Boy, the way McClellan was crowing about the Bush Air National Guard paystubs, you'd think they had something useful. But the press, for once, has reacted
appropriately skeptical.
Talk about unintended consequences.
The White House released a handful of records yesterday in an attempt to quell the controversy over whether President Bush shirked his duty as a National Guardsman during the Vietnam War.
But the documents, one of which had already been circulated on the Internet for days, did not exactly clear things up.
As Charlie Gibson put it on ABC's "Good Morning America" today, the subject "seems to be consuming Washington."
If the records are accurate, they do appear to show that Bush met at least one minimal requirement for the Guard.
The records don't show what he did or where. There's still no independent confirmation. There's still a six-month gap between April and October of 1972, and a three-month gap from January to April of 1973.
And the Boston Globe this morning asserts that Bush may have met the minimum threshold for retirement credit, but he did not meet the minimum annual requirement for National Guard service, which in 1972 was one weekend a month -- or 24 days -- and 15 days of active duty, the same basic requirement that exists today [...]
On TV, it's quite the conflagration.
Terry Moran of ABC News says the release "did not quiet the controversy."
Anchor Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News said: "The White House hoped to settle it all today, but instead it may have reignited."
John Roberts of CBS News notes that Bush "did not report for 8 of the 12 months," and that "Democratic operatives are only too happy to get down in the mud."
This morning on CBS's "Early Show," Bill Plante said: "The problem for the White House is that these documents don't actually prove Mr. Bush showed up on the dates for which he was paid, and so far no one has come forward to say that they have served with him, leaving the president on the defensive."
On ABC's Good Morning America, Claire Shipman reported: "So the new records show that he earned money and points for his service, but in a hot political season, the questions just won't stop. Did he miss some of his duty? Did he get any special treatment? Many of the superiors involved that could clear this up are now dead. Furthermore, many have pointed out given the way the Guard worked 30 years ago, it was probably possible to miss some duty, still get paid, and be honorably discharged."
And Richard Cohen's
column on the subject is getting wide play, not just in the blogosphere, but in mainstream media as well (including this Reuters
piece).
During the Vietnam War, I was what filmmaker Michael Moore would call a "deserter." Along with President Bush and countless other young men, I joined the National Guard, did my six months of active duty (basic training, etc.) and then returned to my home unit, where I eventually dropped from sight. In the end, just like President Bush, I got an honorable discharge. But unlike President Bush, I have just told the truth about my service. He hasn't [...]
In my case, it was something similar -- although (darn!) I was not rich. I was, though, lucky enough to get into a National Guard unit in the nick of time, about a day before I was drafted. I did my basic and advanced training (combat engineer) and returned to my unit. I was supposed to attend weekly drills and summer camp, but I found them inconvenient. I "moved" to California and then "moved" back to New York, establishing a confusing paper trail that led, really, nowhere. For two years or so, I played a perfectly legal form of hooky. To show you what a mess the Guard was at the time, I even got paid for all the meetings I missed[...]
I have no shame about my service, but I know it for what it was -- hardly the Charge of the Light Brigade. When Bush attempts to drape the flag of today's Guard over the one he was in so long ago, when he warns his critics to remember that "there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq," then he is doing now what he was doing then: hiding behind the ones who were really doing the fighting. It's about time he grew up.
CalPundit and
Josh Marshall are taking the lead on this story. I'm just sitting back and enjoying the fun. Like this latest missive from Josh:
The payment records out today do give some evidence of what the president was doing during the year in question. But to say they raise further questions is something of an understatement.
It's long been known, for instance, that in the late spring of 1973, Bush's commanding officers in Texas reported that they couldn't write an evaluation of him because "he has not been observed" at the base in Houston. That didn't raise any red flags because, though, because they believed he was then serving in Alabama.
Yet these new records seem to say that Bush actually was doing drills in Houston.
In fact, as the Washington Post notes, on the very day that his commanding officers were writing that he hadn't been seen on base -- May 2, 1973 -- these new payment records say he was actually on base logging in hours.
Like I said, fun.