Posted on 09/08/2004 12:57:31 AM PDT by jaycost
**** GLOBE:...Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.
REBUTTAL: What exactly were these training commitments? First of all, Byron York indicates that they were on a May-to-May basis. Bush joined the guard in May, 1968 -- and the obligation was that every twelve subsequent months Bush had to accrue a certain number of "points" to remain in good status with the guard. So, for instance, he had to log a certain amount of time from May, 1968 to May, 1969. Remember this point. This is the major way the Globe skews the facts.
**** GLOBE: Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.
REBUTTAL: This is totally irrelevant. The relevant point is how much service Bush earned in a one year -- May to May -- period. Guardsmen are awarded points for service, with a minimum 12-month requisite of 50 points. Here is how Bush's points break down: May, 1968 to May, 1969: 253 points May, 1969 to May, 1970: 340 points May, 1970 to May, 1971: 137 points May, 1971 to May, 1972: 112 points May, 1972 to May, 1973: 56 points. You can take six months here and three months there, point out correctly that Bush was not there, and still not even be within a mile of a legitimate or relevant point. This essentially destroys the whole of the Globe's argument. It does not matter if Bush was not around for six months. His obligation was for fifty points in a twelve month period. One of the key features of guard service is its flexibility. I mean, they let him go to Alabama to campaign for a politician, for goodness sake. They were flexible. That is one of their many appeals.
This being the case:
Could someone consider getting this much to Rush?
Could some one w connections get this to the WH press secretary and the RNC since it is more cogent and competent than they are likely to do themselves.
Great to have you on board FR! Thanks for the fine point by point Globular rebuttal.
Great Job. You pointed out that the calender year for Bush was MAY TO MAY.
ping
The Globe and NY Times aren't aware there is a world west of NYC.
As Jackie Gleason used to say: "Oh How Sweet it IS!"
May 1st, 1971 thru April 30th, 1972 would be a fiscal year. The next fiscal year (using that same fiscal year) would begin on May 1st, 1972 & end April 30th, 1972.
The Globe claims to have gone by the regs in place at the time covered, yet they've come to a different conclusion than you did. From just about everything I've seen come out of them, I'd trust your eval more than theirs.
Actually the term "fiscal" refers specifically to money. Thus "fiscal year" is a year defined for accounting purposes.It would be bending the literal definition a bit, but I suppose you could style the May 1 - April 30 period which is according to the article the germane definition of "year" for TANG purposes a "fiscal year."
That would not necessarily be deceptive - provided that you are clear that you are using the term in a generalized sense to refer to the specific 365 day interval germane to Bush's service in the TANG. The Globe however intentionally conflated that kinda "fiscal" year with the specific fiscal year for Federal budgetary accounting which I believe runs from one September to the next, annually.
The Globe is not clear about which starting, ending dates they used. Course, they're pikers & more interested in generating buzz, than reporting real news.
Let's bump this one too.
Oh THANK YOU!! I missed the York piece and you have made this whole nonissue perfectly clear!
Oh THANK YOU!! I missed the York piece and you have made this whole nonissue perfectly clear!
bump
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.