QandO

We have never claimed that Bush was definitely AWOL. All the signs seem to indicate it, and since he keeps hiding and covering up all the relevant information, and still hasn't released all his records, we're not gonna give him the benefit of the doubt. Kevin Drum has been keeping extensive tabs on this issue.

This was his last post on the subject.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_04/003791.php

When we are proven wrong, we'll gladly apologize.

Posted by: Mordecai at April 29, 2004 08:34 PM

Its very simple. Just produce the AWOL charges which were brought against Bush. Or the desertion charges. Either will do. Otherwise, your assertions are groundless and the issue is moot.

His record points to having gotten the proper number of points necessary to have a good years during the years in question. That's all he's required to do in any year.

The rest is simply nonsense perpetrated by people who are ignorant of how the reserve and guard system works and won't bother to find out.

Its a simple fact that you can't convince people who are willfully ignorant. If they can't be bothered by the intellectual honesty or curiosity necessary to find the truth for themselves, telling them the truth is a waste of time.

Posted by: McQ at April 29, 2004 08:44 PM

I'm sure Kaus will gladly apologize....when Kerry can prove where he slept. I mean, fair's fair.

Note, btw, that I've often defended Kerry against these kind of charges, and I think they are quite irrelevant. But it is instructive to note the standards of evidence and behaviour to which both sides subscribe.....depending on whose ox is being gored.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 29, 2004 08:46 PM

Except, of course, that you're missing the point. There aren't even uncorroborated allegations to back up Kaus's case. There are no "missing records"--records of what? There's nothing. *Nobody* has claimed what Kaus claims in his smear job. He has no evidence that Kerry didn't sleep on the mall, or that he dissembled. Nothing.

SO, *you're* the hack. But thanks for playing!

Posted by: Scott at April 29, 2004 09:38 PM

I'm sure no one ever influence peddled in Texas. Bush surely followed the normal rules to get into the guard, thus his exit was totally legit. Oh wait, his father used connections to get Bush in the guard in the first place. But surely no one used their influence to help Bush out at the end. Plenty of rich and powerful people have used influence to get records expunged, charges dropped, backs scratched, etc. Just because charges aren't filed does not mean a crime has not been committed. Michael Jackson was not charged with a crime the first time he was suspected of molesting a kid. You need all the evidence before you can actually charge someone. The point we're making is that until all his files are released we can't be sure either way. Show us the evidence he was there, and we'll totally apologize. Since he refuses to still release records, there will always be a cloud over his head. Read all of Kevin Drums research if you need an update on the facts.

Posted by: Mordecai at April 29, 2004 10:46 PM

Let me get this straight. George Bush goes on the leftwing Tim Russert Show (Meet the Press) and produces all of his military records, but that is not good enough for the left?

Yet The Ketchup King does everything in his power to deflect attention from his being a self-confessed war criminal and we are supposed to ignore this?

Posted by: Mr America at April 30, 2004 01:29 AM

Scott: Don't be ridiculous - of course there are uncorroborated allegations. Spiro Agnew made the charge. With no corroboration.

And who has "evidence" that Bush was AWOL? Not allegations - not "missing" evidence - actual positive evidence. No? Funny, the comparison stands.

Mordecai: there is also no evidence that Bush Sr helped his son into the Guard, and Bush's commanding officer - and the fellow who approved him - deny that it happened, or was realistically possible. The only charge is that a friend of a friend put in a good word for him. Well, bully for him.

I'll assume that you are aware that the "jumped ahead of 150 people" story is bunk, right? The specific squadron and job to which he applied did not have a waiting list at all, due to the specialized nature of the gig.

And, for the record, I read Kevin Drum daily.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 05:24 AM

Of course, Mr. Henke is omitting perhaps the most damaging fact debunking Kaus' charge. Kaus cites an article by Robert Sam Anson--suggesting the article says Kerry slept in the TH. Yet, Anson called Kaus and told him specifically the article says no such thing. Thus, Kaus' only source for the story is wrong and the author of the reference has told Kaus directly he was wrong.

Mr. Henke, does it not bother you that Bush's ANG story continually changes? Does it not bother you that for the past 20 years, Bush has claimed he's released all his service records--but hasn't?

I've served active duty and I've served in the reserves. Even in my briefest assignments, I could identify people I've served with and I could tell you what my duties and responsibilities were. Why can't Bush? How is it that dozens of people in AL remember Bush when he briefly worked on a campaign there--but nobody at Bush's AL NG unit recall him?

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 07:50 AM

I'll assume that you are aware that the "jumped ahead of 150 people" story is bunk, right? The specific squadron and job to which he applied did not have a waiting list at all, due to the specialized nature of the gig.

This is false. Speaker of the House in Texas at the time, Ben Barnes, admitted under oath last year that he had received a request from the Bush family to help get Bush into the ANG. At the time, the NG had a national waiting list of over 100,000.

Additionally, Bush received a direct commission. Direct commissions are given to candidates with specialized and desirable skills, such as MDs or lawyers. Bush's application list specialized skills as "none."

Military flight training is a highly competitive and desired billet. Most commercial pilots are trained in the military. There are always waiting lists to get such a billet.

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 08:06 AM

Anson didn't tell Kaus that he was wrong about the sleeping arrangements...just that Anson said where Kerry slept. Kaus made an inferrence. Per your AWOL standards, I'll await proof to the contrary.

Frankly, I can't recall more than a couple names of the people at my last job. And that was about 4 years ago. I'm hardly surprised that only a few people remember Bush from Alabama.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 08:45 AM

(sigh) JG, let me remind you:
"But Ben Barnes...said the request for his help came from a Bush family friend – not Bush or his father..."

So. Uh. You know.

Re: waiting lists? Wrong again...
"...the Dallas Morning News, which also looked into Bush's military record, reported that while Bush's unit in Texas had a waiting list for many spots, he was accepted because he was one of a handful of applicants willing and qualified to spend more than a year in active training flying F-102 jets."

The line about a 100,000 person national waiting list - or the smaller 500 person Texas NG waiting list - is deceptive. There are probably 10,000 people in lines at McDonalds at any given moment, but if I go to line at ONE McDonalds, that doesn't mean I'm in line behind 10,000 people. He applied for a specific spot - one which had no waiting list.

Posted by: Jon Henke at April 30, 2004 08:52 AM

Mr. America - if you think MTP is "leftwing", you're gone. And if you think bush produced all of his military records, you're *really* gone.

Posted by: jesse at April 30, 2004 09:50 AM

Jesse ... what relevant records has Bush NOT released?

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 09:57 AM

Kaus made an inference which was debunked by the source of said inference.

Frankly, I can't recall more than a couple names of the people at my last job.

That's a couple more than Junior can. Surely, you admit, however, that if you had to--you could find out, right? And you do remember what you did at your last job, right?

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 10:28 AM

McQ: I can think of a number of records Bush hasn't released that are relevant. First, whenever a pilot is removed from flight status, there's an investigative proceeding. After all, the military has invested a lot of time, money, and resources to train its pilots, so they don't take such actions lightly. It also goes toward a unit's readiness if their trained personnel are no longer eligible to perform their duties. Such an investigative proceeding would have resulted in quite a number of documents.

Second, there's virtually nothing on Bush's AL Guard duty. Certainly, there'd be some paerwork (duty rosters, schedules, training, org charts, travel chits, leave requests, pay records, etc.) which might provide some idea as to what--if anything--Bush did in AL.

Posted by: Jadegold at April 30, 2004 11:03 AM

JG: When was Bush "removed" from flight status and what were the circumstances as you understand them?

As to his ALA paperwork, they give him drill points for his attendence which were duly noted and recorded in his record at ARF. Unless the unit sends them in, JG, they don't get recorded. What other evidence do you need?

Posted by: McQ at April 30, 2004 11:41 AM

I don't know if I've fallen down the rabbit hole or gone through the looking glass, but I've wound up in wonderland just the same.

Is there any actual evidence that George Bush was AWOL? None. Nobody has placed him somewhere other than performing duties according to the rules of the time, and no document in his record indicates that he didn't perform his duties according to the rules of the time. Yet JaneGold et al have no problem making the accusation that he didn't perform his duties and demand that Bush provide the documentary evidence that he did perform them. The accused is not presumed innocent; he must document his innocence despite the fact there isn't a single shred of evidence that he's guilty.

All well and good, but a bit extreme. And yet when it comes to John Kerry, why when an accusation echoes forth, is Kerry required to document his innocence? Of course not. The accuser must rightly document his charge.

But now it gets curioser and curioser - the accuser has an eye witness placing Kerry in Georgetown drinking brandy in a wood paneled library with an offer from the host to spend the night - and the hour late. Not good enough huffs JaneGold. JG wants documentation that John Kerry didn't leave the comforts of the townhouse for a tent on the mall. Where JG wants Bush to produce an eyewitness that Bush was doing what he was supposed to despite no evidence he wasn't, JG wants Kaus to produce an eyewitness that Kerry did something that anyone in his right mind wouldn't have done.

And over what - where JK slept one night? Who cares?

What matters, as Jon pointed out, is that the standards of innocence and evidence change depending on who's in the dock for some people.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy at April 30, 2004 12:28 PM

Atrios has gone with unsubstantiated stuff like "Bush said 'They have Black people'" and "Condi said 'my husb...'" What a bunch of rank hypocrites of the highest order.

Posted by: HH at May 12, 2004 11:54 AM