[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Kevin Drum "does a nice job of shedding light on the AWOL issue":http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html. He has a document which shows Bush reporting for duty, presumably in Alabama, on October 29th, 1972. That covers Bush's comments on Meet The Press last Sunday. He also has a document which shows no Texas service after May of 1972, which also matches.

One begins to wonder why Bush hasn't released his military records, considering this. Drum speculates that Bush was put on paper duty as a punishment; that would match with Bush's refusal to take a physical. There's going to be some mystery around this until and unless the records are released. Still, he's clear on the AWOL/deserter issue and it would behoove us to acknowledge that lest we appear shrill and partisan.

Comments

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

My personal theory, after having read some of the comments on Calpundit's post, is that Dubya and his buddy spent the weekend they should have been getting a physical snorting cocaine, and that there would be some evidence of that in the official records. So either Bush is going to fail to authorize any release of those records, or they've already been shredded.

Re:

[bryant]

Yeah, I'm betting it's something like that.

[agrimony.livejournal.com]

Drugs are okay, just so long as he wasn't getting a blow job.

Re:

[bryant]

I don't really care if a President got a blowjob in the Oval Office or took drugs 30 years ago.

I care if they lie about it, though, in both cases.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

In both cases, I care that they lied, but I care more about the lies surrounding Bush's military service. After all, Clinton wasn't sending thousands of young Americans off to perform (or receive) blowjobs. (And I don't think many of the young Americans would have objected even if he had.) Bush is sending thousands of young Americans off to serve in combat (which he carefully weaselled out of), and lying about why he wants to do so.

Re:

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure, though, how his military record affects that. Sending kids to war is something US presidents do, and their motivations are often, if not always, debatable.

The lying is the biggest problem. A leader can't lie and remain an effective leader.

[kodi]

A leader can't lie and remain an effective leader.

Is that really it? I always assumed it was "A leader can't get caught in a lie and remain an effective leader."

Re:

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, that.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

To me, his military record is evidence that he takes military service lightly, that he believes that it's perfectly acceptable to pull strings to stay out of a situation, and then send other people into that situation for his own personal gain. His drugs-and-politics military service combines with his lies (both about his military record and his reasons for going to war) to convince me that he is amoral.

Re:

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

"he believes that it's perfectly acceptable to pull strings to stay out of a situation, and then send other people into that situation for his own personal gain."

That's more the crux of it to me. The military thing is just a symptom of that.