I think we're being set up on the AWOL issue

[HFishbine]

I just read one of the most balanced and thorough examinations of Bush's miliatry service. Complete with original documents. It's complicated, but it looks to me that at best, and even this remains uncertain, Bush MAY have avoided performing duty for six months in Alabama.

I smell a set-up. I think the WH is going to let Dems build this up into a major campaign issue, then bust it down with evidence/explainations that will be acceptable to the American people and will have the democrats scrambling for damage control.

Here's what got me thinking. What are your thoughts?

http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003193.html

[La_Serpiente]

1. If we wanted to know the absolute truth

Bush would have to release his service file. If it does show up on there that he did serve, then Michael Moore and everyone else is screwed.

But why didn't he release it the first election? Was this an insurance policy?

[ClintonTyree]

2. Naaa.............

the neo-cons would have gotten out in front of this a long time ago if they could have. I believe it's an honest issue that will be swept aside in a dishonest fashion. Fake, incomplete documents will be forthcoming to put the issue at rest.
They'll never fully recover from the doubt that has been placed in people's minds though.

[papau]

16. Not set-up-just media cover-up"honorably discharged/served time /made up"

When AWOL says honorably discharged/served time/made up drills, will Tim says "But Sir - made up for 6 months?


Nope - Tim does not follow up - because this is cover-up

Last I looked you missed a drill you could indeed make it up - but that was "A" drill. Not 6 months - not a year.

So Tim will note that those Dems are into "presidential character assassination" and that the "honorably discharged" proves that there is no ambiguity about Bush's time in the Guard, and then ask Bush about what he learned by serving in that dangerous area of the Guard - fighter jets.

Bush can not say he showed up for all his assigned duties, so he can not release the records - so Tim will not ask him to do so (hell - pay stubs and w-2's would prove attenence).

So the question "Did Dad obtain Guard cooperation in giving you an honorable discharge, the way he obtained for you your slot in the Guard to begin with?" will not be asked.

Heck - the simple "You say that you made up for the time you missed, doesn't that mean you were absent, and after enough times absent are you not AWOL?" will not be asked in the latest Tim Russert/GE/NBC cover-up for the GOP.

[usrbs]

3. The absolute truth doesn't matter that much here

Let's learn from the best - the Republicans themselves. Keep on slinging the mud, and some of it will stick. Especially when it takes so much effort to reach the bottom as here. Most people will in the end recollect very vaguely that * had a cushy assignment thanks to Poppy, and that he at the very least wasted his training and there's a mystery about where he was for part of the time, and he may, or may mot have made up his drills. Still good.

[Jawja]

30. Good point

about slinging dirt until it sticks. How many times did we hear "Gore says he invented the internet....Ha, ha, ha!"

This time around, the gloves are off. "Bush was AWOL."

Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL
Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL
Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL
Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL
Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL
Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL
Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL Bush was AWOL

[colonel odis]

4. i think a point can be reached

after which any explanation would appear bogus.

same as with bin laden. if we keep saying they're going to pull him out as an october surprise, then if they just happen to catch him, the world will roll its eyes and say "see?"

therefore, if this keeps building and building and building and people call him "yellow" and "cokehead" and "coward" long enough, any justification they bring out will appear manufactured and the damage will be done in the minds of those still undecided about bush.

[oasis]

5. It was reported that Bush "made up attendance at a later date". I'm sure

that many reservist today would love to have that option.

[HFishbine]

12. That seems to be true

It does look like he tried to "make up" on his attendance. Will that be enough to get him off the hook? Can he get away with something like:

"I had served faithfully for four years when I had the chance to go to Alabama to work on a campaign. I requested a transfer which was granted. Well, I just got caught up in the good work we were doing and I never imagined it would be so time consuming -- time just got away from me. After my tireless work on the campaign was done, I scooted back to my unit in Texas and put in more time than was required to fulfil my obligation and got an honorable discharge."

Yeah. It's a deriliction of duty, but would the Mericunpeople buy such an explaination?

[sandnsea]

22. Plus 2 disciplinary actions

They aren't making enough about that. It's an overall shirking of responsibility when he was there to avoid Vietnam in the first place. When you get that kind of privilege, the least you could do is appreciate it and show up and act responsibly. That should be the point.

[HFishbine]

36. Two?

I'm aware of the revocation of flight priviledges, what was the second?

[oasis]

25. A revisited AWOL story packs plenty of punch when viewed through the lens

of today's Iraq conflict. After numerous sacrifices, our folks over there are doing their best to survive and come back home in one piece.

[Jawja]

31. Exactly!

That's why "Bush was AWOL" sticks this time around.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[King of New Orleans]

9. The insinuation

is that GW stopped showing up for his Guard duty which 99.999% of
National Guard members can't get away with without facing a court-marshal. So how did GW get away with it?

[republicansareevil]

13. Oh please...

You're just reciting the latest RW spin -- which is a complete distraction because the main issue is that he did not perform that National Guard service. He took a powder and then got special treatment because of his family connections. But if you want to compare TANG with Vietnam -- sorry, there was a waiting list to get into TANG and Bush jumped to the front of the line despite his low score. There was no waiting list to go to Vietnam. I won't say that those who served in the National Guard didn't serve their country, but I will say it was a far less dangerous and thus far more desirable assignment than going to Vietnam, and I think it's ridiculous for anyone to argue otherwise.

[patricia92243]

7. Makes Dems look total fools to keep harping on election 2000 and AWOL.

[Southsideirish]

11. Its known as history and you can't avoid it or bury it - its out there.

For many of us, as long as the Dem party exists, what happened in 2000 will never be forgotten or forgiven.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[buckeye1]

8. Beware of crank "pundits".

Bush is scrambling to explain. No one believes him. Don't be wishing for bad luck while knocking on wood.

[glarius]

10. Isn't being AWOL for 6 months a serious thing?

It's not like he avoided signing up for 6 months...He was ALREADY in the service and went AWOL for 6 months...I think that's bad!

[Raya]

14. Most of My Dean Friends Hate Kerry . . . With NO FACTUAL BASIS. All Image

Sadly some slime sticks whether true of not. Looks like this is
sticking to Mr. Bush. I don't think explanations matter anymore.

[republicansareevil]

15. Huh? Do you think the AWOL story has no factual basis?

I'll admit the facts are hard to find if you just rely on the traditional, vapid press corps. Read www.thedailyhowler.com for a good analysis. Basically, Bush hasn't offered any evidence that he served in Alabama from May to November '72. After November he was assigned back to Texas, and the only documentation that he appeared at all after that is a mysterious document that, as I recall, has the dates torn off and that even has his name torn off except for the W. Why can't Bush produce a single person who has any recollection of him showing up for duty? Why can't he provide his service records? What is up with that mysterious torn document?

[HFishbine]

17. What you describe

was in line with my thinking until I read the link in the original post. There is certainly no proof positive yet, but some of the doubt about Bush returning to Texas in Nov. seems to have been dispelled -- or more accurately, some doubt has been cast upon the doubt.

[bearfartinthewoods]

19. i've been singing this tune for months

this is not something that would have gone unaddressed if there actually was meat on the bone. we're going to end up looking as obsessed with bush as the freeps were with clinton and we all know how well that worked out for them.

[republicansareevil]

37. I read the link in the original post and disagree.

What exactly in the link are you referring to? What has "cast some doubt upon the doubt"? I really haven't seen anything in the link to help out Bush's story. Please spell it out for me.

[HFishbine]

38. It is complicated

and DU copyright rules prohibit me from pasting the whole explanation here, but it largely comes down to this:

"The dates on the document do match up in a plausible way with Bush's claims of drill attendance."

Which the author analyzes in detail.

[republicansareevil]

39. It's not complicated at all.

Bush has not produced a single eyewitness that he performed his duties during the dates in question. His commanders in Alabama say he never showed up. His commanders in Texas wrote back then that he never showed up. He never took a physical. In fact the only evidence that Bush has ever produced that support his claim is a single document that did not come from his service file.

From the site:

" wasn't even part of Bush's original service file.

Rather, back in 1999 the nascent Bush campaign, which was apparently already worried about his service record, hired Albert Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel director, to help make sense of Bush's file. Lloyd "scoured" the archives and found the document... It has since been inserted into Bush's file."

This document just has a few small problems with it. The name is torn off except for the middle initial W. The social security number is crossed out with black marker. The year and months of all the dates are torn off. And, to repeat, it was not even in his orginal file.

The site mentions three possibilities: the document is forged, the document belongs to someone else but you can't tell because the name and SSN are missing, or the document is genuine and was just luckily found somewhere in the vast TANG archives by Bush's man.

The author lists the pros and cons of the document and really has to stretch to find pros because their just aren't many. He lists four. One is that Albert Lloyd, hired by Bush, claims the SSN is really Bush's. Another is that the W. is not misaligned compared to another document from that time that has Bush's name on it. A third is that two of the nine dates are not inconsistent with when Bush was supposed to have been attending. And the fourth is that because someone from the Texas archives allowed the document to be placed back in Bush's file, that person would have to be part of the cover-up.

So exactly which one of those items on the "PRO" side caused you to change your mind? And what caused you to dicount the, in my opinion, much stronger points on the "CON" side?

[randr]

18. If you were to apply for a job

and make claims that you could not document, especially regarding military performance, do you think you would get hired?
The fact that all documents are not in order would raise red flags.
A man in his position, son of a congress man, etc., would surely maintain documentation his accomplishments proudly, assuming he was proud of his service.

[arewethereyet]

20. this is a losing issue

stick with what the voters care about, the economy, the economy and the economy. And if you get that covered then work more on the economy.

[colonel odis]

26. exactly. it's still the economy, stupid.

people vote with their pocketbooks. ideals and patriotism are all fine and dandy when you've got a job and health insurance. they become back burner issues when your job's just been outourced.

consider the case of poppy, who finished the first gulf/mobil/shell war with a 90% approval rating.

a year and a half later, he's out of the white house.

[ex_jew]

27. Bush's base does NOT vote their pocketbooks

They live in a private world of honor, violence and dignity. Learning that the heroic GW did not even bother completing the charade of training on obsolete equipment will TICK THEM OFF. Or so I hope.

[arewethereyet]

29. this was tried on him in the 2000 primary and fizzled

and EVERYBODY votes their pocketbook. Think tax cuts.

But they do consider honor. Honorable discharge covers that.

This is a losing issue. Consider the consequences of failure to make this break big, and it will not break big. Not worth it.

[colonel odis]

45. we're not going to get bush's base to vote democrat

it's those 40% in the middle that we can capture.

but if along the way we brand bush as a cowardly fortunate son, there's nothing wrong with putting him in his place

[Casablanca]

43. The economy, Bush's fiscal liberalism, and the Iraq War fiasco ...

Are the three 8 million pound gorillas that will, if promoted by the correct candidate, send Bush packing back to Crawford. These are the only three issues that have consistently brought Bush's poll numbers down over the last three years.

The AWOL issue won't make a dent. Neither will Enron, although both should.

[texasmom]

21. If they had the proof..

they would have presented it already. NPR even did a substantial story about it last night. There is no way the White House would want this story to be run at all and certainly as much as it is being run. I truly think they would have presented the evidence if they had it.

As for the rationale for it coming up...Bush is sending our soldiers to die. He is sending National Guard troops to fight and die. He avoided his kushy service. Seems pertinent to me, and it just plain looks bad.

In 2000 Bob Kerrey and Inouye held a news conference about this issue. It was reported in the Boston Globe. Unfortunately, the DUI story broke the SAME day, and nobody noticed the AWOL story which to me was more relevant.

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=170

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/03/bush.dui/

[Nashyra]

23. In this time of war

I don't think the expalanation would go over well at all especially when so many ANG and reservist are being deployed. Many of those in these units have no idea that this is the real record of *'s military record. This could seriously erode the military vote for *. Even though men and women in service are not allowed to openly chastise the commander in chief, they are still allowed to cast their vote in private.

Go Wes Clark VA TN

[Straight Shooter]

24. Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding!! BINGO!!

You got it. First the skunk waves its tail, but no one really notices because they're too busy watching it scurry into the bushes (no pun intended.) Next thing you know, it's spraying away, and we're the ones who walk away covered with that stinking smell that won't come off.

Watch them, they'll drag it out, giving us just enough rope to hang ourselves. I said it before on DU, this is why Kerry is handling this so delicately. And especially Clark, he knows the military even better, he knows the games.

By the time they're through with the military documents, it will be called Operation Origami. You won't even recognize what went in by the time it comes out.

Sorry about all the metaphors, can't help myself this morning :)

[blm]

28. Let them show the IRS record of his paychecks then.

.

[Festivito]

32. It will be a side issue not known to many, not bothering others.

They will excuse themselves saying that Bush did such a good job fighting terrorism, it shows his youth was his youth.

The paperwork out there shows that he did not serve his country well at that time.

I will keep pressing it when needed. The scariest thing for Rightwingers is that Bush gave a $300 tax break to some people and then borrowed $1750 from everyone to pay for it.

It's not big government, job, gays, or abortion as much as sheeple care about MONEY. The other issues are excuses to get more money, only they're losing money on Bush faster than they can count it.

[NNN0LHI]

34. You are right. Its not a make or break issue. It a tool to use when needed

When our guys get accused of being weak on national defense we pull it out and throw it in their faces. Until then we hold back and save it. That is called politics.

Don

[West Coast Democrat]

35. Not Even!

They're pretty desperate here. They may try to produce some phony documentation, but we'll just have to shoot that down and continue saying what we know to be the case. Really, there's little chance this situation will come out in their favor.

[republicansareevil]

40. I posted this up above but I'm reposting it here.

I posted this up above (#39) but I'm reposting it here because I'm afraid it will get lost up there...



Bush has not produced a single eyewitness that he performed his duties during the dates in question. His commanders in Alabama say he never showed up. His commanders in Texas wrote back then that he never showed up. He never took a physical. In fact the only evidence that Bush has ever produced that support his claim is a single document that did not come from his service file.

From the site:

" wasn't even part of Bush's original service file.

Rather, back in 1999 the nascent Bush campaign, which was apparently already worried about his service record, hired Albert Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel director, to help make sense of Bush's file. Lloyd "scoured" the archives and found the document... It has since been inserted into Bush's file."

This document just has a few small problems with it. The name is torn off except for the middle initial W. The social security number is crossed out with black marker. The year and months of all the dates are torn off. And, to repeat, it was not even in his orginal file.

The site mentions three possibilities: the document is forged, the document belongs to someone else but you can't tell because the name and SSN are missing, or the document is genuine and was just luckily found somewhere in the vast TANG archives by Bush's man.

The author lists the pros and cons of the document and really has to stretch to find pros because their just aren't many. He lists four. One is that Albert Lloyd, hired by Bush, claims the SSN is really Bush's. Another is that the W. is not misaligned compared to another document from that time that has Bush's name on it. A third is that two of the nine dates are not inconsistent with when Bush was supposed to have been attending. And the fourth is that because someone from the Texas archives allowed the document to be placed back in Bush's file, that person would have to be part of the cover-up.

So exactly which one of those items on the "PRO" side caused you to change your mind? And what caused you to dicount the, in my opinion, much stronger points on the "CON" side?

[dansolo]

41. Only if they fabricated evidence after the fact

If they had legitimate evidence, they would have distributed it before the 2000 election. These guys are experts at propoganda. They know that even an untruth, if it is allowed to go unchallenged, will be believed. They were just fortunate that the media and Al Gore were unwilling to challenge his records.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

42. It is time to stop being afraid of Karl Rove

and the devious plans that he might pull. It is time for him to be afraid of our campaigns and candidates. Of course there is an element of risk with all of these attacks. Gore didn't take the risks, and didn't even risk causing "bad feeling" after the robbery in FLA. Where has that gotten us.

It is time for us to take a page from Repub politics and hit their chimp with everything that will stick. For reasons stated in this thread this issue has more resonance now. It is a disgrace to contemplate that a man who uses the military as his pawns and fawning setpieces for his speeches and photo/ops wouldn't even bother to show up for his cushy assignment daddy set up for him. He's so willing to send them to their deaths.

I was flipping through the Mike Gallagher show on AM yesterday (typical RW crap) and there was some old Republican lady (discussing AWOL) who was actually in tears, who said "I don't know the facts, but I wish it would GO AWAY..." That shows that there are still plenty of votes for shrub to lose over this issue and after all this time the WORD IS NOT OUT!

"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed and so
many professional athletes (who were probably healthier than any of us)
managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units. One of the many
tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most
damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe
allegiance to their country."
Colin Powell, "My American Journey"

[poskonig]

44. Attack Bush with surrogates.

The nominee, when asked, should merely say the would like to see Bush's records released. Let others in the party do the weightlifting.

[stickdog]

46. WTF does it matter? It's only because Kerry has no business

criticizing Bush on Iraq, jobs and his record budget deficits that the DNC somehow thinks that the biggest issue in this campaign will be who had the best military biography over 30 years ago.