[BlackGriffen]

Check it out.

Snipped from the site:

To begin, you need to recall the original mystery of the "torn document" that purports to show Bush's guard activity in 1972 and 1973 (details here and here if your memory is fuzzy). Question: is the document genuine? Or some kind of clever forgery?

Answer: it's real. Here's the untorn version, as delivered to Bob Fertik in response to a FOIA request in late 2000:

As it turns out, though, we have traded one mystery for another. It's now clear that the document is genuine, but what exactly does it tell us? In particular:

• The first listed date is October 29, not November 29 as we had theorized before. But George Bush was still in Alabama in October. What exactly was he getting attendance credit for?
• This is neither a Texas Air National Guard document nor an Alabama document. What is it?

The answer, as you can see from the top line, is that it is an ARF document, as is this record from 1973-74. So what is ARF? I asked Bob Rogers, a retired Air National Guard pilot who's been following this for some time, and what follows is his interpretation of what happened.

ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October.

ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.

To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush's 1973-74 ARF record — but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972, as his Form 712 Master Personnel Record from the Texas Air National Guard clearly indicates:

Tough to argue with document scans (available in the original article).

BlackGriffen

[BRussell]

This will never make a headline. The media refuses to criticize Bush. He's a made man.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Tough to argue with document scans (available in the original article).

If it is indeed the actual document, and the analysis of said document is correct.

"The first listed date is October 29, not November 29 as we had theorized before. But George Bush was still in Alabama in October. What exactly was he getting attendance credit for?"

Wow...we've got an investigatory genius here. Did it ever occur to him that it's possible to be in one place in October, and go somewhere else on the last weekend of the month?

I find it telling that instead of liberals coming up with a security policy, a jobs creation policy, improvements to education policy, or any other meaningful policy, they choose to invest all their time digging through 30+ year-old documents to "prove" a 22-year-old Bush didn't show up for a physical examination and some guard excercises.

[thunderous_funker]

So Bush's military record is nothing that we should be concerned with when picking the Commander-in-Chief?

[zigzag]

Hmm, innaresting. I don't condemn Bush - I suspect that a lot of people got similar treatment, and our concern should be with his present abilities or lack thereof - but it hardly looks like he "fulfilled his responsibilities" in a conscientious way. I doubt many people will change their vote on the service issue alone, but it might convince some swing voters that Dubya isn't exactly a straight talker. Kerry isn't exactly a straight-talker either, but his heroics certainly enhance his image.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
So Bush's military record is nothing that we should be concerned with when picking the Commander-in-Chief?

It wasn't when we picked Clinton. It wasn't when millions backed the candidacy of Howard Dean.

Heck, even John Kerry had this to say in 1992:

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way...

We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations? <snip>

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I find it telling that instead of liberals coming up with a security policy, a jobs creation policy, improvements to education policy, or any other meaningful policy, they choose to invest all their time digging through 30+ year-old documents to "prove" a 22-year-old Bush didn't show up for a physical examination and some guard excercises.

Well, Spacefreak, if that is indeed your name, you should realize that the word "liberals" is plural. That is, more than one of them exists. If single people can multi-task, certainly multiple people can.

More importantly, just look at the planks of some of the Democratic presidential hopefuls. Or are you too lazy to google for John Kerry, John Edwards, Wes Clark, or Howard Dean?

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It wasn't when we picked Clinton. It wasn't when millions backed the candidacy of Howard Dean.

Heck, even John Kerry had this to say in 1992:

Hmm, you pick a Kerry quote from 1992 where he defends Clinton against the attacks on his service record as evidence that nobody made military service records an issue for Clinton?

Curious.

And yes, Dean was constantly attacked on being "unqualified" to be Commander in Chief or conduct foreign policy as if suddenly the former owner of the Texas Rangers was America's "elder statesman".

Sure. There are plenty more important things to talk about in this election, but I don't see why the Democrats should have to pull punches. At least, not after having to endure all the "traitor", "saddam supporter" and "appeasenik" talk from the Right over the last 2 years.

Besides, its Bush who insists on constantly wrapping himself in the flag and placing his role as Commander in Chief as the central issue in this election. As Kerry is fond of shouting in stump issues, if Bush wants to make national defense the central issue--bring it on.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It wasn't when we picked Clinton. It wasn't when millions backed the candidacy of Howard Dean.

Heck, even John Kerry had this to say in 1992:

When monkey boy walks around on a carrier in a flight suit for a photo op or wears a flight jacket like he's some kind of veteran, he makes it an issue (his own credibility/honesty).

BG

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Besides, its Bush who insists on constantly wrapping himself in the flag and placing his role as Commander in Chief as the central issue in this election. As Kerry is fond of shouting in stump issues, if Bush wants to make national defense the central issue--bring it on.

That's Bush's line. And he routinely has "lifted" campaign lines from Dean and Edwards. Can't Kerry come up with anything original?

Regardless, Bush isn't placing his role as Commander-in-Chief as the central issue. Surely your comprehension is better than that. What he's doing is placing his willingness and focus on securing the nation at the forefront. Big difference.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
When monkey boy walks around on a carrier in a flight suit for a photo op or wears a flight jacket like he's some kind of veteran, he makes it an issue (his own credibility/honesty).

BG

Ah BG gets his feathers ruffled and goes on the "Bush is a monkey" defense.

Weak. Just like your mole thumping analogy. Back to class boy.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
When monkey boy walks around on a carrier in a flight suit for a photo op or wears a flight jacket like he's some kind of veteran, he makes it an issue (his own credibility/honesty).

See that discharge there - what's that say... something about a...HONORABLE DISCHARGE?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It wasn't when we picked Clinton. It wasn't when millions backed the candidacy of Howard Dean.

Heck, even John Kerry had this to say in 1992:

I couldn't find it again, but I saw an analysis of the reporting done on Clinton's vs. Bush's Vietnam escapades in the 1992 elections for Clinton and then the 2000 election for Bush. There was no comparison. Hundreds of in-depth analyses of Clinton's record and just a few on Bush.

And it turns out that there's probably much more favoritism and deception with what Bush did then what Clinton did. Basically, Clinton simply didn't get drafted. Bush appears to have evaded responsibility and gotten away with it.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
See that discharge there - what's that say... something about a...HONORABLE DISCHARGE?

Just cause the piece of paper says it was honorable doesn't mean that the court of public opinion will agree.

BG

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Ah BG gets his feathers ruffled and goes on the "Bush is a monkey" defense.

Weak. Just like your mole thumping analogy. Back to class boy.

Well his genome is 97% identical with a chimpanzee..

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
That's Bush's line. And he routinely has "lifted" campaign lines from Dean and Edwards. Can't Kerry come up with anything original?

Actually, as campaign tactics go, it's brilliant - throw Dubya's words back at him. Such an idea would do any political strategist, including Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, proud. It seems to have given Kerry's campaign some vigor and focus where it had none before, and puts Dubya on the defensive, which has been difficult to do. The Dems are perceived as softies, and Kerry's in a position to turn the tables.

I don't condemn Bush for his wartime record, and I think it's low on the list of concerns, but neither is it completely irrelevant. Like any other background issue, it goes to experience and credibility.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Just cause the piece of paper says it was honorable doesn't mean that the court of public opinion will agree.

And that's the left's strategy with this whole thing.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Well his genome is 97% identical with a chimpanzee..

Don't even bother with that troll - I sometimes throw him a piece of meat to gnaw on to distract him, but other than that he isn't worth the electric current he expends to post.

BG

Edit: I sometimes spell words correctly, too.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Actually, as campaign tactics go, it's brilliant - throw Dubya's words back at him. Such an idea would do any political strategist, including Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, proud. It seems to have given Kerry's campaign some vigor and focus where it had none before, and puts Dubya on the defensive, which has been difficult to do. The Dems are perceived as softies, and Kerry's in a position to turn the tables.

The only reason "Kerry's in a position to turn the tables" is because the the Democrats have had the soapbox all to themselves for the past 4 months.

We'll see how Kerry's tide-turning holds up once the Bush campaign is in full swing.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The only reason "Kerry's in a position to turn the tables" is because the the Democrats have had the soapbox all to themselves for the past 4 months.

We'll see how Kerry's tide-turning holds up once the Bush campaign is in full swing.

Alright, you're halfway there. Now, it's time to put on your thinking cap. Who is John Kerry running against right now? Clark, Edwards, and Dean. Most prominently, Edwards and Dean. Whether he really has an advantage over Bush in this arena or not, if Dems perceive it as an advantage, then that's fewer votes for Dean and Edwards based on nothing more than "electability."

Kerry has been tooting his Vietnam horn as long as I've been following the race. This is nothing new, it just so happens that Kerry is the big story right now.

Even I doubt that it will hurt monkey boy much, unless of course it can be proven that Bush skipped out on his physical that year because he didn't want his coke snorting habit caught in the new random drug checks. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

You can watch future president Bush suck down alcohol, six years after he claimed to have quit, if you want. Never mind that, though, there's nothing wrong with Bush's credibility...

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The only reason "Kerry's in a position to turn the tables" is because the the Democrats have had the soapbox all to themselves for the past 4 months.

We'll see how Kerry's tide-turning holds up once the Bush campaign is in full swing.

That's partly true, but mostly he's in a position to turn the tables because he was a war hero, so unlike other Dems he can't be accused of lacking cajones. He can be accused of bad policy positions, even on national security, but no one can suggest that he's just a pot-smoking draft dodger. The Republicans will, of course, focus on his anti-war activities. I expect it to get very dirty on both ends.

And Bush will have to be more careful about playing soldier - it sort of takes that arrow out of his strategic quiver. Against a Gore or a Clinton, he could get away with it more easily.

Like I said, I doubt many people will vote on the service issue alone, but it could have a cumulative effect. If people are leaning one way or another, it might sway them further.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That's partly true, but mostly he's in a position to turn the tables because he was a war hero, so unlike other Dems he can't be accused of lacking cajones.

Don't be so sure politicians are above bald faced lies, if they think they can get away with it. Case study: Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs. What happened:

An already nasty race for one of Georgia's two seats in the U.S. Senate has taken an even uglier turn.

U.S. Rep. Saxby Chambliss, the Republican in the contest, is airing a television ad in his contest against incumbent Sen. Max Cleland, the Democratic Party candidate, that features Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Chambliss' message: Cleland is soft on homeland defense and doesn't support President Bush.

At its best, the ad is misleading. At its worst, it's an irresponsible and repugnant attack on Cleland's character and sense of patriotism.

Chambliss' ad says that Cleland claims to support Bush. "But that's not the truth," the ad continues. "Since July, Max Cleland has voted against the president's Homeland Security efforts 11 times."

What the ad fails to point out is that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before the president did. Cleland also voted for Democratic-authored legislation to establish the new agency when it cleared committee earlier this year, according to an analysis by Associated Press special correspondent David Espo.

The Department of Homeland Security bill currently is hung up in the Senate, where amendments to the proposed legislation are the issue. Cleland has opposed the administration "on amendments related to civil service rules and labor protection for employees of the new department, the disagreement that has blocked passage of the measure thus far," Espo reports.

It's clear that Cleland supports the homeland defense concept. It's equally evident that he differs on how the proposed legislation should be implemented. And it's insulting that Chambliss should invoke images of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein to confuse the issue and imply that Cleland doesn't have the best interests of his nation at heart.

Cleland, after all, knows more than a little about fighting for his country. As a company commander during the Vietnam War, he lost an arm and both legs.

Chambliss, who was granted deferments during the war, is quick to unfairly characterize Cleland's commitment to the security of his neighbors and countrymen. Perhaps the fact that he trails Cleland in the polls is the reason for the negative and irresponsible ad.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Even I doubt that it will hurt monkey boy much, unless of course it can be proven that Bush skipped out on his physical that year because he didn't want his coke snorting habit caught in the new random drug checks. I doubt that will ever happen, though.

You can watch future president Bush suck down alcohol, six years after he claimed to have quit, if you want. Never mind that, though, there's nothing wrong with Bush's credibility...

Too bad all your leftist, hate-Bush allegations have no evidence to back them up - no matter how many weak-ass websites you link to.

It's so obvious that you and your ilk cannot come up with effective arguments on policy. So, as your talking points commanders advise, keep digging.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Too bad all your leftist, hate-Bush allegations have no evidence to back them up.

It's so obvious that you and your ilk cannot come up with effective arguments on policy. So, as your talking points commanders advise, keep digging.

I keep looking for the "policy" part of your argument but I can't find it.

As far as I'm concerned, this document clears up much of mystery about Bush's "AWOL" act. He wasn't AWOL, he was serving disciplinary time and appears to have complied with it. He broke the rules, got clipped and served out his "sentence". Nuff said for me.

Of course, hopefully the attention on this matter will prevent Bush from trying to play dress-up soldier for any future campaigning. It will only draw even more attention to his own less-than-heroic military service.

But by all means, let's talk policy.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't be so sure politicians are above bald faced lies, if they think they can get away with it. Case study: Max Cleland, a Vietnam vet who lost three limbs. What happened:


BlackGriffen

Yes, Cleland is a good example of why the war hero angle, while more helpful than not, doesn't win elections. I think that, at best, it solidifies the support or opposition that a candidate already has, and might sway a few swing voters. It will give Kerry a powerful talking point and some cover, but the Republicans will plaster the airwaves with Kerry's anti-war activities, so the net effect will probably be small and could even work to Bush's favor if his strategists play it right.

George McGovern and George Bush were fighter pilots, Bob Dole lost the use of a hand, etc., but it didn't help at the ballot box.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Don't even bother with that troll - I sometimes throw him a piece of meat to gnaw on to distract him, but other than that he isn't worth the electric current he expends to post.

BG

Edit: I sometimes spell words correctly, too.

Ouch.

That's ok BeeGee, we all have our bad analogies.