Funny how it took more than three years for that convenient fact to be mentioned.

Or was the Pentagon simply unaware that they had been destroyed for all this time?

I might believe they were destroyed, but have considerable difficulty believing that the Pentagon didn’t know before this.

Funny how these things work.

Posted by: Don at July 9, 2004 11:19 AM

Well if this had been mentioned a few years ago it would have been forgotten by now, or barely a murmer at best, but bring it up now close to the election…….and you can pull in more of those conspiracy nut votes.

Posted by: Ronin at July 9, 2004 11:24 AM

The singular lack of information was mentioned a few years ago, and it has not been forgotten by now.

If Dubya were seeking VA benefits, pretty good chance he’d be turned down given this lack of information.

Happily for him, he isn’t.

Posted by: Don at July 9, 2004 11:32 AM

The Left and Michael Moore will scream ……

CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY! CONSPIRACY!

Every one who does so will immediately PROVE that they have NO INTELLIGENCE of Any Kind and NO INTEREST in Honesty. They also PROVE that they NEVER HAVE intended to be honest.

That destruction event took place in the 1996 — 1996 time frame…. when “Slick Willy” was President.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 9, 2004 11:39 AM

It matters little what anybody in this administration says or does. the thoughtless rabid left and their running dogs in the media have made up their collective mind.

To these members of what VDH calls the “idiotocracy” bush is evil incarnate and everything he and his loyal minions do is specifically designed to bring death and destruction to every living thing on earth.

If the records had been found and they laid the issue to rest some Michael Moore wannabe would be out there trying to prove that the records were falsified.

so why bother wasting words fencing with people who post off topic to satisfy some self agrandizing urge?

Posted by: skip at July 9, 2004 12:17 PM

Isn’t that Convenient? Maybe the White House can get Cheney to go swear at the Joint Chiefs!

Posted by: Wile1 at July 9, 2004 12:54 PM

“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. “

So now we know the Clintons are psychics and members of the VRWC.

The left still tries to spin this. There is no satarizing these people.

Posted by: jones at July 9, 2004 01:29 PM

Military personnel record preservation around the time when everybody knew that computers were the future was very poor. Luckily for me I kept a sort of personal 201 file so when I needed some things, I had them for documentation. It doesn’t suprise me that Guard records were missing. The Guard is neither fish nor fowl as far as the feds are concerned.

And, of course the foil hats will spin this like a yo-yo.

Posted by: Hungry Valley at July 9, 2004 01:39 PM

“In a letter responding to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press”

Doesn’t the left give up. This issue was over and done with months ago. Now the right is going to dig up more of Kerry’s military records and here we go again.

The press should address the issues of today not the past. Who cares what the two of them did over 30 years ago, they both served … done

Posted by: George at July 9, 2004 02:49 PM

Microfilm was a really terrible format for long term storage. Years ago when I had television I recall that AMC was trying to raise money to restore old films. It seems that the medium just doesn’t age well.

further, extracting data from these things is a nightmare as anybody who went to college back in the day can attest.

I’ve seem some truly horrendous mass storage nightmares so I can just imagine what the federal government’s approach was: stick it someplace out of sight and pray that nobody ever actually wants any of it.

Posted by: skip at July 9, 2004 03:57 PM

Well, speaking as someone who spends part of his work day dealing with angry bosses who wonder why their new employee doesn’t have a new computer, because the paperwork requesting such was lost or destroyed in a massive Federal bureaucracy, the idea that another massive Federal bureaucracy would lose or destroy records is not very surprising.

Posted by: Dave T. at July 9, 2004 04:07 PM

Unfortunate. The very time GWB seriously considers a run for the Presidency disaster strikes.

Posted by: bananas at July 9, 2004 04:10 PM

“If Dubya were seeking VA benefits, pretty good chance he’d be turned down given this lack of information.”

No ‘good chance’ about it - My F-I-L went through this very experience, and he was REGULAR Army.

“Happily for him, he isn’t.” Why do you say ‘happily’, Don? Every Veteran is entitle to the benefits he earned.

The above itanicized portion Posted by: Don at July 9, 2004 11:32 AM

“Unfortunate. The very time GWB seriously considers a run for the Presidency disaster strikes.”

Unfortunate? What is that supposed to mean? Every office (including the one that he currently holds) that he has run for, his political opponents run this crap argument up the flag pole. Fortunately, this is just another Dirkism.

The above italicized portion Posted by: bananas at July 9, 2004 04:10 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 9, 2004 04:19 PM

Dan, basically you’ve just demonstrated that youve never done much with the DoD.

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at July 9, 2004 04:21 PM

Well this certainly doesn’t matter at all. Republican candidates don’t have to prove nothing about military service. You can be basically AWOL like GW or effectively a draft dodger like Reagan an no one bats an eye.

Either way it’s not news, a major issue during the Vietnam War was that the sons of the wealthy and politically connected never had to serve like the sons of the little peoples.

In this case, the Republicans demanded to see Kerry’s military record and probably wish they hadn’t. GW’s, was lost and forgotten because there was nothing of any real interest in it.

On the other hand I can’t fault GW for not wanting to get shot at. The draft ended before I was old enough to serve, but I remember it hanging over my future like a dark cloud.

Posted by: Gibbon at July 9, 2004 04:39 PM

Gibbon You’re spouting. Take a lesson from Senator Kerry your hero, and shut up about this Military Service thingy. Your comments dishonor me just as much as Senator Kerry’s did 30+ years ago. You keep repeating the spewage, and we’ll have to start pointing out where you went wrong.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 9, 2004 04:48 PM

yeah, gibbon is spouting and its the same old same old, nothing new under the liberal sun but the history they haven’t revised yet.

Posted by: skip at July 9, 2004 05:07 PM

Re: leaddog2

I hear a lot of Bush supporters complaing about Moore’s F-9/11; I think it was actually quite sympathetic to GWB.

I have not seen such a complete picture of the man before; I got a real sense of the grace, the style, the power that makes a man like George W. Bush.

Actually I felt more sympathetic towards him after I saw the movie than before.

Moore had that silly bit about the missing cop and the cookies that made Moore himself look bad. I think brushing coats with People Of Importance has a personal penalty in self-image.

This apart from questions vis-a-vis “What happened on 9/11 2001?”. We should not forget.

Posted by: Joshua Fein at July 9, 2004 05:30 PM

Re: leaddog2

I hear a lot of Bush supporters complaining about Moore’s F-9/11; I think it was actually quite sympathetic to GWB.

I have not seen such a complete picture of the man before; I got a real sense of the grace, the style, the power that makes a man like George W. Bush.

Actually I felt more sympathetic towards him after I saw the movie than before.

Moore had that silly bit about the missing cop and the cookies that made Moore himself look bad. I think brushing coats with People Of Importance has a personal penalty in self-image.

This apart from questions vis-a-vis “What happened on 9/11 2001?”. We should not forget.

Posted by: Joshua Fein at July 9, 2004 05:32 PM

Kerry chooses Edwards and drops from 47 to 45% support while Bush Surges from 44 to 49% in ONE MONTH

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 9, 2004 06:24 PM

Gibbon

I apologize for these remarks - “You’re spouting. Take a lesson from Senator Kerry your hero, and shut up about this Military Service thingy. Your comments dishonor me just as much as Senator Kerry’s did 30+ years ago. You keep repeating the spewage, and we’ll have to start pointing out where you went wrong. Posted by Cap’n DOC at July 9, 2004 04:48 PM

That said, I’m going to break down the comments you made that led to my becoming upset enough to say such a thing:

“Well this certainly doesn’t matter at all. Republican candidates don’t have to prove nothing about military service. You can be basically AWOL like GW or effectively a draft dodger like Reagan an no one bats an eye.”

There have been charges that President Bush was AWOL. They are unfounded and untrue. You do not earn ‘wings’ by being AWOL. It is not possible. Charging that he was AWOL is therefor a LIE on your part.

“Either way it’s not news, a major issue during the Vietnam War was that the sons of the wealthy and politically connected never had to serve like the sons of the little peoples.”

What was a MAJOR issue after Senator Kerry LIED UNDER OATH was that Senator Kerry claimed WE (meaning those of us who had already served and those STILL serving in VN) was that the entire Military organization from top to bottom committed and or knew about war crimes. He submitted ‘testimony’ from those who not only had never served in VN but also had never served AT ALL that such crimes were commonplace. He accused us all of being ‘monsters’.

“In this case, the Republicans demanded to see Kerry’s military record and probably wish they hadn’t. GW’s, was lost and forgotten because there was nothing of any real interest in it.”

What is really interesting about your statement is that Senator Kerry has NEVER agreed to release ALL of his Military records, and never will. WHY? Because those who he served under and with have already attested to the fact that he took advantage of the system to his personal gain.

“On the other hand I can’t fault GW for not wanting to get shot at. The draft ended before I was old enough to serve, but I remember it hanging over my future like a dark cloud.”

He volunteered to go, but the platform he was flying was no longer of any advantage in the theater of operations. That you managed to ‘avoid’ the draft was to your advantage.

BTW - If you want to discuss ‘dodging’, I’d suggest you find out a little about Clinton if you’re looking for ‘Dodgers”.

The above italicized remarks Posted by Gibbon at July 9, 2004 04:39 PM

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 9, 2004 06:42 PM

Quoth George:

Who cares what the two of them did over 30 years ago, they both served … done

Okay, let’s assume that accusations against each regarding military service are true.

Bush: Mediocre service at best. Dubious achievements. Pulled strings to minimize his commitment to the military. Served, but basically sought to get back to his partying ways ASAP.

Kerry: Purple Heart awards likely trumped up. Mounting evidence that he perjured himself before Congress while still on active duty. Testimony was used as propeganda by the enemy. If perjury accusation is true, then he actively impeded his fellow soldiers from carrying out their orders.

Even when casting both in the worst possible light, then choosing the lesser of two evils, Bush still wins easily.

Posted by: gus3 at July 9, 2004 07:20 PM

Read the article: we’re talking about three months worth of records in 1969 and three months worth of records in 1972. Six pay stubs for a non-contiguous period over a six year enlistment.

I’m sorry, but this is about as silly a campaign issue as I can remember, and I’ve voted in the last five of them.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at July 9, 2004 08:35 PM

Apparently, GWB isn’t the only one whose records were lost. It happened to Bill Gates, too.

Posted by: gus3 at July 9, 2004 08:36 PM

gus3 I’ve already cited a case in point, and OBVIOUSLY, personal cites don’t count…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at July 9, 2004 08:59 PM

CptD: Of course every veteran is entitled to the benefits s/he has earned. But if/when the records are lost, the VA doesn’t assume that the veteran’s story is correct. They seek substantiating evidence. For proof of which, look to the ads appearing monthly in The Veteran — newsletter of the VVA.

LD2: The supposed “movement” you see is far more apparent than real. Since it resides entirely within the Margin of Error, the appropriate interpretation of the polling information is that Nothing Whatsoever has really changed.

It requires some Actual Knowledge of how polling works, but that’s how it works.

It’s also what the other polls, taken collectively, are showing as well. No movement at all.

Posted by: Don at July 9, 2004 11:07 PM

Quoth Gus
Okay, let’s assume that accusations against each regarding military service are true.

Bush: Mediocre service at best. Dubious achievements. Pulled strings to minimize his commitment to the military. Served, but basically sought to get back to his partying ways ASAP.

Kerry: Purple Heart awards likely trumped up. Mounting evidence that he perjured himself before Congress while still on active duty. Testimony was used as propeganda by the enemy. If perjury accusation is true, then he actively impeded his fellow soldiers from carrying out their orders.

Even when casting both in the worst possible light, then choosing the lesser of two evils, Bush still wins easily.
=====
You seem to be forgetting that the worst charges leveled against Bush is desertion (AWOL). If you want to assume that, be my guest, but don’t play games with the charges.

Posted by: Lakhim at July 10, 2004 01:15 AM

I’m not going to go into all the details, but for what it’s worth, my father’s records (he was a veteran of WW11 and Korea) were lost, which fact we discovered when he became fatally ill in 1988. These things really do happen.

Posted by: marymcl at July 10, 2004 03:56 AM

Quoth Lakhim:

You seem to be forgetting that the worst charges leveled against Bush is desertion (AWOL). If you want to assume that, be my guest, but don’t play games with the charges.

And the worst accusation against Kerry is treason, defined as “aiding and abetting the enemy.”

Be that as it may, there’s a difference between walking away, and helping the enemy capture and demoralize your comrades. GWB still comes out not as icky as Kerry.

Posted by: gus3 at July 10, 2004 05:01 AM

Don,

Once and for all… you can choose to prove your honesty or not, as you wish….

My statement on the POLL is 100 % FACTUALLY CORRECT.

Every other media outlet report reported the Poll as if Bush was losing ground. That is NOT TRUE and HAS NOT BEEN for some time.

That seven point swing is REAL using the numbers of one of Bush’s biggest critics. They cannot fudge the Truth forever. I just wrote a DIFFERENT HEADLINE showing the True picture.

Granted… SURGING may be a TAD strong…. but it it as honest as anything AP wrote. They stressed anti-Bush…. I stressed the Truth… BIG DIFFERENCE.

Are you man enough to honestly admit that, or not?

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 10, 2004 02:07 PM

In the New York Times yesterday, they ran the following in the corrections section:

An article yesterday about the destruction of some payroll records of National Guard members, including President Bush, misstated the record of White House acknowledgment of the loss. The White House indeed took note of the missing information last February when it released hundreds of pages of Mr. Bush’s military files.

Posted by: Touched_the_Obelisk at July 11, 2004 03:12 AM