Bush's missing service records found
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 07-24-2004 - 6:43am |
It's a miracle! They have suddenly reappeared!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/24/politics/campaign/24records.html?pagewanted=print&position=
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />July 24, 2004
Bush Service Records From '72, Thought Lost, Are Discovered
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><?xml:namespace prefix = w ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" />OUSTON, July 23 - More than five months after the White House reported them lost and four weeks to the day after the Defense Department said they were inadvertently destroyed, missing payroll records of President Bush's disputed service in the National Guard have turned up, the Pentagon reported Friday.
The records - two half-sheets of paper covered with codes and numbers - confirm what other previously released records already show and the White House has acknowledged: that former First Lt. Bush did not perform service in the third quarter of 1972, when he left his Texas Air National Guard unit to transfer to Alabama where he worked on a political campaign.
But the records, released in response to a reporter's standing Freedom of Information request, do little to resolve other questions about how and where Mr. Bush performed his prescribed military service between May 1972 and May 1973.
Two other sets of payroll records, previously released, appear to conflict over whether Mr. Bush earned any service credits at all in 1972, but a White House spokeswoman attributed the discrepancy to accounting procedures.
The spokeswoman, Claire Buchan, said, "All the military records demonstrate he fully fulfilled his service."
How Mr. Bush got into the National Guard in 1968 during the Vietnam War and pursued his six-year commitment became an issue in his campaigns for Texas governor and president. It erupted again in February when Democrats supporting Senator John Kerry said Mr. Bush had gone AWOL, citing official reports that he had not been seen by military officers in Alabama. The White House on Feb. 10 countered by releasing hundreds of pages of National Guard records showing, in part, that Mr. Bush had accumulated sufficient payroll credits to back up his honorable, and early, discharge in October, 1973, to attend Harvard Business School.
In releasing the data, the administration noted that it was not including the payroll records from the third quarter of 1972 - that is, July, August and September - because, according to the Defense Financial Accounting Service, they "were apparently lost when they were being transferred to microfiche."
The Pentagon's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review, on June 25, also omitted those records and ones from the first quarter of 1969 when it provided hundreds of pages of Mr. Bush's National Guard file - basically what the White House had already released last February - in response to a request filed Feb. 10 by The New York Times. The Pentagon's explanation was that in 1996 and 1997 the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Denver had been trying to salvage deteriorating microfilm and damaged numerous records in the process. President Bush's records for two quarters of 1969 and 1972 "were among the records destroyed" and no backup paper copies could be found, the Pentagon said.
But on Friday the same Freedom of Information office responded anew to The Times request saying that the finance and accounting office had been unable to locate the records because "incorrect accession numbers" had been provided.
Now released, the two records show the days Mr. Bush earned credits for service. The 1969 period, when he was learning to fly, shows service and is not in dispute. The 1972 sheet shows blanks for July through September. That period covers the time when another National Guard record shows that Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972 for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." The payroll records produced Friday does not address the issue. The White House has said that Mr. Bush was not flying in Alabama so there was no reason for him to take the physical.
Previously released payroll records appear to conflict on whether Mr. Bush served in 1972 after April. Previously released records from the last quarter of 1972 show no service credits for October, November or December.
The records from the first quarter of 1973, however, recapping the previous quarter, credit Mr. Bush with 1972 service on Oct. 28 and 29 and Nov. 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Ms. Buchan at the White House said it was the way the Guard did the accounting and an officer at the defense and accounting service agreed.
"It is not unusual for duty performed in one quarter to be posted in the following quarter," said Lt. Kristina Sell, chief of Air Force Reserve pay in Denver.

Elaine
Pages
He flips more than a short order cook, which is why I cannot bring myself to vote for him, and believe me, I am looking for a good alternative to George Bush, but Kerry just does not provide that choice for me.
I was personally hoping for Gephardt, or even on a smaller chance that perhaps McCain would challenge Bush for the Republican nod....(I know that was an extreme longshot, but what the heck).
Some election we're down to when Bush supporters can't even cite their own record or accomplishments and only attempt to beat down Kerry's. Don't sell me this line you're looking for an alternative to Bush if you're reciting the litany of their campaign message.
Believing a politician isn't going to be swayed by public opinion, now that's a rabid case of true believerism if I ever heard one.
Time are ever changing and politicians that want to last in their business are going to change with it too. While we can surely get into various degrees of how often a politican changes his or her stance on issues, it's beyond niave to believe it's not practiced by almost all career politicians.
Kerry doesn't exactly blow my skirt up, hell he doesn't even offer a warm breeze. But I know enough not to believe the litany of Rove just because I heard it on television, I will go check and verify for myself.
But that's cool with me, Bush/Quayle ran the same kind of campaign against Clinton, a man with as much moral fiber as your friendly neighborhood pimp.
They're going to need a lot more than just bashing Kerry to win, after 110 million in TV ads have shown.
I'm thinking the only way Kerry doesn't win, is if a photograph is produced showing him handing a vial of Anthrax to Bin Laden.
If Bush were so unpopular and the country were truly calling for a change, dont you think the poll numbers (even though it is still early) would actually reflect this? So far they show exactly what I have been saying for three months.....the people dont like Bush but like Kerry even less.
His approval rating remains below 50%
Less than 40% of the population feels the country is headed in the right direction.
This election mirrors the 1992 so much, it's laughable.
Most people wanted change, even though the head to head polls between Bush/Clinton were TIED on the last day before the election.
In 1992, all Bush/Quayle could do, is use the waffler label, avoided their own record and got booted out with force. Yeah, they're going to have to do more than the waffler, if it didn't work against: A draft dodging, soon to be disbarred, liar, pot smoking, womanizing, war protesting from the USSR, failed governor of a small and insignificant state....
Keep misunderestimating the power of the totally United Democratic party (for at least one election, they'll be at each others throats again by 2006) and the shot that will be heard around the world on election day.
There is no way that Kerry is going to win in a landslide....or Bush for that matter.
If your idea of a successful campaign is what Bush/Quayle did in 1992, then I can see why you think Bush will win this year, they're doing nothing differently :)
When all you can do is attempt to tear down your opponent, it speaks volumes for The Candidates character, and the character of his supporters.
Can you name one Kerry/Edwards campaign message that's negative? Living in a swing state, I see them all.
The thing about Clinton was that not only did he appeal to Democrats, he knew how to appeal to moderates and independents alike.
Kerry cannot do that, and Bush will have trouble doing that this time.
If there were a '?' in the voting booth, I think that would get a good percentage of the vote...
Pages