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.
Things are not as they seem.
Who nominated him for the Silver Star? Who were the witnesses? How could they see anything if he "beached" his boat and disappeared chasing a wounded VC? Weren't those still in the "beached" boat sitting ducks while Audie Murphy-wannabe Lurch, if he did in fact chase the wounded VC, was out running around? What were the extent of his Purple Heart Injuries? How are these awarded -- by the wounded showing his superior a paper cut?
He's in combat two months, gets "wounded" three times, wins the Silver Star, requests to be relieved because of his "injuries," goes to a cushy job, smells the political air, then immediately starts protesting against his country. Bullshit. It's too neat. It's too choreographed. A rich guy stuffed his resume, that's all. And we need to prove it.
Where are all his boat-mates? We're a "me, me, me" society now. Why aren't the "witnesses" to his heroism posing for book deals? Or at the very least appearing with Hitlery's press agent, Katie Couric, on the Today Show?
A punk doesn't change his ways. Lurch is a punk now . . . Lurch was a punk yesterday . . . and Lurch was a punk in the 60's. I don't believe his war record for one second.
GW dumped all his records on the table . . . isn't it only fair that Lurch do the same thing?
Wow, I wrote my post before seeing yours. I think I like the "politically motivated" adjective even better than "left wing" witch hunt. We need to start doing this.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contempt prior to investigation." Spencer
Nothing could possibly satisfy these hyenas, since the purpose of the exercise is to keep up the attack and have the victim waste time and energy on a defense. Truth is an inconvenient obstacle, nothing more. Further, the "story" keeps focus away from other things, like the self-destruction of the dimwits' candidates and their all-too real scandals.
Bush's biggest mistake was not to tell them collectively to "go pound sand" and refuse further discussion. It would then become a non-story.
Why Bush and many of us fueled the attack by giving it credence is beyond me. Other than expressing puzzlement at the goings on, I refuse to play.
As we Republican's learned the hard way when we tried to inflate every bad story we could find about Clinton it got to the point that even when there was real wrong doing, the public just quit listening.
Remember, the members of this forum don't reflect the views of all Americans. We are self selected, and by definition, are more interested in polictics then the average voter (or why would we be spending our Saturday mornings reading a news forum).
We wanted Bill Clinton defeated, and we "believed" and repeated every bad bit of news we could find on him.
Did it do any good? No, he was re-elected. By stressing every trivial event in Clinton's past, when real crimes were brought forward, Hillary could say it was just another lie from the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. We did it to ourself.
The Democrats have fallen into the same trap we did, inflating every bit of bad news, and twisting every bit of good news. Well you know what? The average voters (the ones comfortable in the middle) did not care about the negative stories concerning Clinton, and they will not care about these negative stories about President Bush.
I think President Bush is showing just the right amount of response to these current alligations. Heavy sigh, roll eyes up in the head, and say ok, if you want to look, look and then dump hundreds of pages of documents that will not satisfy his enemies, but will the nebulus middle ground.
The AWOL story is a tar baby (can we still say that) for the Democrats. I say let them investigate all they want.
Those who crucified Jesus were Democrats, there just wasn't a Democratic Party then. :^)
Disagree. They're too partisan to give a rats heinie about whats said about him. They want to see the total destruction of Bush. These documents are just a temporary roadblock for them. Come Monday, they'll be spinning the truth after they pretend to spin their heads. The media is so predictable, I don't know why people are surprised anymore.
Agreed. The only ones who won't let this go will be the wacko fringe left Democrats and their Liberal biased media.
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.