Good link, Dean! I don't care how many other (as you say) sources have linked to that story; I certainly hadn't heaard of it. Thanks.

What I found interesting was that part of his outfit was assigned to combat in Vietnam. And, I should have remembered that several ANG units served in that war.

Not only that, Casey, but his outfit was seeing active duty in Vietnam when Bush volunteered (and even pulled strings, if you believe his detractors) to join it.

But, the meme is out, it is too useful to too many people, so it will continue on its merry way undiminished by facts.

Exactly, T. Other memes I see mentioned all the time as if they'd stuck to the administration: Baghdad Museum looting, heavy administration involvement in the Enron scandal. I think this kind of stuff makes a certain type of person feel wonderful, and alienates everybody else in the room.

Does anybody else get the gut feeling that this "scandalous" story will go just as far as Bill Clinton's "rape" and "sexual harrassment" scandals? Will anybody EVER find out just why Bill Clinton was asked to leave Cambridge as a Rhodes scholar? Not every single Rhodes scholar is aksed to leave before graduating, you know.

Why after eight years of a scandal-ridden executive branch do journalists, or even the American public, think this service-dodging, not even draft-dodging, thing is even a story? Please remember, American journalists stumbled all over themselves making excuses for Clinton's DRAFT-DODGING for eight solid years! Go figure.

kevin,

You make a good point. And the same standard seems to be in effect for Bush as well...

I read the same stuff that Andrew Sullivan used to "debunk" the myth of Bush not reporting for duty in Alabama and furthermore not making up the lost time.

Furthermore, much of what I am about to say is a summary of a piece written by Bob Somerby (a Gore apologist) over at the Daily Howler.

He might like Gore, but he does do his homework.

The relevant reports were produced in 2000 by Jo Thomas (early Novemeber 2000 in the Times) and Walter Robinson (late October in the Globe). Each produced reports about Bush's (non?) compliance with Guard rules for attendance.

The two reports were contradictory to say the least.

And no one in the press has tried to resolve the conflicting details. The story died and Bush got a free pass.

Robinson (on 10/31/00) concluded that Bush never reported for duty in Alabama and quotes the General in charge, Gen. Turnipseed, as his main source.

But recently, Andrew Sullivan refers solely to Thomas' report of 11/3/00 as proof that Bush served.

But if you read that report, you'll find it was short (539 words) and quite sketchy. Even Thomas herself found a “seven-month gap” (April 1972 to November 1972) in which Bush performed no service.

In some ways, Thomas even seemed a bit slick.

For example, she quoted General Turnipseed in such a way as to suggest that Bush had served in Alabama.

But she failed to mention Turnipseed’s repeated statements that Bush had not served there.

In fact, Thomas seemed to refer to only one document which allegedly contradicted what Robinson had said.

This document was supplied to Thomas by Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett, of all people.

This was the same Bartlett who had, earlier, supplied Robinson with some pretty flimsy documentation, such as "a torn page without Bush’s name or any discernible dates—as evidence that he did enough drills in Houston in the closing months of his service to satisfy military obligations."

Is this the same document that convinced Jo Thomas that Bush HAD fulfilled his obligations for service?

Regardless, that document didn't convince Robinson.

Furthermore, according to Robinson’s report on this date (Oct 31, 2000), “There are no records in his file to show that he did any training in Alabama.”

In short, Robinson and Thomas penned reports within four days of each other that are widely divergent in their conclusions.

Each cited Bartlett as their source—but their information seemed to stand in stark contrast.

No one made the slightest effort to sort out the matters in question.

The press let the story drop; as far as we know, no one has ever tried to sort out the contradictory Globe/Times reporting.

BTW, from what I can gather, Robinson is no Gore apologist. He's the same guy who ran the bogus "doggie pill" story, if you recall, that once again branded Gore as a liar during the campaign.

Unfortunately, Ara, you seem not to have read the story I linked to, or the materials it links to.

Bill Hobbs--a professional reporter--does the job fairly thoroughly. He's done his homework, and his information is quite comprehensive. It very much appears that there is nothing to this story but a bunch of malarkey, and nothing of significance for Bush to account for.

In fact, let me emphasize again:

Here is the story I linked. Also, read this and this and especially this.

And then there's this.

There is, in short, absolutely nothing unusual in Bush's Guard record. And the man volunteered to work in a squadron he had full reason would be deployed to Vietnam. This story needs to end, at least until something more substantive comes forth than anything we've seen so far.

The Howler needs to be reading Bill Hobbs. And if he really wants to relive every press bitch of the 2000 campaign, we're going to have to start talking about those 7,000 votes Bush lost in Florida when the networks called it prematurely for Gore, which would have saved us all the recount and "Gore really won Florida" nonsense. Or the false allegations about Bush being stupid and "not much of a reader." Or....

Fact of the matter is, there's nothing of significance in this story, as multiple National Guard figures and journalists have said.

And Bill Hobbs should get a damn pulitzer for Online Journalism, he really should.

Sounds like no one wants to argue the point anymore... :)