Bush Fell Short on Duty at Guard: Records Show Pledges Unmet

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/
from JoeUser Forums
From the Boston Globe:
In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

George Bush is one of the few presidents who's worn a military uniform while in office, in spite of the fact that men far more qualified than he chose not to. This is the man who's had his Vice President, his campaign strategist, and his father all support the dishonest, widely disproved Swift Veteran attack ads on actual Vietnam veteran John Kerry, while Bush himself has refused to specifically denounce those ads.
politics
2,133 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The last statement was untrue. Bush has denounced the 527s, and I firmly believe the only reason he did not NAME the ads is that there are many in the present media who would love to have a sound bite to twist, and his advisors probably told him to avoid naming them for that reason.

While the newly released information on Bush's guard service is credible, its timing is suspicious to say the least...
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
While the newly released information on Bush's guard service is credible, its timing is suspicious to say the least...

People have been talking about Bush's record for a long time, the fact that this type of thing is just now being brought to light illustrates the dubious character of the White House occupant, not the media.
Fences - Organize your desktop icons today!
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

By: blogic
Posted: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 on My Galaxy is Milky Way Adjacent
Message Board: Politics
From the Boston Globe:

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

George Bush is one of the few presidents who's worn a military uniform while in office, in spite of the fact that men far more qualified than he chose not to. This is the man who's had his Vice President, his campaign strategist, and his father all support the dishonest, widely disproved Swift Veteran attack ads on actual Vietnam veteran John Kerry, while Bush himself has refused to specifically denounce those ads.

Link: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard


At least he turned over ALL his military records. Kerry still has not. There's about 100 pages still to go. He won't sign the 180.