrong as possible. The global mess, the destruction of American credibility and standing, the demoralization and abuse of our forces, etc. will take decades to recover from. And there is absolutely no accountability in this administration.

We have to learn from this horror. If this aWol/Nat Guard part of it leads some to learn how PR tricks can buff a sloppy-thinking turd like W into appearing "presidential", then it's worth it.

I still want to know what the Texas Guard branch's "administrative reasons" were for not providing the Guard's national headquarters with an appraisal of Lt. Bush's performance between May 1972 and May 1973. I also want to know why Bill Calhoun felt called upon to lie through his teeth about supposedly seeing Bush in Alabama for five months before, according to Bush's official records, the Guard ordered him to transfer there. There may yet turn out to be no fire behind this large cloud of smoke, but I wouldn't count on it.

And, contrary to A. Zarkov, ancient transgressions -- whether by Bush, Teddy or anybody else -- are obviously relevant, given what they say about a person's character. Particularly if he refuses to admit them or apologize for them. Teddy well deserved his own loss.

Moonmaw: It’s not “obvious.” Many people do not believe character flaws are immutable. Moreover, we only have allegations of ancient transgressions against Bush, so far unproven. Even if that changes, I don’t think it will matter to the voters. It will be the perceived state of economy that determines the election, as it always does.

Obviously character flaws are not always immutable. What's a wee bit more revealing is the refusal of a person to express any remorse over past sins, or even to admit that they exist. As for Bush, it may indeed be that this business makes little difference to the voters. But unless he presents more evidence that he did NOT engage in such cute little shenanigans than he's done (or even tried to do) up to now -- on top of the already-known fact that he energetically dodged the draft himself while having no objections to other boys dying in his place -- suspicions will remain, and should. And they certainly won't do him any good.

And as for the economy: of course it's the biggest factor in deciding an election. But it is not always the only one. If it was, Stevenson would have beaten Eisenhower and Humphrey would have beaten Nixon.

" The experts say that anyone suspended from flying (and the bombing in 'Nam was still going strong) had to go through the Inquiry Board. So the next question: where's the paper trail?"

The experts? David Neiwert is not an expert, he can't even read documents. Look through the documents, there is a record of Bush's suspension from flying dated September 5, 1972. There is another dated (iirc) September 6th authorizing Bush to perform his service in Alabama with Turnipseed's unit. Signed by Bush's CO. If Bush is doing something wrong why does his CO authorize him to be away in Alabama?

And the claim about the "bombing in 'Nam" is baloney, the war was long since "Vietnamized". It was the Vietnamese AF doing the combat. The situation in 1972 was completely different than in 1968 when Bush enlisted, there was a glut of pilots in '72. Most of them had returned to the U.S.

" he energetically dodged the draft"

By enlisting for training in a combat position (i.e. fighter pilot). The unit he joined did have pilots in Vietnam when Bush joined up.

David Neiwert claims, in the article to which Prof. DeLong has linked, that Bush moved to Alabama without consulting his superiors in the Texas ANG. Here is proof that that is incorrect, from Bush's Annual Report, and dated May 26, 1972:

"Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Neiwert's story is the one with a huge hole in it.

Me: " he energetically dodged the draft"

Sullivan: "By enlisting for training in a combat position (i.e. fighter pilot). The unit he joined did have pilots in Vietnam when Bush joined up."

Please, Patrick. Bush himself stated in a 1990 interview that he joined the Guard because he "didn't want to avoid the war by shooting a hole in my ear." If he wanted to place himself at risk of becoming a combat pilot, why the hell didn't he join the Air Force? And Ben Barnes -- then Lt. Gov., and the state's leading political fixer -- was famous for arranging for the sons of prominent Texas pols (including not only George Jr., but Lloyd Bentsen's son) to join the Guard as a way of avoiding the draft while retaining a fig leaf of fake military responsibility. Your continuing attempts to keep that fig leaf pasted to Bush's groin are getting ludicrous.

From this week's "Newsweek":

"A throwback, good-time frat brother, young Bush had little use for the antiwar movement. On the other hand, he didn't want to go to Vietnam. Draft deferments for graduate school were ending that spring of 1968. The Texas Air National Guard offered another way. 'I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada,' Bush explained to The Dallas Morning News back in 1990. 'So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.' "

Well, he certainly bettered himself. I do hope, though, that Patrick doesn't serve us any more crap about young George deliberately putting himself in harm's way.

Bruce Moomaw is quoting statements wildly out of context. Bush said he would go to Vietnam if ordered, even inquiring about joining a group that had F-102s in Vietnam (he didn't have enough experience). You guys really must think Bush IS stupid, if you think a good way to avoid combat is to train yourself to be a highly skilled fighter pilot (they have weapons on them you know).

In 1968 LBJ had recently escalated the war, there was no guarantee he wouldn't have done it again. And another of Bush's colleagues from his ANG unit has confirmed there were several accidents while Bush was flying there, with at least one fatality.

Bush's duty was dangerous. When I visited an AF base in Del Rio Texas in early 1972 the trainee pilots I met told me a story about the base losing three T-38 jet trainers in one day shortly before I got there.

But don't start confusing yourself with the facts at this late date.

" If he wanted to place himself at risk of becoming a combat pilot, why the hell didn't he join the Air Force?"

You are clueless. It didn't work that way. If he wanted to be a fighter pilot the Texas ANG would have been his best shot. Had he joined the regular Air Force, Bush might have ended up flying cargo. Your assignment depended on where you ranked in your training squadron.

Besides those AF slots weren't that easy to get, since they were the pipeline to a lucrative post-AF career with the commercial airlines. Back then a pilot for Pan Am or United made more money than an open-heart surgeon.

David Neiwert has now conceded he had the facts wrong. Though he is in denial about the implications. Here is an old WaPo story from November 2000 that further destroys his entire post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4291-2000Nov2¬Found=true

--------quote---------
Two high-profile surrogates for Vice President Gore, in an 11th-hour attempt to exploit a dormant issue, yesterday castigated George W. Bush over allegations that he did not fulfill some of his National Guard duties in the 1970s.
[snip]

Bush had been notified that he needed to take his annual flying physical by his 26th birthday in July 1972, but the move to Alabama made that unnecessary. He had been trained to fly F-102 fighter-interceptors, and none of the units in Alabama had those planes. He could have taken the physical to preserve his pilot's status but chose not to do so. "Because he wasn't flying," Bartlett said.

On Aug. 1, 1972, Bush's commander in Houston, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, ordered him grounded for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Some critics say this should have triggered a formal board of inquiry, but Hodges said in an interview that this was unnecessary because Bush accepted the penalty and knew "he couldn't fly again until he takes a physical."

"It happens all the time," Hodges said of the grounding. "That is normal when a Guardsman is out of state or out of the country."
--------endquote-------