0
   

Bush AWOL documents fake?

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 11:36 pm
Why Bush Left Texas
Click here to return to the browser-optimized version of this page.

This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s=baker

Why Bush Left Texas
by RUSS BAKER - The Nation
[posted online on September 14, 2004]

Growing evidence suggests that George W. Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 for substantive reasons pertaining to his inability to continue piloting a fighter jet.

A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush's personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing. His failure to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his subsequent suspension from flying status.

This central issue, whether Bush did or did not complete his duty--and if not, why--has in recent days been obscured by a raging sideshow: a debate over the accuracy of documents aired on CBS's 60 Minutes. Last week CBS News reported on newly unearthed memos purportedly prepared by Bush's now-deceased commanding officer. In those documents, the officer, Lieut. Col. Jerry Killian, appeared to be establishing for the record events occurring at the time Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in May 1972. Among these: that Bush had failed to meet unspecified Guard standards and refused a direct order to take a physical exam, and that pressure was being applied on Killian and his superiors to whitewash whatever troubling circumstances Bush was in.

Questions have been raised about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.

If it is demonstrated that profound behavioral problems marred Bush's wartime performance and even cut short his service, it could seriously challenge Bush's essential appeal as a military steward and guardian of societal values. It could also explain the incomplete, contradictory and shifting explanations provided by the Bush camp for the President's striking invisibility from the military during the final two years of his six-year military obligation. And it would explain the savagery and rapidity of the attack on the CBS documents.

In 1972 Bush's unit activities underwent a change that could point to a degradation of his ability to fly a fighter jet. Last week, in response to a lawsuit, the White House released to the Associated Press Bush's flight logs, which show that he abruptly shifted his emphasis in February and March 1972 from his assigned F-102A fighter jet to a two-seat T-33 training jet, from which he had graduated several years earlier, and was put back onto a flight simulator. The logs also show that on two occasions he required multiple attempts to land a one-seat fighter and a fighter simulator. This after Bush had already logged more than 200 hours in the one-seat F-102A.

Military experts say that his new, apparently downgraded and accompanied training mode, which included Bush's sometimes moving into the co-pilot's seat, can, in theory, be explained a variety of ways. He could, for example, have been training for a new position that might involve carrying student pilots. But the reality is that Bush himself has never mentioned this chapter in his life, nor has he provided a credible explanation. In addition, Bush's highly detailed Officer Effectiveness Reports make no mention of this rather dramatic change.

A White House spokesman explained to AP that the heavy training in this more elementary capacity came at a time when Bush was trying to generate more hours in anticipation of a six-month leave to work on a political campaign. But, in fact, this scenario is implausible. For one thing, Guard regulations did not permit him to log additional hours in that manner as a substitute for missing six months of duty later on. As significantly, there is no sign that Bush even considered going to work on that campaign until shortly before he departed--nor that campaign officials had any inkling at all that Bush might join them in several months' time.

Bush told his commanding officers that he was going to Alabama for an opportunity with a political campaign. (His Texas Air National Guard supervisors--presumably relying on what Bush told them--would write in a report the following year, "A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama.") But the timing of Bush's decision to leave and his departure--about the same time that he failed to take a mandatory annual physical exam--indicate that the two may have been related.

Campaign staff members say they knew nothing of Bush's interest in participating until days before he arrived in Montgomery. Indeed, not one of numerous Bush friends from those days even recalls Bush talking about going to Alabama at any point before he took off.

Bush's behavior in Alabama suggests that he viewed Alabama not as an important career opportunity but as a kind of necessary evil.

Although his role in the campaign has been represented as substantial (in some newspaper accounts, he has been described as the assistant campaign manager), numerous campaign staffers say Bush's role was negligible, low level and that he routinely arrived at the campaign offices in the afternoon hours, bragging of drinking feats from the night before.

According to friends of his, he kept his Houston apartment during this period and, based on their recollections, may have been coming back into town repeatedly during the time he was supposedly working full-time on the Alabama campaign. Absences from the campaign have been explained as due to his responsibilities to travel to the further reaches of Alabama, but several staffers told me that organizing those counties was not Bush's de facto responsibility.

Even more significantly, in a July interview, Linda Allison, the widow of Jimmy Allison, the Alabama campaign manager and a close friend of Bush's father, revealed to me for the first time that Bush had come to Alabama not because the job had appeal or because his presence was required but because he needed to get out of Texas. "Well, you have to know Georgie," Allison said. "He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George [George H.W. Bush] called Jimmy, and said, he's killing us in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that campaign.... The tenor of that was, Georgie is in and out of trouble seven days a week down here, and would you take him up there with you."

Allison said that the younger Bush's drinking problem was apparent. She also said that her husband, a circumspect man who did not gossip and held his cards closely, indicated to her that some use of drugs was involved. "I had the impression that he knew that Georgie was using pot, certainly, and perhaps cocaine," she said.

Now-prominent, established Texas figures in the military, arts, business and political worlds, some of them Republicans and Bush supporters, talk about Bush's alleged use of marijuana and cocaine based on what they say they have heard from trusted friends. One middle-aged woman whose general veracity could be confirmed told me that she met Bush in 1968 at Hemisphere 68, a fair in San Antonio, at which he tried to pick her up and offered her a white powder he was inhaling. She was then a teenager; Bush would have just graduated from Yale and have been starting the National Guard then. "He was getting really aggressive with me," she said. "I told him I'd call a policeman, and he laughed, and asked who would believe me." (Although cocaine was not a widespread phenomenon until the 1970s, US authorities were struggling more than a decade earlier to stanch the flow from Latin America; in 1967 border seizures amounted to twenty-six pounds.)

Bush himself has publicly admitted to being somewhat wild in his younger years, without offering any details. He has not explicitly denied charges of drug use; generally he has hedged. He has said that he could have passed the same security screening his father underwent upon his inauguration in 1989, which certifies no illegal drug use during the fifteen preceding years. In other words, George W. Bush seemed to be saying that if he had used drugs, that was before 1974 or during the period in which he left his Guard unit.

The family that rented Bush a house in Montgomery, Alabama, during that period told me that Bush did extensive, inexplicable damage to their property, including smashing a chandelier, and that they unsuccessfully billed him twice for the damage--which amounted to approximately $900, a considerable sum in 1972. Two unconnected close friends and acquaintances of a well-known Montgomery socialite, now deceased, told me that the socialite in question told them that he and Bush had been partying that evening at the Montgomery Country Club, combining drinking with use of illicit drugs, and that Bush, complaining about the brightness, had climbed on a table and smashed the chandelier when the duo stopped at his home briefly so Bush could change clothes before they headed out again.

It is notable that in 1972, the military was in the process of introducing widespread drug testing as part of the annual physical exams that pilots would undergo.

For years, military buffs and retired officers have speculated about the real reasons that Bush left his unit two years before his flying obligation was up. Bush and his staff have muddied the issue by not providing a clear, comprehensive and consistent explanation of his departure from the unit. And, peculiarly, the President has not made himself available to describe in detail what did take place at that time. Instead, the White House has adopted a policy of offering obscure explanations by officials who clearly do not know the specifics of what went on, and the periodic release of large numbers of confusing or inconclusive documents--particularly at the start of weekends and holiday periods, when attention is elsewhere.

In addition, the Bush camp has offered over the past few years a shifting panoply of explanations that subsequently failed to pass muster. One was that Bush had stopped flying his F-102A jet because it was being phased out (the plane continued to be used for at least another year). Another explanation was that he failed to take his physical exam in 1972 because his family doctor was unavailable. (Guard regulations require that physicals be conducted by doctors on the base, and would have been easily arranged either on a base in Texas or, after he left the state, in Alabama.)

One of the difficulties in getting to the truth about what really took place during this period is the frequently expressed fear of retribution from the Bush organization. Many sources refuse to speak on the record, or even to have their knowledge communicated publicly in any way. One source who did publicly evince doubts about Bush's activities in 1972 was Dean Roome, who flew formations often with Bush and was his roommate for a time. "You wonder if you know who George Bush is," Roome told USA Today in a little-appreciated interview back in 2002. "I think he digressed after awhile," he said. "In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life." Yet in subsequent years, Roome has revised his comments to a firm insistence that nothing out of the ordinary took place at that time, and after one interview he e-mailed me material raising questions about John Kerry's military career. Roome, who operates a curio shop in a Texas hamlet, told me that Bush aides, including communications adviser Karen Hughes, and even the President himself stay in touch with him.

Several Bush associates from that period say that the Bush camp has argued strenuously about the importance of sources backing the President up on his military service, citing patriotism, personal loyalty and even the claim that he lacks friends in Washington and must count on those from early in his life.

In 1971 Bush took his annual physical exam in May. It's reasonable to conclude that he would also take his 1972 physical in the same month. Yet according to official Guard documents, Bush "cleared the base" on May 15 without doing so. Fellow Guard members uniformly agree that Bush should and could have easily taken the exam with unit doctors at Ellington Air Force Base before leaving town. (It is interesting to note that if the Killian memos released by CBS do hold up, one of them, dated May 4, 1972, orders Bush to report for his physical by May 14--one day before he took off.)

Bush has indicated that he departed from Ellington Air Force Base and his Guard unit because he had been offered an important employment opportunity with a political campaign in Alabama. The overwhelming evidence suggests, however, that the Alabama campaign was a convenient excuse for Bush to rapidly exit stage left from a Guard unit that found him and his behavior a growing problem. If that's not the case, now would be an excellent time for a President famed for his superlative memory to sit down and explain what really happened in that period.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Sep, 2004 11:50 pm
Mac: Hang in there Spellbinder. Watch those of your chat pals incontrovertibly "convinced against their will, of the same opinion still". Be not surprised that even brilliant lady lawyers could be in your net.
The GOP has reconsidered and we want you to continue as "Our Man in Havana".
0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 12:12 am
Looks like CBS/Dan Rather was turned away by at least two experts before finding the guy they used. And both experts thought the document were fake.

Funny, Dan didn't mention that on his 60 Minutes report.

Who will be the next Woodward and Bernstein who finds the connection between the DNC and Dan Rather?....



Reports Fuel Doubts on CBS Bush Story

Sep 14, 11:34 PM (ET)

By DAVID BAUDER

NEW YORK (AP) - Two experts hired by CBS News to examine records of President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard told ABC on Tuesday that they could not vouch for the documents' veracity.

Meanwhile, a former secretary in the guard said she believed the documents CBS used were fake, although they accurately reflected the thoughts of one of Bush's commanders.

As questions continued about Dan Rather's report on "60 Minutes" last week, CBS News on Tuesday said it did not rely on assessments made by the two examiners quoted in the ABC report, and found it notable the secretary affirmed the content of the documents.

"We continue to believe in this story," said Betsy West, CBS News' senior vice president.

CBS said its story about Bush's guard service relied on much more than documents. But the controversy has raised credibility questions for the network news division and it's not certain if those questions will be definitively answered.

CBS says the documents from one of Bush's commanders, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicated Bush didn't follow orders to take a physical and that Killian was being pressured to sugarcoat his performance ratings. Bush's father was a Texas congressman at the time.

Questions were immediately raised about the documents' legitimacy, with some believing they were produced by a computer not available at the time.

Emily Will, a documents examiner from North Carolina hired by CBS, said she told the network before the report aired that she questioned handwriting in the documents she was shown and whether it could have been produced by a typewriter.

Her main concern was that she was not provided a known sample of the signature to use for comparison.

"Although I never told them, and I still would say the documents were definitely not authentic, I had some problems with the documents," Will told The Associated Press late Tuesday.

Will said she e-mailed a CBS producer and urged her the night before the broadcast not to play up that a professional document examiner had authenticated the papers.

"I did not feel that they wanted to investigate it very deeply," Will told ABC News.

Another expert hired by CBS, Linda James of Plano, Texas, told ABC that "I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it understood that I did."

James told AP late Tuesday she raised similar concerns about signature samples.

"I really pressed that because I knew that other document examiners looking at the same documents would have a real problem authenticating these," she said.

CBS News said that Will and James played only a "peripheral role" in assessing the documents, and had seen only one of the four used in the report. Ultimately they deferred to another expert who has seen all four documents, Marcel Matley, and who continues to back up CBS' account.

West said Will did not contact the network the night before the report aired.

"I am not aware of any substantive objections raised," she said. "She did not urge us to hold the story."

James told CBS News that she needed to know more about the documents before rendering any judgments, West said. CBS contacted five document experts before the report aired and two since, and continues to report the story, the network said.

Killian's former secretary, 86-year-old Marian Carr Knox, also questioned the documents in an interview with The Dallas Morning News.

"These are not real," Knox said in a story posted Tuesday on the newspaper's Web site. "They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."

Knox told the newspaper she did not recall typing the memos, but that they echoed Killian's views on Bush. She said he retained memos for a personal "cover his back" file he kept in a locked drawer of his desk, but she was not sure what happened to them when he died in 1984.

When contacted Tuesday at her Houston home, Knox's son, Pat Carr, told The Associated Press his mother did not wish to elaborate on her comments to the newspaper.

CBS News spokeswoman Sandra Genelius said CBS did not believe Knox was a documents expert and that the network believes the documents are genuine.

"It is notable that she confirms the content of the documents, which was the primary focus of our story in the first place," Genelius said.

First lady Laura Bush was the first in the GOP campaign to say the latest documents were probably forged.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said said the first lady was speaking for herself and that Bush felt no need to further address questions about his National Guard service. The White House has not come to any conclusions about the documents and is not investigating them, he said.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 12:50 am
Some heads are gonna roll over this, the only question is who's. One sure bet is that they won't be Republican heads; if Rather/CBS/Viacom had any plausible way to lay off responsibility on The Party in Power, that shot already would have been fired, confidentiality be damned in the interest of agenda-convenient expedience and corporate self-presevation. No, wherever this goes, none of the twists and turns are gonna lead to The Right. Rather is finished, CBS is badly embarrassed, and The Democrats have been sorely inconvenienced ... all by their own hand.

With the simultaneous timing of proven liar and looney Barnes' self-contradicted "revelations", Kitty Kelly's laughable smear attempt, "Operation Fortunate Son", Kerry's poll slippage and campaign chaos, shake-ups and revamps, and the openly-issued Democrat statements of late that it was "time to get tough", and now the obstinate stonewalling being done by CBS, only one logical conclusion may be drawn. As it appears now, it is possible, perhaps even likely, a Congressional Committee will be left to draw that conclusion.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 06:50 am
Someone reminded me last night of the time in the last campaign that someone from the Bush campaign mailed Bush's debate coaching tape to the Gore campaign right before the debate. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 07:12 am
There is no joy in Mudville. The Mighty CBS has struck out.
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 07:12 am
There is no joy in Mudville. The Mighty CBS has struck out.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 09:05 am
CBS is suppose to make a statement about the memo's at noon today.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 10:22 am
Why isn't the white house investigating?
0 Replies
 
bruhahah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:04 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Why isn't the white house investigating?


Why would they? Rather & CBS are self-destructing. . . much more effective! And if there ends up being a tie-in with the DNC and/or Kerry campaign, people are far more likely to believe it if the White House stays out of the way.

Same goes for the original story. As with the Kitty Kelly charges, better not to dignify the charges -- the recycled "AWOL" stuff wasn't going anywhere anyway.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:10 am
If someone forged documents about me, I'd investigate and I'd want to know who it was.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:14 am
It would not be The Whitehouse's place to initiate an investigation in this matter, as it is not an internal Whitehouse affair. A Congressional investigation, on the other hand, would be appropriate, and initiating steps to open such have been taken.

I note with interest the ballyhooed and much anticipated CBS Noon EST announcement is yet unreleased, some hour and a quarter on from the scheduled time.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:16 am
Quote:
the recycled "AWOL" stuff wasn't going anywhere anyway.


It actually seems to have gone quite far. But if these documents prove to be absolute forgeries, I will have lost a good deal of respect for Dan Rather and CBS. ESPECIALLY when the facts have been readily vetted out, and corroboration has been firmly established regarding what we all already know about Dumbya's AWOL issues with the National Guard. This is no way to try and find out the truth here.

Like I said, the campaigns of both candidates are going to great lengths to smear each other.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:22 am
timberlandko wrote:
It would not be The Whitehouse's place to initiate an investigation in this matter, as it is not an internal Whitehouse affair. A Congressional investigation, on the other hand, would be appropriate, and initiating steps to open such have been taken.

I note with interest the ballyhooed and much anticipated CBS Noon EST announcement is yet unreleased, some hour and a quarter on from the scheduled time.


Since forgery is a federal crime, shouldn't the FBI be investigating?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:22 am
timberlandko states:

Quote:
It would not be The Whitehouse's place to initiate an investigation in this matter, as it is not an internal Whitehouse affair.


Especially if the allegations ARE true and the Whitehouse just can't afford to draw attention to the fact that George W. Bush was problematic and shirked his responsibilities in the National Guard.

The simple fact that Bush cannot recall ANY details of his experiences during the time he was AWOL is only logical.

It's impossible to imagine that the Democrats would do something as stupid as this, undermining their own already substantiated arguments against Bush.

This is the only way Bush can counter these charges, by introducting doubt of these documents from the very beginning, and perhaps even foiling Dan Rather and CBS.

But I will withhold judgement until this is ALL vetted out to the general putlic.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 11:24 am
Correction: I will withold FINAL judgement until this is all vetted out to the general public.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 12:02 pm
Quote:
Lawmaker Seeks Probe Into Bush Documents

By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer


NEW YORK (AP)--A leading House Republican on Wednesday asked for a congressional investigation into disputed documents used by CBS News for a story examining President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard ...

... Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., sought an investigation.

``Despite the growing abundance of evidence that CBS News has aided and abetted fraud, the network has declined to reveal the source of the disputed documents,'' Cox wrote to the chairman of the House Energy Committee's subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet.

The letter asks Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., to ``commence a subcommittee investigation into the continued use by CBS News of apparently forged documents concerning the service record of President George W. Bush intended to unfairly damage his reputation and influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election.'' ...


And still nothing from CBS ... "The Noon Announcement" now is over two hours past-due.

I will note here that The Swiftboat Vets have not had to retract or restate a single of their claims, While Kerry has been forced to reposition himself re Cambodia among other of his gaffes, and that pages disappear from his official website like leaves from an oak tree in October. Further, I will note the entire "Who served where how when" flap started with the Democrats Anne Richards in particular, during her gubernatorial race against Bush the Younger, then resurected during the Bush-Gore campaign and hyped back to life again this elecdtion cycle, despite having been repeatedly exposed as possessing neither substance nor relevance.

That the issue would yet again be the chief Democratic Talking Point illustrates perfectly the absurdity of their current political direction, and explains the decline the party has inflicted upon itself over the past decade. The Democrats truly have nothing worthwhile to say. Well, perhaps that's unkind ... I'll rephrase; Nothing the Democrats have been heard to say has been perceived by The Electorate as worthwhile.

The best way to esperience futility is to persist in a demonstratedly ineffectual course of action in expectation of improved result. That approach The Democrats seem to have a real grip on, even if they do nothing else very well.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 12:04 pm
Quote:
And still nothing from CBS ... "The Noon Announcement" now is over two hours past-due.


They haven't been able to coax Dan in off the ledge.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 12:14 pm
I will note here that The Swiftboat Vets have not had to retract or restate a single of their claims <--- Timber

That's because, even if they are proven wrong (or very likely wrong) they don't have to recount anything!

After all, there's no recourse if they don't. So why should they?

It's the beauty of the Republican attack machine.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Sep, 2004 12:26 pm
Mr. Bush's Glass House
New York Times
September 15, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Mr. Bush's Glass House
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

President Bush's paramount problem with his National Guard years is not that he took shortcuts in 1972. The problem is that he still refuses to come clean about it.

So as we get caught up in the furor over the CBS documents showing favoritism in President Bush's National Guard career, let's bear a couple of points in mind.

First, there's reason to be suspicious of some of those CBS documents. For starters, a Guard veteran who worked with the supposed author, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, tells me that abbreviations in the documents are wrong. He says group should be "GP" rather than "GRP," there should be no period after "Lt," and Mr. Bush's Social Security number should have been used rather than his old service number.

Second, we shouldn't be distracted by our doubts about the CBS documents. There's no doubt that Mr. Bush benefited from favoritism. The speaker of the Texas House has acknowledged making the call to get Mr. Bush into the National Guard.

Does any of this matter? What troubles me is less Mr. Bush's advantage three decades ago and more his denial today. Mr. Bush's own route to avoid the draft underscores the disparities in America, yet his policies seem based on a kind of social Darwinism in which the successful make their own opportunities. His tax cuts and entire outlook seem rooted in ideas not of noblesse oblige, but of noblesse entitlement.

One fall day in 1973, when Mr. Bush was a new student at Harvard Business School, he was wearing a Guard jacket when he ran into one of his professors. The professor, Yoshi Tsurumi, says he asked Mr. Bush how he wangled a spot in the Guard.

"He said his daddy had good friends who got him in despite the long waiting list," recalls Professor Tsurumi, who is now at Baruch College, part of the City University of New York. Professor Tsurumi says he next asked Mr. Bush how he could have already finished his National Guard commitment. "He said he'd gotten an early honorable discharge," Professor Tsurumi recalls. "I said, 'How did you manage that?' "

"He said, oh, his daddy had a good friend," Mr. Tsurumi said. "Then we started talking about the Vietnam War. He was all for fighting it."

Professor Tsurumi says he remembers Mr. Bush so vividly because he was always making outrageous statements: denouncing the New Deal as socialist, calling the S.E.C. an impediment to business, referring to the civil rights movement as "socialist/communist" and declaring that "people are poor because they're lazy." (Dan Bartlett, an aide to Mr. Bush, denies that the president ever made these statements.)

So in this muddle of competing witnesses and suspect documents, what do we actually know about Mr. Bush and the Air National Guard?

It's pretty clear that Mr. Bush got into the Guard because of his name but did a fine job in his first few years. "He was rock-solid as a pilot," Dean Roome, a pilot in the same unit who was briefly Mr. Bush's roommate, told me. Mr. Roome adds that Mr. Bush inquired in 1970 about the possibility of transferring to Vietnam but was turned down - and, if so, that's a credit to him.

Then, in 1972, something went badly wrong. My hunch is that Mr. Bush went through personal difficulties that he's embarrassed to talk about today. In addition, Mr. Roome suggests that changes at the Texas air base were making it more difficult for junior pilots, so sometimes Mr. Bush's only chance to fly was as a target for student pilots - not the most thrilling duty.

For whatever reason, Mr. Bush's performance ratings deteriorated, he skipped his flight physical, he stopped flying military planes forever, he transferred to Alabama, and he did not report to certain drills there as ordered. The pilots I interviewed who were in Alabama then are pretty sure that Mr. Bush was a no-show at required drills.

The next year Mr. Bush skipped off to Harvard Business School. He still had almost another year in the Guard he had promised to serve, but he drifted away, after taxpayers had spent $1 million training him, and he never entirely fulfilled his obligations.

More than three decades later, that shouldn't be a big deal. What worries me more is the lack of honesty today about that past - and the way Mr. Bush is hurling stones without the self-awareness to realize that he's living in a glass house.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.45 seconds on 01/31/2025 at 06:03:30