Cough it up!

[Z]

bush's responses on MTP re: his nat'l guard service in alabama (and several other issues) indicate that he either doesn't grasp the truth of the situation, is choosing to willfully distort the truth, or is such a poor communicator that his clumsy efforts at being truthful end up missing their mark. none of the three possibilities is very encouraging.

from the center for american progress...

During his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked President Bush if he would allow "anything to show that you were serving [in the National Guard during the summer and fall of 1972]? Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?" Bush unequivocally answered "Yes, absolutely," adding, "We did so in 2000, by the way." That was not true – the President did not authorize the release of all relevant documents in 2000 and has not yet authorized the release of all relevant documents now. The entire AWOL issue highlights a troubling pattern by the White House: duplicitous resistance to releasing critical information on issues of public concern.

WITHHOLDING NATIONAL GUARD DOCUMENTS IN 2000: A July 19, 2000 response by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, CO, to a Freedom of Information Act request clearly indicates that "portions of the information" related to Bush's service in the National Guard were withheld. The letter further indicates that such information could be disclosed to "the person about who the information is concerned" – in this case President Bush. It can be accomplished by the President signing a simple document. But the President failed to authorize the release the documents in 2000. Just yesterday the White House released more documents – many of which were blurred and unreadable – that they claim indicate Bush was paid during his time in the National Guard. Why weren't these documents released in 2000? That is unclear, especially considering on June 24, 2000, now-White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told reporters he "traveled to the Personnel Center in Denver and reviewed Bush's file."

WITHHOLDING NATIONAL GUARD DOCUMENTS NOW: More proof the President did not release all of his National Guard records in 2000? Bartlett told the WP that the President's "complete personnel file" was now being forwarded to the White House from the Denver archive. But the White House has not promised, as the President's statement to Russert would require, to actually release the full contents of that file. Instead, the White House says only that it will "review" the documents. When asked yesterday if any other relevant documents existed, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dodged the question, answering "this is what we know that is available." Which only begs the question: will the President make available everything that is relevant?

[hlb2]

First of all, why is the file being given over to the custody of the White House?

Second, why do they feel a need to review a file reflecting nothing but honerable service?

[thebin]

Can you say....FISHING EXPEDITION?

What is it that you are driving towards? That horror of horrors, when he completed his service to the Guard- which culminated in an honorable discharge so he could go to Harvard Business School, he didn't complete his term of service in consecutive months? Geez...you would think the guy fled to Canada or something.

Guardsmen were required to accumulate 50 points per retirement year in order to meet Guard standards. The records show that the president accumulated 56 points in the May 1972 to May 1973 time period.

memo to Terry McAullife: might not want to run your party as the party that disrespects National Guardsmen. Just doesn't strike me as a noble mud-slinging target.

[hlb2]

No. I mean why does the White House have a need to review the file? If the president was such an exemplary soldier, he has nothing to fear. Just give up the records and allow them to demonstrate what he claims. Is there something else to hide in the files? Like, maybe why he didn't take his physical during the same time frame he supposedly stopped showing for meetings and therefore was grounded after the government spent $1 million to train him. Like, maybe a report on a drug-related arrest during the same period when he stopped showing for meeting and didn't take his physical. Like, why he participated at this same time in an alledgedly court-ordered youth assistance program (PULL) in Houston ( a program known for its participation by drug offenders ordered by the courts to do public service as a condition for having records expunged). The only reason anyone is fishing in that hole is because there are some shadows in the water that look a lot like fish. If they just give those records over, maybe everyone will stop fishing and go home.

In the meantime, it just doesn't seem appropriate to give the files over to the custody of the White House--unless it's just copies they are getting. The President said he'd make his militaqry records available. Why doesn't he just be a man of his word and give them up immediately and end the nonsense?

[showcase]

Personally, I think it's silly to make hay over whether the President adequately discharged his obligations to the Tex. Air National Guard. Unless the President tries to climb into a flightsuit again. It might also be relevant if he continues to insist that he should get some sort of bye on accountability because he's a "war President" (gawd, but that justification stuck in my craw, but I guess that's something for the official MTP thread).

On the other hand, you'd expect more from an Administration that was supposed to bring integrity back to the White House - or at least I would.

[TrueHoyaBlue]

I have to agree w/ hlb2 on this one. Why the withholding of the records (or the "review") if there's nothing to hide?

Quite frankly, given that strings were pulled to get W into the Air National Guard so he could avoid combat, I sort of feel like it's a dead issue as to whether or not he actually showed up for duty.

[nychoya3]

It's irrelevant to me, personally, but it's not irrelevant to many voters, and as such, I wholeheartedly endorse making as big an issue as possible out of it. I only wish it was closer to election day.

As for disrespecting the guard, before you get on your high horse, check out this Richard Cohen column: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27178-2004Feb9.html

Given the underhand way that the administration is dealing with this, I'm very much inclined to believe that Bush had no business being honorably discharged. His commanding officers had no recollection of seeing him on the occassions he claims to have been there, and no one has produced a SINGLE eyewittness to his service in Alabama.

Bin, many on the right take every opportunity to call Clinton all kinds of names regarding his lack of military service. Well, presumably if Bill had the connections that dubya had, the conversation would never have come up.

[thebin]

"It's irrelevant to me, personally, but it's not irrelevant to many voters, and as such, I wholeheartedly endorse making as big an issue as possible out of it. I only wish it was closer to election day."

Oh, that is rich. You want this blown out of proportion because its "relevant to many voters" although you are above it. Hey- when did this story first break anyway? Always be suspicious of the "controversy" that needs 5 or 6 pushes from a hateful media before they can make people talk about it. Any ideas why nobody cared about this story when it first came out? You are strangely honest enough to admit you wish this happened closer to election day- despite the lip service you paid about not caring about the real issue. I am going to try to remember this "its relevant to the voters" line when the dirt starts flying on your boys- dirt from say 30 years ago, stuff that is only coming out now despite the fact that this guy is the world's biggest media target and has been for almost 4 years. I can trust you retroactively wish that Clinton's dodge-drafting was blown up as big as possible, as it was "not irrelevant to the voters?"

[nychoya3]

I'm a partisan democrat, and I want to see Bush lose for a multitude of, in my opinion, very good reasons. That I don't see this particular criticism as particularly salient to MY decision does not neccessitate my disavowal of it being used politically to convince other people. In so far as I believe that he did not fufill the duties that an average guardsman would have likely had to perform, I have ZERO problem using this against Bush.

When the dirt flies on my guy, I'll suck it up, particularly if the basic criticism is true. As long as Bush selectively releases records, the issue is valid and unsettled. And the more people it convinces to vote against Bush, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and it's good to see them trying to change the topic by leaking his support for a constitutional ban on gay marriage and civil unions. That'll look REAL good as the 28th amendment.

[thebin]

Well the honesty is refreshing...

It won't ever be the 28th amendment. And that is a good thing.

[Z]

ny times reporting friday evening that bush will release his entire nat'l guard file, as promised.

[showcase]

The Administration apparently released about 10% of the documents late Friday afternoon - just in time for anything contained therein to ruminate for a weekend (and a long one at that). For something that there's apparently nothing to, the White House Press office is being awfully cagey.

[kchoya]

Hmm, maybe the reason General Turnipseed (what a name!) couldn't remember the President serving in the Guard is because he has [glow=red,2,300]Alzheimer's disease[/glow].

www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/17932.htm

[showcase]

Hmm, maybe the reason General Turnipseed (what a name!) couldn't remember the President serving in the Guard is because he has Alzheimer's disease

Would the same be true for all the other people who were around (presumably) at the time but haven't stepped forward to say they remember Bush being there? Hopefully it doesn't explain Bush's apparently inability to identify anyone else who could confirm that he was there?

Hey, I still think this is a pretty goofy issue to attempt to take the President to task over, particularly with the significantly more meaningful, pressing, and hell, RECENT issues surrounding this Administration. That being said, for a reputed party animal, the President was apparently pretty self-effacing during his stay in The Yellowhammer State.

[kchoya]

I've think three different people have stepped forward to say they remember Bush serving.

[kchoya]

I've think three different people have stepped forward to say they remember Bush serving.

[showcase]

Perhaps so, but it doesn't seem to have made the 'mainstream' press (not that that is the barometer of veracity), and more to the point, the White House Press Secretary doesn't seem to be steering the press corp their way.

While I would think that there would be people who could recall Bush being around, even a total absence of corroborating witnesses is fairly equivocal (to me, anyway). Given the short time the President was there and the apparently transient nature of his assignment, I could understand that memory of his presence might have faded.

On the other hand, I still think we speculators and the press have seriously overlooked the party-animal aspect to this story. Maybe the White House isn't naming potential corroborating witnesses because it's afraid they'll all end up saying things like "Oh hey - I remember that guy, I did blow with with him - he was awesome! This one time, he cannonballed a fifth of Chivas through his oxygen tube! He knew how to carb and everything!"