Democratic Chief Says 'AWOL' Bush Will Be an Issue After a Nominee Emerges

OSEVILLE, Mich., Feb. 1 — With the Democratic presidential candidates campaigning across the country on Sunday, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee accused President Bush of being AWOL during his Air National Guard service, a signal of the ferocious campaign ahead once the Democrats finish with one another.

Revisiting an issue that arose briefly at the end of the last presidential election, the chairman, Terry McAuliffe, said he expected Mr. Bush's record of military service in the 1970's to become an issue this fall, particularly if the Democrats nominate the front-runner, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Mr. McAuliffe said he was staying neutral in the fight for his party's nomination. But, he said, if Mr. Kerry is the nominee, Mr. McAuliffe will relish comparing him with Mr. Bush.

"I look forward to that debate, when John Kerry, a war hero with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL" in the National Guard, Mr. McAuliffe said on the ABC program "This Week."

"George Bush never served in our military in our country," he said. "He didn't show up when he should have showed up."

Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the comments "slanderous."

"President Bush served honorably in the National Guard," Mr. Gillespie said in a telephone interview. "He was never AWOL. To make an accusation like that on national television with no basis in fact is despicable."

The issue of Mr. Bush's military service arose when the filmmaker Michael Moore, a supporter of Gen. Wesley K. Clark, called Mr. Bush a deserter at a rally last month.

Mr. McAuliffe's attack on Mr. Bush seemed partly pre-emptive, suggesting that the Democrats would swing back hard if the Republicans tried to portray Mr. Kerry, decorated for his service in Vietnam, as weak on national security because in his Senate career he has voted against increasing the Pentagon budget.

It might also have been a diversionary tactic by Mr. McAuliffe, who has watched with dismay as the Democratic candidates deliver increasingly harsh blows at one another. If that was the case, it failed.

Howard Dean continued to blast Mr. Kerry on Sunday, saying Mr. Kerry had taken more money from lobbyists than any other senator in the last 15 years. Citing an article in Time magazine that said Mr. Kerry once corresponded with Johnny Chung, who later pleaded guilty to illegally funneling money to the Kerry campaign, Dr. Dean said Mr. Kerry owed voters an apology.

"He misrepresented himself, grossly misrepresented himself, as a candidate who would take on special interests in Washington," Dr. Dean told reporters on his campaign plane. "We cannot go on in this country having United States senators and public officials gather their money from people who they then perform favors for."

Mr. Kerry told reporters that the Chung story was old news. "The moment we had learned anything about that contribution," he said, "we returned the entire contribution."

On Saturday Mr. Kerry fired back, saying that Dr. Dean had conflicts of his own and had had to seal his records from his days as governor of Vermont to hide them. He also said that two of Dr. Dean's top campaign aides had been corporate lobbyists.

But Mr. Kerry generally held his fire on Sunday, staying in Fargo, N.D., and taking the posture of a front-runner as he anticipated a strong showing in Tuesday's string of primaries and caucuses. He also spurned the idea of a one-on-one debate with Dr. Dean, which he proposed before he won in Iowa and in New Hampshire.

"We're in a seven-state primary," Mr. Kerry said. "I don't have time right now."

Dr. Dean, who has said he does not expect to win in any of the seven states that hold contests on Tuesday, said he would drop out of the race if someone else accumulated enough delegates to claim the nomination. But he also told reporters that he did not expect anyone to do that before the convention.

He said on the NBC program "Meet the Press" that he intended to stay in the race through March 2, "Super Tuesday," when delegate-rich states like California and New York vote.

Mr. Kerry appeared to be running out the clock. Instead of charging off on Sunday to a populous state with more delegates than North Dakota, he stayed in Fargo to watch the Super Bowl.

Speaking to a crowd of about 600 North Dakotans at the Fargo Air Museum at midday Sunday, Mr. Kerry repeated his standard stump speech. He did not back off from his sharp criticisms of the Bush administration as being hostage to special interests, even in the face of continued sharp attacks from Dr. Dean.

All I found so far:

From this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/745140/posts

From the New York Times, November 3, 2000:
On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery "for the months of September, October and November."

Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred, but more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter.

Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May.

The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10.

Another document showed that Mr. Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time questioned by The Globe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/03/politics/03GUAR.html

From this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/907148/posts

Good response to this nonsense from realclearpolitics.com
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html#5_7_03_0726

BUSH'S MILITARY RECORD: I should have nailed Krugman on it yesterday but Andrew Sullivan does the job this morning. I wrote a piece on this subject nearly two years ago, specifically detailing Bob Kerrey's involvement in pushing AWOL accusations against Bush. I suggest you read the entire piece, of course, but here is a brief chronological summary:

May 2000: The Boston Globe prints a story about George W. Bush's "missing year" in the Texas Air National Guard. Bush issues brief statement rebutting the charges.

Late September 2000: TomPaine.com prints column from an Iowa farmer attacking Bush's military record.

Early October 2000: Paul Begala brings up questions about Bush's service record on Meet the Press saying, "He never showed up for an entire year. Bush tells us to our face he’ll restore honor and integrity to that Oval Office when I believe he’s not telling the truth that he never, in fact, reported to the National Guard in Alabama."

October 31, 2000: The Boston Globe prints a reprise of its original accusations under the title "Questions remain on Bush's service as guard pilot." Senator Bob Kerrey calls The Globe and gives an unsolicited interview charging that Bush went "AWOL." The charges make national headlines.

November 3, 2000: The Friday before the election, Kerrey holds press conference with fellow Senator and Medal of Honor recipient Daniel Inouye and calls on Bush to make all of his military records public. Later that day The New York Times prints a review of Bush's military records saying that the claims are "unfounded."

November 5, 2000: Two days before the election Kerrey appears on Meet the Press and is questioned as to whether his attacks on Bush's military record are "way out of bounds." Kerrey replies, "They're not way out of bounds. Certainly, if -- I mean, if I'd gone over the line and implied that he didn't serve honorably, I apologize. He did serve honorably. But I don't think he understands that when you come forward and represent your military service, you've got to represent it right, and he didn't."

The point of my article, written in May 2001, was to highlight Kerrey's hypocrisy in light of his admissions about his service in Vietnam and his willingness to leverage his status as a war hero against Bush for partisan political gain in the 200 election.

But as you can see, questions about Bush's military record - which liberals like Krugman now accept as absolute fact - all stem from a single article printed in The Boston Globe nearly six months before the election. Not coincidentally, these charges were then recycled right before the election by Gore operatives like Begala and prominent Democrats like Senator Kerrey.

Now, I suppose you can believe original The Globe story is accurate and then ignore the fact that not one single news organization followed up and substantiated the charges over the next several months - despite being in the middle of a heated Presidential campaign.

And I suppose you could also believe that the only indisputable fact about the entire affair - that George W. Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard - was just part of a cover up orchestrated by Poppy and the U.S. military. It's your right to believe this stuff, it's just not supported by any real evidence. - T. Bevan 7:26 am

39 posted on 05/07/2003 11:01:32 AM EDT by votelife

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.