Bush Payroll Records Are Damning Evidence

Although, as many bloggers noted, the AP tried to whitewash the sudden Hilary-Clinton-like rediscovery of Bush's military pay records by saying that they “shed no new light on the future president's activities during that summer” it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that in fact they do shed light on a dark corner. Like the curious case of the dog in the nighttime, the pay records speak volumes for what they do NOT say: they lack any indication that Lt. Bush met his service obligation.

That's simple. How Lt. Bush got away with an honorable discharge anyway is much more complex. The fullest descriptions of the whole paper trail are provided by Paul Lukasiak and can be found at his AWOL Project. Mr. Lukasiak has now released part III of this saga, 'Fraud: The Secrets of Bush’s Payroll Records Revealed. It's pretty powerful stuff, but it's also complicated and set out in an over-wrought style.

The combination of complexity and pushy style mean that the major media will probably ignore it. If a story is a little technical and can't be explained in a sound bite, even most print reporters these days are reluctant to cover it, and doubly so if the person offering the data isn't either a known member of the pundit class or sounds very calm and sober. No one wants to be thought shrill, after all.

Here's Lukasiak's summary of his argument—but there's lots more where this came from.

An examination of George W. Bush's payroll records lead to the conclusion that Bush consciously and deliberately defrauded the United States government for pay and “points” to which he was not entitled. The White House probably doesn't even know that the payroll records include the data necessary to prove fraud—-the proof is found in the “incomprehensible” lines of data at the bottom of the payroll records.

Lieutenant Bush was required to attend scheduled monthly training with his Texas Air National Guard unit., or perform “substitute training” instead. However, under Air Force policy, advance authorization was required for “substitute training”, and this training could be done no more than 15 days before his unit met for the scheduled mandatory training. The payroll records show that, during his last year as a member of the Texas Air National Guard, fraud was involved in over 40% of the pay Bush received that was credited toward mandatory monthly training. Bush was paid for, and received “point credit” for “substitute training” more than 15 days before the corresponding scheduled training for five separate weekends of mandatory training.

Moreover, Without advance authorization, Bush could not be paid or credited with any “training” he claims to have performed in Alabama.

Yet The payroll records are completely inconsistent with Bush having received advance authorization for the “substitute training” supposedly done in Alabama. If training had been authorized, paychecks would have been issued no more than five weeks after the training had been done. Instead, it took an average of seven weeks (and as much as nine weeks) for pay to be processed.

Other documents in the Bush files provide additional evidence that the training that Bush was paid for in Alabama was never properly authorized. And the statements made by officers of the Alabama Air National Guard also confirm that Bush did not get the authorization necessary from Alabama for him to be paid and credited with training.

Finally, the White House has never released any of the paperwork that could show that this training was approved in advance, or that the training was actually accomplished. Additional circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that none of the training done in Alabama was properly authorized. When the evidence is considered as a whole, the obvious conclusion is that this paperwork never existed, and that Bush was paid for training that he never performed.

This entry was posted in Politics: US: GW Bush Scandals. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Bush Payroll Records Are Damning Evidence

  1. Greg says:

    > The combination of complexity and pushy style mean that the major media will probably ignore it.

    I wonder if this statement has always been partially true or would journalists be more “skeptical” and investigative, say, 30 years ago?

  2. MP says:

    I hope they don’t have you teaching Evidence over there if this is what you call “damning”.

    Yawn. Conveniently, you leave out the actual amounts he was “fraudulently” paid. So let me get this right…a kid from a billionaire family plotted and schemed to get the less-than-minimum-wage the Guard pays, a fact that you believe speaks volumes about his character.

    Oh yeah and it all happened 30 years ago. And we all know how accurate government records are, particularly when 30 years old. Do you happen to know if he also paid taxes on that couple hundred bucks he supposedly defrauded the state out of? Cuz you know, that’s how they got Capone.

    We all know how powerful computers were back then too. Even today, how often has your cutting edge blog been down? Riight..the computerized records are indisputable.

    And even worse, had the commies chosen to attack the southland, Bama’s top ace fighter pilot Baron von Bush wouldn’t be there to defend the Sweet Home. Oh my.

    I wonder how the records turned up? Maybe they were in the desk drawers of some of the furniture the Clintons stole from the White House.

    If you’re looking for “damning” evidence of a man leaving his post, just check out how many votes Kerry has missed since running for office! If anybody has been defrauded by a candidate in this race, its the citizens of Mass.

  3. Phill says:

    Oh come off it we all know what really happened. W was not AWOL he failed his medical after it showed he was taking LSD and the guard decided that the last thing they wanted was for him to go up in a plane again anywhere.

    The people who pulled strings to get him in were not going to let him be kicked out with the dishonorable discharge he should have got. He was no use as a pilot, sending him to Vietnam was pointless and would be blocked the same way a dishonorable discharge would.

    Just watch the guy try to speak. He has got way way worse than he was when he started. He will suddenly pause in mid sentence as if he has completely forgotten what he was saying. Can you imagine a person in his state finishing Yale or Harvard Business School? And in those days he was also an alcoholic.

    If you take LSD the effects can catch up with you later in life. Makes you wonder what the pretzel incident was really about.

  4. MP says:

    Phill’s “evidence” is even more “damning”… it should go in the Evidence casebook used at Miami as well.

    Speaking skills? Dennis Miller has a great line about the Kerry campaign suing Will Smith, alleging he stole Kerry’s campaign slogan for his new movie title, “I, Robot”

  5. paul lukasiak says:

    Yawn. Conveniently, you leave out the actual amounts he was “fraudulently” paid. So let me get this right…a kid from a billionaire family plotted and schemed to get the less-than-minimum-wage the Guard pays, a fact that you believe speaks volumes about his character.

    actually, I made the point that the dollar amounts were not all that significant. What is significant is that Bush is using the fact that he got paid, and recieved point credit, for “training” to claim that he “did his duty”.

    If he did anything whatsoever in Alabama (and there is no evidence that he did do anything in Alabama) it was not the “substitute training” for which he was paid and credited, and the circumstances and other related facts make it virtually impossible that it qualified for either pay or point credit.

    So all those “points” that Bush earned are illegitimate, as is Bush’s claim that he did his duty.

    You can argue that its not important after 30 years….and if Bush was being honest about it, I would agree with you. What is important is that Bush is lying about his last two years in the United States Armed Forces. And in exposing that lie, one exposes the charade that is the “character” of George W. Bush….

  6. MP says:

    “So all those “points” that Bush earned are illegitimate”

    The dollar amounts involved are a small element of the context, and the only one you seem to have researched and acknowledge. You haven’t done anything to establish that 30 years ago, perfect attendance of Alabama Air Guardsmen was strictly expected and enforced. Just because a “rule” exists, doesn’t mean it has any significance.

    Analogy: ABA rules require that students not miss more than 8 hours of a class in law school in order to get credit for that class (or something like to that effect). Some professors (I assume michael) are sticklers and take attendance, failing a student with too many absences. Others refuse to enforce the rule, and do not take attendance. I knew a guy who never showed up for Contracts, but booked the exam. Would you contend that his law degree is illigitamate? He’s lying about his credentials? He should be disbarred (as well all the partners at his firm)? Of course not. He passed the class, end of story. And what about the profs that don’t enforce the rules? Should they loose tenure? Of course not.

    Alabama was never at risk for invasion from the commies. Guard duty was what it was back then, a legal way to avoid nam if you were lucky. They weren’t a crack unit like the SEALS or Delta Force. Images of Bill Murray’s “Stripes” and Gomer Pyle come to mind. Most likely, Alabamans would just as soon have spent their tax dollars on something other than “aces” like Bush burning thousands of dollars of jet fuel each flight.

    Its not just that nobody cares NOW if he showed up or not. Prove to us that anybody cared THEN if the rich kids showed up or not. The fact that “substitute training” credits were awarded is dubious towards the notion that attendance was vital.

    The same perspective applies to why Kerry earned his purple heart even if his injury wasn’t severe. In the context of how it was awarded, he was in harm’s way. Many vets have earned the purple heart for minor injuries, and those that would strip him or others of it are using the same perspective you are: ignoring context and looking to apply a rule that is never enforced strictly in practice.

    Kerry earned his medals. Bush did his “duty”. The voters will decide what these mean and how much weight to give them in the grand scheme of things.

    But again, will Kerry give Mass. his salary back? To me, leaving the people of a state without a voice in the senate is a much more serious offense then leaving the skies of Alabama unguarded.

  7. Alison says:

    Perhaps some of the modern conservatives out there should patent the procedure of moving the goalposts. It seems to me a lot of that’s been going on; great opportunity for some profit there.

    So okay, everyone agrees it’s not the money. Is it, as Lukasiak said, a matter of personal integrity and honesty, then? No, of course not — since nobody cared whether Guardsmen showed up for duty 30 years ago. And there wasn’t any threat anyway, so everybody in the Guard could yawn on a Monday morning, turn over and hit the snooze button one more time. No problem.

    Never mind commitments to the country. Never mind a serviceman’s honor and discipline. Never mind the integrity necessary not only to honor one’s promises even (and especially) when you don’t see any pressing need to, but to tell the open and honest truth about what happened. If there is some confusion about Alabama, release all the records, explain that there was a misunderstanding/delay in compensation/failure to report, and take credit and/or responsibility for your actions, no matter when they happened.

    As I have before, I ask now: if there’s nothing wrong with what he did, why has it been so hard to pry these documents out of the fingers of the Administration? It’s been four years and counting.

    Since you feel a need to bring up Kerry (yes, let’s go on a diversion) would you like to explain to me how it’s only coincidence that every time Kerry would show up for a scheduled vote, it would be delayed and put off for multiple days until he finally left to keep his commitments elsewhere? Once is chance, twice is a coincidence, three times…. well.

  8. Brett Bellmore says:

    until he finally left to keep his commitments elsewhere?

    He’s got commitments elsewhere? Gee, thought he had commitments in Washington, as a Senator. It’s not a part time job, after all. Hope he doesn’t have this many “commitments elsewhere” if he’s elected President…

    Give me a break, it’s not like he missed the votes because he had to attend his mother’s funeral, or his daughter’s wedding. He missed the votes because he’d taken on another full time job, that he thought was more important than the one he was elected to. Slamming a guy because he stops doing the job he was elected to, to run for another office, is perfectly legitimate. It’s nothing the voters should have to tolerate, no matter how common it might be. It’s not like the guy on the line can get away with missing 95% of his days at work, and excuse it because he took a second job somewhere else. Outside of elective office, that would get you fired so fast your head would spin. It should inside elective office, too.

  9. MP says:

    “If there is some confusion about Alabama, release all the records, explain that there was a misunderstanding/delay in compensation/failure to report, and take credit and/or responsibility for your actions, no matter when they happened.”

    It is on this point that the age of the matter comes into play. In 1974, it would have been a collosal waste of money for the government to create a record keeping system to keep track of national guardsmen so accurately, that 30 years later you could pinpoint the exact location of any recruit. I doubt that even the system used today will prove so precise 30 years from now. Its even more foolish for us today to spend money on a system of foolproof storage and retrieval of these records.

    There really is no explanation. Can you remember where you ate lunch 2 weeks ago today? Where were you on this day 5 years ago? So why do expect one of the busiest men in the world to remember where he was 30 years ago? How can he truthfully tell you he was or wasn’t there if he doesn’t remember?

    Goalposts? I’m sure Bush probably played hooky from grade school too. I bet when Kerry plays(ed?) ice hockey, the ref sometimes misses penalties he commits, and he doesn’t fess up. Ooooh, such evil men.

    You liberals need to toss out this Franken-Moore way of analysing the world.

  10. paul lukasiak says:

    I’ve gone and rewritten much of the piece again…

    I added something I meant to include originally, then forgot to do…PAY AND POINT FRAUD, AND THE WHITE HOUSE CRITERIA FOR “SATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION”
    which shows what happens to the White House claims that Bush “fulfilled his duty” when you exclude the fraudulently awarded point credits.

    I also added some stuff to the conclusion, addressing the relevance of this stuff…to wit:

    Ultimately, however, the real issue here is character. George W. Bush had a six year obligation to the United States Armed Forces to maintain his readiness to serve on active duty at a moment’s notice, should national security require it. The record shows that for the first four of those six years, Bush fulfilled that commitment. The record also shows that for the last two years, Bush ignored his obligations.

    Each time more truth emerges about those last two years, Bush’s story changes. Bush never acknowledged that he lost his flight status until records were released in 2000 proving it had happened. At that point, Bush’s story changed to one where he chose to stop flying, as if it was within his authority (rather than that of the Air Force) to make that decision. Bush never acknowledged not showing up for any training for more than six months, and when that was revealed, Bush’s story changed to a claim that he had “made up” the time.

    It is this refusal to acknowledge error and failure, and the creation of new narratives when the facts are completely inconsistent with his original story, that is most disturbing about George W. Bush. Just as he created a myth with regard to his military career, Bush created a myth to justify the invasion of Iraq. And just as Bush’s explanation of his military career changed as contrary facts were disclosed, so have Bush’s justifications for the Iraq invasion change as information contrary to his justifications is exposed.

    America cannot afford four more years of someone who is so incapable of facing the truth about his own failures, and that of his administration.

  11. paul lukasiak says:

    The dollar amounts involved are a small element of the context, and the only one you seem to have researched and acknowledge. You haven’t done anything to establish that 30 years ago, perfect attendance of Alabama Air Guardsmen was strictly expected and enforced. Just because a “rule” exists, doesn’t mean it has any significance.

    one assumes that you are referring to the Texas Air National Guard…

    “Perfect Attendance” was not required, as I noted in the article. 90% attendance was required for those with a Military Service Obligation—i.e. the guys who joined the Air National Guard to avoid being drafted and sent to Viet Nam. (The rules were less strict for those who had completed their MSOs, or had been in combat, etc….) THAT is an important part of the context here….this nation was at war, and thousands of men who did not have wealthy and influential parents died in that, and tens of thousands more were wounded and/or permanently disabled.

    Analogy: ABA rules require that students not miss more than 8 hours of a class in law school in order to get credit for that class (or something like to that effect).

    There was a PURPOSE to attendance at these monthly training weekends as well. That purpose was to maintain READINESS, both individually and as a unit, in case a national security emergency required the immediate activation of that unit. You “classroom” analogy is completely off the mark here, because this training was not (primarily) about gaining a specific new body of knowledge, but of maintaining expertise and readiness.

    Its not just that nobody cares NOW if he showed up or not. Prove to us that anybody cared THEN if the rich kids showed up or not. The fact that “substitute training” credits were awarded is dubious towards the notion that attendance was vital.

    First off, it is not my responsibility to prove to you that anyone cared if rich kids showed up. I have established what the LAWS, REGULATIONS, and POLICIES were, and IMHO you bear any burden of proof with regard to showing that they were not enforced.

    Secondly, substitute training was permitted, but only under certain conditions, and the substitute training was supposed to fulfill as much of the purpose of the UTA training as possible. Officers could DENY permission for substitute training if they felt it was getting out of hand and affecting readiness.

    Bottom line here is that you have no argument, and are grasping at straws with complete ignorance of the relevant facts. If you have an intelligent and considered argument to make—something other than “I don’t like your facts, therefore you must be wrong”—I’ll be happy to continue this discussion.

  12. MP says:

    “THAT is an important part of the context here….this nation was at war, and thousands of men who did not have wealthy and influential parents died in that, and tens of thousands more were wounded and/or permanently disabled.”

    Thanks for letting us all finally see your true colors and motivation for your witch-hunt. THIS is what you are really upset about. You are using the attendance issue as a PRETEXT (consciously or not) for your real gripe.

    You can’t blame Bush for his choice in light of Kerry’s words against the vietnam war:
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/913184/posts

    Frankly, it seems you just don’t have the moxie to attack a man for choosing the guard over nam. There are those that do, and they make a good point against Bush’s character, albeit a dated one.

    Once the guard decision was made, the imperfect attendance is irrelevant. My guess is that you yourself have also chosen not to serve in the active duty armed forces. So attacking his attendance is a way for you to go after Bush’s character without addressing the real character test that both you and he face: the decision not to serve during a time of war.

    In short, most people see the attendance issue for what it is:
    1. Kerry’s post-nam anti-american comments have handcuffed any liberal who would criticize Bush for not serving
    2. Lingering bitterness over who got exemptions from serving
    3. Indicia of the retentive and hyper-literal analysis patterns currently dominating liberal thinking. In otherwords, the takeover of the liberal movement by lawyers and lawyerlike analysis. You can’t beat the conservatives on common sense and values, so you shoot for hyper-technicalities.

  13. Chris says:

    I suppose you can’t beat conservatives on values and common sense, but what does this assertion have to do with the Republican Party, which seems to have left conservativism sucking oil fumes in their rear-view mirror (except for once in a while throwing a few pieces of silver at the Christian fundamentalists in the form of anti-gay marriage amendments and the like). I had once thought that conservatives were in favor of lessening government power. I was wrong.

    Meantime, I disagree that Kerry’s protests of the Vietnam war make him morally equivalent with Bush. Kerry served his country in the military honorably and with alacrity, and his service was recognized with combat decorations for valor. Like many veterans, the war left him disillusioned–even 40 years later, it’s hard for me to see what national interests were served in the conflict that accorded with its cost–and Kerry courageously and publically protested a war he did not feel was in our nation’s interest. This, to me, is patriotism at its best–loudly disagreeing with a government’s policies that did more harm than good to our country. Compare this with Bush’s furtive, and manifestly self-interested, scheme to avoid service in Vietnam, or even to make any meaningful sacrifice whatsoever.

    I personally don’t care if Bush ever smelled the powder. I don’t see military service as a requisite for being a good president. I do care that Bush has no history of acting in the national interest, unlike Mr. Kerry, and Bush’s inability to demonstrate “service” in the Air National Guard is a testament to that.

  14. Alan says:

    “You can’t beat the conservatives on common sense and values”. Huh?

    How was invading Iraq in any way commonsensical?

    Where are “love thy neighbour”, “vengeance is mine”, “eye of a needle” and “thou shalt not kill” to be found among the allegedly religious values of today’s US conservatism? Not to mention “thou shalt not bear false witness …”

    Can’t beat them? Today’s US conservatives are fit to be damned on commonsense and values.

    There is no need to resort to commonsense other than to mask unspeakable motives or want of a coherent rationale. So why celebrate it?

    A set of received fundamentalist attitudes does not amount to a coherent set of values grown out of true religious experience. The US religious right has as many values in common with Khomeini as it has with Jesus.

    Let none of the above be taken as a dismissal of true conservatism. But let no-one pretend that the White House, Pentagon and Capitol are presently controlled by true conservatives.

  15. Jean says:

    In short, most people see the attendance issue for what it is:
    1. Kerry’s post-nam anti-american comments have handcuffed any liberal who would criticize Bush for not serving
    2. Lingering bitterness over who got exemptions from serving
    3. Indicia of the retentive and hyper-literal analysis patterns currently dominating liberal thinking. In otherwords, the takeover of the liberal movement by lawyers and lawyerlike analysis. You can’t beat the conservatives on common sense and values, so you shoot for hyper-technicalities.
    Posted by: MP at July 25, 2004 04:50 PM

    1. Kerry’s post nam comments were NOT anti-AMerican. What is anti-American is to damn dissent, which is what the right wingers are so good at doing.

    2. That’s ludicrous and not worth addressing
    3. Common sense and values? This is a mantra of the “conservatives”; repeat bull often enough, with nothing to back it up, and people will come to believe it.
    WHAT common sense? WHAT values? CORPORATE VALUES; DIVIDING AMERICA; DESTORYING DEMOCRACY; DENYING AMERICANS ACCESS TO THE COURTS? Come on tell me what values you have that liberals don’t.
    I can tell you what values liberals have:
    We believe in the Constitution.,
    We believe in following international law and the Geneva convention.
    We believe in the precept ‘for every right there is a remedy’
    We believe in the GOD of our choosing, and freedom of religion which can ONLY exist with a separation of church and state.
    We believe in FAMILY values -= we believe that society should ENCOURAGE AND REWARD families who care for each other rather than squabbling about what constitutes family and who is the arbiter of defining family.
    We believe in honoring those who work hard, not depriving them of their health, taking away their jobs, and condemning them to below poverty wages — which the government would have to subsidize. But since right wingers believe in every man out for himself, they don’t believe in government helping the poor either. Therefore, just let the worker fend for himself – throw the bum out to die, while doling out subsidies int he millions to corporations that hold city governments hostage.

    What VALUES do the “conservatives” have again? The value of greed, perhaps. THe value of imperialism and anti-American anti-democratic oligarchy. These are not AMERICAN values. THey are NOT compassionate values.

    Right wingers can not even get creative. They rely on the same tired oxymoron compassionate conservative.
    And, they rely on faith-based reality. Say black is white enough times and by god someone will believe it is reality.

    MP = you need to go use some common sense, and think about what the word ‘values’ really mean.
    Talk is cheap.

    It must be all that yawning you’re doing that is interfering with your thinking,

  16. Jean says:

    Alan, I’ll add a couple more
    Faith without works is dead.
    Talk is cheap.
    By their fruits ye shall know them.

    I think we all know what Bush is about.
    I’d match Kerry and Edwards’ “fruits” against Bush and Cheney’s any time. any instant.

    Black is black. IT is not white. Repeating it hundreds of times does not make it so.
    IT is time to take back the ‘heartland’ (and Florida) and encourage people to vote FOR their interests, NOT agaisnt them. It is time to vote for democracy, not oligarchy. For compassion, not militant fascism,
    For upholding our Constitution, not denigrating it.
    For upholding family values – of care and concern for each other;
    not denying them status as family because they don’t fit some mold.

  17. paul lukasiak says:

    Thanks for letting us all finally see your true colors and motivation for your witch-hunt. THIS is what you are really upset about. You are using the attendance issue as a PRETEXT (consciously or not) for your real gripe.

    I will take your most recent post as an admission that you have lost this debate…if you had anything to say, you would not be playing this game.

    You complained Just because a “rule” exists, doesn’t mean it has any significance. I explained that the rule was significant, because of the context created by the Vietnam War. And now I am supposedly using “the attendance issue as a PRETEXT”

    I don’t care that 30 years ago, some narcissistic, spoiled, rich kid didn’t fulfill his duty as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. I care about the fact that the person in the White House is lying about what he did 30 years ago to perpetuate a myth that enables him to kill or main thousand of americans, and tens of thousands of muslims. George W. Bush is no more concerned about the impact of his decisions on National Security today than he was 30 years ago. Its still ALL ABOUT GEORGE.

  18. Michael says:

    While I enjoy the back and forth, I would be grateful if people would restrain themselves when it comes to personal remarks. Even to trolls.

    Thank you.

  19. Dem says:

    I will take your most recent post as an admission that you have lost this debate.

    Yes. There were two signs that you’d cornered MP logically. First, he tried to distract from the issue by launching an irrelevant counter attack at Kerry. Second, he questioned your motivations and took a shot at you (“hyper-technical”).

    Keep up the great work, Paul. When you engage with the Bush apologists, remember to always stay focused on your message, not the irrelevancies they try to introduce into the conversation or their inevitable personal attacks on you. Always remind them with every post what the key issue is about, and always point out any illogical tactics they utilize.

  20. paul lukasiak says:

    Keep up the great work, Paul. When you engage with the Bush apologists, remember to always stay focused on your message, not the irrelevancies they try to introduce into the conversation or their inevitable personal attacks on you. Always remind them with every post what the key issue is about, and always point out any illogical tactics they utilize.

    You are correct of course. However, in certain cases, I think that the better part of valour is to simply stop responding in the presence of deliberate intellectual dishonesty. (now, if all the blogging programs would just get an “ignore” function…)

  21. Alison says:

    “To [assume Bush is a liar], we assume he perfectly recalls skipping training sessions, and lying to superiors about where he was and what he was doing. We also assume that such behavior was subject to zero tolerance at the time.”

    Wow. I think that whole exchange was worth it just for that. A beautiful piece of faulty logic.

    Since nothing constructive is being said in this thread by this time, perhaps Godwin’s Law is in order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.