Here's an article, from the latest issue of U.S. News &
World Report. Keep in mind, this is not a liberal magazine,
so the right-winged rabid Shrub supporters can not just
simply dismiss this as "liberal propaganda" as they have
been dismissing all other bad news about Shrub. And
Republicans have been making such a big fuss over Kerry's
combat record, well let's take a look at Shrub's, he
doesn't have a combat record let alone even a military
record.
Abel
From:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm
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.
Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged
on whether he attended enough drills to count toward
retirement. 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. His
military records reveal that he failed to attend enough
active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50
points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.
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. White House officials did
not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that
Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush
obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former
top Defense Department official in the Reagan
administration, says the military records clearly show that
Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have
been called to active duty."
Bush signed his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard
on May 27, 1968, shortly after becoming eligible for the
draft. In his "statement of understanding," he acknowledged
that "satisfactory participation" included attending "48
scheduled inactive-duty training periods" each year. He
also acknowledged that he could be ordered to active duty
if he failed to meet these requirements.
Slump. Bush's records show that he did his duty for much of
the first four years of his commitment. But as the Vietnam
War wound down, his performance slumped, and his attendance
at required drills fell off markedly. He did no drills for
one five-month period in 1972. He also missed his flight
physical. By May 2, 1973, his superiors said they could not
evaluate his performance because he "has not been
observed."
Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a retired Air Force colonel who
originally certified the White House position that Bush had
completed his military obligation, stood by his analysis.
After a reporter cited pertinent Air Force regulations from
the period, he complained that if the entire unit were
judged by such standards, "90 percent of the people in the
Guard would not have made satisfactory participation."
Some other experts disagree. "There is no 'sometimes we have
compliance and sometimes we don't,' " says Scott Silliman,
a retired Air Force colonel and Duke University law
professor. "That is a nonsensical statement and an insult
to the Guard to suggest it."
The regulations must be followed, adds James Currie, a
retired colonel and author of an official history of the
Army Reserve. "Clearly, if you were the average poor boy
who got drafted and sent into the active force," he says,
"they weren't going to let you out before you had completed
your obligation."