Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
January 20, 2005
POLITICS: Why Didn't Someone Check This Before?

A story that won't die: Will Collier links to a Washington Times piece that points out yet another reason to regard as a fabrication the claim that Bush refused to take a National Guard physical when ordered to do so:

[F]or the weekend that 1st Lt. Bush was supposedly ordered to report for his physical, May 13-14, 1972, the Ellington Air Guard Base was closed. It was Mother's Day. Except for emergencies, Air Guard units never drilled on Mother's Day; the divorce lawyers would be waiting at the gate.

If George Bush showed up at the clinic that weekend, he would have had to get the key from the gate guard.

The drill weekend for May 1972 was the following weekend, May 20-21. A survey of the pay and flight records of several of the Texas Air Guard members of that period shows no activity for May 13-14, but drill pay vouchers and flights for May 20-21.

Good sleuthing there. Read the whole thing.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 7:34 AM | Politics 2005 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (1)

Wow, maybe another super credible source like Fox News will pick this up and "report" further. C'mon The Washington Times is an unadulterated rag run by a guy who thinks he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ. This is a source of information?

Posted by: Jim at January 20, 2005 3:42 PM

You have a beef with the Times' reading of the calendar?

Posted by: The Crank at January 20, 2005 4:03 PM

Well, my beef is with the people who can't accept that Bush won another election. If they aren't insisting some kind of conspiracy did it, they do tihngs like hold "anti-innaugural" protests. Or keep trying to dig up something like this - even though these SAME unproven charges were part of a campaign 4 years ago.

Give it up. Next time consider fielding a candidate that at least 35% of the voters who live more than 100 miles off the ocean might consider voting for.

Posted by: Dave at January 20, 2005 10:53 PM

As for your "legitimate" re-election, we need only look as far as Ohio and, of course, Florida. Even if you claim those "legitimate", this story is totally illegitimate. As said before, the Times isn't exactly the NYTimes(who despite a few stragglers here and there, is known for their accuracy). As well, the problem for me isn't that he didn't serve. Perhaps he did. But what he DID get was preferential treatment and an early out just to go out and do as he pleased, while other young men went out and died in his place. John Kerry, on the other hand, did his duty and even did a second round, though as I'm led to believe, he didn't even have to. F that noise about "he didn't bleed." He saw people die and he killed people under command from his country. He is fit to order troops around, as he understands what they go through. Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, they have no fucking idea.

Posted by: Jowey at January 20, 2005 11:47 PM

Jowey - What, no mention of Wisconsin?

If you continue to treat the NYT as gospel and all bad news as lies, it's no wonder you can't accept that Bush won the election.

We've been through this crap about Bush's military record a zillion times on this site, just search my archives for "AWOL" or "National Guard". What's the preferential treatment? Bush got into a unit that had openings, and for which he was well-qualified, and he exceeded the requirements for service.

You do know Don Rumsfeld flew fighter jets in the Navy, don't you?

Posted by: The Crank at January 21, 2005 9:55 AM

You did vote for Bush the Elder (fighter pilot in WWII) and Bob Dole (wounded in action in WWII) over Clinton the admitted draft dodger, right?

After years of reading both the Washington Times and NY Times, I admit that the former isn't exactly the latter, it is much better. As biased as the WaT is on the right, the NYT is on the left. And at least the WaT doesn't pull sports columnists who don't agree with the publisher.

Posted by: Robert at January 21, 2005 10:44 AM

Let's put it this way: A guy comes up to you, says he performs mass weddings of hundreds of people and that he is, in fact, the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, hands you a copy of his newsletter and tells you everything in it is factual. Would you believe him or the contents of his writings? I would not (and do not) trust that paper to say a damn thing that has the least bit of validity to it. I would be suspicious of the date printed on the masthead. And that has nothing to do with whether I think Bush won the election or not. People on the left can have their opinion on that just as you all on the right can have your opinion that this man actually knows what he is doing.

Posted by: Jim at January 24, 2005 4:10 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg