Authenticity of Bush Guard memos questioned
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 06:30
VIEWED: 9503
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
Is Bush's guard service relevant to this election? To me, not really. What is, in my mind, relevant is that Bush has continued to make claims over the years, and continuing to this day, about that service that are brought into question by evidence from a number of different sources (eyewitness as well as documentation). This is an issue of character. It's one thing to make mistakes in the past, own up to those mistakes, and move on. It's another to deny that mistakes were ever made, make claims that appear to not be substantiated by any evidence, and stick to that story. So the actual service itself in my mind is not as important an issue as what has been claimed about that service in all the years following.
What do we know about Bush's National Guard service? Bush has repeatedly claimed that he received no preferential treatment in getting into the guard. There are witnesses who say that he did (I can't really say anything about the accuracy of accounts from Barnes or Bush's Harvard professor). The only thing we can say for sure based on documentation is there was a long waiting list and that Bush made the cut with test scores that appear to be average. Bush completed flight training and from the records things appear to be going well until around 1972. Then something happens. Bush does not renew his flight physical. Bush requests to go to Alabama to work on a political campaign. There are questions about whether or not Bush ever showed up for duty in Alabama. Bush's superiors don't fill out an evaluation form. Bush requests early release to go to graduate school at Harvard. Bush is placed on inactive status. Bush is taken off inactive status and given an honorable discharge. From the paper trail it appears that Bush was turned over to Denver when he went to Harvard. Denver placed him on inactive. Some documents from Texas got him taken off inactive and then the discharge.
Just a comment on this aspect from personal experience. When I came back from Vietnam in 1972, with 5 months left on my two year committment (Yep. Drafted.), the Army couldn't wait to tell me the related civilian occupation for Radio Teletype Operator was security guard, give me a final haircut and a steak dinner you could have resoled a boot with, and hand me an early discharge. Some of my friends who got into the National Guard and weren't too interested in continuing were also let go early. With the war winding down, the military was cutting folks loose as quick as they could. I have no evidence one way or the other on Bush, but it's a possibility that they cut him loose with less than the normally required active duty time.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One more interesting thing. Based on his birthday (07/06/1946) and the draft lotteries from 1969 through 1973, Bush would never have been drafted. He was only eligible for the 1969 lottery, along with everyone else born between 1944 and 1950. The 1970 lottery was for men born in 1951, the '71 lottery for '52, etc. His number in '69 was 327 and the draft stopped at 195. BTW, I was 137 in the 1969 lottery. Fortunate Son indeed.
Link to Selective Service site relating to Vietnam era draft.
http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That is an interesting fact that you bring up. So does this mean that Bush enlisting in the National Guard as a way to avoid going to Vietnam was unneccessary?
From previous statements Bush has made it is clear that he thought this was an either/or situation. In an interview with the Houston Chronicle in 1984 he made the following statement, "I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes."
Your previous post about early discharge was also very good information. Does this apply in Bush's case? Well, we know that he was discharged before his full time was up to go to graduate school. And we know that he received an honorable discharge. The White House has always claimed that he wouldn't have been honorably discharged if he hadn't fulfilled all his obligations up to that point in time. But there is an eight month period during which there is no documentary evidence that he fulfilled his requirements. Bush has never made the statement that he was offered an early discharge. His claim has always been that he joined the National Guard, served honorably, and requested and was granted early discharge to go to graduate school. While there is no doubt that he joined the National Guard and that he was granted an early discharge to attend graduate school there is doubt, at least in my mind, that he served honorably.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
That is an interesting fact that you bring up. So does this mean that Bush enlisting in the National Guard as a way to avoid going to Vietnam was unneccessary?
After more research, I have to amend (guess I wouldn't make a good reporter, except maybe at 60 Minutes
). The Selective Service site doesn't define clearly how the draft pre 1969 was conducted, except the statement buried in the Vietnam era section: "Reinstitution of the lottery was a change from the "draft the oldest man first" method, which had been the determining method for deciding order of call."However, the Draft stats show 296,406 inducted in 1968 and 283,586 in 1969, presumably under the "oldest man first" method (however that worked).
Bush joined the Guard in May 1968, right out of college (he would have had a deferment in college), and the first Vietnam era draft was December 1, 1969. I guess he may have been vulnerable to the draft from May '68 to December '69 after all.
In any case, I'm still not surprised that the son of a well-connected family might get a little assistance in moving up on the Guard roster. If I'd had that kind of pull back then, I probably wouldn't have thought twice about turning a blind eye to daddy pulling a few strings.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Both my SO and his brother were eligible for the draft. One was born in '47 and the other on '49. My BIL ('49) got a VERY low number, and decided to go into the Navy b4 he was drafted (by then there were no National Guard openings). My SO fortunately got a high number.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There might be quite a few job openings at 60 minutes .
I'm not surprised either that men whose family had influence got moved up the roster. In fact, if I was in that situation and someone helped me out in that way I would serve and never look back. And if Bush had come out and said something to the effect of, "Look. I didn't want to go to Vietnam. People pulled strings to get me in the National Guard. I served my country proudly." then I wouldn't have any issue with that. But there are three problems that I have. First, Bush was for the war. Second, Bush has always claimed that there was no influence exerted on his behalf (although this may be a case of a lawyer answer, I believe the most definitive answer he gave was that no one named George asked for help getting that particular slot. When Barnes testified under oath a few years ago he stated that it was a friend of Bush Senior who made the request). Third, about two thirds of the way into his service his records get really sketchy (document wise).
You've stated earlier that this is ancient history. And in one respect you're right. There are a lot of problems in the here and now that deserve our attention a lot more than what a young man did or did not do thirty years ago. But this is a consistent pattern with George Bush throughout his career (military, business, and now politics). He talks a great line. But his follow through isn't that great. He slacks off. And it's up to others to bail him out. It's for these reasons that I don't think he's a good leader for this country, especially at this particular point in our history.
I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
There might be quite a few job openings at 60 minutes
I'm not surprised either that men whose family had influence got moved up the roster. In fact, if I was in that situation and someone helped me out in that way I would serve and never look back. And if Bush had come out and said something to the effect of, "Look. I didn't want to go to Vietnam. People pulled strings to get me in the National Guard. I served my country proudly."
It's interesting that folks always assume Bush went into the ANG because he didn't want to go to Vietnam. I've made that assumption myself. At first look it seems reasonable, since so many were doing just that at the time. But avoiding a possible tour in Vietnam, where your chances of being in an actual combat unit were one in ten, by choosing to fly fighter aircraft seems like just going from one risk to another. I wonder of Bush the Younger didn't just aspire to be a pilot like his old man, and if the ANG route was more likely to get him there than any of the active duty Services.
Looks like time for me do do some more research (or find where some has already been done).
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would think his connections could have got him an air force gig if he had wanted it.
That said, it has been an unfortunate trend throughout human history that power and wealth can influence military service. This is true for both those who seek not to serve and those who did serve. The draft during the civil war actually had a $300 buy out clause that many wealthy took advantage of.
I don't particularly like Bush but his method of getting out of Vietnam isn't any worse than Bill Clinton's. If Bush actually fulfilled his obligations (and this is currently unsettled in my mind) it might even be a step better in that he did serve.
What troubles me about our government, neither party excluded, is that so many (both elected and appointed figures) have chosen not to serve and neither have their families. I have begun to support the concept of a two-year mandatory service arrangment for both genders. In fact I think it would do more to protect people from terrorism than most of the Patriot Act.
Arawaen
Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was actually thinking something along similar lines, Arawaen, in terms of military service. Of course, this might have been partly influenced by my recent re-reading of "Starship Troopers". I think Michael Moore provided a useful service in Fahrenheit 911 when he publicized how members of Congress are not immediately impacted by war (due to very few of them having children in the military).
You could be right, Geezer, that Bush wanted to fly because his father had been a pilot. I haven't read anything to support this, but I'll be curious about the results of your research.
So to kind of get back to the whole CBS fiasco. One of the most impressive aspects of the affair is how quickly these documents were proved to be forgeries. The major media were following in the wake of the on-line community on this one. The LA Times has been doing some good work on tracking the online questioning of the documents. Here is a link to an early report by Peter Wallsten titled, "No Disputing It: Blogs Are Major Players" from September 12 (probably requires registration - for all of these latimes links you can login with the following - username: latimes1 password: latimes2):
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blog12sep12,1,104
3155.story
Quote:
Brief excerpt from above link
That story began Wednesday, 19 minutes after the "60 Minutes II" broadcast began, when another FreeRepublic poster, TankerKC, noted that the documents were "not in the style that we used when I came into the USAF…. Can we get a copy of those memos?"
Less than four hours later, Buckhead pointed to "proportionally spaced fonts" in the memos, which CBS said had been written in the early 1970s by Bush's commanding officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, who died in 1984. Buckhead concluded that the documents had been drafted on a modern-day word processor rather than a typewriter.
"I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old," Buckhead wrote. "This should be pursued aggressively."
And it was — with startling speed.
Peter Wallsten continued to work on the story and was able to figure out who Buckhead is. He released an update in Saturday's edition of the LA Times entitled, "GOP Activist Made Allegations on CBS Memos". http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-buckhead18sep18,1
,1674359.story
Quote:
Excerpt from above link
WASHINGTON — It was the first public allegation that CBS News had used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush's Air National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted on the Web within hours of airtime, citing proportional spacing and font styles.
But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history, as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who had helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal, the Los Angeles Times has learned.
...
Operating as Buckhead, which is also the name of an upscale Atlanta neighborhood, he wrote that the memos CBS' "60 Minutes" presented Sept. 8 as being written in the early 1970s by the late Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian were "in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman."
"The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction of laser printers, word-processing software and personal computers," MacDougald wrote on the website. "They were not widespread until the mid- to late '90s. Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang systems that were dominant in the mid '80s used monospaced fonts.
"I am saying these documents are forgeries, run through a copier for 15 generations to make them look old. This should be pursued aggressively."
So that answered my earlier question about who was the first person to call these f
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The thing about this memo that has me questioning its authenticity is right at the top of the page...
"P.O. Box 34567"
While, personally, I have not served in any branch of the military, quite a few of my friends have. None of them, nor any military office address I've ever seen, takes mail at a P.O. Box.
Even if they did take the mail at a post office box, what are the odds that it would be box number 34567? The rarity of the behavior, and the sequence of the number make me question this.
Just my take, feel free to tear it apart.
~ Lost In The 'Verse
"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME