|
 |
February 10, 2004 "X PLACE FOR X HOURS ON X DATES"....Back in 2000 the Bush campaign hired a guy named Albert Lloyd to "scour" the archives for Bush's National Guard records. Lloyd did so, found some new documentation, and come away satisfied. Here's what he said back then:
Today, after watching the White House's performance with the payroll records, he's not so sure anymore:
Ouch. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 10, 2004 08:37 PM | TrackBackComments
Bwa HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! ouch indeed. Posted by: four legs good at February 10, 2004 08:41 PM | PERMALINKUh oh. Lloyd isn't happy with him. I bet he has a bushel of beans to spill. Didja hear that trolls? Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 08:45 PM | PERMALINKI caught the reference to Bush's "nomadic" years. Apparently "nomadic" means "driving to Juarez with no shirt on in a Chevy with a good six beer buzz and a straw stuck up your nose." Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 08:49 PM | PERMALINKGo, Kevin, go! Glad you're keeping this story alive. Your investigative work is par excellence. Posted by: Greg at February 10, 2004 08:50 PM | PERMALINKI feel sorry for the wing-nut trolls that are still hanging on to whatever tiny scrap of credibility that w has. (or has not) Not. Posted by: mac at February 10, 2004 08:55 PM | PERMALINKinteresting note in the article saying that one of the payroll dates in '73 is the same date that Bush's superiors signed the famous 'can not evaluate' document. What did Richard Cohen say about getting paid even when you don't show up? Posted by: def rimjob at February 10, 2004 08:58 PM | PERMALINK"Your investigative work is par excellence." Is there an OCD support group in OC? But, I kid. Aren't there more important stories than Bush's timecard or Kerry appearing at a rally with Hanoi Jane? Budget, immigration, Iraq, SS, education, the list of truly important issues just goes on and on. Choose one and blog about it with the same ferocity, maybe it will have an effect. BTW, this comment is not reverse psychology. Posted by: Lonewacko: America's Favorite Transcontinental Blogger at February 10, 2004 08:58 PM | PERMALINKLet's not forget that Bush said he would release "all" records. This would include tax returns. Next we should see if the service income corresponds with his 1040's. Whenever there is a question of the validity of records, getting more records and checking for internal consistency is a valid approach. Bush may not have his tax records from the early 70's, but the IRS should. While Bush is engaging in full disclosure, let's see his bank statements, too. And let's find out who it was that located the previously unlocated pay records, and ask him/her when and how the records were found. Posted by: joseph Yaroch at February 10, 2004 09:01 PM | PERMALINKdamn this is great .. was having a flame war with repugs and they kept on quote Albert Lloyd! this will shut them up good Posted by: smartone at February 10, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKAren't there more important stories than Bush's timecard or Kerry appearing at a rally with Hanoi Jane? Translation: You libruls are obviously onto something, so please stop looking through Chimp's old banana peels. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKJust another Kevin Drum lie. I suppose that Kevin either can't read, or believes the rest of us can't. The fact that Lloyd voted for Bush in 2000 is meant to impeach his credibility. But Kevin means to use it both to impeach the credibility of his conclusions--see, he's a Bus partisan--and to also suggest that, when he no longer supports the president, it's because he knows something the rest of us doesn't. But there's absolutely no evidence for that. It's beyond even conjecture. Posted by: Thomas at February 10, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKProjected announcement for tomorrows press conference: The Bush administration plans to release all documents in due time. Because of the difficulties involved of gathering said documents completely and definitively, they will not be released until December. Thank you, no more questions please... Posted by: forgetting at February 10, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKGreat work, Kevin! National news media: THIS IS HOW IT'S DONE. Posted by: JVictor at February 10, 2004 09:06 PM | PERMALINKThe Bush AWOL story may be like the Mafia guy stopped for speeding with a corpse in the trunk. Thinking like Rove, seems as if he is hiding something more than what happened in Alabama, and why no one can vouch for Dubya ever showing up for reserve duty. If Rove had them, he would be trotting out Guardsmen after Guardsmen that had served with Dubya saying what a fine aviator he was and people needed to just shut-up. Why does the story stop at Alabama and not the other six months? Is it Dubya’s alleged work with the PUSH project in Houston as community service to have a coke possession charge expunged from his records: http://tinyurl.com/3edew It all came down to the astonishingly insignificant information that Junior Bush got caught with a bit of cocaine in 1972. Hey, what's a little toot between friends, Mr. Rove? Did he get charged with possession of coke in 72’ while in Houston? All the rumors, but never a confirmation, huh. Rove knows any connection with coke would be politically fatal. If the allegation is true, some cop in Houston had to stop and arrest him, another cop had to process him, some DA had to make the deal for community service, a lawyer had to represent him, some judge had to sign off on it… Why has this not been investigated? /Tinfoil hat off Posted by: chris/tx at February 10, 2004 09:07 PM | PERMALINKKevin, I don't see Lloyd retracting any of his original findings, only that he is unhappy with W for an indeterminate reason. While that's funny certainly, do you see anything to bolster the case that W was AWOL here? Posted by: spc67 at February 10, 2004 09:09 PM | PERMALINK"Budget, immigration, Iraq, SS, education, the list of truly important issues just goes on and on. Choose one and blog about it with the same ferocity, maybe it will have an effect." Um... Lonewacko, are you trying to say Kevin doesn't blog about these ferociously? What do you think he's blogged about until he broke this story? Furthermore, when was the last time a post of Kevin's had 60 trackback pings and 500+ comments? Apparently, the vast majority of people do think this is an important story. Oh - and I've seen stories that Kevin completely wrapped up in a single post. That's because he usually has the information right there. Seriously, go look at his posts about the economy, with all the fancy charts and stuff. He writes those because he has all the relevant information. If he didn't have to wage a one-man crusade against the Administration's stonewalling, this story would be a lot shorter, wouldn't it? And less dramatic, and less terrifying to the Freepers, and ultimately less noteworthy. Face it, if Bush had released all the records like he said he would, and actually explained them, there wouldn't be a story here. In short: don't shoot the messenger. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 10, 2004 09:11 PM | PERMALINKThe NY Times finally wakes up: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/opinion/11WED1.html Posted by: Ares Akritas at February 10, 2004 09:12 PM | PERMALINKJust another Kevin Drum lie. I suppose that Kevin either can't read, or believes the rest of us can't. Translation: I am very, very nervous about all of this. I know deep down inside me that this probably has something to do with Bush and his fondness for nose powder back in the 1970s. After all, I know that "community service" gig Bush pulled in Houston is pretty suspicious for a drunken frat boy with a history of being busted by the cops. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 09:13 PM | PERMALINKI hope it's not cocaine. That is way too easy to deflect with a simple mea culpa. "I did drugs when I was younger. I was stupid and young." "I didn't want young kids pointing to me as a reason why it's OK to do drugs. Drugs are evil, I learned this firsthand." "I got through it with my faith in God, and the love of my family, blah blah blah." "I never brought it up because it's painful for me to remember, and because America deserves better. And I've been distracted with this War on A Proper Noun." Man, I hope it's not cocaine. It's not suicide, it will make him look magnimonious. If he did crime, I'd want it to be more serious than a few toots of coke. Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 09:15 PM | PERMALINKI can name a lot of guys in my military outfit, and I'm sure they remember me. Why doesn't George just locate all the members of his unit, and remind them about all the goofy things they did together? Military service leaves one with a lot of stories, and those stories include other people, and those other people would remember the events also. Anyone care to look at my Honorable Discharge? I can't think why, except maybe to see what one looks like, but here it is. Posted by: Repack Rider at February 10, 2004 09:15 PM | PERMALINKI gotta say, i'm new to reading blogs and all these threads, much less replying...So witnessing the feeding frenzy going on here is pretty interesting. (I originally added this site to my favorites just because of all the newspaper links on the left, but seems I picked a good time to see a topic come into its own on a blog) Nice work here Posted by: forgetting at February 10, 2004 09:18 PM | PERMALINKIf he didn't have to wage a one-man crusade against the Administration's stonewalling, this story would be a lot shorter, wouldn't it? Not fair. Give credit where credit is due. Were not for Martin Heldt, there would be no story. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 10, 2004 09:20 PM | PERMALINK"You libruls are obviously onto something, so please stop looking through Chimp's old banana peels."
I think your post implies that Lloyd now believes Bush did not fulfill his obligations to the National Guard. But after reading the two articles you linked to, I see no evidence to support that conclusion. It's also impossible to tell from the second article why Lloyd is unhappy with President Bush. It could be because Lloyd feels the President isn't conservative enough. Posted by: nash at February 10, 2004 09:23 PM | PERMALINKMan, I hope it's not cocaine. It's not suicide, it will make him look magnimonious. It's hard to look magnimonious when you're a complete hypocrite. Here's notes from his last SOTU. He'd get grilled if folks can somehow confirm the sea of rumors that Bush had a serious coke problem back in the 1970s and didn't get sober until the mid-1980s. The President proposed several new steps to help young Americans make responsible choices. Drug use in high school has declined by 11 percent over the past two years, and 400,000 fewer young people are using illegal drugs than in 2001. The President's FY 05 budget will include new funding to continue our aggressive, community-based strategy to reduce demand for illegal drugs - as well as an increase of $23 million for schools that want to use drug testing as a tool to save children's lives. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 09:25 PM | PERMALINKSomething getting overlooked here is the fact that the Coward from Crawford and his wife got their driver's licence numbers changed to single digit numbers when he was governor. This had not been done for any other governor or two ex-presidents in Texas. It did make it impossible to check his arrest/conviction record. Has anyone looked into whether the cuurent brigand/governor has had his license number changed? This is another area worth checking. Posted by: Conrad at February 10, 2004 09:45 PM | PERMALINKHmm.. Josh Marshall (talkingpointsmemo.com) observes that the newly released papers show Bush in Houston the very day that his superior officer writes a report saying that Bush has not shown up for duty (in Houston). Posted by: marky at February 10, 2004 09:45 PM | PERMALINKAbout half an hour ago (so about midnight Eastern Time) the NYT online edition quoted Lloyd as saying he's just as convinced now as he was then that Bush's honorable discharge was deserved. I know I saw this, because I even split screened the Times and the WaPo to make sure the two papers were talking about the same guy because the sentiment in the two quotes was so oddly, well, at odds. Now the NYT quote is gone. (The headline has also been moved from the sidebar near the top to under the Politics section). Did anybody else see this? Are there more extended remarks from Lloyd to be found? Did the reporter have to "edit" the story once the editorial board put in their two cents? Posted by: swissmiss at February 10, 2004 09:45 PM | PERMALINKMonkey, I've also considered the mea culpa route. I think Bush's continued statements through last Sunday's MTP interview, however, have put the kabosh on that approach. Which is the whole point behind Calpundit's tenacity. If the worst is true (and I specifically wrote "if"), then Bush is in pretty bad shape. It's way too late for the I-was-an-addict-but-found-Jesus-in-1974 route. Even if Bush was, in fact, AWOL is it really that hard to pay-off or induce a former National Guard veteran to lie on the President's behalf? Posted by: Jim E. at February 10, 2004 09:47 PM | PERMALINK"If he did crime, I'd want it to be more serious than a few toots of coke." Yeah, me too. I'm sure it would set well with the voters. Posted by: mac at February 10, 2004 09:48 PM | PERMALINKSomething getting overlooked here is the fact that the Coward from Crawford and his wife got their driver's licence numbers changed to single digit numbers when he was governor. This had not been done for any other governor or two ex-presidents in Texas. It did make it impossible to check his arrest/conviction record. Not only Tipsy McSnortalot's record, it also makes it impossible to check Laura "Ms. Pac-Mac Power Pill" Bush's record. She killed her ex-boyfriend with her car. But she's too "emotionally distraught" to talk about how she committed vehicular manslaughter, though, so be nice to her and feed her Xanax by the handful. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKWhat do you mean he's not sure about the Guard issue anymore? Christ he provided written summaries to the new documents stating they proved Bush fulfilled his requirements for service: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021004_bushmil.pdf The story says he may have soured on Bush politically for other
reasons, but there's no proof he's changed his belief about Bush's Guard
service. You guys will overreach until you drive a valid story into the
ground. Keep pushin. Squirm lil' trolls! Whoo-Hoo!! D Posted by: Dano at February 10, 2004 09:58 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, L. Bush was a teenager at the time. Cut her some slack. Hell, I think Ted Kennedy has been a great Senator, but he has some awful stuff in his past. This is not a good fight to start, and it's irrelevant and beyond the pale. Posted by: rilkefan at February 10, 2004 09:59 PM | PERMALINK"Translation: You libruls are obviously onto something, so please stop looking through Chimp's old banana peels." Actually, I'm not a big fan of Bush, because of his spending and his amnesty. So, it's not like a scandal or two wouldn't be welcome. It's just that there are more important things to blog about. But, if looking through timecards makes you happy, go for it! Posted by: Lonewacko at February 10, 2004 09:59 PM | PERMALINKBut Kevin means to use it both to impeach the credibility of his conclusions--see, he's a Bus partisan--and to also suggest that, when he no longer supports the president, it's because he knows something the rest of us doesn't. Ummm no. It means that shrubbie is alienating even his long time supporters. Whether it's over the guard issue or over his assinine economic policies is irrelevant. Long time admirers are reconsidering their vote. Don't know how your wingnuts can spin that. (though I'm sure you'll try) Posted by: four legs good at February 10, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINKFrom Kevin's WashPost link above: In addition, according to the new documents, Bush was performing service or unit drills at a time when his commanding officers in Houston said they could not evaluate him because "he has not been observed" at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston -- as they had written in previously released National Guard records. That report was signed by two officers on May 2, 1973, a day that the new documents show Bush was supposed to have been performing service in Houston. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 10, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINKWell, well, well, looks like the monkeys in Chimpyland are a bit suprised that the White House Whore Corps isn't following the script as usual: From tomorrow's WaPo: "...White House officials said they thought that the documents would calm the controversy. They added that they were stunned at the intensity of the questioning at McClellan's briefings about what the records proved and did not prove. "We were taken aback," one official said...." Posted by: Hank Essay at February 10, 2004 10:05 PM | PERMALINKSwissMiss, is this quote what you were thinking of? It is from the WashPost Article Kevin linked to above. Lloyd said he voted for Bush in 2000 but that he has not decided whether he will vote for the president again. "I'm not happy with him," he said. He declined to elaborate.Posted by: Alma Evans at February 10, 2004 10:10 PM | PERMALINK Jim E.: Even if Bush was, in fact, AWOL is it really that hard to pay-off or induce a former National Guard veteran to lie on the President's behalf? Nixon tried paying people off to cover up Watergate. That worked out well. If we could get a similar result, I would be in favor of Bush trying that. Posted by: karog at February 10, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKKevin Drum, Add me to the list of people who can't find the part of Lloyd's statement which supports your assertion that Today, after watching the White House's performance with the payroll records, he's not so sure anymore [that "the governor honestly served his country and fulfilled his commitment."] I see the part where he says he might not vote for Bush in the next election, and that he won't elaborate as to why, but I'm missing anything close to a recantation of his earlier statement about Bush's National Guard service. Could you clarify, please? Posted by: Shad at February 10, 2004 10:17 PM | PERMALINKThe conflicting dates, and the May 2nd date in Houston---the day he
was being written up for not attending drills in Houston---certainly
smell. Old Hat, L. Bush was a teenager at the time. Cut her some slack. Hell, I think Ted Kennedy has been a great Senator, but he has some awful stuff in his past. This is not a good fight to start, and it's irrelevant and beyond the pale. Does Ted Kennedy live in the White House? Did Ted Kennedy get the state of Massachusetts to seal his police records? Because that's what Laura Bush did. Trust me, if Happy Laura the Xanax Pill Popper ever entered a demolition derby, I'd have a fiver on her. I won't "cut her some slack" you self-righteous sack of rightwing shit. Did you ever "cut" Hilary Clinton "some slack" when you were accusing her of being a lesbian or a murderer? Doesn't feel so good to be on the receiving end now, does it, brownshirt? Except there's a difference between the garbage you Rethuglican goosesteppers spewed and what we're talking about. We're not making up stories about Clinton flying in cocaine through Arkansas or Hilary Clinton murdering Vince Foster. We're talking about dirt that you know to be true somewhere deep down in the pit of your blackened heart. Squirm, winger, squirm. Bush is a cokehead. Laura Bush just happened to run over her ex-boyfriend she was angry at in a very small town late at night and killed him, scattering his teeth across the road. Bush was AWOL. Bush is a drunk. Squirm. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 10:22 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, I'm a liberal who hopes moderates and sensible conservatives will vote for Kerry come November. You are rabid. Your nazi/murder/rape rhetoric is offensive and counterproductive. Posted by: rilkefan at February 10, 2004 10:28 PM | PERMALINKRilkefan, first off, I know you're not a "liberal." I've see you post things here before. You're a troll. My "Nazi/murder/rape" rhetoric is straight out of the mouths of Rush Limbaugh, et al., so don't accuse me of making it up, dittohead. Rush himself accused Hillary Clinton of murdering Vince Foster. He calls Hillary Clinton a "feminazi" and referred to Chelsea Clinton as a "dog" (she was a 13 year old girl at the time). Go away. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 10:35 PM | PERMALINKWhy did changing his Driver's License number make it impossible to check his possible arrest record? Would his SSN help? Massachusetts uses your SSN as your DL number. Did Texas back then? Because somebody posted what they think is his SSN from 1974, lifted off the documents released today from the WH. That might be a good clue, if somebody could run that SSN through arrest records in TX. Posted by: Monkey at February 10, 2004 10:36 PM | PERMALINKI think this: In early 1973, Bush worked for an inner-city youth program in Houston. is a masterful example of Washington Post objective reporting style. Now a few books have mentioned the rumor that Bush did community service as a deal his Dad worked out to expunge an arrest. The speculation was either cocaine or DUI. Working with the poor is an obvious anomaly in Bush's life. So why did he do it? Why has he never mentioned it while campaigning as a compassionate conservative? The Post just enters that fact into the record because it may become very significant down the line. Posted by: Kevin NYC at February 10, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINKIf I'm reading the documents right. . . We should ask the Bush family about W's January 4th-6th service in 1973. W was at his parent's house for the Christmas holidays in 1972. That was the year of the famous 'mano a mano' incident with Marvin and Bush Sr. Now, does W stay on 'till New Year's? If so, then he would certainly have told someone that he was going back to pull guard duty. Hell, he'd have to take a plane back one or two days before he was supposed to report, and just after a monster party. His upcoming duty would certainly be weighing on his mind, and it's just natural to ask family members what they plan to do next, especially as they leave the gathering. Even if he left before New Year's, he would likely have told someone that he was planning to put in guard duty immediately after the holidays. Whether to placate his parents, impress his younger brother or commiserate with his older brothers, or just in the natural course of conversations that occur between families at holiday get-togethers, it seems likely that Bush would have told at least some members of his immediate family that he was planning to put in some guard duty starting right after New Year's. And even if he never mentioned guard duty, at the very least his family would know whether he was flying back to Texas or Alabama after the holidays. And even if he left the 26th, if he were training in Alabama, it would be madness to fly to Houston for 7 days, and then fly to Montgomery and back for 3 days in January. IOW, if he was drilling in Alabama, then he would have flown back to Montgomery from D.C. If he was drilling in Houston, he would have gone to Houston. And at least one member of his family would know where he flew to. So, at the very least, we could clear up where he did his drills in January 1973. Posted by: epist at February 10, 2004 10:43 PM | PERMALINKStop the Press! Bush AWOL from the Texas Coast Guard! Posted by: Gordon the Magnificent at February 10, 2004 10:46 PM | PERMALINKFrom someone who was there! Whooo boy! Read at your own risk. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 10, 2004 10:48 PM | PERMALINKOld Hat, I don't think anyone who talks like Rush Limbaugh is worth listening to. My apologies as a liberal to any moderates or conservatives out there who run into Old Hat, our own version of an LGFer. Back to discussing the evidence against W... Posted by: rilkefan at February 10, 2004 10:48 PM | PERMALINKCan't wait to see the horsehead that shows up in this guy's bed. Posted by: DavidNYC at February 10, 2004 10:55 PM | PERMALINKRilkefan, I know you're a troll. No worries. Carry on. Posted by: Old Hat at February 10, 2004 10:56 PM | PERMALINKCNN oughta cover Scotty's squirming live tomorrow:) Posted by: marky at February 10, 2004 11:00 PM | PERMALINKRegarding Lloyd's conversion, it appears that some people take longer to come around than others. But if you look for truth long enough, there it will be. Just as if you look for those darned National Guard documents for Bush long enough, you either find them, or realize they've been scrubbed by the shrub. One more vote ABB. Posted by: Keanu Reeves (no, really) at February 10, 2004 11:04 PM | PERMALINKDoes anyone who worked with Bush during the Alabama campaign remember him and his activities during that time? The names of those who worked on this campaign must be relatively easy to find. Do they know what George was doing--did he leave to go do Guard duty at any point? Posted by: PanJack at February 10, 2004 11:17 PM | PERMALINKPanJack: In today's press gaggle at the White House, the reporters were all over that question like stench on an "outdoorsman". McClellan's answer was something along the lines of, "We've been unsuccessful so far, but Bush still did his doody." The press wasn't buying it, repeatedly bringing up the fact that dozens of Kerry's old Navy buddies have gone on the campaign trail publicly testifying for the guy. Bush's credibility gap now has an echo. Posted by: Keanu Reeves (no, really) at February 10, 2004 11:25 PM | PERMALINKFor all anyone knows, Lloyd may be dissatisfied with Bush for passing a massive drug benefit, or because of Bush's stance against gay marriage, or because he doesn't like the way Bush pronounces "nuclear." He didn't say, and nobody here knows. Do try and keep it at least partially rational, folks. Posted by: tbrosz at February 10, 2004 11:26 PM | PERMALINK" But she and several other women who dated him during that time refused to say anything bad on the record about Bush, now a sitting president." (cite) Heh. Does make you wonder what they said about him off the record... Posted by: Jesurgislac at February 11, 2004 12:15 AM | PERMALINKThe main problem for Bush if it turns up that he was doing coke, especially if he got arrested, is not that it happened but that Bush has tried to hide it. Bush also tried to hide his drunk driving conviction but under the circumstances was able to blame his daughters for that. He wasn't trying to hide the facts from us, oh, no; it was, he said, to avoid setting a bad example for the children. But this is different. Bush has already staked too much on the claim that he did his duty and was a good little fighter pilot. What's he going to do, blame the twins again? But why isn't more attention being paid to Bush's failure to get a physical done? Maybe that will pick up some steam, too. Posted by: trashy at February 11, 2004 12:37 AM | PERMALINKSo nice to see the Dems, those of the party of principle (hah), have nothing better to hang their hopes on. Fucking losers. Too bad about your boy Clark: America has missed out on a chance to be governed by its first Martian president. You guys are mighty desperate. Posted by: YOU LOSER at February 11, 2004 01:01 AM | PERMALINKI am surprised more has not been said of this... As for President Bush's missing year in Alabama, there may be still more embarrassment to come. James Moore, a well-known Bush commentator, is about to publish a book entitled Bush's War for Re-election. In it, the author will claim that from 1994 onwards, friends of President Bush worked stealthily to "clean up" his military records. According to Mr Moore, political aides of the then Governor of Texas "began contacting commanders and former roommates who would spin and cover up his guard record. When the book comes out, people will be on the record testifying to that fact". The retired Gen Turnipseed will be reading with interest. http://tinyurl.com/2fkhm Fill me in. I was around in 1972 and I don't recall cocaine being on the top 3 list of drugs of choice. Of course that changed later in the decade. My guess is that coke hit its peek of poularity in 1985. Remember the scene from Crocodile Dundee? If indeed GWB was a cokehead in 1972 wouldn't he be classified as an advanced drug user? I look to the board for insight. Posted by: Wren at February 11, 2004 05:31 AM | PERMALINKcocaine was plenty big in 1972. yes, perhaps GWB was a little ahead of the curve for once, but it was definitely around & was enthusuastically enjoyed by many well-heeled substance abusers. Posted by: 71077345 at February 11, 2004 05:49 AM | PERMALINKWren- Coke in '72 was a rich-white-kid's drug. Places like Greenwich and Grosse Pointe were full of the stuff. Posted by: def rimjob at February 11, 2004 05:50 AM | PERMALINKHere's a good story from the LA Times. Of note is this paragraph [emphasis added]: "Bush was suspended from flying at least twice for failing to "accomplish" a physical exam; he could not be evaluated by the Texas Guard because, at one point, he had not been observed there for a year; and he was given an unusual early discharge to go to business school at Harvard." He failed to take his physical at least twice?? I was only aware of one suspension. Can anyone fill me in? Plenty of coke in Boulder in '72 also, but unless you were rich you had to deal it to use it. Posted by: Karlsfini at February 11, 2004 06:22 AM | PERMALINKThe Alabama unit was a "no pay" unit. Bush should not have been paid for any drills during the time he was attached to that unit. There are transfer papers to the Alabama unit, but no transfer papers transferring him back to the Houston unit. Posted by: BevD at February 11, 2004 06:32 AM | PERMALINKThe charge of hypocrisy has been flung back and forth between Bush supporters and KD supporters. The element of hypocrisy is a huge part of this story; first the hypocrisy of the actors of that time (draft dodgers), but also the hypocrisy of people today, ie. those too willing to overlook the bad behavior of the individuals on their side. Rooting out the hypocrisy is one reason why this Bush story needs to be fully told. To demonstrate that the Left, Democrats, progressives (use your favorite term) has a defensible logic here where the Right fails utterly I've put together a Hierarchy of Honor For Vietnam Era Draft Age Men with a few examples of the actors and where they fit in the hierarchy. I'll plug it into this comment thread in my next post. Note, I may be slightly off on certain details, ie. I'm not sure if Max Cleland opposed the war then or now, but a few key individuals are plugged in accurately as you'll see. Also, I'd give points to any 18 year-old who favored it then and learned over the years that Vietnam was an immoral war. I believe in redemption. Someone who still favors that war could come up with their own
hierarchy that has war favorers ranked higher but they're going to have a
lot of trouble coming up with any scheme that doesn't rank most of
today's Republican leadership at the bottom while a huge number of
Democrats come out on top. Go ahead, if you disagree with mine which I
believe is pretty representative of leftward thinking, see if you can
create a ranking that isn't hypocritical and yet makes the current
administration look honorable. 71077345: Re the early out - one bit you might wish to remember is that VietNam was winding down, and there was a definite surplus of officers in grades O-3 and below. Applications for an 'early out' as it was informally called at the time would be granted for pretty much any reason. To meet a school schedule would be perfectly acceptable. Re the missing the physical - I believe the records state he missed one, not two. Also, missing a flight physical wasn't a hanging offense, and if a pilot was being transitioned out of his aircraft (since the F-102 was being phased out, and GWB wasn't being retrained into another aircraft since he was going to be out in a year or two and the AF wouldn't bother to spend the money for the training with so little retention) then it wouldn't be a big deal to be disqualified from flight status if he wasn't going to be flying again. The military IS rather cost conscious sometimes. If he wasn't going to be flying F-102s or another plane, there was no reason to give him a physical. If there was no physical, he couldn't fly the F-102 - which he couldn't anyway because it was phased out. (Shrug) It's the military. You get used to the logic after a decade or two. J. Posted by: JLawson at February 11, 2004 06:34 AM | PERMALINK Opposed war, served in combat, sacrificed life. Good work, Old Hat. More evidence that rilkefan is in fact a troll: He accuses Old Hat of talking like Rush Linbaugh, when in fact Old Hat was simply repeating the lies that Limbaugh et al. were spreading about Hillary, etc. Just like wingnut trolls and mediawhores now accusing Kerry of having charged other soldiers in Vietnam with war crimes, when in fact Kerry was simply stating what he had heard those soldiers had said, on the public record, about their own actions. Wingnut slime tactic: if you say that you heard something derogatory someone else has asserted, you were the one who actually made the derogatory statement. Posted by: Steady Eddie at February 11, 2004 06:42 AM | PERMALINKThe documents released yesterday give W's address as "2910 Westheimer" in Houston. Presently that is the address of an Eckerd Drugs in this stripmall: http://www.suebacommercial.com/riveroaks/riveroaks.html Anyone know what was there in 1972-73? Was it a housing development worthy of a Congressman's son? An apartment complex? A drug rehab center? A halfway house? Anyway to find out? Could be a blind alley, but it seems worth investigating... Posted by: 71077345 at February 11, 2004 06:45 AM | PERMALINKWirth reading: Isikoff story from Newsweek Sept 2000 Ok. I amend my list. Knock down two pegs the "lucked out on lottery" entries. Another nice thing about the left, not only less hypocritical, but willing to admit mistakes. Posted by: dennisS at February 11, 2004 06:59 AM | PERMALINKAs an AF lieutenant at the same time, it seems to me that there have to be OER's (Officer Efficiency Reports) that would have described what he did (in inflated terms, of course, but inflated OER's existed long before and after GWB). Those might be instructive. There should be at least one a year, and maybe two. Posted by: Gerard Blais at February 11, 2004 07:05 AM | PERMALINK Dallas News today: The White House released records Tuesday to buttress the president's assertion that he fulfilled his military duty during the Vietnam War, but it faced new questions about whether George W. Bush's file was altered before his 2000 presidential race. Retired National Guard Lt. Col. Bill Burkett said Tuesday that in 1997, then-Gov. Bush's chief of staff, Joe Allbaugh, told the National Guard chief to get the Bush file and make certain "there's not anything there that will embarrass the governor." Col. Burkett said that a few days later at Camp Mabry in Austin, he saw Mr. Bush's file and documents from it discarded in a trash can. He said he recognized the documents as retirement point summaries and pay forms. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021104dnpolguard.b4fed.html registration is required, or bugmenot http://bugmenot.com/ Posted by: austin at February 11, 2004 07:28 AM | PERMALINKJust the original DD214 with SPN code please . . . Posted by: Claude Muncey at February 11, 2004 07:40 AM | PERMALINKOkay, I am not a troll - you can check my comments and my site - and I'm going to agree with rilkefan. Old Hat, your incessant namecalling comments are tiresome and only serve to clutter otherwise interesting threads. Posted by: apostropher at February 11, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINK...then it wouldn't be a big deal to be disqualified from flight status if he wasn't going to be flying again. I think in his book, A Charge to Keep, the President states that he did, upon returning to Texas, "continue flying with his unit." Anyone have the relevant quote handy? Posted by: Monkey at February 11, 2004 07:51 AM | PERMALINKAlso, missing a flight physical wasn't a hanging offense, and if a pilot was being transitioned out of his aircraft (since the F-102 was being phased out, and GWB wasn't being retrained into another aircraft since he was going to be out in a year or two and the AF wouldn't bother to spend the money for the training with so little retention) then it wouldn't be a big deal to be disqualified from flight status if he wasn't going to be flying again. JLawson: Orders aren't choices. Bush was ordered to take a flight
physical. After a decade or two of military experience, I understand
you don't get an order and then decide what you'd rather do. An exMarine buddy says that a General who expects to survive is sure
to know when a congressman's son is on base, especially if he is under
the officer's command. Retired Colonel Earl W. Lively, who was the operations officer for the Texas Air National Guard at the time, said Bush's performance for the 12 months fell short "of what everyone was expected to do." Lively said that had Bush been under his direct command, "I'd have wanted to know why he didn't meet the requirement. Then I would have decided whether to keep him on or send him to the inactive Reserve." Still, both Lloyd and Lively said Bush logged enough points to continue with his Guard service. And other officials said commanders could give guardsmen leeway on meeting service requirements. "There is definitely some commander discretion," said Reggie Saville,
a civilian spokesman for the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va.
"If you go the extra distance to stay in touch with your commander, you
have extra leeway." Receiving an honorable discharge "is a matter of
maintaining a good relationship with the unit. It doesn't necessarily
mean making every drill, and getting every `i' dotted and every `t'
perfectly crossed." So the question seems to be, given the ARF document Kevin linked to, did Bush's Guard commander have the kind of conversation Col. Lively describes and ship Bush off to the inactive reserve, or did Bush maintain a "good relationship" with his unit; and if so, what does this say about Pres. Bush's commitment to his service? Did minimal or just-below-minimal-but-teacher-said-it-was-okay service--in other words, a gentleman's C--fulfill the spirit as well as the letter of his Guard requirements? And what should that mean to a sitting President/Presidential candidate? Posted by: KevStar at February 11, 2004 08:18 AM | PERMALINK>Gerard Blais :As an AF lieutenant at the same time, it seems to me that there have to be OER's (Officer Efficiency Reports) that would have described what he did (in inflated terms, of course, but inflated OER's existed long before and after GWB). Those might be instructive. There should be at least one a year, and maybe two. There should be one for the time Bush claims in 1973 (it would be for 73-74) But Bush's last OER (for 72-73) describes him as "not observed."
Martin: Being a veteran of writing far too many OERs and APRs - the 'not observed' means just what it says, no more and no less. His reporting official did not observe him during that time frame. Any comments that he could have put in would have been verifiably false, and subject to prosecution. I've written the same sort of comments on EPRs for folks I supervised who were off on deployment or active duty for a year. You've got to write their EPRs, but you didn't see them or supervise their work - so the official phrase is 'not observed'. Nothing good, nothing bad - just plain neutral. J. Repack - You were a Son's Roadie??? The greatest band of all time! I'm not worthy.... Posted by: Valkyrie at February 11, 2004 08:28 AM | PERMALINKThe fact that Lloyd voted for Bush in 2000 is meant to impeach his credibility. Er, no. Its meant to enhance his credibility. A source with an
apparent pre-existing pro-Bush natural bias (voted for him in 2000,
brought in by the White House to validate their claims) is more credible when making an anti-Bush claim than making a claim that corresponds to the expected bias. DO NOT FAIL TO READ PAGE 2 OF THE SECOND LINK IN THIS POST... The WASHINGTON POST tells the story of George W driving drunk and crashing into garbage cans in Washington in late 1972, and challenging his dad to fight when confronted! Am I alone in not knowing this story? At that point, he was a Yale grad, Air Guard pilot, and plannng for Harvard. Posted by: bwise at February 11, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINK>Am I alone in not knowing this story? Pretty much, yeah. Posted by: apostropher at February 11, 2004 08:53 AM | PERMALINKThis whole emphasis on Bush's "AWOL," which SHOULD have been discussed in the media during the 2000 campaign and wasn't, reeks of a Rovian trap. I'd tread very carefully on this matter, when it could easily backfire on Democrats (especially with somebody as the frontrunner with a ton of baggage himself). Democrats need to get away from playing into the Rove card of the military and national security and actually force the Republicans to talk about economic and other issues the vast majority of people care about. Posted by: Susan Nunes at February 11, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKJLawson is being a bit disingenuous WRT 'not observed.' 'Not observed' can mean anything from 'we haven't seen this guy' to 'we haven't had the opportunity or time to adequately evaluate this guy.' In Bush's case, the 'not observed' evaluation has comments on the reverse side of the document which make it clear the evaluating officers didn't see Bush. Posted by: JadeGold at February 11, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKJadeGold: Precisely. His reporting official didn't see him during the time he was his nominal supervisor - because he wasn't assigned on that station. That happens a lot in the Reserves, when one member is off-station doing duty elsewhere. His reporting official wasn't changed in the records, so when it came time for the OER to be written, that person had the choice of LYING on the OER and saying he observed him and did either a fine/crappy job with his assigned duties, or tell the truth and say he was not observed. 'Not Observed' = not observed. In OER & EPR speak, it's got a VERY specific meaning that IS NOT the same as AWOL or missing from the unit. In the OER they could have put "Member consistently missed drills with no excusal" - and that would have been perfectly all right. I've written EPRs like that myself. I had to do an EPR on someone who missed (with excusals) damn near a year of drill - what could I put in but "Not Observed"? J. The documents released yesterday give W's address as "2910
Westheimer" in Houston. Presently that is the address of an Eckerd Drugs
. . . Any way to find out? Could be a blind alley, but it seems worth investigating... I know a guy who works at the Univ. of Houston library. I've asked him to check to see if that library has city directories for Houston during that period (they probably do), and if so, to tell me what was at that address then. If I hear anything back, I'll post it here. Posted by: Ian Fisher at February 11, 2004 09:43 AM | PERMALINKJLawson: I've written the same sort of comments on EPRs for folks I supervised who were off on deployment or active duty for a year. You've got to write their EPRs, but you didn't see them or supervise their work - so the official phrase is 'not observed'. Nothing good, nothing bad - just plain neutral. Except Bush wasn't on deployment or active duty. He was credited with inactive duty points for Jan and April of 1973 on his ARF retirement record. So where was he and why couldn't his commanding officers observe him? And remember the Bush team has not been able to bring forth any witnesses for Bush's attendance at drills for those dates. You'd think that someone in his Texas unit would be able to vouch for him if he was there. Posted by: Mike at February 11, 2004 09:47 AM | PERMALINKI served in the 4th Infantry Division in the attack on Baghdad. All of us knew about Bush's record and dismissed him as a liar and a coward, though our preachy, unctuous battalion commander was busy peddling the Rumsfeld line. He didn't come close to making a sale. La justice pour de evaders de combat. Posted by: Kilroy II at February 11, 2004 09:50 AM | PERMALINKI don't understand why everyone keeps referring to Dubya as a Congressman's son during the relevant period. Starting in February 1971, GHW Bush was U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In 1973, he became Chairman of the Republican National Committee. These are significantly more influential positions than Congressman. Also, why was it so important for Dubya to work on Winton Blount's campaign? What could he possibly have brought to the campaign in 1972 that would have made him so indispensible? Or was it just an excuse to get him out of Houston for a few months? And why would that be necessary? Just asking questions. Posted by: Willoughby at February 11, 2004 09:53 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm Bush's drills with the Alabama Guard confirmed But further confirmation was supplied yesterday by a woman who
dated the young George W. Bush in 1972 who says she distinctly remembers
the young pilot visiting Montgomery that year to fulfill his Air
National Guard commitment. The election was on Tues, Nov 7, 1972. Bush was credited with inactive duty points for Sat Nov 11 to Tues Nov 14, 1972. That's the weekend after the election, not "a few weeks later." Posted by: Mike at February 11, 2004 09:57 AM | PERMALINKLloyd's arithmetic is wrong. See the document released by the White House: http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bushNaGuard_page1.pdf 19+16+15 does not equal 56. Dubya's "fuzzy math:, ya know. If this is any indication of how careful Lloyd is, his endorsement is not particularly compelling. Someone needs to check out all the numbers, dates, and such, and see if they match up (and match with the timelines and known locations of Duba). And we need an explanation of why there are "AFR" documents but no TANG documents. Mike: "Except Bush wasn't on deployment or active duty. He was credited with inactive duty points for Jan and April of 1973 on his ARF retirement record." Yes, because he was in the 'Inactive Reserve'. When he's called up to do active duty, then he'd be moved over into the 'Active Reserve'. I was in the 'inactive reserve' for 13 years, doing drills and annual tour, and accumulating pay and points. If I had been mobilized or put on active duty, I would have been an 'Active Reservist'. Clear? J.
JLawson, You haven't explained why Bush's superiors in Texas wrote "not observed" on his annual review for May 1972 to May 1973. They thought he was in Alabama. But he would have been in Texas after the Nov 1972 election. Where did he do his drills? Posted by: Mike at February 11, 2004 10:45 AM | PERMALINKHere's a guy who can vouch for Bush for 1970-71. Now we'd just need someone to do the same for Oct 1972-May 1973. Letter to the Editor: 'Bush and I were lieutenants' George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch. COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) But further confirmation was supplied yesterday by a woman who dated the young George W. Bush in 1972 who says she distinctly remembers the young pilot visiting Montgomery that year to fulfill his Air National Guard commitment. That confirms (granting, arguendo, the woman's credibility), that he visited Montgomery, and that he told her was going to drills, and that she believed him. It doesn't, in fact, confirm that he actually attended any drills. In fact, she even says that: "I didn't see him go to work. I didn't see him come home from work," she said. "He told me that was why he was in Montgomery. There is no other reason why he would come back to Montgomery."Posted by: cmdicely at February 11, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINK Someone needs to mention the elephant in the room. There is the
appearance that the records we see now are not authentic. This would
explain the panic in the White House over the prospect of releasing W.'s
records in full. We are going to lose this election by ten points the way this is going. The shallow, reaching comments about this and Kevin Drum's harping on it make Democrats look bad to me. Posted by: Dem-in-Distress at February 11, 2004 01:10 PM | PERMALINKDem-in-Distress, it's important not to overreach. At the same time, it makes sense to follow up on this. I'd just like tio know what happened. Someone needs to mention the elephant in the room. There is the appearance that the records we see now are not authentic. Or the records are genuine copies, but the dates on those records were manipulated to credit Bush with service that was not performed at the times and places listed. Or not. Maybe he did show up. Yep. George told Emily Marks he had come back to do his duty. The next weekend he told me the same thing. I think he was seeing Emily that weekend. She probably wanted to know where he got those scratches. I bet he told her, gottum on guard duty. Posted by: LorettaSueDoublewide at February 11, 2004 03:09 PM | PERMALINKDem-in-distress -- You're right, and I am looking forward to GWB's win. Keep up this way-beyond-the-grassy-knoll fantacizing and it may be 20 points. Gleeful Republican Posted by: Ben at February 11, 2004 03:44 PM | PERMALINKBen, we will keep it up. Thanks for the encouragement. Posted by: ch2 at February 11, 2004 04:28 PM | PERMALINKHesiod at Counterspin demolishes the good Colonel's lies so kindly provided by Mike. Posted by: M.Tullius at February 11, 2004 05:13 PM | PERMALINKch2 -- I don't doubt that you will: like lemmings. Posted by: Ben at February 11, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKAlma said "SwissMiss, is this quote what you were thinking of? It is from the WashPost Article Kevin linked to above. Lloyd said he voted for Bush in 2000 but that he has not decided whether he will vote for the president again. "I'm not happy with him," he said. He declined to elaborate." It's not really important, but what was so wierd was to read this
quote above in the Post and then minutes later (or in the other order,
who remembers now. This is the downside to opening up six newspaper
sites at the same time, I guess) to read a quote in the NYTimes to the
effect that Lloyd said something like he's just as convinced as now as
he was then that Bush's honorable discharge was deserved. As I said, I
split screened the two articles and at one point had two fairly
different quotes from the same guy on my screen at the same time. But
later the NYTimes quote (the one that came off as more positive) was
gone. Totally not important, just wierd. "ch2 -- I don't doubt that you will: like lemmings." Ben, again you prove that wingnuts are dumb and ignorant, and think that Disney movies=education. Stop posting on the web and go study for your high school biology test. I shouldn't do this but I'll actually make it easy for your lazy dumb ass: http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm Posted by: ch2 at February 12, 2004 08:44 AM | PERMALINKAssassination is the extreme form of censorship. Posted by: Polk Khary at May 3, 2004 10:23 AM | PERMALINKgolden palace.com | golden palace poker.com | golden reef casino.com | golden riviera casino.com | golden riviera poker.com | golden tiger casino.com | golden tiger poker.com | goldgate casino.com | gold key casino.com | grand aces.com | grand banks casino.com Posted by: the sands casino at July 1, 2004 12:36 AM | PERMALINKI have found the best online pharmacy for buying Generic Viagra online Very good subject. Best XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - 1245 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 06:08 PM | PERMALINK2938 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINK188 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 26, 2004 08:00 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
