If he (Bush) WASN'T serving IN Texas AS A MEMBER in good standing through the ENTIRE peiod of the summer (May '72 through Sept 15 '72) BEFORE he left for Al in October ....
Exactly! There are no documents that show him serving in Texas during the summer you mention, between the denial for his request for transfer to AL and his second request for transfer.
Further, if he were delinquent as you claim, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM for a full year, his final service record would not have given him credit for "active days training" for the 1972 "year." His record DID give him credit training that year, so Bush WASN'T delinquet.
His final service record, assuming you're talking about
this, makes NO MENTION of serving in Alabama, so how does it not strengthen my case, as there is
a document saying he was not in Texas during that time? If you're talking about
this, the days served were for the period before May 1972, not after.
If he had been "skipping" training for 1972, WHY would he have applied in writing to go to Alabama AND SKIP MORE TRAINING? H**l, asking to go to Alabama would remind his CO that he (Bush) HAD been mising, and would have "opened" his records for disciplinary actions. A student who is "skipping" class and truant DOESN'T ask their teacher for a note to go on a special field trip; The fact that Bush asked means he WAS serving accurately, and that he (Bush) wanted to keep his record clean.
Keep his record clean, cover his ***. You're pointing out MY concerns - if it's not "delinquency," then it looks like Bush was clearly getting away with something. The documents make my case. After all, if the documents that make your case existed we'd see them - they'd put an end to our debate immediately, and clear any speculation about Bush's record.
Show me (freedom of records act or whatever - and I'll pay for the FOIA costs! ) that the 1972 records show no duty. The SINGLE record you have provided is for a single quarter IN mid-1973 and COULDN'T show any duty in '72.
Indeed! Where are the 1972 records? You're assuming they exist. The documents online were provided as per the FOIA. If the 1972 records exist, presumably they would have been provided per the FOIA. And again, as I said earlier, I don't care about the 1973 record.
You claim Bush must establish his record: If Bush fought as dirty and with as much effort as the democrats do in pushing their lies, he'd have used the Clinton's record of treason and deceit against Gore.
When you're unable to make your case you return to Clinton/Gore. Are you too partisan to hear the truth? Perhaps you're saying i'm right, but what Clinton/Gore did is much worse than what Bush did?
" If you're talking about this, the days served were for the period before May 1972, not after...."
Uh, did you read this document?
Your reference clearly shows 22 days of training AFTER May 1972 as a 1st LT, and more weeks of training BEFORE May 1972 as a 2nd Lt and then a few more as a 1st Lt.
So from May 1972 until Nov 1972 Bush had 22 days (10 months equal duty at two days per month!) during the exact same period you just claim he skipped duty completely, and even more than that during the period when you claim he did nothing all year!
If you claim Bush was skipping duty, why does this record PROVE he did it?
