Dude; you debunked it!!
He was not one of 435 representatives in congress, he was THE Ambassador of the United States in China, appointed directly by the president of the United States of America. (All of this at the time when Kissinger and Nixon were "opening" relatioships with that country)

How do the media dare to insinuate that he could (or he would have been able to)use influences to put baby George in the Guard"

Peace out dude. Otherwice, I admire your attention to detail.

Sono, Dude, you nailed it!

Except, uh, read the actual biographies. George H.W. Bush wasn't envoy to China until 1974.

With your research skills and attention to detail, you'd be a good addition to Dan Rather's team.

I quote you from your own website:

"Here is what the Biography of George Herbert Walker Bush from his presidential library has to say about the relevant time period:
During the 1970's, Mr. Bush held a number of important leadership positions. In 1971, he was named U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. He served there until 1973, when he became Chairman of the Republican National Committee."

I guess I see you at Rather's office tomorrow.

That's correct, Dude. In 1971-73 (the time period in question) he was US Ambassador to the UN. In 1974 after he was chairman of the RNC, he became envoy to China.

Perhaps you're confusing the UN with China. An honest mistake.

That was not meant to correct you. That was meant to recognize my mistake.
And also, I guess, to tell you that the trees sometimes do not let us see the forest.

Well, the New York Times has printed a correction about it. Looks like this link isn't permanent, though.

"The article also misidentified the position held by Mr. Bush's father in the early 1970's. (That error also occurred on Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday in articles about the memos.) The elder Mr. Bush was ambassador to the United Nations from 1971 to January 1973, and chairman of the Republican National Committee from 1973 to 1974. He was no longer a Texas congressman."

yes, i think we've established that:
1) fact checking is lacking in the MSM;
2) blogs are better fact checkers in some instances;
3) neither blogs nor MSM can focus their attention on the fundamental questions (with respect to this issue): did george get favorable treatment to enter the guard (seems likely but how do you prove such a thing), did he complete his service or did he get some favorable treatment there as well, why didn't he take that physical and suddenly quit flying altogether? blogs and MSM must delve into opinion when answering these questions b/c so many of the critical files regarding some of these issues have conveniently disappeared (hillary's filegate sound familiar)?

it must be that we should chalk up to coincidence that 40 years of our president's life seems to have magically disappeared--we have so little information regarding those 14,600 days.

i guess we should just trust the president and his spokespeople when they say he served honorably. after all, no president has ever exaggerated or lied when confronted with unpleasant insinuations.

but i guess the larger question, i think, that all of this really displaces is, WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN IRAQ?

but let's not talk about that, let's get back to those forged docs.

rather is a punk for, among other things, giving those who wish to divert the limited attention of the mediasphere (including blogs) from bigger issues.

This is all just a prelude to the dem's real plan: When one of their guys gets voted out of office, the MSM will all agree that HE'S STILL IN THERE! Really. He lost the election, but wasn't ousted from office. Honest...

dinesh, you never cease to amaze. Way to try and change the topic and make it come back to a failure to address the "fundamental questions" this story raises. Each of your fundamental questions has been answered, you just refuse to believe it. I have linked to at least one story showing the relevant information.

Besides your fundamental questions wouldn't even have been raised if it wasn't for the forged documents. Try all you want, you can't manufacture evidence of a charge and then say, yeah but even without that stuff, it's still true.

mike, that's silly. questions have persisted about george's service, as his owns spokespeople say, since his first forays into electoral politics.

while you did point to an article, i've also pointed to the u.s. news & world report article that seems on its face to contradict that article and others.

unfortunately, since many relevant files have gone missing, certain facts may not be established without further diligence, precisely of the variety that many bloggers are doing to unearth the truth behind the cbs forged documents.

you just don't like it going both ways. you are happy to see endless investigation (which is fine by me, even though it is a side issue) on the cbs forged documents matter, b/c that suits your view.

but the thought of pushing back on the "party line" regarding bush's claims regarding his own service seems to you a question that's been asked and answered, so deserves no further inquiry. i disagree b/c i don' think we have a truthful president. people who have had issues with drugs and alcohol are sometimes prone to lying (no one likes to admit they were out partying). georgie fits this bill to a tee.

so the missing years remain a curiousity for some.

meanwhile, iraq is falling apart. but (all in unison): WE'VE TURNED THE CORNER AND WE'RE NOT TURNING BACK.

Dinesh, I would like to visit you on your home planet some time. But if not, perhaps we can meet after the landslide re-election of Bush, when the force of your head exploding rockets you to Earth.

Dinesh,

Maybe this will help answer some of your questions.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/staudt_bush_040917-2.html

I'm sure he's just another partisan hack though, right? Or maybe he's the only person ALIVE who can actually attest to what happened in the TANG. (No, an 86-year-old secretary, who would have "no need to know" doesn't count.)

Also, what part of Honorable Discharge don't you understand? Honorable. Not General. Not Under Other Than Honorable. Not Dishonorable. Honorable.

Have you ever served? If so, you'd know if anybody - yes, even the oh-so-apprently-privileged GW Bush - did HALF of the things you're suggesting, an Honorable Discharge wouldn't be granted. But I'm sure that's fixed, too, right?

jimg:

thanks for the link. per my reading, staudt establishes that once he got in, george was an able performer. staudt appears unable to corrorborate anything after March, 1972. April, 1972 and onwards appears to be the black hole in George's time of service, where no one else in the alabama unit (save 1 person, with vague recollections) seems to recall such a prominent person as bush.

thus, the article you link to doesn't seem to explain how george:

1) got into the guard, given the wait list;
2) what happened after April, 1972;
3) where george served after April, 1972 to get the requisite points to earn that honorable discharge; and
4) why he refused to take a physical.

I have never served, but know several who have. I do know of one person who punched his officer in charge and nonetheless received an honorable discharge. It appears as if the armed forces sometimes give honorable discharges like boards of directors sometimes give golden parachutes---to those who may not have earned them just to get them out!

may i point you to the earlier cited u.s. news and world report article, which suggests, among other items, that bush failed to make up the necessary drills in the allotted time.

look, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that george was a bit of a spoiled rich kid growing up who was never held accountable for his actions (a bit of a republican ted kennedy). some of the right is so shrill when it comes to teddy boy, but are so willing to give george a huge pass.....geee wonder why?

prior to 1998, can you name one george's accomplishments achieved of own accord (arbusto and the tx rangers don't count)?

really, the guy's record is simply lousy when compared to his more accomplished brother jeb, his father or even his vice president.

its always interesting to see common folk stick up for richie rich, born with a silver spur in his mouth. really warms the heart.

The leanings of the "professional media" are amazing. Why do all of the fact checking mistakes always support the same leftist leaning viewpoint. It's used to paint the worst possible picture of the lefts opponents.

The MSM is losing this battle of the fact checkers. Many people long ago have figured this out and the MSM rating bear this out. With the advent of the internet, more and more honest news consumers are becoming aware of this issue. Much of the leftist remainder are only looking sillier and sillier.

It's Rather who looks like somebody who is wearing the PJ's.

I agree that the most disturbing thing of all is the routinely glossed-over fact that there is no one out there who worked on his plane, flew formation with him, packed his parachute, or performed any other related activities who remember serving with him. No one.

Mr. Kerry, on the other hand, has been able to produce not only guys who he fought with, but also a couple of hundred of others who served contemporaneously with him who want his head.

So, semi, you are suggesting that Bush's TANG service was entirely fabricated by George W. Bush? Because no one remembers him? No one.

Say, can you see dinesh's private alternate universe from where you are?

SemiPundit,
That spray you see on the inside of your monitor is coffee from my end of the internet.

Roome says he frequently was paired with Bush. "We flew a lot of night missions. We flew in weather together," he said. "Our stock-and-trade was formation (flying). We deployed in elements of two, and we'd have to target in the stratosphere, where we had to snap up to (the target) up above 40,000 feet, or we might have one in the weeds, where we'd have to go down and shadow (it)." As a wingman, Bush tucked in closely and flew smoothly, he says. "He was one of my favorite people to ride formation with, because he was smooth. He was a very competent pilot," Roome said. "You sort of bet your life on each other in some of those formation missions, and to me it was always a pleasure to fly with George. He was good." Bush, who logged more than 625 hours in the cockpit, ranked in the top 10 percent of his squadron, according to his performance evaluations. "Lieutenant Bush is an outstanding young pilot and officer and is a credit to his unit," Lt. Col. Bobby Hodges wrote on May 27, 1971. "This officer is rated in the upper 10 percent of his contemporaries."

So, dinesh, because George W. Bush is Mr. Richie Rich, who had the benefit of family advantages in earning his wealth, we are supposed to reject him in favor of a man who has vastly more money as a result of marrying the widow of a man who had himself simply inherited it? Makes perfect sense to me.

It is clearly documented that when Bush volunteered for the Texas Air National Guard, they had no waiting list for people who would train full-time to fly F-102s, and that as of that time those who completed that training could expect to see combat in Viet Nam. It is also documented that at the time Bush transferred to Alabama, the Air National Guard in general had a surplus of pilots. Next question?

Triticale,

No waiting list? LOL! Ever hear of Ben Barnes? Of course not, you're doing what Faux News, Insta-Hack and the RNC want you to do - comparing typefaces.

Surplus of pilots? Puh-leaze. This of course gives our beloved W the permission to blow off the last two years of the service he signed up for while other poor slobs who didn't have the connections had to fight and die in Vietnam!

Look hard at yourself in the mirror and tell yourself how proud you are that you are going to vote for this fraud!

Next question?

At the time Bush was in the ANG, pilots were required to earn 50 points per year to meet their requirements. Here are Bush's point totals year-to-year.

May 1968 to May 1969 253 points
May 1969 to May 1970 340 points
May 1970 to May 1971 137 points
May 1971 to May 1972 112 points
May 1972 to May 1973 56 points
May 1973 to May 1974 56 points

Looks like Bush did well above the minimum for the first four years and still met the minimum for the last two years. One notes that in 1972-1974, the war in Vietnam was winding down and there was a glut of formerly active duty pilots coming into the system. It is unsurprising that less flight time would be available to Mr. Bush.

The numbers and the context deny the spin, but keep plugging away at this, dinesh, sono and the rest of you. God knows you can't say anything good about Kerry, so banging away at Bush is your only hope. (Me, I don't like either one of them, but I think there is plenty of room to criticize Bush legitimately as opposed to this 30-year-old b*llsh*t.)

you guys crack me up.

let me hear your spin on democracy in iraq.

matt, may i suggest the u.s news article, which describes the problems with your summary point analysis (including the fact that bush failed to make up missed sessions within the requisite time alloted). what, bush fail to honor a requirement? impossible you say, why he is a man that cannot be faulted in this arena. the documents prove it. please.

this is a man who's telling the pre-selected crowds of who he speaks AT that iraq is getting better every day, while he's sitting on an NIE that says the best case for iraq is tenuous stability and worse case is civil war in 2005. it's classic that you guys will say i'm from an alternate universe when many are saying that about THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

perhaps he needs another line to focus...just one drink and a little line......

I wonder if your argument would have been more impressive without the insinuations of drug abuse. Nothing informs legitimate debate quite like a debator who sources Kitty Kelly.

Yeah Bush on the campaign stump is starting to sound a lot like Baghdad Bob.

Hey Matt,

While Kerry was getting shot at in Vietnam we all know for sure the kind of shots Bush was taking..

Maybe like the ones out of a whiskey glass..

God knows you can't say anything good about Kerry, so banging away at Bush is your only hope.

I could not have asked for a better illustration of my point. Thank you.

Hey, dinesh, it was nice to see your last post. I had been wondering if your shift key was broken or if you were attempting an alternative form of English.

'Enquiring Minds' and all that, y'know.

I always interpreted the aversion to capitals as a pretentious affectation.

I have a question. Democrats are going aroudn saying that GW Bush had a sister named Robin who died during childhood and that police reports indicate that her jealous older brother George was involved in the death.
Can you debunk this, so I can tell these democrats to 'shove it'?