Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Democrats not swayed by Bush documents
AP | 2/14/04 | JENNIFER LOVEN

Posted on 02/13/2004 11:50:41 PM PST by kattracks

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hundreds of pages of documents that the White House said comprise President Bush's entire military record offer no new answers to the election-year questions that have swirled around his Vietnam-era service.

Democrats who have led the criticism greeted Friday's release of documents with skepticism.

"Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong. "It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."

The White House distributed the two-inch stack of papers, and allowed reporters a brief look through another several dozen pages of medical records that were not allowed out of a briefing room, in yet another effort to quiet a political storm that has showed no sign of abating.

Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973, much of the time as a pilot, but never went to Vietnam or flew in combat.

His military record has been an issue in his campaigns as far back as 1994. It was revived this year by Democrats who see an opportunity to puncture Bush's popularity on national security issues and whose front-runner to challenge the president for re-election is decorated Vietnam War veteran John Kerry.

The criticism, which Kerry himself has stayed relatively clear of while not quieting others in his party, centers around the year between roughly May 1972 and May 1973 for which there are few records.

Bush had asked to be able to transfer temporarily from the Texas Guard to an Alabama base during that time so he could work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. Reports differ on how long he was actually in Alabama, but it's generally believed that he returned to his Texas unit after the November 1972 election.

Democrats questioning whether Bush ever showed up for duty in Alabama have called on him to publicize his entire file to put the matter to rest. Though the president promised to do so in an interview last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the White House appeared reluctant until the mass document release late Friday.

"Our understanding is that this is the entire file," presidential press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The record documents that the accusations by some are false."

Many pages in the pile of military records were duplicates, as they came from different repositories.

They show Bush getting a glowing recommendation for promotion to 1st lieutenant — which he received on Nov. 7, 1970 — and exemplary performance evaluations from his commanders at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston.

"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.

But the records provided no evidence Bush served in Alabama.

Bush requested the transfer on Sept. 5, 1972. It was granted on Sept. 11 and he was told to report for duty to the 187th TAC Recon Group at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery, Ala.

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."

But there was no documentation from the Alabama side. Several members of the Alabama unit that Bush was assigned to have told The Associated Press that they couldn't recall ever seeing him, while one retired Alabama Guard officer said he remembers Bush showing up for duty.

Earlier this week, the White House for the first time released payroll records it said proved Bush served in Alabama.

Those records, which were not included in the documents released Friday, showed Bush was paid for 25 days of service during the one-year period in question — most of them in 1973. He was not paid for any service during a more than five-month period in 1972, from April 17 to Oct. 27.

He was paid for two days in late October of that year, four days in mid-November and no days in December. They do not say what Bush did to receive pay or where he did it.

In what aides said was further proof, the White House also has distributed a copy of a dental exam Bush received at the Alabama base on Jan. 6, 1973.

The documents released Friday also showed that Bush lost his status as a Guard pilot because of his failure to have the required annual medical exam. White House communications director Dan Bartlett said Bush went on non-flying status because of his move to Alabama and thus had "no need or reason" to take the physical.



TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: awol; bush; jerrykillian; militaryrecord; nationalguard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: concerned about politics
"The American people don't care about this. It was 35 years ago. It's boring. They don't care about Kerry and Nam , either. It too was 35 years ago."

I respectfully disagree. This is exactly what many of us laughed at when Harold Ford Jr. said he would stop talking about W's reserve career if Pubbies stopped talking about Kerry's post-Vietnam actions.

What happened 35 years ago is relevant but always should be put in context. W was in the Texas guard until he transferred to Alabama. Whether he missed some weekends or not, he made the time up. If he did indeed miss some weekends due to helping in a campaign then that is a strike but one that was absolved by his completion of made-up time and sanctified by the military with an honorable discharge. If somehow W would have been called up he sure would have shown up. As far as people not remembering him, W was a congressman's son at the time and if he was (surely) as humble as he is now then it would be no surprise that he didn't offer unsolicited facts about his pedigree.

Kerry is another matter. He served, got wounded three times, returned after 6 months, and jumped opportunisticly on the anti-war bandwagon. In front of Congress he enumerated what he called war crimes with his infamous one-line juggernaut of rape, pillaging etc. Asked to prove his claims he answered that he didn't see them himself but then at the same time said that, yeah, he had been involved in free-fire zones. He backed his claims with some real and fictitous veterans, made a mockumentary with Jane Fonda, wrote a now hard-to-find book, The New Soldier, threw someone else's medals over the Whitehouse fence, made speeches with marxist sympathizers, slept in a Georgetown townhouse while his compatriots slept on the Washington Mall. Kerry has not yet disavowed people like Max Cleland who stated that we should return to where the Commander-In-Chief should only be someone that has served in the military and combat, a new standard conveniently required after 8 years of Clinton occupation where the Slickster had lied about entering ROTC after getting a deferment, protested on foreign soil in Russia of all places, and offered in letters to his military string-puller that he "loathes the military" and that he didn't fullfill his ROTC obligation after receiving a high draft number because he needed to be "politically viable." (sorry about the runon)

No no - the two must be compared and compared day after day after day. W can prove he has the knowhow to run two successful wars - Kerry can only claim that he would be a better CIC - until he hands over control to the UN, finally fullfilling his internationalist-first statements made in the Harvard Crimson in 1970.
21 posted on 02/14/2004 12:49:31 AM PST by torchthemummy (Great Liars Need To Have Great Memories)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is the Top Story on Yahho News. If there was ever an argument about how idiotic goofs rise to the peak of "journalism" in today's world--this is it.

Congrats Jennifer.

22 posted on 02/14/2004 1:28:16 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
***The Hard & Fast Facts The Democrats & Media STILL Don't Understand***

1. Americans are glad Saddam is gone and his rotten kids are dead.

We're glad GWB had the balls Clinton didn't have, and we're glad that GWB gave us the reason, or even just the cover, to go kick his ass out of power...3000 Americans were killed by these bastards and Saddam was happy about it and WOULD have helped if he didn't.

This bastard was paying suicide bombers...Americans don't give a damn whether we ever find those WMD, we wanted his head and we got it.

That's why Libya came across and the others will too....they know that GWB means what he says and if they don't we're coming after them, next. You betcha.

The UN and the rest of the world knows GWB and America means what it says, this ain't the clinton's any more....

2. Kerry will never be elected President.

Americans have a deep sense of fairness, and even those of us who didn't go to Viet Nam, knew that our friends that did, didn't want to go, and those of us MEN, who were subjected to the draft, (and you women can just stay out of this...it's like having a baby....that's yours, the draft is ours) felt deep inside for the friends we lost, and that POS Kerry joining Hanoi Jane, (a woman not subjected to the draft, and a traitor) was a betrayal, and we are never going to forgive him for his testmony against the soldiers who were fighting....we protesetd the war, not those who were FORCED, OFTEN against their will, to go fight it.......

So you liberals in the press and the PC democrats can whistle any tune or tell any lie you want.....We're with GWB and that's the way it is.

23 posted on 02/14/2004 1:33:48 AM PST by The Wizard (democrats: enemies of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Jennifer Loven is one of many journalists that besmirch the reputation of the press. The media is the most dominant non-governmental institution in a democracy and there are no checks on its power. It is an abomination and we tolerate it so long as they hide behind the mantra of "free speech".
24 posted on 02/14/2004 2:04:16 AM PST by jagrmeister (I'm not a conservative. I don't seek to conserve, I seek to reform.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: torchthemummy
He served, got wounded three times,...

That's debatable. Is a wound a wound if it doesn't even cause a soldier to miss duty? By Kerry's definition of wounded, I should have 20 purple hearts if they gave them out like that in the workplace.

25 posted on 02/14/2004 2:11:26 AM PST by #3Fan (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1073931/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary
POTUS himself, not to mention ALL his surrogates, HAS said exactly that. On the Russert interview, GWB said this was just politics he was used to it.

This story has been around for his 2 capmpaigns as Governor of Texas and was brought up in 2000.

Kerry's lifestyle stories have been around for 6 years or so.

26 posted on 02/14/2004 5:35:40 AM PST by reformedliberal (3rd parties: just say NO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
Shocking they aren't swayed. < /sarcasm >

27 posted on 02/14/2004 5:38:25 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (The Democrats believe in CHOICE. I have choosen to vote STRAIGHT TICKET GOP for years !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
What do you expect? What an idiotic article. Why don't they write an article on whether this has swayed Republicans? To think the AP would even go to the energy of writing this is ludicrous.
28 posted on 02/14/2004 5:41:17 AM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: torchthemummy
In addition, if Kerry really witnessed these atrocities, why didn't he report it while in on active duty?
30 posted on 02/14/2004 5:44:29 AM PST by Alissa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong.

"Some people are only alive because it is illegal to shoot them." [Anon.]

31 posted on 02/14/2004 5:45:33 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Let them nitpick...they're digging themselves a bigger hole by doing so.

Bingo! The DemonRats and presstitutes will be deep in that hole when the next victory in the War on Terror is announced.

32 posted on 02/14/2004 6:03:56 AM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I believe if Jesus Christ came back and stood on the
steps of the WhiteHouse and declared the Truth that
President Bush did anything--the Democrats would walk out
in protest -and stage their own news conference across
the street in order to protect their base.
33 posted on 02/14/2004 6:14:08 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
who really gives a rats ass what democrats think!they're never happy anyhow!
34 posted on 02/14/2004 6:46:50 AM PST by fatal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
"It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."

In other words, until our polling shows this has begun to backfire on us.
35 posted on 02/14/2004 6:48:43 AM PST by Let's Roll ("First, we kill all the lawyers" - Henry VI, Part II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Democrats not swayed by Bush documents

In other words, "Democrats not swayed by reality." Something we've all known for a long time.
36 posted on 02/14/2004 6:52:31 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Everyone has to remember that Kerry being the Lt in charge with no superior officer witnessing the event, wrote his own after action report....a little embellishment maybe?
37 posted on 02/14/2004 6:56:46 AM PST by mystery-ak (*terrorism has been exaggerated*....Kerry....We must defeat him, our lives depend on it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Yawn.
38 posted on 02/14/2004 6:57:50 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper
"Each revelation of material from the Bush White House has raised more questions than it has answered," said Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Debra DeShong. "It remains to be seen if these newest documents will provide any answers."

I hope the White House will stop releasing material and move along now. The Dems don't want to be convinced, so they won't be, but every release of documents is an opportunity to ask more questions, and keep the idea that President Bush received preferential treatment in the news.


39 posted on 02/14/2004 7:03:16 AM PST by Amelia (Pop-culture impaired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
I have an idea. We should start calling this a "left-wing witch hunt."
40 posted on 02/14/2004 7:17:21 AM PST by NYCVirago
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson