U.S. News and World Report Suggests Bush Should Not Have Received an Honorable Discharge
Why on Earth was this type of information and analysis not released in the past?
Now U.S. News and World Report has released an analysis of Bush's Guard duty and has come to the conclusion that he did not earn...at least legitimately...his honorable discharge.
Of course, Bush supporters are quick to point out that Bush received his honorable discharge as proof that he served honorably, meeting all requirements.
The truth seems to be that he received the honorable discharge in spite of serving dishonorably, failing to meet many requirements.
Major points of U.S. News' findings:
* A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty.
* [Bush] was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement.
* The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.
* They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short.
* The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration.
* Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge.
It's time for some progressive blog pushback. Push this story until it shines across the front pages of the major media.
George W. Bush
|
Link
I wish I shared the same view that the media was waking up and reporting the trueth about Mr. Bush, but I don't. Unfortunately, its going to take a lot of constant proding for the people to set the media straight. This president has been givien a free ride, and I'm afraid its too late unless every single progressive out there starts writing letters to the editor, calling news stations, demaninding that they report the trueth - or at least verify what is coming out of Bush's mouth. Yesterday I heard BOTH National Public Radio and CNN refer to a study of Kerry's spending as "independant". Bush said it while campaigning and both (supposedly liberal) news orgs reported it that way. The Heritage Foundation is not "independant".
The fact that the CBS story has been airing in the way that it has and that its Baghdad correspondent Barry Petersen has been repeating for weeks that we have a disaster over there is an improvement over what we saw four years ago with nonsense such as whether Gore met a particular FEMA administrator, he was the subject of "Love Story" and whether he claimed to have invented the Internet, culminated by Bush's cousin John Ellis calling the election on Faux. No, any optimism needs to be guarded and the situation is anything but laudable in many ways, but these aforementioned signs provide sparks of hope. Yes, it is up to progressives to keep the heat on in the way we are doing here to pressure these people out of their offices to cover news. I think this has been a major factor in coaxing them to start reporting.
Bill Hare
