GWB AWOL Story Debunked

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Once and for all we can put this internet rumor to bed: (edited) Link

... But in the months before the 2000 presidential election, the New York Times pretty much demolished this Democratic Party urban legend, a myth that first surfaced in its sister paper, the Boston Globe.

"For a full year, there is no record that Bush showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen," the Globe insisted in May 2000, in a report Moore currently cites on his Web site to rebut ABC newsman Peter Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the story is "unsupported by the facts."

"I don't know whether [Moore's desertion charge] is supported by the facts or not," Clark replied "I've never looked at it."

The Times did, however, look at it, and found that Bush had indeed served during part of the time the Globe had him AWOL - and later made up whatever time he missed after requesting permission for the postponement.

In July 2000 the Times noted that Bush's chief accuser in the Globe report, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, had begun to back away from his story that Bush never appeared for service during the time in question.

"In a recent interview," said the Times, "[Turnipseed] took a tiny step back, saying, 'I don't think he did, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.'" In fact, military records obtained by the Times showed that Turnipseed was wrong and that the Globe had flubbed the story.

"A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on Nov. 3, 2000.

The Times explained:

"On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery [Alabama] 'for the months of September, October and November,'" so Bush could manage the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.

"Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5."

After the Bush AWOL story had percolated for months, Col. Turnipseed finally remembered another glitch in his story: the fact that National Guard regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter.

And, in fact - according to the Times - that's what Bush did.

"A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."

The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."

Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of the water.

It showed that Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe," the Times sheepishly admitted.

O.K. There you have it. If you dispute the above and still believe GWB is a "deserter," then take up whatever contentions you have with the NY Times.

[Tiger Al 0]

He can't be found there, either!!!

[War Eagle 96 10]

He can't be found there, either!!!

????????????

[Tigermike 3,711]

He can't be found there, either!!!

????????????

I think he is talking about the link. Rolling Stone? Top 100?

[Donutboy 0]

Once and for all we can put this internet rumor to bed:  Link

... But in the months before the 2000 presidential election, the New York Times pretty much demolished this Democratic Party urban legend, a myth that first surfaced in its sister paper, the Boston Globe.

"For a full year, there is no record that Bush showed up for the periodic drills required of part-time guardsmen," the Globe insisted in May 2000, in a report Moore currently cites on his Web site to rebut ABC newsman Peter Jennings' debate challenge to Clark that the story is "unsupported by the facts."

"I don't know whether [Moore's desertion charge] is supported by the facts or not," Clark replied "I've never looked at it."

The Times did, however, look at it, and found that Bush had indeed served during part of the time the Globe had him AWOL - and later made up whatever time he missed after requesting permission for the postponement.

In July 2000 the Times noted that Bush's chief accuser in the Globe report, retired Gen. William Turnipseed, had begun to back away from his story that Bush never appeared for service during the time in question.

"In a recent interview," said the Times, "[Turnipseed] took a tiny step back, saying, 'I don't think he did, but I wouldn't stake my life on it.'" In fact, military records obtained by the Times showed that Turnipseed was wrong and that the Globe had flubbed the story.

"A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on Nov. 3, 2000.

The Times explained:

"On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon Group in Montgomery [Alabama] 'for the months of September, October and November,'" so Bush could manage the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount.

"Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5."

After the Bush AWOL story had percolated for months, Col. Turnipseed finally remembered another glitch in his story: the fact that National Guard regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter.

And, in fact - according to the Times - that's what Bush did.

"A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed credit for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14, 1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and May."

The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April 23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."

Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of the water.

It showed that Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe," the Times sheepishly admitted.

O.K. There you have it. If you dispute the above and still believe GWB is a "deserter," then take up whatever contentions you have with the NY Times.

I think in the world of the judiciary, they call that hearsay!! Not only do you not provide a link to your source, but the source makes a generic claim that is also not backed up with a link.

I did a google search with the words; Bush, AWOL, New, York and Times and found no such link and I can assure you that if it HAD been published in the New York Times, there'd still be a link. I don't think they ever delete ANYTHING.

Could you please provide us with these two links to verify your story? If not, it's just someone's veiled attempt at starting an internet rumor that the AWOL story is untrue.

FWIW, here's a link to Bush's service records, as provided under the freedom Of Information Act!!

GOP Presidential Candidate George W. Bush AWOL?

[AUloggerhead 2,516]

Oops. My bad -- I didn't proof it. The link is corrected now. I practically copied the whole article anyways.

Donutboy, the article I linked (& copied) points out that the AWOL rumor started with the Boston Globe first printing it in May 2000. Then the NY Times did their research and published their debunking article in July 2000. Sorry I don't have the exact date for you. I'm sure you can search their archives for that month & come up with it if you're so inclined. These kind of scurilous charges against presidential candidates tend to surface during election years.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Donutboy, the article I linked (& copied) points out that the AWOL rumor started with the Boston Globe first printing it in May 2000. Then the NY Times did their research and published their debunking article in July 2000. Sorry I don't have the exact date for you. I'm sure you can search their archives for that month & come up with it if you're so inclined. These kind of scurilous charges against presidential candidates tend to surface during election years.

the AWOL rumor started with the Boston Globe first printing it in May 2000.

Strange that it came out in Boston, Massachusetts, the home of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Then the NY Times did their research and published their debunking article in July 2000.

Donut does not care to hear the truth about this. He's got his story and he's sticking to it. If I'm not mistaken Jenny & Titan have shown this to him on more than one occasion. He seems to stick to the democrat policy of "If they tell an un-truth long enough to someone will eventually believe it.

[Donutboy 0]

Donutboy, the article I linked (& copied) points out that the AWOL rumor started with the Boston Globe first printing it in May 2000.  Then the NY Times did their research and published their debunking article in July 2000.  Sorry I don't have the exact date for you.  I'm sure you can search their archives for that month & come up with it if you're so inclined.  These kind of scurilous charges against presidential candidates tend to surface during election years.

the AWOL rumor started with the Boston Globe first printing it in May 2000.

Strange that it came out in Boston, Massachusetts, the home of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Then the NY Times did their research and published their debunking article in July 2000.

Donut does not care to hear the truth about this. He's got his story and he's sticking to it. If I'm not mistaken Jenny & Titan have shown this to him on more than one occasion. He seems to stick to the democrat policy of "If they tell an un-truth long enough to someone will eventually believe it.

No Mike, I always give a legitimate link with all of my posts, including the links to Bush's actual military records, as provided by the Freedom Of Information Act. I don't believe secondhand, he said - she said, conservative website propoganda as fact. I've copy and pasted entire quotes attributed to the Times from the "NewsMax(?) article and googled it. The only thing that I come up with is similar heretofore unheard of sources but NOTHING, not one link, to the New York Times article it purportedly quotes from.

FINALLY, THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH'S MILITARY SERVICE RECORD (FROM FOIA)

FWIW, following is a link to all of the major KNOWN newspapers reporting on the Bush AWOL record in 1999 and 2000!!

Press resources for G. W. Bush's military service