Major media to report that Bush failed National Guard duties today

[GringoTex]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

GLOBE: BUSH DIDN'T MEET GUARD COMMITMENTS

President Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, the BOSTON GLOBE is planning to front on Wednesday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE.

The 1,500 word expose on Bush's records comes just hours ahead of an exclusive CBSNEWS interview set to air Wednesday night with a man who secured for the 22-year-old Yale graduate Bush a coveted place in the Guard -- a man who now claims he regrets helping Bush.

The GLOBE claims: "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.

"He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show."

After laying dormant for most of the summer, big media picks up where it left off on the Bush national guard issue in a post-Labor Day filing frenzy.

In the next hours and days, the ASSOCIATED PRESS, CBSNEWS, BOSTON GLOBE and NBCNEWS [who will host Bush author Kitty Kelley on Monday] will revisit Bush National Guard.

The upcoming reexamination of Bush's records by the GLOBE show that Bush's attendance at required training drills "was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been "satisfactory" - just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months."

Developing...

[1953 4-2-4]

Scoreboard! (oh look, we're up by 12)

[GringoTex]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_national_guard&printer=1

Democratic National Committee communications director Jano Cabrera disagreed. "For months George Bush told the nation that all his military records were public," he said. "Now we know why Bush was trying so hard to withhold these records. When his nation asked him to be on call against possible surprise attacks, Bush wasn't there."

Bush's 2000 campaign suggested the future president skipped his medical exam in part because the F-102A was nearly obsolete.

It showed the unit joined a "24-hour active alert mission to safeguard against surprise attack" in the southern United States beginning on Oct. 6, 1972, a mission for which Bush was not present, according to his pay records.

[Benito]

So you think Bush will lose his 11 point poll lead over this?

[MikeLastort2]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

[IntheNet]

So I conceed...George Bush may not be qualified to be a top line fighter pilot; but he makes an excellent Commander in Chief and President... can we move on to the issues?

IntheNet
Bush/Cheney in 2004

[needs]

Kristof's column today in the Times covers the story.

Another particularly credible witness is Leonard Walls, a retired Air Force colonel who was then a full-time pilot instructor at the base. "I was there pretty much every day," he said, adding: "I never saw him, and I was there continually from July 1972 to July 1974." Mr. Walls, who describes himself as nonpolitical, added, "If he had been there more than once, I would have seen him."

The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. It's not fair to say Mr. Bush deserted. My sense is that he (like some others at the time) neglected his National Guard obligations, did the bare minimum to avoid serious trouble and was finally let off by commanders who considered him a headache but felt it wasn't worth the hassle to punish him.

"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the full 32-page analysis here). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08kristof.html


Oh, and all you guys touting post-convention polls need to go read about polling trends in the 1980 campaign.

[superdave]

So you think Bush will lose his 11 point poll lead over this?

Yes. In fact, I predict that because of a blip in the time-space continuum, he lost his 11 point lead even before the information came out!!! And I'm right!!!

By the way, this "scoreboard" crap is like having a discussion about music, and some guy pulling out sales records to argue that Slim Whitman is superior to Bob Dylan.

[MikeLastort2]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84V54IG0.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84V54IG0.html)



http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=559273 (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=559273)

[Claymore]

So I conceed...George Bush may not be qualified to be a top line fighter pilot; but he makes an excellent Commander in Chief and President... can we move on to the issues?

IntheNet
Bush/Cheney in 2004

Oh, so NOW it doesn't matter? Wow, that's some good crazy...

[Chicago1871]

So, in theory, he could be called to active duty? :)

[stopper4]

So you think Bush will lose his 11 point poll lead over this?

He should. Unfortunately, he may lose it to John Kerry.

[Claymore]

Wow, the silence on this is deafening.

[USAsoccer]

Blah Blah Blah Blah....
Developing... [/font][/b]


Maybe this was relevant in 2000 BEFORE Bush became Commander in Chief...but someone explain the relevance RIGHT NOW since he has been in office for FOUR YEARS, and everyone knows how he will perform (place adjective here....)

It is as relevant as Kerry's 4 months in Nam...IMHO.... NOT!

What is relevant is THEIR POSITIONS on issues of national importance.

Kerry's anti war position is relevant if painted in the light of his votes over 19 years and his position post Viet-nam...

What Bush or Kerry did in THEIR PERSONAL LIVES 30 years ago is not relevant.

Does anyone care that Kerry admits that he smoke (OFTEN) marijuana in Nam and at Yale? I don't....Do you?

This election is fast becoming CRAP.

The Kerry folks are desperate, and now they are lashing out. They take the view that any attack on THEIR POSITION's is a personal attack on them and their patriotism (oh please grow up!), and thereby gives them permission to go to the gutter.

They have created the myth that the Swift Vets were coordinated with Bush. That is an complete LIE. IT IS a myth. They now lash out.

Bush has been called every vile name one can think of. I can't count the number of comparisions with Hilter anymore. And now we go as low as humanly possible.

Kerry is going to lose this election. In fact, I am prepared to predict that it will not be close.

Why? Because these attacks are going to be viewed the way they are...as DESPERATION TACTICS from a group of people not prepared to lead!

[Claymore]

This is great!

Yeah, no link between the Bush campaign and the Swifties, yet TWO Bush staffers had to resign once their involvement came to light.

Bush set up a smear campaign by proxy, and now that he's been called out for the lazy bastard he is with regards to his military "service", the neocons want to talk about "real issues". Oh really?

Yeah, lets talk about how inept Bush has been in every major facet of domestic and foreign policy over the last four years. Lets talk about a GOp-controlled Congress and Executive branch that has taken a $155 billion surplus and turned it into a $455 billion deficit in three short years. Let's talk about the ever-increasing number of people falling below the poverty line and going without health insurance. I'd LOVE to see that debate, but it will never happen because the neocons paint anything that punctures the happy-face facade of the Bush administration as treasonous or aiding and abetting our "enemies".

[John Galt]

What Bush or Kerry did in THEIR PERSONAL LIVES 30 years ago is not relevant.

Bush has been called every vile name one can think of. I can't count the number of comparisions with Hilter anymore. And now we go as low as humanly possible.
I am truly curious at the cognitive dissonance involved in supporters of Bush. USA Soccer, is it your position that whether Bush served in the National Guard according to his requirements is something in his PRIVATE LIFE???

Yesterday you posted something about the Russian hostage situation that implied that we had to vote for Bush because John Kerry would not be opposed to terrorists killing children.

Dick Cheney says that if we don't choose Bush, we'll make ourselves vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

I don't understand whether you really see the world the way you do, or do you just make these arguments as a way to advance your candidate? How can there be a completely different set of rules for what is "fair"?

[superdave]

It is as relevant as Kerry's 4 months in Nam...IMHO.... NOT!
He did *TWO* tours of duty more than Bush, not one.

What Bush or Kerry did in THEIR PERSONAL LIVES 30 years ago is not relevant.

Actually, it is. George Bush is a quitter and a coward who won't fight his own fights. That was true in the early 70s and it's true today.

This election is swiftly becoming CRAP.
Best. Fixed post. Ever.

The Kerry folks are desperate, and now they are lashing out. They take the view that any attack on THEIR POSITION's is a personal attack on them and their patriotism (oh please grow up!), and thereby gives them permission to go to the gutter.

I'm rubber, and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

They have created the myth that the Swift Vets were coordinated with Bush. That is an complete LIE. IT IS a myth. They now lash out.

Lastort, your chart please.

Bush has been called every vile name one can think of. I can't count the number of comparisions with Hilter anymore. And now we go as low as humanly possible.

If the goofy little mustache fits....

Kerry is going to lose this election. In fact, I am prepared to predict that it will not be close.

Why? Because these attacks are going to be viewed the way they are...as DESPERATION TACTICS from a group of people not prepared to lead!
Allow me to point out that the Kerry website primarily talks about John Kerry, while the Bush website primarily talks about...John Kerry.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=projection


Psychology.
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others: “Even trained anthropologists have been guilty of unconscious projection, of clothing the subjects of their research in theories brought with them into the field” (Alex Shoumatoff).
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.


Are you anxious, or guilty, or both?

[MikeLastort2]

Would it be inappropriate to point out that I am experiencing a delightful bout of Schadenfreude (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=schadenfreude) right now?

[Northcal19]

At least Bushco wasn't lieing. They 'misspoke."

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~11676~2387069,00.html

[Dante]

He did *TWO* tours of duty more than Bush, not one.
Kerry's first tour was on the USS Gridley. That "tour" lasted from February to June of 1968, he never set foot in Vietnam during that time.

He finally set foot in Vietnam in November of 1968, then left in March of 1969.

So in total Kerry spent 10 months in or near Vietnam during both of his tours.