09/13/2004: So, are the Killian memos forged?
Who cares? Even without those memos, it is very, very clear that Bush did not complete his National Guard service satisfactorily, a fact that even noted radical-liberal propaganda sheet U.S. News and World Report acknowledges:
But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.Yep, that Korb is a treasonous, liberal terrorist-coddling Democrat. Why does he hate America so?
A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty." [my emphasis --LRC]
On a more serious note, it's time to stop playing games with the wingnuts and start hitting Bush on the honesty issue. Just like he's lied about Iraq and his economic plans, he's lying about his "serv[ing] honorably" in the TANG.
Bush "restored honesty, integrity and decency to the White House"? Like hell he did. Why do we as a people tolerate such dissembling and deception?
UPDATE: the lovely and multitalented Jeralyn Merritt, of course, got it from the very beginning:
The real issue is whether the man running for re-election as President lied to the American people about his Guard service, covered up that he got special treatment, or bailed early without permission. I hope people stay on track and get off the typewriter issue. It's a red herring.
Len on 09.13.04 @ 11:40 AM CST