The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
« Todays Dish on the Candidates. | Main | "Spontaneous" Campaigning »
February 10, 2004
| Bush Releases Payroll Records

CNN

The White House released payroll records Tuesday it said demonstrate that President Bush fulfilled his obligations to the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s, hoping to defuse lingering election-year questions about the president’s service.

“These documents make it very clear that the president of the United States fulfilled his duties,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. “When you serve, you are paid for that service, and these documents outline the day he was paid.”

However, it wasn’t enough for most of the reporters present at the White House briefing, who apparenty want more proof.

You can view the documents here [Pdf file].



Posted by Michele at February 10, 2004 04:55 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Of course they do. They want Bush to supe up a Delorian, take it up to 88 mph, and bring back some video. Nothing else will suffice.

Posted by: mark buehner at February 10, 2004 05:28 PM

In the old days, reporters would bust their butts to find evidence to support a story, spending countless hours poring over documents, interviewing people, and digging up leads. Nowadays, they simply accuse somebody of lying and demand evidence to the contrary, and call THAT a story.

When did we give journalists judicial power over the executive branch?

Posted by: Alex Dale at February 10, 2004 05:49 PM

I agree. The internet certainly does change things in this “age of accountability”.

The records just released provided do now confirm that the president’s attendance in the AL ANG for the contested period in 1972 CAN NOT be accounted for.

It is ironic that the contested time period regarding the president’s whereabouts is oddly consistent with following story from 1999:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

This story which predates the most recent accusations and it may be speculated may potentially explain why the president’s did not report to the mandatory medical examination, a fact that apparently the white house does not contest.

Obviously, in view of the accounting issues associated with this administration on a wide variety of issues, it is important to follow up on these new leads as the press continues to ferret out the truth behind all of this.

As for your comment about journalistic “judicial power over the executive branch”, it is implicit in the U.S. constitution. All persons in the executive and legislative branches of our government answerable to the American people.

One has to sympathize with with the president’s press secretary but it must certainly be the job of journalists to trust but verify.

No need to be too worried about journalist’s ursupation of power, after the Janet Jackson coverage there is a lot of healthy suspicion.

Posted by: Stuart Poss at February 10, 2004 08:25 PM

Yo Stuart,

Sworn affadavits from commanding officers of satisfactory points accrued, at the time of his attendance, were not enough to clear him of a charge made by the unit commander 25 years after the fact, who later admitted he himself wasn’t on the base much.

A week ago the press was drooling over the prospect of pay records being ultimate proof. Now they have them, and the story now is: that it proves nothing.

The best you can do is drudge up a tired 4-yr old hit piece on cocaine use? This story has been ressurected so many times Mel Gibson is considering it for an upcoming project.

You are showing your ignorance. AF Pilots of that time period were supplied with stimulants that made coke look like asprin. I doubt seriously that was the problem.

The bottom line is, the President fulfilled his duty and was honorably discharged. Charges to the contrary have been investigated and debunked numerous times. It is time to move on.

Posted by: Dark Jethro at February 11, 2004 12:22 AM

hold it folks…
this is probably one of those lying military guys, but it looks like Rove’s tricks might be coming back to haunt this bunch of scoundrels

read the story (free sign in required)

payback is a muthuh. Don’t you wish that God hadn’t seen those guys being so hard on Bill? Those other guys, not anyone on this thread.

Posted by: carl at February 11, 2004 11:26 AM

carl, give it up. The point has been disproven.

and some more proof.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

Posted by: jones at February 11, 2004 01:36 PM

Last night, I watched KHOU-TV here in Houston, and heard some interesting comments from Charles Watson.

Who is Charles Watson? He was Bush’s Instructor Pilot, you see, and the man BEST able to say whether Bush was there or not.

Watson said last night “He DEFINITELY was here, and he flew… [Bush was] a very good pilot”. Watson went on to say that in matters of accountability and pay, the Guard was “very careful … you didn’t get paid unless you served”.

Like everything else, the people close enough to the scene to know speak well of Bush, and the people who make accusations lack the class to admit they were wrong, much less apologize.

Posted by: GDubya at February 11, 2004 02:28 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.


Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)