Replies

" 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?

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!

Take a good look at it, I think you're reading it wrong. The line reads: "Total AD/ACDUTRA as of 72 May 26: 1st Lt 22 days." (my bold) That's the year up to May 26, 1972, whereas the time in question is the year ending May 26, 1973, which is not even listed. Notice the absence of the days in 1973, and also the absence of information about the transfer to Alabama. Again, as with all these documents, the implications are not positive.

I'm already beginning to miss our daily sparring on the Bush-National Guard issue. Can I accept your silence as my victory, or have you simply tired of debating the issue? I'm guessing the latter.