Donald Sensing, Bill Hobbs, and Andrew Olmstead tag team the specious Bush Awol charges, with Hobbs providing the background, Sensing officially devestating Mark Kleiman’s partisan and ham-handed defense of Wesley Clark and Michael Moore, and Olmstead providing his own personal antecdotes about paperwork and the Reserve/National Guard component.
To add to Olmstead’s anecdotes about paperwork in the National Guard, here are some experiences I had while in the Guard/Reserve component:
– I received three batteries of shots that are supposed to be administered once every ten years or so, because my shot records kept coming up missing.
– I was not paid numerous times throught my Guard tenure.
– I was deployed for my two week annual training with the unit in Fort Dix, upon arrival it was discovered that no orders had been cut for me, so I went back home, only to learn that the orders had been found and I had to re-deploy.
– It took over a year from my separation from my unit to receive my honorable discharge.
– My DD Form 214 is still, to this date, incorrect, with several awards not noted.
-Every semester as an undergrad, the paperwork for my tuition waiver was lost, so halfway through the semester I was dropped from all my classes. I would then have to go back at the end of the semester, when the waiver was finally found, and re-register for the classes I had already taken and then get grade modifications filled out by the professors. EVERY SEMESTER.
– A promotion was delayed six months while various levels of the National Guard bureaucracy debated whether or not I had in fact attended PLDC. My CO was convinced. I showed him my diploma and pictures, but the official paperwork was not to be found.
Mark Kleiman is really out of his league on this one.
Gary Utter
I was Regular Army in Viet Nam, my DD214 is also missing some awards, after 32 years and several requests for correction.
Trump
Anyone who could still give credence to and repeat this idiocy is either a moron of the highest order or a traitor. I’ll allow the Moores and Atrios’ of the world to choose which they prefer…
capt joe
I saw Moore’s movie, “Big Fat Liar”, loved it.
Oh wait, that wasn’t his movie. That was something else. Anyway same diff. ;)
Juliette
Here’s the Mother of all Missing Records.
When I retired last year and got a new ID card, the tech asked me to send my husband in to get a new one also. The problem? I’ve been divorced since 1992. Because I went back to my maiden name, I had produced the decree for Personnel numerous times over the years after the finalization (they didn’t quite get the concept of name change due to divorce). Well, I had to show it to them yet again last year.
Jon H
“so I went back home, only to learn that the orders had been found and I had to re-deploy.”
What would have happened if you hadn’t showed up the second time?
James W.
http://awol.gq.nu/AWOL_Globe%20series.htm
Anecdotal evidence, incidentally, adds exactly nothing to the debate over Bush’s military record, especially when he refuses to discuss it.
Floyd McWilliams
Complaining about “anecdotal evidence” is a silly attempt to divert attention from the very convincing claim made by Sensing, Cole, et al that the National Guard is terrible at record-keeping. They have made an assertion, and provided evidence of that assertion. If you want to claim the opposite, that the Guard’s records are sufficient to support a charge of AWOL against Bush, then you need to come up with some evidence yourself.
Gary Farber
It seems clear to me that no one (other than Bush, of course), based upon presently available evidence, has any sure way to know whether Bush did, in fact, show up and the paperwork is merely missing, or, in fact, did not show up.
This being the case, it is impossible for me to see assertive claims of surety in either direction as anything more than a projection of the asserter’s preference. Strangely, this tends to follow a partisan caste. Who could imagine that?
The best case anyone can logically make is “we don’t know.” Anything else speaks poorly to the credibility of the asserter, I’m afraid.
The one thing that does occur to me otherwise is that if Bush was indeed present in Alabama, how is it that no witness has come forward to attest to that? Or did I miss that? Such a lack, of course, is in no way probative; it’s merely odd.
Ksec
He deserted. Its a no brainer,just look at why he isnt seen in a year and his bosses saying they didnt see him. He was off in Mexico on a cocaine binge. Fuckin dopehead. =It must be a conservative trait with Rush and all.
Charlie
Gary, if you would actually follow the links goddammit you’d see that the NY Times eventually found documentary evidence to debunk the story.
Forgive the canned response, but I’m tired of retyping it:
George magazine investigated it and found no reason to believe it. (Can’t link, because George is gone.) FactCheck.org doesn’t believe it. The National Guard’s magazine doesn’t believe it. Military people who know the Guard don’t believe it. Rev. Don Sensing, based on his experience as a career Artillery officer, doesn’t buy it. Even the New York Times doesn’t believe it, saying:
In fact, it seems only two groups of people still believe it: people who have political reasons for wanting to believe it, and people who won’t follow up by, say, reading the links in Bill Hobbs’ many articles on the topic.
Gary Farber
Charlie, your use of the word “believe” is telling. This isn’t a matter of faith. Or rather, for many, it is. On either “side.”
But it’s a matter of fact, that, in fact, has not been clearly established by anyone, including all of the sources you cite. It doesn’t matter if a person, who in most cases, coincidentally, just happens to be a partisan of Bush, doesn’t “believe” the charge that Bush didn’t show up. I, not a Bush partisan, don’t believe any such charge has been clearly established, either. Happy? Apparently not.
“Documents reviewed by The Times showed that Mr. Bush served in at least 9 of the 17 months in question… ”
This is pretty complicated math here, but counting slowly on my figures suggests that, if one stipulates that the Times is always correct in its judgment — interesting that you are stipulating that, by the way — that leaves eight months unaccounted for.
What you appear to want is agreement with your insistance that this “proves” that Bush did fulfill his service. But that is not proven, either. It’s just not. Only if clear evidence, such as the relevant paperwork, or a set of convincing unbiased witnesses, were provided, would such proof be available.
It’s not. Unless you can provide a link to either such paperwork, or the statements of such witnesses, there is no proof.
So what’s established is that there is no proof in either direction. What’s left is either to objectively suspend judgment, as I have, or to display partisan bias by insisting, ever louder and more emphatically (as a substitute for proof, that Bush did so go AWOL/didn’t go AWOL.
Personally I think the whole thing is pretty trivial and irrelevant, and that it’s pretty silly for anyone to so worked up, but ultra-partisans tend to do that. Their Guy Must Be Without Blemish, and if I don’t have facts, I’ll just shout louder.
Unfortunately, the plural of “opinion” is not “fact.”
And the fact that I make these same points in arguments with those who insist that it’s “indisputable” that Bush was AWOL will make no difference, of course. I’m just willfully Refusing To Believe. Darn me!
11A5S
I commanded in the Guard and can tell you this:
1. Guard record keeping is horrible. As is the pay system and promotion system. Those that continue to serve in this mess deserve the nation’s praise.
2. You cannot “desert” from the Guard. Desertion applies only in wartime. You can be declared AWOL. This is a state and unit matter. Some units cover up their AWOLs. Some states (mostly in the South) take AWOL very seriously and prosecute them. Most states don’t give a rat’s behind about AWOLs and will not devote any law enforcement resources to apprehending them and trying them. How does this affect the Bush case? Legally, going AWOL from the Guard is about as serious as running a red light. It is a _voluntary_ state militia after all. Most soldiers and airmen have nothing happen to them at all. A few get general discharges. A very few get other than honorable discharges.
3. You can miss a drill without being AWOL. The status is known as “absent leave.” You don’t get paid but you don’t get carried as AWOL either. The use of this category is discouraged, but when someone’s job transfers him out of the area or he has a personal problem, you carry him absent leave.
My questions are these: Was Bush AWOL for those drills (bad) or was he being carried absent leave (good)? Does your typical J-school type know the difference? Would he/she even bother to interview folks like me to get the background to understand? When I see all of these questions answered, I will then form an opinion about this issue.
ctl
Gary Farber,
Since you have produced no compelling evidence that you’re a child molester and rapist, I therefore suspend my judgement. Only people with preconcieved notions have an opinion on the subject.
It’s not up to Bush to prove a negative, any more than you are required to. People are accusing him of a crime. It’s up to them to provide evidence of it. The fact that the National Guard never charged Bush with anything is very substantial evidence in his favor. Someone now has to provide stronger evidence in the other direction for this to be an issue.
As it stands, only highly partisan people even consider it an issue.
And all belief is a matter of faith; you can no more prove that the earth is round than you can prove that Socrates died by Hemlock or that Julius Ceasar was the first roman emperor. You can only establish it past a certain standard of evidence, and people who hold that standard of evidence might believe in it.
Have you only studied history in high school? All history is uncertain guesswork. Some of it is very uncertain.
Al Bullock
To err is human. to do it consistently is MILPERS.
Last two promotions were screwed up. Yes he’s promoted. No, we made a mistake. Yes he was promoted. Let us double check.
Last tour in Vietnam as I checked out through personnel, the clerk said, “Oh, by the way you were promoted two months ago.”
Gary Farber
“Since you have produced no compelling evidence that you’re a child molester and rapist, I therefore suspend my judgement. Only people with preconcieved notions have an opinion on the subject.”
If you sincerely mean that, that’s fine by me. Am I supposed to be bothered by the notion that you are fair-minded and have no bias towards thinking I am a child-molester and rapist?
“t’s not up to Bush to prove a negative, any more than you are required to. People are accusing him of a crime. It’s up to them to provide evidence of it.”
Quite so. Who are you arguing with? Not me, since I’ve said nothing that this relates to. I fully agree with it.
“As it stands, only highly partisan people even consider it an issue.”
My point.
“And all belief is a matter of faith; you can no more prove that the earth is round than you can prove that Socrates died by Hemlock or that Julius Ceasar was the first roman emperor.”
This, on the other hand, is not so. We have plenty of observational, experiential, and mathematical, proof of the round (oblate spheroid, actually) nature of the earth. While there is considerable evidence that Caesar was the first Roman Emperor, it is not mathematically or experientially falsifiable.
What’s remarkable, but unsurprising, is how many people who believe that all discussion related to political figures is a matter of picking the “side” you are on, and if you don’t resoundingly agree with the “defense” or “offense” in every particular of every charge, than ipso facto, we must assume that in conversation you are “on the other side.”
I’m not on the side of proving George Bush an evil criminal mastermind. I’m not on the side of proving George Bush a brilliant charismatic leader. I’m on the side of pointing out when people make reasonable statements and when people make absurd statements.
James Stephenson
My only real comment is that he did get an Honorable discharge. They do not just give those away you know.
Steve Satterly
Farber has missed the point, one can only assume on purpose. If a charge is filed, it is up to the one making the charge to meet the evidentiary criteria for making the charge stick. In this case, it would be the National Guard, who held authority over Bush. None were filed. In the absence of those charges, any charges by people not in authority, are specious.
skid
OK.
a.) If it’s as simple as that, why won’t he discuss it? If all you dittoheads are gonna step up and defend GWOL, how hard would it be for him to do it?
b.) Um, maybe in a court of law he doesn’t bear the burden of proof, but this is public opinion. Further, as for proving a negative, you’re right, he doesn’t have to prove a negative. He has to prove that he WAS there, which is a positive. The negative is the crime in this case, not the circumstance.
Ultrapartisan my ass. Before you start throwing that accusation around, consider why you even think this is a partisan issue (shouldn’t your leader be honest and dutiful, regardless of your respective beliefs?), and why you dismiss it out of hand, when your own “evidence” doesn’t even give your boy a full alibi. 8 months is almost a year. And whether or not there were charges pursued or convictions passed down is irrelevant. Would you want OJ to chaperone your wife around for a night? how bout 4 years?
JoeV
Excellent OJ comparison skid.
Whether or not Bush reported for duty probably won’t be difinitively answered. He hasn’t filed the paperwork that would release his records – here’s the website where Bush could do this:
http://www.archives.gov/facilities/mo/st_louis/military_personnel_records/sample_authorization.html
His choice to not release the records is telling. If Bush didn’t have something to hide, why not release them? If Bush were really there, why hasn’t a single person corroboratted his whereabouts during those missing months?
The new records released by the White Hose today, still don’t account for 6 months of his service.
Beyond this whole “Where was Bush” story, is the simple fact that he joined the Guard to avoid ground combat in Vietnam. Of course his family (while not as powerful as it became, still quite powerful in Texas) greased the system for him. Lloyd Benson’s son was also in Bush’s unit, as were half a dozen Dallas Cowboys footbal players. While being sickly partisan, this 1999 WashPost is quite informative:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush072899.htm
Serving in the Guard today is quite risky and dangerous, and those poor souls that Bush is sending off to die deserve our respect. Their nobility has nothing to do with observing that during the Vietnam War, rich kids joined the Guard to avoid the risks of combat duty. Guard units were not relied on then as they are today. Bush faced about ZERO chance of being deployed. He selected “do not deploy” on his application. Yes he did “volunteer” for a 3 month deployment – but the truth denies the bravery there as well. At the time he volunteered, Bush had 300 flight hours enough to get his wings, but nowhere near the 500 hours needed to volunteer for active duty. And the plane he was trained on was fazed out of use at the same time.
And lastly, if Bush’s entry and career wasn’t helped by family connections, how come the wrong officer is in the photos with Bush giving him his promotions? How come he got an unheard of promotion to 2Lt after scoring the bare minimum on his entrance test – 25%? Why was he allowed to transfer to an inactive postal unit that had no airplanes? How come when he failed to submit for medical examination there wasn’t a Flight Inquiry Board convened?
http://uggabugga.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_uggabugga_archive.html
These questions, and the lack of any evidence or witnesses to back up Bush’s claims leaves me to conclude something doesn’t smell right here.