Calm down y'all, even IF the documents are forgeries...

npincus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Sep-10-04 07:29 AM
Original message

Calm down y'all, even IF the documents are forgeries...

Edited on Fri Sep-10-04 07:30 AM by npincus

... the Kerry campaign's hands are clean. This is a black eye to CBS, and if ANYONE from Kerry's camp comments on this, it is a TRAP.

Right now, what we should not let smoke from this fire cover what are undisputed facts about Bush's Guard service as revealed in the Boston Globe (master)piece. WE are our own worst enemy... let this play out, and stay focused on what we do know, per The Boston Globe:

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.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.

DO NOT FALL INOT ROVE'S TRAP, everybody! They have been contolling the discourse because we have let them. (Such as Kerry responding to Bush's challenge about his support of the war "knowing what we know now") I still believe Kerry can win this, but we cannot panic- we must beat them like a drum where they are vulnerable, and stay on message.