The Swift Boat Liars for Bush (tip of the hat to MaryScott) are trying to denigrate Kerry for several reasons:
I think it is time we fight fire with fire. I don't want to just defend Kerry, I want to go after Bush. Just like the SBLB are doing to us. So I'm curious about whether or not the dkos community is interested in putting its money where its mouth is. Here's what I propose:
We participate in and fund the publishing of a book exposing Bush's lack of honorable service in the National Guard. Only we do it the way the left does things: with facts, backed up and sourced rather than just asserted as the SBLB do.
What's interesting is that most of the work has already been done by Paul Lukasiak on his site The Awol Project. From Paul's FAQ, here's what he did in his own words:
WHO IS THIS GUY?
I'm just some guy from Philadelphia named Paul Lukasiak. I'm not an "expert" on anything, so please don't describe me as one. I did the research, so if you want to call me a "researcher" I suppose that's accurate enough. But honestly, I'm not in this to become famous/notorious, I am not copyrighting any of this stuff (although I maintain rights to use it myself), and I don't care if I get any credit for any of it. Basically, I think the facts speak for themselves, and anyone who reports the facts is welcome to them.
All that I did was do what any reasonably intelligent person could have done. Go to libraries, look up every relevant statute, DoD regulation, and Air Force policy and procedure from that period that I could find, and then look at the Bush military documents from within the context provided by that stuff.
And I think that the conclusions that I have reached are the same as those that any reasonably intelligent, intellectually honest person would reach.
But because people's perceptions of information can be colored by their opinions, I've also made the effort to provide copies on my website of all of the relevant statutes, DoD regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures from the period in question that I could find. (www.glcq.com/source_documents.htm). In other words, I want to make it as easy as possible for people to confirm and/or rebut what I have written here. If I'm right, say so. If I'm wrong, you have the tools at your disposal to prove it.
WHY DID HE DO THIS?
Mostly because I think its obvious to any reasonable person who looks at Bush's military records that the only way to describe his actions was "dereliction of duty." You don't need to know what the specific rules and procedures were to recognize that Bush did not, as the White House insists, "fulfill his duty." Simple common sense tells you that Bush did not have the authority to decide to stop flying, as the White House suggests that he did. Nor is it difficult to conclude that there is something wrong when someone doesn't show up for over six months.
But common sense and logic are in short supply among partisan Republicans when this subject is being discussed. Ultimately, when confronted with the overwhelming evidence that "Bush was AWOL" (as it is popularly described), their argument came down to "well, you can't prove that there weren't loopholes in the rules and regulations thirty years ago that allowed him to shirk his duty."
And they were right. No one could prove it, because no one had bothered to find out if such loopholes existed. So I wound up being the first person to answer that question.
HOW DID HE DO IT?
I started out trying to answer one question. Why did a key document (http://www.glcq.com/docs/point_sum_73-74.htm ) that the White House asserted "proved that Bush fulfill his duty" appear to contradict that claim. The basis of the White House claim was the "Lloyd memo" that asserted that as long as Bush got 50 points toward retirement, he had a good year. The document in question shows that while Bush got 40 total points, he only received 38 points toward retirement. Obviously, there was something in the laws and policies that excluded two of the 40 points from being considered "retirement points", and if I could find out what that was, I could show that the White House was lying.
The deeper I dug, the more questions were raised about other aspects of Bush's records. One of the first things I discovered was that there was no such thing as a 50 point requirement when it came to Bush fulfilling his obligations to the United States Armed Forces as a member of the Air National Guard. There is no requirement that Bush have a "good year toward retirement", a "good year toward retirement" was inevitable as long as Bush met the actual requirements as established in the laws and Air Force policies. (i.e. meeting his obligations solely as a member of the Air National Guard would result in Bush accumulating a total of at least 74 points per fiscal year, and that number does not include the additional points he would have been awarded for meeting his flight time requirements as a pilot.)
Another thing that became obvious is that Bush could not be a pilot without meeting the qualifications for a pilot. In other words, Bush had to have that physical for as long as his "job title" was "pilot." Regardless of whether he flew or not, being qualified to fly was an absolute part of his obligations as someone whose job was "pilot" in the Air National Guard. And until he was given permission to stop being a pilot by the Air Force itself, even if he wasn't flying for some reason he was required to get that physical.
A NOTE TO MEDIA TYPES
Although there is a whole arsenal of "smoking guns" in the Bush military files, the single most damning document is the one that I linked to above, the Retirement Credit Summary dated Jan. 30, 1974.
Find out :
1) What "Inactive Status" actually means
2) Why and how Bush was placed in an "Inactive Status"
3) Why that "Inactive Status" was effective September 15, 1973
4) Why the document was dated January 30, 1974
...and you will have figured out what these records have to say about George W. Bush's military career.
But before you accept the word of any White House official, or anyone else for that matter, insist on documentary proof that what they SAY could happen could have actually occurred under the laws, policies, and procedures of the United States Armed Forces at that time. Then, come back and tell me what they say...because these people have been lying so far, and they will lie to you again, and at this point, unfortunately, I'm probably one of the few people who can explain why you can know they are lying.
One other thing...please don't ask me about experts. You are the people with the resources to find experts on stuff like the meaning of punch card data entered into the Air Force Payroll system in 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974. And in case you haven't noticed, "experts" who effectively contradicts this administration run the risk of subjecting themselves to a full scale campaign of character assassination from the White House and its supporters that is aided and abetted by people like you. I'm not going to ask ANYONE to subject themselves to that kind of ridicule just because you are too damned lazy to do your own jobs, and do a little research yourselves. The facts speak for themselves, and just as soon as you folks start spending more time reporting the facts, and a hell of a lot less time spreading gossip and innuendo and creating false controversies to maintain ratings and circulation, I'll go out and find my "experts."
A NOTE TO EVERYONE ELSE
There are about 290,000,000 people in the United States. I spent four months doing research that apparently, no one else bothered to do. That means that there are about 289,999,999 other people out there who, with a few notable and extremely important exceptions, haven't put this much time and effort into this subject.
I'm very happy to answer people's questions about my research. But, (and don't take this the wrong way), please do not write to me to tell me what documents I should be making the effort to get a hold of, or how I should write to CNN and tell them about my work, or whatever. Each and every one of you is just as capable as I am of demanding the records you think I should have, filing FOIA requests, and writing to emails to bring this stuff to the attention of others. I thought it was important enough for ME to do what I did. If you think something is important enough for ME to do, it should be important enough for YOU to do yourself. Thank you.
The truth is out there, but true to the typical Democrat approach we are being too polite to bring it up. As I said, I think it is time to fight fire with fire. Why can't we publish a book? Why just sit on the sidleines for the next month or so? Don't you want to do something?
It would also be a fascinating experiment to see if a blog community could pool its resources, its critical eye, and its research capabilities in time to release a book during this election cycle. I think it would have to be available in eBook form at least within a month.
Any like minded folks out there who want to give it a shot? Shoot me an email if you want to explore it, or know how to do this kind of thing and can tell the rest of us how to do it right.