News » September 13, 2004

A Swift Backlash

Evidence of Bush’s dubious service record continues to mount

By Christopher Hayes

George W. Bush has some explaining to do.

Following a series of discredited attacks on John Kerry’s war record by a group with extensive connections to the Bush campaign, the president’s own service, or lack thereof, in the Texas and Alabama National Guard is poised again to become a campaign issue.

On September 5, the Associated Press reported that Freedom of Information Act requests reveal that at least five types of documents which should be included in Bush’s Texas National Guard records have not been located. Among them are documents that would explain why Bush refused to take a physical in 1972, which led him to lose his flight status. Days after the AP story, CBS’ “60 Minutes II” revealed that it acquired previously unreported documents showing the Bush family pulled strings to get him into the Guard and a memo written by one of Bush’s superiors that said he was pressured to give the young pilot glowing recommendations despite lackluster performance.

Ultimately, at issue is how Bush got into the National Guard during a time when thousands of fellow Texans were desperate to enroll and avoid the draft; whether Bush made up the training sessions he missed in 1972 and ’73 after transferring to Alabama; and how he was able to receive an honorable discharge with no evidence that he completed his required duty.

In 1968, with Americans dying at an alarming rate in Vietnam, Bush was intent on avoiding the draft despite supporting the war. To that end, Bush’s father reached out through a mutual friend to Ben Barnes, a Democrat who was then Speaker of the Texas House, to request that his son be put first in line for a slot in the Texas National Guard. Both the president and his father maintain that he never received special treatment, but in the September 8 “60 Minutes II” interview, Barnes insisted that Bush was given “preferential treatment” and admitted that he called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to secure his place.

Despite scoring the lowest possible passing grade on a flight aptitude test, Bush was assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, where he trained as a pilot from 1968 until 1972, reporting monthly for duty. But in July 1972 he missed a physical, necessary to retain his flight status. Around the same time, Bush requested and was granted a transfer to the 187th Air Squad in Montgomery, Alabama, where he had a paid job on the Senate campaign of his father’s friend, Winton Blount.

While in Alabama, Bush missed nearly six months of drills. One officer says he remembers Bush reporting for duty at the airbase, but nearly every other officer ever interviewed has absolutely no recollection of him appearing. In fact, William Turnipseed, who would have been Bush’s supervising officer in Alabama, says Bush never appeared on base. “Had he reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not,” Turnipseed told the Boston Globe. “I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If I had had a lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered.”

Another man with no recollection of Bush is Bob Mintz, featured in an ad by Texans for Truth, an independent 527 arm of the online activist group DriveDemocracy.org. Mintz served as a lieutenant colonel in the 187th squadron in Alabama, from 1969 to 1984. “I heard George W. Bush…say, ‘I served in the 187th Air National Guard in Montgomery, Alabama,’” Mintz says in the ad. “I said, ‘Really, that was my unit? And I don’t remember seeing you there.’ So I called my friends and said, ‘Did you know that George W. Bush served in our unit?’ and everyone said, ‘No, I never saw him there.’”

In February, the White House released 400 pages of records, including one documenting a dental examination that shows that Bush was in Alabama on January 6, 1973, as well as pay stubs that showed that Bush was credited for make-up sessions. However, none of these documents explains Bush’s missed physical or why virtually no one who would have served with him in Alabama can remember seeing him. And the AP’s revelation that documents are missing from the file, along with the White House’s constantly shifting story about whether all the records have been released, renews suspicion that this documentation might have been “scrubbed” before Bush ran for president to expunge any potentially embarrassing information.

Not surprisingly, the White House has pushed back hard against the new revelations. White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett called Barnes a “partisan Democrat” playing “dirty politics.” RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie sent an e-mail to the press sliming Barnes with unsubstantiated charges of “political scandal and financial misdealings.”

But unlike the Swift Boat veterans “controversy,” in which every official record contradicted charges that Kerry didn’t earn his medals, in this case mounting documentary evidence proves that Bush avoided his service obligations. In an election that has focused to a startling degree on Bush and Kerry’s respective behavior as young men during Vietnam, the renewed questions could push Bush off-message during the most crucial period of the campaign. If that happens, he may rue the day the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth reared its ugly head.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  This is the silliest piece of journalism I have ever seen.  Its as if the author wants readers to believe that documents that could never been produced in 1972-73 are valid.  Its as if the author expect his readers to be fools.

  Everyone who used a computer before 1990 know the score with the forgeries.  The contents of this article show how dim agenda biased journalism is despite the fact that better facts are commonly know.

  I would suggest to the author to find a new profession, as readers expect truthful writing even if its going to biased.

  Posted by bob trafello on Sep 13, 2004 at 6:45 AM

  Take me off your mailing list

  Posted by Audrey on Sep 13, 2004 at 11:02 AM

  Someone is asleep at the wheel here. Not surprising, though. I’ll be interested in reading the In These Times article about the forgeries that fooled Dan Rather. Will there be such an article?

  Posted by Jon on Sep 13, 2004 at 12:03 PM

  First-rate piece of journalism.

  It continues to amaze how quintessentially manipulated Bushies have become: all too willing to believe the unsubstantiated when it comes to the opponent of their little boy king, and none too willing to believe the substantiated when it comes to George “Is Our Children Learning” Bush. Another glaring contradiction Bushies have shut their eyes to is the fact that Bush previously said he would have gladly served in Vietnam, but on his Gurad paperwork, in the section where it asks if you volunteer or don’t volunteer to serve overseas, he checked “No”. Kind of hard to serve in Vietnam if you’re not overseas, huh?

  Personally, I don’t have a problem with Bush having gotten into the Air National Guard to avoid Vietnam. Like the current Iraq war, the Vietnam war was needless and not worth a single American life. However, I have a problem with Bush jumping ahead of others on the waiting list thanks to bigwigs pulling strings for him. What of the person Bush knocked off the list? Did he have to go to Vietnam? Did he get killed or maimed for life? This is the part that sticks in my craw.

  Again, super article that relies on fact, not conjecture. After all, we all know that “inconvenient facts” are a toe-the-line, head-in-the-sand Bushie’s worst enemy.

  Posted by Kevin Collins on Sep 13, 2004 at 12:04 PM

  Biased propaganda.  You are not a jounalist.

  Posted by Jack Parker on Sep 13, 2004 at 12:15 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 76 posts.

Also featured Fiction First, Spin Later
Cross Culture
Desperately Seeking the Senate

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Christopher Hayes

• The New Road to Serfdom
  Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy"Posted on November 9, 2007
• Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
  Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracyPosted on May 25, 2007
• What We Learn When We Learn Economics
  Is a little economics a dangerous thing?Posted on November 27, 2006
• The Abramoff Babies
  Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms.Posted on October 19, 2006
• The Good War on Terror
  How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to BaghdadPosted on September 8, 2006