Daily Kos

Bush: My dog ate my service records

by kos

Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 08:58:09 PM PDT

So convenient.
Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.

So were all his records destroyed? Turns out that no. Only the three months that would determine if he hadn't gone AWOL.
The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.
Huh. What a coincidence. And how convenient. And how, um, new.
There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

Damn.

Bush isn't going to go anywhere near the press for a long, long while, what with their questions about his service record, his best friend Kenny Boy, and John Edwards/Dick Cheney comparisons.

Nope, best to rely on conveniently timed "terror alerts" and negative attack ads.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 168 comments

  •  well (4.00 / 2)

    what else should we have expected... I can't say this is shocking... but galling yes.

    by brandonp on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:00:14 PM PDT

  •  How convenient (4.00 / 2)

    The records were "lost" right about when Bushie-boy started planning to run for President. I'd like to know if Bush or Rove have any cronies in the Texas Air National Guard who could have pulled this off.

    by KeithH on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:02:15 PM PDT

    •  Dye-Am! (none / 0)

      I'd like to know if Bush or Rove have any cronies in the Texas Air National Guard who could have pulled this off.

      I just spotted that gaggle of pigs flying over again!

      by fly on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:09:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Run this down on the web (3.66 / 3)

      There's some documentation that folks, possibly including Bartlet, visited Camp Mabry in Austin, (about two miles from the capitol), around '96-'97 and sterilized his records.  There's at least one Reservist on record about it, and about three reservists who swear to the veracity of the first guy.

      It's been documented about this time. Somebody was looking real hard for records.

      Yes, they have buddies. But Bush was head of the whole damned outfit at the time.

      Just think how proud you'll be to tell your kids how you voted this year.

      by DyspepTex on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:39:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Quis custodet ipsos custodes...? (4.00 / 3)

      Who will keep watch over the watchers...?

      If it wasn't for the fact that they are in power, and that they are running through our political world, the environment and our liberties like a hostile virus - then watching this administration and its supporters in action would be hugely entertaining.

      Now, it has only a tain of tragicomedy to it.
      That was some accurate dog. If they'd been half way smart, they could have blamed this one on Al Qaeda, and said that the plane that hit the Pentagon also devoured Bush's service record (the same crucial three months) in the conflagration.
      That story is just as believable.

      And when does the fat lady make her appearance?

      "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

      by SteinL on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:20:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Convenient"? Ironic too! (4.00 / 3)

      I didn't find it "convenient" so much as ironic.  It just occured to me a 1/2 hour or so after readin this that -- consistent with the administration's up-is-down policy -- Bush's records had, ironically, been destroyed in an effort to preserve them.

      Ha!  Shakespaere would be having a field day writing plays about this shit!

      John McCain a/k/a John Sidney "Grampy McSame"

      by MRL on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 08:22:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How F-ing convenient... (none / 0)

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:02:31 PM PDT

  •  I don't usually ask for much... (4.00 / 2)

    But...
    can't we (PLEASE PAPA KOS ?) raise like $1,000 and get a printer to match us Dollar for Dollar and get t-shirts...

    BUSH = AWOL
    BUSH = AWOL
    front and back :)

    PLEASE ? just tell me where to donate, I pledge $150 RIGHT NOW

    by santoriello on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:02:54 PM PDT

  •  Day-um (none / 0)

    Is this his 18 minute gap?

    by Els on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:03:01 PM PDT

  •  investigation (4.00 / 5)

    this should be investigated.  I'm serious.  Destruction of records on such a politically heated issue.  A FOIA for records documenting the destruction would be the first step for the press (if they were accidentally destroyed there should be memos about this unfortunate incident).

    by seamus on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:03:59 PM PDT

    •  what is needed... (3.75 / 8)

      is for some of the other vets whose pay records were in that group to start filing civil actions and FOIA requests. after all, they may stand to lose some part of their military pensions, which, unlike Dubyanoccio, they may need to feed and house themselves.

      Idiots of the world, ignite!

      by susanp on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:06:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think AP has filed a lawsuit (none / 0)

      for the microfilm copy of his service record stored in the Texas state archives, within the last couple months.

      The State copy may have escaped the 'unfortunate' incident at the AF archive.

      The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)

      by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:06:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought I heard (none / 0)

        that the US doesn't keep all its paperwork eggs in one basket, and that somewhere is kept a full copy of Bushbaby's records, and that microfilm copies of it are kept at four separate locations... wish I could remember where I heard this (I think it was in the article referenced above where someone said they witnessed Bush's records being sanitized back in 97, check Calpundit's site, that's where I first saw it)

        by misty on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:11:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Links to AP Suit in Federal Court (none / 0)

        FauxNews

        ABCnews

        The Democratic Party: We the People (7801)

        by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:31:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  FOIA Fest (none / 1)

        I think these might be the records the AP was after. The article says the announcement came as the result of a FOIA:

        The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

        THe article doesn't make clear whether or not one of the news organizations was the AP. But it does reference the AP further down in the article:

        On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the president's military records.

        The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who have written about the subject said in interviews.

        Anyway, ONE of the things they seem to be doing with this is getting into a FOIA fest that will run out the clock on the election. The officials in charge of the information are inviting more FOIA's by not answering any real questions on this:

        Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that further information could be provided only through another Freedom of Information application.

        I assume, if this is a response to the AP suit, that the AP would have to refile their suit to get accelerated FOIA responses to these new questions, questions like, "Okay, show us the dog!"

        This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

        by emptywheel on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 05:38:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's telling (none / 0)

    is that his press guy had no response ready.  That's his job. They didn't know this was coming, so it'll put them into even more disarray.  

    [http://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia: The World's largest free-content encyclopedia!]

    by meelar on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:04:48 PM PDT

  •  Always better the second time (4.00 / 2)

    as noted in one of the diaries: Once (SEC Harken Investigation Records) was bad! Twice, now Bush has some explaining to do. It's not the crime, it's the cover up!"

    There's a sad part to this too. Another set of Army records were destroyed in the air conditioning system fire at the St. Louis Records Center years ago. Now people trying to reconstruct their father's and grandfather's military service records from World War II will never be able to fully document their relative's service. And this fire was purely accidental.

    If the Bush records were destroyed "along with others"--who knows how many families in the future looking to find documents about their relatives will not be able to do so? --If the destruction was "ordered" it is truly one of the most self-serving and selfish acts imaginable.

    by greatbasin2 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:08:14 PM PDT

    •  Amen to that (none / 0)

      When my father died, we needed his military records to have him buried in a military cemetery.  We couldn't find his discharge papers in his apartment, so we sent off to see if we could get them from the national records.  We were told at least 2 months for the wait if they could be found because of the fire.  Luckily, he had registered with the county where he'd lived ever since discharge upon leaving the service and those records were good enough.  About 3 months later we were told that his records had been among those destroyed.  So, if we hadn't found other records, we would have had no proof whatsoever he was in the military and his dream of being buried in a vet's cemetery wouldn't have been fulfilled.

      I totally agree that if there were other records destroyed (and they aren't just saying that to make it plausible) it is a huge tragedy.  Those records can be amazingly important, even 20+ years down the road from service.

      You placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.-J.Raskin

      by Kels on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 05:06:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yawwwwnnnn.... (none / 1)

    This sort of thing happens so frequently, our outrage reflex is pretty much burnt out, per that Onion article....

    Whenever there is a war to be fought, those who are the most likely to fight it are the least likely to gain from it.

    by Jank2112 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:09:20 PM PDT

  •  Cocaine (4.00 / 6)

    Bush flew F-102 fighter planes which were capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Pilots of nuclear capable planes were required to take drug tests. Because the military doesn't trust dope fiends with H-bombs. Coke head Bush was AWOL for his drug test and was grounded. Cocaine is the key to AWOL Bush.

    by Maynard G Krebs on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:09:29 PM PDT

    •  I'm not sure (none / 0)

      I have no doubt that he was a major cokehead, but I think it's metabolized pretty quickly by the body and isn't really easily tested for unless you've just finished up a binge or you're still high.

      by wake6830 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:04:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Exactly (none / 0)

        Do you think Lt. Bush was fully conversant with the ins and outs of how long Cocaine would stay  detectable in your bloodstream back in 72?

        Or do you you think it might be more plausible that he HEARD they were testing and decided not to risk it. After all, he wasn't going to become an airline pilot...he's the son of the head of the CIA...destined for greater things, correct? Flight status? Pfft.

        by Monkey on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 04:58:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nope. (none / 0)

        for a one time user, or a weekend user, metabolites are detectable on a urine drug test for 3-5 days. a HABITUAL user allegedly like our Warp Resident (TM) would be far more likely to have residues at a given, random, moment.

        Idiots of the world, ignite!

        by susanp on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 07:47:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Once again (4.00 / 5)

    It's all Clinton's fault. He caused the recession, 9/11, Iraq, and now he fucked up Bush's military records too. Good thing George has such awesome excuses for everything. Good excuses are so much better than good results.

    I rock knobs!

    by Jumbo on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:09:55 PM PDT

  •  This is SO typical. (4.00 / 3)

    The only thing that really surprises me about this administration is that they didn't plant WMD in Iraq in order to "find" them later.

    Seriously. They seem 100% willing to lie, cheat and steal their way around everything else, why not just bring along the sarin and anthrax, quietly bury it amid the chaos last March, and then you have your justification for war!  The press certainly wouldn't have asked any probing questions. And anyone who did would have been dismissed as a conspiracy freak.

    Why didn't they do this?  I predict historians of the future will puzzle over this for decades.  The Bush teams book-cooking (literally in this case) of Dubya's military records will just make the mystery greater.  

    This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)

    by GreenSooner on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:11:21 PM PDT

    •  Two Words: (4.00 / 3)

      October Surprise

      -8.38, -8.00 Obama '08! Math beats myth.

      by hyperstation on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:13:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It wouldn't take much (none / 0)

        I have previously speculated that no significant cache of weapons could have been planted without someone else's noticing; thanks to Bush's noisy and protracted build-up to war there must have been a lot of eyes in the sky (and elsewhere) on Iraq when the invasion started.  But I'm being silly perhaps.  Considering how seriously the previous, pathetic discoveries of "weapons" were taken, at least for a while--the balsa-wood glider, the hydrogen-gas trailers, the weensy vial of botulin, &c.--all the U. S. need do is "discover" something even marginally more serious, a few dozen cylinders of chlorine or carboys of sulfur mustard, to get their "proof" that Saddam Hussein was planning to kill us all.  The icing on the cake would be for the ostensible discovery to be made and announced by the "sovereign" Iraqi government.

        (until I can think of something better)

        by Ernest Tomlinson on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 08:49:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not-so-wild hypothesis (4.00 / 3)

      I like the theory that you can't plant phony WMD without help from the CIA, and by the time the WMD needed planting, the CIA was already way steamed with the Busheviks, and the WH didn't trust the CIA enough to ask.

      To repeat myself from an earlier diary--the GOP talking points will compare this wholesale destruction to HRC's Rose law firm records. Bad analogy? Well, you know the so-called Halliburton sweetheart deals are no worse than HRC's cattle futures trading.

      And wait til December when W is pardoning everyone in sight--what about Marc Rich?  

      by Draco on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:38:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  CIA did not want to help with the planting of WMD? (4.00 / 2)

        A quite likely scenario.

        Just as it is likely (not proven) that David Kay quit his job as head of the ISG because he came across a plot to plant WMD (or else because he couldn't stomach the desperate interrogation tactics employed to find such evidence).

        And Tenet was accused of being disloyal during the Wednesday meeting where Bush pulled the plug on him.

        "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

        by SteinL on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:25:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes.... (none / 0)

        ....I love our checks and balances sytem. The founding fathers had so much foresight!

        Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass. - Barry Goldwater, 1981

        by Doug in SF on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 08:45:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's a Possibility They Did Try (none / 1)

      This account posted last summer prompted a dKos thread and some other news articles.  I only bookmarked this one, but what if planting WMD's was attracting too much attention?  There were other WMD planting stories from sources outside the US.

      Energy is neither created nor destroyed; it only changes form.

      by SME in Seattle on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:13:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Seems to me that a go-getter in the press (3.50 / 2)

    could find out the names of others who were serving during this time period and then see if, in fact, their records were also destroyed.  

    Assuming, of course, that there are any go-getters in the press these days....

    Either way, the Democrats ought to immediately start  ridiculing this lame attempt at a cover-up.  

    Assuming, of course, there are any Democrats left with spine enough to speak the AWOL word.

    It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:02 PM PDT

  •  Only one word: (none / 0)

    DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!D ESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!DESERTER!

    OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

    by Lupin on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:12:37 PM PDT

  •  FUCKING COWARD CHICKENSHIT LYING ASSHOLE (none / 1)

    fuck every last one of them.

    stop marching on my freedom.

    by sunzoo on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:14:19 PM PDT

    •  My sentiments too (none / 0)

      Pretty pissed about this. What a corrupt bunch of sleazeballs. They seized power in a coup and then used their control of the government to destroy documents.

      This is so Orwellian, echoing this excerpt from 1984:

      And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. "Reality control," they called it; in Newspeak, "doublethink."

      Kerry/Edwards 2004: Undo the coup!

      by kherr on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:37:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is a good development for the Dems... (none / 1)

    I actually see political benefits emanating from this:
    1. it just looks stunningly ridiculous
    2. lets it basically be known that Bush has no means of truly proving his service--so there's actually less risk in making the allegation, 'cause chimp can't really respond.
    3. puts the story right back in the news, and this is never a good story for Bush
    4. exellent material for stump speech jokes
    Of course, the best case would have been some stunning proof that Bush went AWOL. But this ain't so bad.

    by mattb25 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:14:34 PM PDT

    •  silent chimp (none / 0)

      Good point. Should the Swift Boat Boys re-emerge, and the Vets for Bush want to take off on Kerry, then how Does the Bush League Campaign respond to the simple question about Bush's record: Can you prove it?  If the Bush Machine shoots itself in the foot just a couple of more times, they'll be walking on their ankles.

      by greatbasin2 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:28:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this ain't so bad at all (none / 0)

      In fact, it'll keep the story going for just a bit more... maybe 4 months?

      we know what it means already, but it'll only have legs if either the SCLM or Letterman, Stewart, et. al. do something with it.

      TV is where folks get their news.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by DemFromCT on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 04:31:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Even pro-Bushers are stunned (none / 0)

      I wonder whether this will raise any doubts in the people who have been defending Bush all this time:

      The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con, by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr. Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it came as news to him.

      A lot of people put a lot of stock in what Lloyd said. I think it's likely that he may realize he was had--and say so (saying he was surprised, IMO, is halfway there). So what happens if the guy who they've been trotting out as Mr. Credibility starts saying, "Um, this is so irregular that it leads me to believe the records were purged."

      This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

      by emptywheel on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 05:46:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like Father, Like Son (none / 0)

    The SEC "inadvertently destroyed" the filings that would covered some of George the Elder's questionable dealings when he ran Zapata.

    by tlrand on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:19:09 PM PDT

  •  Chicken Hawk Down (none / 0)

    http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Chickenhawk

    While my brain is almost non-functioning at this time of the night, I can't help but remember my good Senator Lautenberg's stunning display of cajonés two months ago, calling Cheney the "lead chickenhawk." I find this more appriorate now since Big John called out Cheney as who he likely is - the 'leader' in the White House. And now our alleged president is bumblin', fumblin', stumblin'(tm), which would all be very funny to me were I not of military age.

    by Zoelef on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:21:53 PM PDT

  •  Inadvertently destroyed (3.94 / 17)

    I have to share this insightful post from corrente:

    "You know, I really love that phrase, "inadvertantly destroyed." Sure, it starts out applying to the suddenly and mysteriously missing microfilm that would have proved Bush wasn't a deserter (back), but it seems to apply to a lot of other things, too!

    That's because it combines two key aspects of the Bush administration: (1) the clusterfuck aspect, with "destroyed", and (2) the total denial of any responsibility or accountability, with "inadvertantly." Yes, I think this meme's a winner!

    1. The Bill of Rights--inadvertantly destroyed!
    2. Jobs for millions--inadvertantly destroyed!
    3. Fiscal sanity--inadvertantly destroyed!
    4. International credibility--inadvertantly destroyed!....."
    I'm reminded of the line from The Great Gatsby describing
    Tom and Daisy Buchanan ...."they were careless people."  Bush and his crew are truly careless people.

    It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:24:43 PM PDT

    •  Who else lost files? (none / 0)

      Ok, so can we check or ask what other files were destroyed? Obviously other people's data was lost, so both the Pentagon and the ex-soldiers should be able to verify it.  Would be very interesting if no one else's files were damaged or lost....

      by ellroon on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:35:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  careless? (none / 0)

      try reckless. Good post.

      Pssst ... there are mad men in the White House.

      by banjon on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:37:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Inadevertently Destroyed II (none / 1)

      Iraq - Inadevertently Destroyed
      The Environment - Inadevertently Destroyed
      Medicare - Inadevertently Destroyed
      Patient's Rights - Inadevertently Destroyed
      Freedom of Information Act - Inadevertently Destroyed

      It's a good meme for this administration

      "I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."

      by SteinL on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:35:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, Gatsby... (4.00 / 3)

      They were careless people, Tom and Daisy -- they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.

      In other words, Republicans.

      by sagesource on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 12:27:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re Gatsby quote: (none / 0)

        Thanks for fleshing out this quote.  It truly does apply to the Bushies.... in a rather chilling manner, I fear.

        It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!

        by Radiowalla on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 06:21:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Clintons Too (none / 1)

        I first heard the Gatsby quote describing the Clintons.  Very apt for them too.  It is a generational baby boomer thing. Totally self involved.

        Very Off Topic; but, I am so old when I saw President Clinton on the NewsHour promoting his book all I could think of were those old 50's movies with Burl Ives as the corrupt Southern small town politician who controlled everything and had the good looking daughter Paul Newman was always after.  Big Dog plays the part perfectly.

        by Jim S on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 09:40:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Press (none / 1)

    Will be all over this one I am sure.......

    Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos! Neo-Cons don't die....they just go to the private sector to regroup

    by coheninjapan on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:29:03 PM PDT

  •  Careful! (4.00 / 2)

    Like Michael Moore, if you start hinting about plausible reasons behind odd events, you will be marginalized as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.  Better to let this rest, because you know, they couldn't be THIS cynical.

    by RWC on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:29:42 PM PDT

  •  They can pull this shit..... (4.00 / 6)

    Solely because they know they're dealing with Democrats, who will do zilch about it.  No one will hold their fucking feet to the fire they way they would do if Hillary's billing records were destroyed.  

    I'm even waiting to hear Kerry say: This election will be won on getting jobs and health care for our people, and not wanting to touch it. And there will be no surrogates to touch it either. Someone should come straight out and say that this thing stinks to high heaven and the only reasonable conclusion that could be reached is that . . . Bush deserted.  

    Maybe AL GORE will.   Or Dean.  Pelosi, maybe?  Gephardt?

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

    by Lords on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:36:04 PM PDT

  •  1001 ways to destroy microfilm... (3.92 / 13)

    pol-ops with:
     a shredder;
     a lighter;
     scissors;
     acid;
     freeper action pack scrub kit;
     sandpaper;
     ammonia;
     peroxide;
     water;
     all the above.

    but seriously, this article should answer your questions

    MICROFILM AND MICROFICHE
    by Steve Dalton
    Director of Field Service
    Northeast Document Conservation Center

    The enduring popularity of preservation microfilm is because of its practicality. Unlike its digital counterpart, microfilm is the product of a nearly static, tested technology that is governed by carefully crafted national standards. When created and stored according to these standards, microfilm boasts a life expectancy of 500+ years.1 It is also worth noting that, while digital data require use of a sophisticated retrieval system to access their treasures, microforms (i.e., microfilm and microfiche) can be read by the naked eye using only light and magnification.

    Bottom line -- this shit was probably destroyed on purpose.  

    Time for impeachment: absolutely

    Note-- this is a crosspost from this diary, with a few minor add-ons

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:40:20 PM PDT

    •  great information (none / 0)

      I just posted a question regarding the "deteriorating" microfilm to the WaPo's online chat with Dana Milbank for tomorrow, along with a reference to the technical leaflet you cited. Should be interesting to see the reply. Thanks for the information.

      by greatbasin2 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:37:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Water would not do it. (none / 0)

      The enduring popularity of preservation microfilm is because of its practicality.

      . . . during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm  But microfilm does not deteriorate, though it can be destroyed, for example, by application of fire or chemical solvent.  

      Destroyed on purpose is the only way.  

      by gaianne on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:32:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very slight possibility (none / 0)

        The records were printed on cellulose nitrate film, which is susceptible to decay.  But this was the '70s, not the '30s.

        I'll bet that a good deal of the newspapers and magazines on film reels that I looked at in college were '70s vintage, judging from how beat up they were looking.  They didn't look about to fall apart any time soon.

        Another thought.  When I was growing up the family still had a 4-track "open reel" tape recorder; it was great for continuous recording of long broadcasts, e.g. of the Prairie Home Companion.  A small number of commercially recorded music reels could also be found at thrift shops and these seemed to be made from at least two types of film base.  One, which I'm guessing was some cellulose acetate based plastic, became quite brittle after time and would part easily with a clean break across the width of the tape.  The brittleness was annoying but easy to splice.  The other, which was perhaps some polyester film, was almost unbreakable but it would stretch out to impossible length when it fouled, making splicing a pain since you'd have to cut out a good-sized piece.  Whether this is relevant to the fragility of '70s film records I've no idea, 'cos I'm talking about a very different use for plastic film (and much thinner film at that.)

        Restorations have been necessary for '70s Hollywood movies but not (as is often the case with older movies on nitrate film), that I've ever read, because the film base itself was disintegrating; the colour dyes go first.

        (until I can think of something better)

        by Ernest Tomlinson on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 08:00:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  hope some forward-looking (none / 0)

    entrepreneur saved some of the microfilm -  would fetch a nice price

    Viva Obama

    by Errol on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:41:56 PM PDT

  •  Daily Show fodder (none / 0)

    Man.  Today's terror warning made for some superb comedy on the Daily Show tonight.  Tomorrow's ought to be doubly superb with this one.

    by dash on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:43:15 PM PDT

    •  It's days like this... (none / 0)

      ...that make me hate not having cable.

      Better dead than smeg.

      by Viserys on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:51:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Y'know, (4.00 / 2)

        If you were, hypothetically, to be reading the usenet newsgroups to uh...say, catch up on what happened at the latest Sun Valley get-together, so that you could get informed on what all those media types had to say, and by mistake accidentally typed alt.binaries.multimedia in there...

        Um...you might try to download what you thought were the DAILY briefings to MULTIple MEDIA types in a SHOW format.  And then you wouldn't need cable.

        I'm just saying.

        by Wowbagger on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:38:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  This wasn't by accident (4.00 / 3)


    Would ya'll take a look at his National Guard records, clean them up and remove any embarrassments. The same conversation and directive was issued from General James to another general the next morning at a coffee machine when Mr. Burkett was standing there and ten days later, Mr. Burkett was in the museum with another general who had the governor's military personnel records jacket open in front of him, and was taking documents out and putting them in a wastebasket and Colonel Burkett sifted through the documents and discovered they were points documents and retirement documents and a number of pieces of paper that should not be thrown away. This is the file that reporters, like myself, have been looking at ever since George Bush became a national figure. It is an incomplete file.

    http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/13/1543213

    "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W Bush

    by jfern on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:44:36 PM PDT

    •  more (4.00 / 3)

      i'll quote another part from this demnow interview with james moore(he was also interviewed on f911), where he specifically says that he has a statement that the record hasn't been altered in any way:

      What happens is there's a hard copy file. It's called the "Military Personnel Records Jacket". When you are discharged, that's committed to microfiche. And then the microfiche--two copies are sent to the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver and another one is sent to St. Louis. I have a statement from Charles Peligriny in St. Louis that the record of George W. Bush has not been altered in any way since it was committed to microfiche in St. Louis, which means -- it is a federal violation of a federal law, by the way, to change a military record

      i added this info to the wikipedia George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy article some time ago...

      btw, is it ok to advertize a 9/11 conspiracy info dairy entry i added a few days ago? what's the best way to do it? i'm asking because i noticed that i got 2 replies when i first posted it, as it was shown in the 'recent dairies', and then faded away. i guess that a way to do it is by adding it to my signature? are there other options?

      by nimc on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:48:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting Q..... (none / 0)

        Being the one who replied to your original post... I would like a better feel about how to solve/understand responses as well :)

        Unfortunately, I just think that some/most people don't find what I have to say new or (Doh!) that interesting :) Or maybe I don't follow the rules properly, whatever they are.

        However, your post and linked interview (below) was very cool....
        http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id=9522&nav=&
        Just hard to take one man's word for ANYTHING these days - can't even believe your president :)
        (or vice president, sect. of defense, sect of state, Nat Sec Advisor, Attorney General, wow this is long)
        There are crazy Clinton books all over the place - need a couple of sources at least. But I've read enough to know "Su-um Ain't Right" about that day!

        by santoriello on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:08:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But what if there are COPIES? (none / 0)

        The quote above mentions this: "then the microfiche--two copies are sent to the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver and another one is sent to St. Louis."

        If this is the case, (which would make sense, since important service achives should be stored redundantly) then there should be at least TWO MORE COPIES.

        Where are they? Or did no copies exist? Or were they ALL destroyed?

        This story does not go away. There are still too many unanswered questions.

        by mooncrow on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 08:01:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  They've officially stopped trying. (none / 1)

    They're just lying by rote. Getting desperate?

    Better dead than smeg.

    by Viserys on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:49:25 PM PDT

  •  i cant wait to hear what Randi says (none / 1)

    i cant wait to hear what Randi does with this story!
    www.nornsisland.com

    by n69n on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:49:29 PM PDT

  •  In Bush's Meet the Press interview (4.00 / 5)

    when Russert asked him about releasing his service records, i specifically remember Bush saying something about them being in Colorado and that he would release them if they hadn't been destroyed. The way he said it, it was so obvious to me at the time that Rove et al had checked out the status of the records and planned to have anything incriminating come up missing.

    I'll look up the exact transcript tomorrow, but it was so obvious the way Bush said it what the plan was. Why else would he mention the records being in Colorado? Rove et al knew the question was coming and looked into it ahead of time.

    by katieforeman on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:49:38 PM PDT

    •  MTP transcript Feb 8th (4.00 / 9)

      Meet the Press Feb 8th  George W. Bush

      Russert:  When allegations were made about John McCain or Wesley Clark on their military records, they opened up their entire files.  Would you agree to do that?

      President Bush:  Yeah.  Listen, these files -- I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for governor.  And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well.  Probably you were.  And -- absolutely.  I mean, I --

      Russert:  But you would allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?

      President Bush:  Yeah.  If we still have them, but I -- you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records. 

      And I'm just telling you, I did my duty, and it's politics, you know, to kind of ascribe all kinds of motives to me.  But I have been through it before.  I'm used to it.  What I don't like is when people say serving in the Guard is -- is -- may not be a true service.

      Bush knew the whole time his records were destroyed--- we may have caught them in a lie!

      by smartone on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:02:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And..... (4.00 / 2)

        ....


        scoured the records.


        ....

        My God :(

        by santoriello on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:09:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Definitions (none / 1)

          Main Entry: 1 scour
          Pronunciation: 'skau(-&)r
          Function: verb
          Etymology: Middle English, probably from Middle Dutch schuren, from Old French escurer, from Late Latin excurare to clean off, from Latin, to take good care of, from ex- + curare to care for, from cura care
          transitive senses
          1. a : to rub hard especially with a rough material for cleansing b : to remove by rubbing hard and washing
          2. archaic : to clear (a region) of enemies or outlaws
          3. : to clean by purging : PURGE
          4. : to remove dirt and debris from (as a pipe or ditch)
          5. : to free from foreign matter or impurities by or as if by washing <scour wool>
          6. : to clear, dig, or remove by or as if by a powerful current of water
          intransitive senses
          1. : to perform a process of scouring
          2. : to suffer from diarrhea or dysentery
          3. : to become clean and bright by rubbing

          "If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking 'til you suck seed."--Curly Howard

          by JackAshe on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 07:08:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks, for posting the exact quote. (none / 0)

        I'm on a really slow computer and it would have taken me a long time to look it up and cut and paste.

        It's even more obvious what he's up to when you see the video. Like I said, it was so obvious to me what would happen when I saw him give that answer.

        You'd think that with all of his practice, he would be a better liar.

        by katieforeman on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:20:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  RE: Let me get this straight (3.75 / 4)

    The White House did a search a few months ago compiling Bush's service record, subsequently dumped them on the press, but failed to mentioned that some of the records (pertinient payroll records it turns out) were alleged destroyed back in '96-'97?  Well, the WH either learend that  the records were destroyed back in '96-'97 when the were compiling Bush's service record and did not want to disclose this at the same time they were releaseing damning information because it would look bad (incomplete record because of government destruction), so they buried it for a few months and then release the information on a July Friday.  Fucking hell.

    Also, how do you ruin a roll of micro-fiche in 1996 and 1997.  Did the incident occur on New Years Eve 1996?  

    I am not saying that this WH ordered the destruction of this records after obtaining office, but it sounds likely they buried the information regarding the destruction and delayed making it known to the public.  

    ... now watch this drive.

    by jg on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:52:16 PM PDT

  •  Is there any chance... (none / 0)

    that the people from the thgis "Defense Finance and Accounting Service" can be wanting Bush to be impeached/hung/cut/shot/dismembered/UNELECTED ??

    Seriously, isn't there better scheme to "do away with" the records than the one presented?  Is there any way this story changes a little over the coming days?

    It sounds SOOOO ridiculous that someone might want him to get caught. 1) The missing amount of data, 2) the 8 year delay in reporting when..., 3) Everyone was looking for that very thing.

    Do we have a friend in the "Defense Finance and Accounting Service" ?


    Maybe the chances would be better for me winning tomorrow's lottery ?
    Thoughts?

    by santoriello on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 09:56:36 PM PDT

    •  AAAAAAAAHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhh....... (none / 1)

      Does this "NO RECORDS HERE" story have anything to do with this...

      .........

      CIA to be cited for `series of failures'
      Lawmaker assails Iraq intelligence report

      Some Democrats have written "additional views" to the report which will raise questions about whether the Republican Bush administration, including the White House and Pentagon officials, pressured the CIA to fit its conclusions with the administration's desire to go to war.

      "Go to each of the key elements justifying the invasion of Iraq and you will find a failure of our intelligence agencies to properly assess the evidence given to them and to describe it to policymakers," Durbin said.

      One main area of focus is the process by which the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was drafted. That key pre-war report, which compiles views of various intelligence agencies, concluded that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

      Draft portions of that report are submitted to administration officials and various agencies and then the material is adjusted after comments.

      "And in the last draft, all of a sudden, this material that has been thought to be erroneous by the CIA or has been said to be wrong, is now back in that report," a government source familiar with the Senate report said. "That's the kind of stuff that is problematic."
      ...........


      The F-in press can't chase one story - forget about 2 - by monday, what will the story be?

      And what should K/E and the Dems do about it? Give them ideas they are listening - I hope.

      by santoriello on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:06:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  RE: (none / 0)

      Hmmm

      Well, I was wondering if maybe someone leaked something to a reporter, the report went to the WH (Bartlett) and asked for confirmation, and the WH got in front of the story before it was published by the press.  This is a possibility - given that the bogus terror warning bought then a few news cycles, why would they want to change the subject back to WhistleAss's military record?

      I like this bit from the Times story:

      Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that further information could be provided only through another Freedom of Information application.

      Meaning that if one wants to get an incident report on the "mishap" with the microfiching or archiving, they will have to file a FOI request, which of course will not be handled until after the election.  

      ... now watch this drive.

      by jg on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:11:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a Statutory Limit (none / 0)

        to the time a FOIA request can be answered.

        Mark

        It all happens in the Heartland of Virginia

        by Dems2004 on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:27:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (none / 0)

          But the Pentagon was already stalling beyond that limit on these records. That's why teh AP filed a suit to accelerate the process. Only now they'll have to refile THAT suit to change what they're asking to receive on an accelerated basis--which probably won't fly, anyway, because they will not have tried through normal channels already.

          In other words, this seems like it might be one big stall.

          This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

          by emptywheel on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 06:08:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Did anyone else notice (none / 0)

    That the Times said this was in response to News Organizations who have been trying for half a year to get these records?

    When I read that, all I could think was, "why in Hell have you only been on this for 6 months? Shame on Bush for lying this whole time.  Shame on the NY Times for ignoring this for so long."

    by dcg on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:00:43 PM PDT

  •  I'd just like to say.. (none / 0)

    punk ass bitch

    stop marching on my freedom.

    by sunzoo on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:03:26 PM PDT

  •  Re: "Misplaced" records (none / 0)

    Maybe his dog did eat them....well, probably not.  But still, this can't be a coincidence.

    by WolverineTom on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:12:18 PM PDT

  •  I call bullshit (4.00 / 2)

    I worked in the microfilm library in college. I can't think of any way thi stuff could be "inadvertently destroyed." We had machines break all the time while people were trying to print - never once did any roll ever break or melt or anything like that.

    by praktike on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:12:40 PM PDT

  •  Alibi (none / 0)

    On page 12.

    Todd Degarmo and Carmen Hofman will probably be getting a call from the press, though they've probably already been briefed.

    -6.75, -4.92

    by permanentE on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 10:50:51 PM PDT

    •  Irrelevant. (none / 0)

      Your PDF link merely makes clear that DFAS switched to a new technical process for recording new records on microfilm--a cheaper "bleachless" process that produces less hazardous and acidic waste during film development.  It's a logical step to take, and it has precisely nothing to do with archive maintenance on existing microfilm records.  

      Export democracy: Draft a Republican.

      by turbonium on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 09:44:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Want To Know (none / 1)

    Where Bush was? And, why they can't tell you? He was working for a spooky friend of his Dad's in SA. As a plant collector? Read:  

    http://www.madcowprod.com/index46.html PT.1

    http://www.madcowprod.com/index47.html

    by WaysAndMeans on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:00:46 PM PDT

    •  Huehuetanango (none / 0)

      Is where he allegedly went in Guatemala. During the Siege of 72, when right wing thugs backed by the US were murdering people with American guns and Helicopters by the thousands because they dared to form student unions or support their local priest.

      The plantation Gow owned in Guatemala was later sold to a dutch firm, IRRC.

      The town was near La Democracia, a great name for a town that a prospective candidate courting the Latin vote in 2000 could use in campaign lit.

      You tell me. Karl Rove, political genius, doesn't trot out the Candidate As Young Man Visits War Torn Guatemalan Town Called La Democracia, Sees Firsthand the Tragic Cost of War?

      Why WOULDN'T you use that story, rather than claim, as they did, that he never went abroad except for a trip to Europe with his family?

      THAT is fishy to me. Gow and his ilk may not have been spies, but that part of Guatemala is on the narcotrafficking route, that much for sure I know.

      by Monkey on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 05:09:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  All Roads Lead (none / 0)

        to Rome. Why? When people have a monopoly on power it becomes harder and harder for them to escape responsibility not in the eyes of the law which they own, but, in the eyes of the people who they must mold. Kafkaesque. Saturn eating his children.

        Lurking in Bush's fuzzy Guard history lies the chilling prospect that the "lost periods" in Bush's chronology contains a stomach-wrenchingly sick and twisted truth confirming the hoariest cliché of `conspiracy theorists': that multiple generations of certain `blue-blood' Eastern families (like Bush's) run intelligence agencies like the CIA as if they were a `family business.'

        In 1971, while Richard Nixon's re-election committee was committing the felonies they were indicted for the next year, and CIA pilot Barry Seal was conspiring with the Mexican Air Force in a CIA plot to invade Cuba for which he was indicted the next year, where was George W?

        George W. Bush was either a) scouting orchids for a plant nursery or b) working for the CIA in Central America.  

        Let's look at the evidence for 'b.'

        http://www.madcowprod.com/index46.html

        A vote is a vote for more of the same. We can affect more change by pulling their funding and we do not need Washington or Wall Street. The resistance in America is faster than Ghandi and twice as powerful. War is simply over if you want it ... the silent non violent revolution, the power to turn on a dime.

        by WaysAndMeans on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Follow the money (4.00 / 2)

    Where did they get the money and the manpower to do such a project.

    The Bush supporters have always said that clinton cut military's resources. (nevermind that congress was in NEWT and TRENT's control - it was always Clinton's fault). Yet they had time and money for crap projects like that??

    And during that time period, units of the guard where called up for deployment in Bosnia.  Yet they had time and money for crap projects like that??

    At a time when cut backs in bases, staff, and money occured, they found time and money and equipment for a crap project like this?

    Also look for patterns.

    How often do they do projects like that?  once??

    And they always talk about outsouring.  Was this outsourced?  to whom?  And if not, why not?  Was this the only project they did in house?

    McCain: He's Constipated and Ready to GO

    by Al Rodgers on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 11:10:13 PM PDT

  •  TV NEWS IN LOS ANGELES WILL PICK THIS UP.... (none / 0)

    Thanks for posting this story KOS - people in LA woke up to find it being discussed on the AM local talk shows...

    [] Get the TRUTH at TRUTHMISSILE...

    by JKU on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 12:09:13 AM PDT

  •  does the AWOL allergation even matter (none / 1)

    since President Bush:
    1.  Joined the Texas National Guard during our country's tumultuous time at war, into a virtually non-deployable unit, into a job position virtually promising him zero combat time in Vietnam.
    2.  Got into the highly competitive National Guard (since everyone with connections were trying to get their own junior into the "safe" haven of nasty guard service with the assistance of his father, Governor of Texas?
    3.  On this third point- I read this a few years ago but cannot find the data now to paste it in- so this may be inaccurate- if so, call me on it: Bush entered a National Guard unit that was already OVER strengthed in his MOS (military operational specialty- his job code)- the military is very specific on the manning of units; you can't just toss another officer pilot into a unit even if the Governor wants you to, if you don't have the slot.  Somehow- an MTOE change was made, and he entered an overstrengthed unit.
    My opinion is screw the AWOL charge- it doesn't even matter in terms of ethics and integrity at this point.  Like the film Jerry McGuire- "you had me at hello."  Well, Bush had me at "my dad hooked me up in the Guard with a sweet job that briefs well for future politics but saves me sweat, blood, and tears."

    Impossible to even speculate about, but some poor Texan probably shipped off to Vietnam in a pair of jungle boots that were reserved statistically for President Bush's draft ticket.  Like so many other men of that time- the working poor and lower class filled those boots for them.  This is the strongest argument to not have another draft and retain the "all volunteer" service.

    CHIII

    "Do you know where you'd be without the ol' US of A? The smallest fucking province of the Russian Empire!"

    by Cornelious Hornswaggle III on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 01:43:35 AM PDT

    •  the Shrub 'Draft Ticket' (none / 0)

      Cornelius said:

      "some poor Texan probably shipped off to Vietnam in a pair of jungle boots that were reserved statistically for President Bush's draft ticket."

      Er, I think we need to be careful about our rhetoric here. The Shrub was born on July 6th 1946 which means he drew the draft ticket 327 in the first lottery he was 'eligible' for. The highest number called for this group was 195, so nobody had to fill the Shrub's draft billet as there wasn't one.

      The other unsavoury aspects of this story still stick but lets not spread inaccurate submemes.

      If Blogs are to get the respect possible as accurate news sources we need to have some fact checking disciplines...

      for Selective Service data see

      http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm

      By the way some States have at this time substantial penalties(like inelligibility for driving licenses) for men who do not register with the Selective Service Board. Are Kossites duly registered where approriate?

      Edis

      by saugatojas on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 03:43:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lottery Was Later (none / 1)

        I know from personal experience that the draft lottery would not have mattered for Bush.  I was born a few months later than Bush, and graduated from college at the same time he did, in 1968.  After graduation, I became subject to the draft, and eventually enlisted, in Jan. 1969, to avoid being drafted.  I was stationed at the Defense Language Institute from March to December 1969, and I believe I remember some of the people arriving there spoke about their lottery status.  So the draft lottery probably started a few months after I enlisted.

        But I know the draft lottery didn't affect me.  So it couldn't have affected Bush.

        The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

        by lysias on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 04:19:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Draft lottery not till later (none / 0)

        The first draft lottery in the Viet Nam era was held on Dec 1, 1969.

        Bush enlisted in the TANG on May 27, 1968.

        Cornelius was right.

        by steveb on Fri Jul 09, 2004 at 04:31:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Hoss- its the principle (4.00 / 2)

        Lets not get too pedantic here; you are getting lost in the details.

        A ma