Pentagon: Bush Military Records Destroyed

[Chubby]

WASHINGTON - Military payroll records that could more fully document President Bush (news - web sites)'s whereabouts during his service in the Texas Air National Guard were inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon (news - web sites).


In a letter responding to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press, the Defense Department said that microfilm containing the pertinent National Guard payroll records was damaged and could not be salvaged. The damaged material included payroll records for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972.


"President Bush's payroll records for those two quarters were among the records destroyed," wrote C.Y. Talbott, of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information and Security Review section. "Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."


Presidential spokeswoman Claire Buchan said Friday there was nothing new in the letter. "When we put out records in February, we indicated that third-quarter of 1972 records were lost" when the microfilm was destroyed, she said.


Bush did not perform Guard duties during the third quarter of 1972 but "fulfilled his obligation to the National Guard in full," Buchan said. "The documents we released months ago make that clear."


In February, the White House released some payroll and medical records from Bush's Vietnam-era service to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard.


Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973, much of the time as a pilot, but never went to Vietnam or flew in combat. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential candidate, is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and some Democrats have questioned whether Bush showed up for temporary Guard duty in Alabama while working on a political campaign during a one-year period from May 1972 to May 1973.


Bush had asked to be able to transfer temporarily from the Texas Guard to an Alabama base during that time so he could work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. Reports differ on how long he was actually in Alabama, but it's generally believed that he returned to his Texas unit after the November 1972 election. The White House says Bush went back to Alabama again after that.


The Pentagon letter was sent in response to an April lawsuit filed by the AP under the federal Freedom of Information Act. That law requires government agencies to make public information not specifically exempted for disclosure.


The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said.


This process resulted in "the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records," including Bush's, the letter said.


Trying to calm the political unrest, the White House on Feb. 13 released Bush's Vietnam-era military records to counter suggestions he shirked his duty. But there was no new evidence given at that time to show that he was in Alabama during the period when Democrats questioned whether he performed his service obligation.


The records showed that Bush, a pilot, was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination. His last flight exam was on May 15, 1971. There were no new documents, during that February release, to shed any light on Bush's service in Alabama.





Wow, I'm stunned his payroll records were accidentally destroyed.

[MrBug708]

Pays to be president huh?

[Taur]

The records showed that Bush, a pilot, was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination.
Wow, I am out of the loop. Exactly what does this mean.

Did he not want to submit to the Exam?
Was he not available to submit to the exam?

LOL....This from the same person calling for MLB players to take an additional medical exam to prove they are not lying.

[Ragone]

http://home.maine.rr.com/mattyg/smilies/deadhorse.gif

[Poli]

Does this mean my military records could be destroyed? ;)

[Flasch186]

just get elected and sure.

[gstelmack]

It clearly states his records were destroyed in 96 or 97. That makes it Clinton's fault ;-)

I mean sheesh guys, he wasn't in office, wasn't running (Bob Dole was running), and The Other Party was in charge at the time. Give it up.

[Blackadar]

Look, we all know Bush used his Dad's $$$ to dodge the draft and then didn't even show up for his guard unit.

Of course, even as Bush-hater, I'd say...

So what? Who cares? There's bigger things to worry about.

[BucDawg40]

It clearly states his records were destroyed in 96 or 97. That makes it Clinton's fault ;-)

I mean sheesh guys, he wasn't in office, wasn't running (Bob Dole was running), and The Other Party was in charge at the time. Give it up.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he in fact governor of Texas at the time?

[Noop]

I am not surprised.... The little things often tell of the bigger things lurking in the background.... Man I love the U.S.A

[Arles]

For those of you still caught up in the Bush AWOL sillyness, here is a nice summary of why the entire thing has been debunked:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-alabama_x.htm

"As the first member of President Bush's Air National Guard unit came forward to say he recalled the Bush at an Alabama base, a Selma Republican leader who campaigned with Bush says she saw him in uniform on his way to drills in 1972.
Jean Sullivan volunteered with Bush on the unsuccessful Senate campaign of Winton Blount in fall 1972, and she says that even then she heard rumors and rumblings that Bush wasn't showing up for drills.

"Some people were saying that he never showed up there, but I know he did because I would see him with his (military uniform) on," Sullivan said. She said she could not remember who made the allegations but said they were men in Montgomery working for the Air National Guard. Sullivan said she called one of the accusers "and chewed him out" after hearing the allegation.

Bush was transferred from his Texas unit to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Air National Guard base here while working on the Blount campaign.

A retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said Friday that he remembers George Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.

"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla. (Related story: Ex-guardsman recalls Bush)

"He was very aggressive about doing his duty there. He never complained about it. ... He was very dedicated to what he was doing in the Guard. He showed up on time and he left at the end of the day."


http://www.al.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1076497178284961.xml?birminghamnews?nstate

"Joe LeFevers, a member of the 187th in 1972, said he remembers seeing Bush
in unit offices and being told that Bush was in Montgomery to work on
Blount's campaign.

"I was going in the orderly room over there one day, and they said, `This is
Lt. Bush,'" LeFevers said Tuesday. "They pointed him out to me ... the
reason I remember it is because I associate him with Red Blount."


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040211-121217-6595r.htm

"He called to tell me he was coming back to finish up his National Guard
duty," said Mrs. Curtis, who now lives in New Orleans. "I can say
categorically he was there, and that's why he came back."

----
Four witnesses, dental records and payroll records. Even the guy that made
initial claim in 2000 recanted when he realized Bush was in another division
and not required to check in with him.

Believing that Bush went AWOL based on the 6 independent pieces of evidence showing him with the Alabama national guard is akin to thinking the world is flat. People can believe it if they wish, but it is a little foolish to do so.

[gstelmack]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't he in fact governor of Texas at the time?
And Governors of states have so much control over what goes on inside the US military.

Sorry for not being clear, I meant he was not in a National office where he might have a chance of influencing this.

[Glengoyne]

Wow, I'm stunned his payroll records were accidentally destroyed.
How do you feel about the fact that they were destroyed in 1996 or 1997?

[duckman]

Don't care.

[Chubby]

How do you feel about the fact that they were destroyed in 1996 or 1997?


Doesn't matter.

Was a Bush in office when junior got out of Vietnam because of daddy?

[Glengoyne]

Doesn't matter.

Was a Bush in office when junior got out of Vietnam because of daddy?
He wasn't in office at the time. I think he worked in the CIA at the time. He served in the National Guard, like thousands of others. So they were all shirking their duty?

[Chubby]

He wasn't in office at the time. I think he worked in the CIA at the time. He served in the National Guard, like thousands of others. So they were all shirking their duty?

Now we're back to the shirking his duty part? I thought you asked about the destruction of documents? Stick to what you are talking about.

The point was just because Bush wasn't in office when the records were destroyed means nothing much like his dad wasn't in office when he got out of Vietnam.

If the records could show junior wasn't there then of course it matters that they are gone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Given the number of very average people I've known who had incomplete, missing, or destroyed military records, I think it's a pretty big stretch to get any sort of conspiracy theory going on this one.

Hell, I'd I know as many people who don't have their full records as do have them, especially if they served before the 90's or so.

[Glengoyne]

Now we're back to the shirking his duty part? I thought you asked about the destruction of documents? Stick to what you are talking about.

What the fuck?

YOU brought up the shirking of duty.

"Doesn't matter. Was a Bush in office when junior got out of Vietnam because of daddy?"
Or do you have another interpretation of "got out of Vietnam because of daddy"?



The point was just because Bush wasn't in office when the records were destroyed means nothing much like his dad wasn't in office when he got out of Vietnam.
Again you bring up him shirking his duty in the sentence after you tell me not to bring it up to change the subject. I just want to get your facts straight. G.W served in the National Guard. He served along side thousands of others. Is it your position that their service to their country somehow doesn't count because they were in the National Guard during a time of war?


If the records could show junior wasn't there then of course it matters that they are gone
The records could also show he WAS there. Too bad they were destroyed along with the records of thousands of other people in the service.

[Chubby]

"He served along side thousands of others. Is it your position that their service to their country somehow doesn't count because they were in the National Guard during a time of war?"

Where have I said that oh Master of Misreading Into Posts?

[Bubba Wheels]

This one is a total non-starter. Not going anywhere, the only one's caring are the Michael Moore crowd.

[Glengoyne]

OK I'll go slowly for you


Do you have another interpretation of "When Junior got out of Vietnam because of Daddy" or simply "when he got out of Vientnam"?

That was you pretty clearly saying that he "Got out" of Vietnam. I am saying that if you are going to denigrate his service to his country because he served in the National Guard in a time of war, then you must feel the same about all of the others who served in the National Guard. After all, they were all simply avoiding Vietnam.

[Chubby]

OK I'll go slowly for you


Do you have another interpretation of "When Junior got out of Vietnam because of Daddy" or simply "when he got out of Vientnam"?

That was you pretty clearly saying that he "Got out" of Vietnam. I am saying that if you are going to denigrate his service to his country because he served in the National Guard in a time of war, then you must feel the same about all of the others who served in the National Guard. After all, they were all simply avoiding Vietnam.


Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say you were in the National Guard?

There is a difference between serving in something non-combat orientated (such as National Guard) and serving in it SPECIFICALLY because your dad (or other family member) is influential and wants to keep you out of combat. I don't care if you're a future president or not.

[Bubba Wheels]

Funny how the democrats, with their first real war-time candidate since JFK are now all slathering and foaming-at-the-mouth about anybody else not being 'man-enough' to have actually served in combat.

Where was this 'outrage' when Clinton allowed someone to go in his place to Vietnam by promising to join ROTC at a later date, then breaking that promise with a letter trashing the military as a whole and going off to protest the war in England (and USSR?)

And Gore got alot of milage out of claiming to be a 'combat photographer." Right. He spent 6 months of a 12 month tour in Vietnam before going home (because daddy pulled some strings?) And those who were there with him express surprise Gore was able to take any pictures at all from behind his constant wall of bodyguards.

Just more of the usual selective nitpicky stuff. Whitewater had more actual fact than this garbage.

[Glengoyne]

Let me take a wild stab in the dark and say you were in the National Guard?

There is a difference between serving in something non-combat orientated (such as National Guard) and serving in it SPECIFICALLY because your dad (or other family member) is influential and wants to keep you out of combat. I don't care if you're a future president or not.OK so where are you getting this info that he was where he was SPECIFICALLY because of who he was? Oh that't right, you're just making it up. I had forgotten who I was talking to. Your statements often don't seem to have much basis in reality, let alone fact.

[Chubby]

OK so where are you getting this info that he was where he was SPECIFICALLY because of who he was? Oh that't right, you're just making it up. I had forgotten who I was talking to. Your statements often don't seem to have much basis in reality, let alone fact.

Much like your "facts" that he wasn't? :rolleyes:

[Whar]

I think the knock on a Republican, and specifically Bush, not serving in combat is the political power they try to weild using the military. Both parties can be accused of wrapping themselves in the flag for political gain. The Republicans, though, try to maintain a political edge over the Democrats on Defense. I believe most would concede that the Republicans are considered 'stronger' on defense.

Since Republicans have made a certain amount of political hay through this 'we-are-stronger-on-defense' policy they are more exposed when their past actions do not jive with their current beliefs.

I doubt many would argue that many sons of wealthy men avoided military service in Vietnam. Many of these sons now find themselves in positions of power through out the country. I doubt that Bush used undue influence to enter the National Guard. It may have been motivated by a desire to avoid possible action in Vietnam it may not. He is now, however, beating the drum of war quite aggressively which exposes his past military record to question.

Clinton's military actions were much more mild, for good or bad. He did not commit ground forces to Kosovo, nor troops to Sudan or Afghanistan to pursue Bin Laden. While one can disagree with these actions the choices Clinton made did not depart from the apparent beliefs he held 30 years ago.

[Glengoyne]

Much like your "facts" that he wasn't? :rolleyes:
I'm not being critical of him, or his service either. There is a difference.

In my mind Gore, Kerry, and Bush all served their country in time of war. I think to say that since Bush ONLY served in the National Guard, his service is some how questionable. I say that is garbage. I don't think you can take anything away from someone because they were in the Nat'l guard while the country was at war. Sure Kerry and Gore get bonus points because they actually served tours of duty "in country", but it is pretty screwed up to hold someone's service against them.

[Glengoyne]

I think the knock on a Republican, and specifically Bush, not serving in combat is the political power they try to weild using the military. Both parties can be accused of wrapping themselves in the flag for political gain. The Republicans, though, try to maintain a political edge over the Democrats on Defense. I believe most would concede that the Republicans are considered 'stronger' on defense.

Since Republicans have made a certain amount of political hay through this 'we-are-stronger-on-defense' policy they are more exposed when their past actions do not jive with their current beliefs.

I doubt many would argue that many sons of wealthy men avoided military service in Vietnam. Many of these sons now find themselves in positions of power through out the country. I doubt that Bush used undue influence to enter the National Guard. It may have been motivated by a desire to avoid possible action in Vietnam it may not. He is now, however, beating the drum of war quite aggressively which exposes his past military record to question.

Clinton's military actions were much more mild, for good or bad. He did not commit ground forces to Kosovo, nor troops to Sudan or Afghanistan to pursue Bin Laden. While one can disagree with these actions the choices Clinton made did not depart from the apparent beliefs he held 30 years ago.

I don't think this holds much water because you have, excluding Bush Sr.(oops Ford too), you have to go pretty far back to find a republican president that served in the millitary. I don't believe you have to serve in the millitary to qualify your beliefs in a strong defense. Again I don't think it holds water because you are saying that his service in the guard, somehow doesn't stack up because he wasn't in combat. That is like saying people who serve in the Coast Guard aren't really in the millitary.

[Bubba Wheels]

I don't think this holds much water because you have, excluding Bush Sr.(oops Ford too), you have to go pretty far back to find a republican president that served in the millitary. I don't believe you have to serve in the millitary to qualify your beliefs in a strong defense. Again I don't think it holds water because you are saying that his service in the guard, somehow doesn't stack up because he wasn't in combat. That is like saying people who serve in the Coast Guard aren't really in the millitary.

Reagan served in the military during World War 2. Because of his background, he was deemed more vital to the war effort making training films. You can quibble that he did not push more stridently to 'see action' like maybe Jimmy Stewart or Clark Gable did, but then I would want to see some proof. Nixon also served in the Navy, though I'm unsure if this was during World War 2 or in a combat zone.

Vietnam was different in that those with connections usually got out of service while the less fortunate (Fortunate Son?) had to go. Many National Guard units DID serve in Vietnam, though, and the chances of going were always there but with a lower probability.

Clinton's disdain for the military actually cost lives, IMHO. There is NO DOUBT that Clinton WAS offered Bin Laden on 3 seperate occassions and declined (Dick Morris states this, unless you can prove he's lying it has to stand as he was Clinton's closest policy advisor.) Clinton failed to act after 1. WTC bombing no. 1. 2. After the Cole bombing. 3. After embassy bombings in Africa (Kenya being one.) In fact, you can argue that Clinton's past experiences and disdain for the military actually COST lives.

Lets mention Bosnia and Kosovo. This was the area that started WW1, when Russia supported Serbia had war declared on them by Germany after Serbians assassinated German ally Prince Ferdinand. Russia has always had historic ties to Orthodox Christian Serbia and threatened the United States with retaliation on at least one occassion as we helped the Muslims by bombing many innocent Serbian civilians. Is this something that we should be proud of regarding Clinton? We still have military in the Kosovo Bosnia area today. Clinton gets a free pass on military use?

[Vaj]

Whitewater had more actual fact than this garbage.
Oh, really? (http://www.glcq.com/intro2.htm)