Headline doesn’t match story…

It sounds like questioning. If Kerry is critical of anything here, it is that he disagrees with GWB’s assertion that everything has been answered.

Release the records George. Put this to bed.

Or ‘fess up.

Wanna bet neither happens?

Posted by: carl at February 8, 2004 06:34 PM

CARL:

I understand that the National Guard records were released in connection with the Bush’a prior elections for Texas governor and for US President. I assume they were inconclusive. The fact that there was no evidence of disciplinary action and that Bush received an honorable discharge should, therefore, end the matter.

Posted by: RAZ at February 8, 2004 06:44 PM

Carl.

Do a Freedom of Information Act request on the records if it will make you happy. This issue has been checked into enough, but if you want first hand do it.

I suspect you would rather just toss innuendo around, but I wanted to help you settle the issue.

Posted by: jones at February 8, 2004 06:58 PM

http://www.stolenvalor.com/

Here is a site for you to get info how to do a FOIA.

Posted by: jones at February 8, 2004 06:59 PM

I think the real story here is how Kerry disses the National Guard.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 8, 2004 07:26 PM

Is there a news story in the fact that all efforts to support the Bush line with regards to attendance during 1972-1973 at the AL ANG point only to the “inconclusive” nature of the evidence to support his attendance. This inconclusiveness is then used as the rationale for “end of story”, “red herring”, etc. While certainly this is a Karl Rove dream scenario, is this really critical reporting or is investigative journalism dead in the US? Let us not assume, let us have the facts.

Personally, I view efforts such as the command post as as a refreshing way to get non-corporate voices heard and educate on all sides of all issues. This country needs open and honest dialog and more opportunities for democracy to work beyond the traditional media. It would be a shame, if for an effort to “tailor a desired outcome” the truth would never be known or that such an effort would fail to provide anything but another mouthpiece for a few.

I note that I have been barred from following up on this question on the Command Post, despite an apology for inappropriately posting my inquiry with regard to this matter on two threads, thinking initially that my first post was inappropriately directed to the wrong thread. My apology was evidently blocked even before I could make it. Thus, I must resort to using my wife’s email account to get to the bottom of this story. I’m thus sending this message to other media outlets as well with the hope that there are at least some fair-minded and inquisitive journalists out there who might assist in ferreting out the truth, regardless of how it comes out.

While it doesn’t hurt for others to request FOI requests on Bush’s attendance records, we need to do some digging to get EVIDENCE on what actually happened and why the gap exists in the official records. Simply saying the “military lost the records” is like saying the “dog ate my homework”. It may be a perfectly valid claim, but it provides no evidence. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE!

Scientists have taken DNA from fossil organisms, so there must certainly still be some evidence somewhere in AL that should support the president’s assertions, if in fact he attended. The fact that no corroborative evidence has yet emerged should be troubling to all concerned, espeically the president. I would thus suggest that those who would wish the president well, will help him out and actually find some evidence that he attended.

Some are currently working on tracking the various local news that would account for Bush’s time during 1972-1973 right down to the day. Lets hope that out there somewhere, on either side of this issue, there is someone who is willing and able to get to the bottom of this controversy, as opposed to simply hoping that it will go away. As I would hope all can agree, “getting to the truth of the matter”, is what counts as it is only this that advances democracy and the aspirations of humanity.

Posted by: S. Y. Poss at February 8, 2004 07:34 PM

You’re right. Absence of evidence is not evidence. There is no evidence that Bush did anything other than what he said he did. His statements are ordinary, supported by the existing records, and not contradicted by anything else. Even the General that said that he never saw Bush around his base has recently admitted that he* *himself had not been around his own base much that year, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t remember Bush.

However, the claims that he was AWOL are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The absence of evidence does not even make it to the level of ‘ordinary’ evidence.

Furthermore, to claim that he was AWOL would require that the claimants produce evidence that a charge of being AWOL was leveled against Bush by the National Guard. I’ve seen no documentation of this and neither has anyone else.

Posted by: CERDIP at February 8, 2004 08:15 PM

While others have said he was AWOL, I only seek evidence that bears on the issue one way or the other.

Is it ordinary for NO ONE to have remembered his attendance or is it ordinary that a large segment of the journalistic community does not seem to interested/able to seek such evidence? Is it ordinary that the White House has not been actively encouraging a fellow guard member who does recall Bush’s attendance to step forward? I find that it is these facts that are the extraordinary component of this story.

Someone needs to step forward or to locate someone with such a recollection, or perhaps we can simply do without a free press and take everyone’s (anyone’s) word for everything (anything).

Given that there seem to be a number of accounting issues with this presidency, not only with respect to this specific issue, a resolution seems important at this time, even if many are disinclined to investigate.

I come to journalism with no formal training, but I do have a background in science. Perhaps my notion of ordinary evidence is perverted. I would have thought that ordinary evidence with respect to this issue would be the kind that would permit one to unequivocally determine if the president attended the requisite drills or not.

Posted by: S. G. Poss at February 8, 2004 09:22 PM

It is ordinary for a person to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and this standard is frequently (commonly) understood to be a useful one in framing other claims / counterclaims.

We know this much:

1. The Democrats have an interest in smearing the President.

2. The President has had multiple elections, during which this issue has occurred.

3. The President has an honorable discharge, and fighter pilot’s wings.

4. No one can show, at this point, evidence to support the charges against the President.

5. The President has no obligation to release personal records. Official records are, presumably releasable under the FOIA.

6. It is only in a police state that one really has to prove innocence of politically motivated charges. Or is it?

MG

Posted by: MG at February 8, 2004 09:30 PM

1. The Democrats have an interest in smearing the President.

True, as do Republicans in covering up any potential lack of forthrightness on this issue.
Neither stance should be of particular interest to those who seek the truth.

2. The President has had multiple elections, during which this issue has occurred.

Yes, and it is extraordinary that there is still no direct evidence with regard to the attendance issue. It seems time for this to be resolved.

3. The President has an honorable discharge, and fighter pilot?s wings.

Not disputed by anyone as far as I know. The question relates to how much training he had and whether he attended all the required drills. We should keep in mind the context of those veterans who want an honest accounting of these issues. Many loose lives when such issues are not dealt with in an honest and forthright way.

4. No one can show, at this point, evidence to support the charges against the President.

What official record exists at this point seems to indicate he was NOT PRESENT during the time period in question. Normally, the official record is taken as evidence unless one has proof to the contrary.

I used to work a factory where I had to punch into a time clock. I always made sure that I punched in, even though at times I was late and it cost me pay. Should we expect less from a president?

5. The President has no obligation to release personal records. Official records are, presumably releasable under the FOIA.

True, but again besides the point.

I have examined the official records and there is a gap in his attendance that is not yet explained.

Fingerprints on the paperwork the president states he did while in Montgomery would clear up, but these are not ordinarily provided thorough a FOIA request. I am hoping that either the white house or the press will identify this paperwork so that a fingerprint analysis can be quickly done to resolve the issue. They would be hard to forge, since they would have to appear under the writing/typing. I’m not saying the president is guilty, I just think its time the country deserves an honest and straighforward accounting of this issue.

6. It is only in a police state that one really has to prove innocence of politically motivated charges. Or is it?

There are a great many veterans who are asking this question, who I do not believe are necessarily politically motivated, so I’m not sure of the point you are making with respect to the issue at hand.

As to the question of this being a police state, you would have to direct that question to the Attorney General, he is in charge of enforcement of the Patriot Act. There are some credible stories to suggest that such powers have been abused. In any event, it would appear to a disinterested observer that few in the media business these day really appear to take the innocent until proven guilty arguement seriously (it was a woredrobe malfunction wasn’t it?; don’t polls overwhelmingly show that Martha Stewart is innocent; O’sama should be afforded due process; seems I saw a commerical for a TV drama on Scott Petersons innocence; etc,). Hence, your comment seems odd to me, at least with respect to establishing the facts one way or another.

I wholehartedly agree that we should, but since there are so many instances of missing evidence or evidence to be taken as fact without proof, or evidence that turns out not to be evidence, or multiple standards of evidence, with respect to this administration, it would seem prudent not to take anyone’s word for it. This is what makes this issue so curious, it would seem so easy to refute these presumably politically motivated charges, yet the president as his political handlers/proponents are unable to provide any conclusive evidence of their perspective on this issue at all despite all the time available.

Trust but verify, would make a good motto for journalists.

Why are so many journalists in denial with respect to the issue at hand and the work needed to address the question of definitive evidence?

Posted by: sgposs at February 8, 2004 11:36 PM

“Poss”,

You definitely sound like a gentleman with a $1000 a day cocaine habit and a penchant for “sleepovers” with young boys.

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you better quickly provide some evidence that proves your innocence of these serious allegations. Simply pointing out that you’ve never been in jail won’t cut it, either. I want to see positive proof that you are not actually a cocaine-addicted child molester.

Trust, but verify.

Posted by: Joe Mama at February 9, 2004 12:26 PM