Awol Bush
 

W is releasing is payroll stubs, etc. Here is an article on this.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ary/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Hoping to quell election-year questions from Democrats about President Bush's Air National Guard service in the 1970s, the White House said it will release payroll records Tuesday that will show he fulfilled his obligations.
_________________________________________________

This is good for W, but why can't the NG find the records at the time?

Re: Awol Bush
 

Quite the turnaround from yesterday when the White House said they didn't exist. Where's his WD form is what I want to know? Every person gets one with their discharge and it lists *everything* that they ever did while servicing.

His answers about his being AWOL on MTP were ridiculous. he flip-flopped constantly.

According to this article, the records center in Colorado found his payroll records after the MTP interview. Interestingly, I tend to believe them because if they had been available I think someone would have found them by now. I mean this was an issue in the 2000 election. Also, I think this psrt of this issue is dead as the NG would never have given him an honorable discharge if he had not ever shown up for duty. But, we shall see as this unfolds, which it is apprently currently doing in W's favor is these payroll stub say what he says they say.

Having said that, it still does not obviate my disgust at his making an arrangement with the NG for getting released eight months early so he could go to business school. As Max Cleland said last night, "don't you think everybody in combat and being killed or wounded in Nam would have like to make an arrangement with the govt. to come home eight months early?" :mad:

Also, I did not get a flip flop on his AWOL anwers. He said, the records have been sought since 1994 and cannot be found. But, he was there and would not have been honorably discharged if he had not :shrug:

another article
 

He said "all the records" were in Colorado, then he turned around and said there might be no proof or records, but he did show up. :rolleyes:

I think what he was talking about was that the central location of the records is in Colorado and any records would be there. He then said that all of the records that could be found had been found. Then today, that records location found more records that appear to support W's story that he was there. So, as of now, this part of this issue appears to be dead on the water. I mean if these records and the other available records support W's story, what is the chance the missing ones do not support his story? If the D's were smart, they would concentrate on W's eight month early discharge if at all on this issue IMO.

The report on the Washington Post website said that the proof they were supplied with had the name torn off the top and the social security number blacked out. By the White House Press Secretary's own admission, there are gaps in his service record. Why the gaps were there-the White House spokesperson wouldn't say. And why is it so strange that he could get an honorable discharge? Wasn't his dad head of the CIA during this time period? At the very least, he was the grandson of a former Senator, and the son of a very powerful & influential Republican during a Republican administration. Don't tell me that those kind of connections don't allow you to pull a few strings and skip a few days, weeks, and months of Air National Guard training.

So he pulled strings. If that is the case only fiercely loyal people pulled the strings? I mean certainly someone somewhere would take the money I am sure is out there to spill the beans (think National Enquirer). So, no, I do not think it is possible for a high profile senator's son to completely ignore his entire tour of duty during a controversial time and then get an honorable discharge, esp. when the pay stubs and other evidence in these articles clearly indicate W did not. So, I conclude that although the issue is not beaten to death yet, it is looking more and more like this dog won't hunt :cool: Moreover, if W proves he was there, we should be happy he completed his tour of duty shouldn't we? Or is that too big and bitter a pill to swallow? :laugh:

He hasn't proved it yet; he's only succeeded to shoot himself in the foot.

By providing more evidence that he was actually there :shrug:

You're joking about the National Enquirer right? You do know it's owned by a right-wing leaning publishing group? Have you never put together why there are so many negative Clinton stories in the tabloids? Trust me, they aren't going to be the one's to find the smoking gun on this story--but from the behavior of the press corps today during the White House Press Briefing, I'd say that there's blood in the water and the sharks are circling. I think they're motivated enough now to start asking the hard questions and demanding concrete evidence-something this administration has no record of every providing and isn't used to being asked to produce from our press. About damn time!

Yes - I was joking about the NE. But, certainly even they would publish this breaking story. I mean they are in business to make money :laugh:

But still, certainly people who hate Bush (Larry Flynt, the moveon.org guy, and every newsperson looking to make a name, would kill to have this information and people often do sell information. Interstingly, people often refuse to sell it and go to jail concealing it a la that McDougal lady in the Clinton Whitewater scandal.

In any event, yes, the WH is srambling, so far successfully. But, if there is a smoking gun out there to be had, it will be found. The press has too much at interestest to just let it slip by.

Note: I am not defending W and saying he was a model person in the NG, I am just saying the evidence is stacking up on his side at the moment and without concrete evidence to refute this, W will win this argument/issue.

Based on the stuff he's provided so far, nothing backs up his cliam that he was there. The payroll papers that were released had no mention of George Walker Bush. ;)

On the contrary go to http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021004_bushmil.pdf and look at the pdf of the actual records. They say Lt. George Bush :shrug:

Touche!

I read an article that said, like DeeGe said, they were all blacked out.

Still, he's going to have to do more to prove he was there; a pay stub ain't swaying this mind. I want records, WD forms, and an answer as to why he didn't get his mandated physical (probably due to his abuse of alcohol and cocaine).

I agree more should be provided and even if he was not AWOL in AL, which all available evidence now indicates he was not, I want to know how he got out like 8 months early to go to school. Again, I am sure the people in Nam would have liked to have left eight months early to go to school. I do not know whether the NG had some sort fo program that allowed this early departure. Apparently, they must have or I think that would be the big issue being hit.

Finally, I do not think W was an alcoholic or drug addict in 1972 and 1973. He indicated he problems with coke later than that if memory servesd me correctly, which it may not in this case :cool:

Oops!! :laugh:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

Re: Awol Bush
 

The records are from Texas, not Alabama, which is the time in question. He seems to have virtually vanished form the face of the earth for that time.

Re: Re: Awol Bush
 

I am unclear regarding the time period at issue. W was in AL in 1972 and 1973 correct? If so, I think the records in that pdf file indicate he was paid for working during that time period. I could be wrong, however.

From
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html

"The documents indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that has been cited by Democrats as evidence that Bush shirked his military responsibilities."

Then:

A memo written by retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd Jr., at the request of the White House, said a review of Bush's records showed that he had "satisfactory years" for the period of 1972-73 and 1973-74, "which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner."

Lloyd was personnel director for the Texas Air National Guard (search) from 1969 to 1995 and also had reviewed Bush's military records at the request of his campaign four years ago.

Asked why the White House had not publicly brought forward any comrades who had served during the period with Bush, McClellan said, "Obviously we would have made people available," then pointed to Lloyd's statement.
________________________________

I agree something fishey appears to have transpired, but without evidence to refute this evidence I think few will give the fishiness any merit.

Actually today's little misinformation conference only provided his pay records from Texas not Alabama. McLellan had no answer for the time question for Alabama.
Here is some interesting info on the torn document.

Check this out:

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html

Then that statement he made about doing no drugs since '74 is a lie.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by strandinthewind
[B
"The documents indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that has been cited by Democrats as evidence that Bush shirked his military responsibilities."

QUOTE]

Nine days? One weekend of Guard service = 4 days. They pretty much confirmed today that he was AWOL. I haven't watched the news yet but obviously it's not being spun that way.

I know, I found that number rather amusing. Nine days in an entire period of a year? It ain't passing the smell test.

Thanks much for that article; it raises a lot of red flags.

First, it confirms that Bush was arrested not once, but twice for drunk driving; once in '72 and once in '78.

Second, it all but confirms that Bush used cocaine (and y'all said I was a lunatic! Eat your words!).

Third, the Bush admin knew it would come up eventually, as evidenced in the exchange with McClellan.

Weird, to say the least.

If anybody had come forward to say that they served with Bush in 'Bama, then that's all we'd be hearing about. Kerry's guys are out with him everywhere. You don't think * would do the same thing if he could?

Of course he was. That's why he got a new drivers license. There are no driving records for * in the state of Texas prior to his presidential run. They were deleted.
He had the look of a man that spent way too many years partying on MTP. He looked like hell. I'm highly suspicious of his sobriety now.

The Shrub camp is opening the can of worms by starting this. They're in for a trip through hell.

I agree. They're desperate. It's a good sign.

Once again, I say something smells very very fishy, esp. since W's govt. records (driving, military service, etc.) keep disappearing. Hopefully, his military records (all of them) will come to light. Until then, I reserve judgement on the AWOL issue. Having said that, even if he was not AWOL, how did he convince the military to let him out eight months early? I still say that unless the NG has a system for this, therein is the big issue.

If your father is a congressman, director of the CIA and Chairman of the RNC, then I'm thinking some strings can be pulled.:laugh:

I agree - but surely there would be some direct evidence of the string pulling :shrug: There always is.

This whole thread has given me a good chuckle...:laugh:

Thanks guys!

Rob:cool:

But the same records also show that Bush may not have met the minimum-service requirement expected of most Guard members, according to National Guard officials. And after releasing the records, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, could not explain why, if Bush appeared for duty on the days listed in the documents, Bush's superiors wrote on May 2, 1973, that he had not been seen at his Houston air base for the previous 12 months. Boston Globe-Feb. 11th, 2004

You can read the entire article here:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/02/11/white_house_releases_bushs_guard_records/[/url]

The plot does continue to thicken. . . .

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4230576/

Here is a great article from MSNBC. It contains a timeline of W's service in the NG.

Interestingly, that Boston article contains quotes that indicate although the people thought W could have and should have done more time, they substantiate W's claim that he had enough time to fulfill what was required :shrug:

It should. Your guy's a joke.:)

:laugh: And a ****ty one at that.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Do you believe President Bush has adequately answered questions about his service in the National Guard ?

Yes 6% 578 votes

No 94% 8836 votes

Putting on my best Strandie hat:

"I cry foul. It was mostly liberal Democrats who voted in that poll. While I contend that he has many questions to answer about his service, I will not say he was AWOL. I'm too much of an optimistic believer. He used crack cocaine and drove drunk, but that's moot point. I'll be right back, I have to go register Republican."

:laugh: Just joking, doll. :laugh: :wavey: