So lots of people were asserting that President Bush didn't serve in the National Guard the way he was supposed to (calling him a "deserter" and "AWOL"). Now that the pay records have been released, some have gone silent, and some have decided that it doesn't make a difference. For example, look at this press conference transcript on the issue, where a reporter is trying to push the idea that being paid doesn't mean the President served (even though, actually, it means exactly that in the National Guard):
Q It's your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas.
Q I'm not interested in what he recalls. I'm interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 --
MR. McCLELLAN: And I just answered that question.
Q You have not answered that question. You --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said -- no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith.
Q No, so the answer is, "no"?
MR. McCLELLAN: I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That's what they show. So they show -- they show that he was paid on these days.
Q Okay, but they do not show that he was in Alabama when he was supposed to be --
MR. McCLELLAN: These are payroll records, and they reflect the fact that he was paid on the days on which he served.
Q Do any of them show that he was paid on days that he served in the latter part of 1972 when he was in Alabama? I don't see any dates for that.
MR. McCLELLAN: It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties.
Q But these documents do not show that. They do not show that he was in Alabama and served at that time. I don't even see any pay dates during that period.
MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments. No, they show pay dates during that fall of 1972 period.
Q They do?
MR. McCLELLAN: There's October on there, there's November on there, and then there's January on there, as well, in '73. There's some pay dates on there.
Q Okay, so then, do they specifically show that he served in Alabama during that time?
MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments in October; they show payments in November.
Q But just because he's paid doesn't mean that he served and worked there, does it?
Q Come on.
MR. McCLELLAN: You know, like I said, people call on us to release the records. We didn't even know they still existed until just the other day. Now we've released the records, which document that the President fulfilled his duties. And now people are trying to move the goalpost even more.
Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there's frequently what they call "a band of brothers," a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, "a band of brothers" or others who can testify about the President's service?MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents -- the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.
Q Actually, I wasn't talking about documents, I was talking about people -- you know, comrades-in-arms --
MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That's why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.
Q But you said you were looking for people -- and I take it you didn't find any people?
MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we -- Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He's someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.
Q Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn't anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward -- in Alabama and in Houston -- who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn't that odd that nobody -- you can't produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, we're talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents --
Q Hey, we're trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on --
MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties --
Q Well, that's subject to interpretation.
MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it's just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When --
Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting? What was he doing after he was honorably discharged?
All political witch-hunting. I didn't care about the allegations about Quayle or Clinton either. The decisions someone makes at 21 have very little bearing on how they make decisions 30 years later. I know I don't want to hold up my college decisions to much scrutiny (right Jeff? :))
There are much more important decisions about the economy, the war(s), entitlements, etc. to be made this year.
Posted by: Mark L on February 12, 2004 02:37 PMBush Served Honorably - Not AWOL - Home Page
http://www.geocities.com/bush_not_awol//index.html
Posted by: Michael on September 30, 2004 04:59 PM