baltodemvet
(529 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-13-04 07:12 PM
Original message |
US News Agrees: Bush Wimped Out. |
alittlelark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-13-04 07:18 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Glad to see a conservative publication with it! |
|
Nation & World
The service question
A review of President Bush's Guard years raises issues about the time he served
By Kit R. Roane
Last February, White House spokesman Scott McClellan held aloft sections of President Bush's military record, declaring to the waiting press that the files "clearly document the president fulfilling his duties in the National Guard." Case closed, he said.
But last week the controversy reared up once again, as several news outlets, including U.S. News, disclosed new information casting doubt on White House claims.
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. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he 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, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. 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.
|
BillZBubb
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-13-04 07:20 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The truth may slowly seep out!
|
blm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Sep-13-04 07:21 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I'm sending this article around. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 02:58 AM
Response to Original message |