Lucky Accident! Bush Military Records Are Gone!

I would be prepared to believe that an unfortunate accident with aging microfilm just happened to destroy Lt. Bush's personnel records for the three key months of his career so long as it could be shown that the same thing happened to many others, and so long as someone would come forward and say they were involved in the failed “restoration” project. Routinized military incompetence is something I can accept.

But it's darned odd that the Bush folks, who presumably knew about this destruction for several years never mentioned it.

And it's even odder that Bush — who promised he'd release all his military records — has nevertheless consistently refused to sign the waiver that would in fact make good on this promise. (In which context it is just short of amazing that the New York times buried this story deep in the paper rather than running it on the front page. SCLM indeed.)

Given that people have been doing a serious analysis of the Bush military records and have found many peculiar anomalies, things that are at least consistent with a pattern of cronyism and illegality, and given that the current administration lies about everything out of habit, well, excuse me if I need a little more reassurance that Occam's Razor doesn't lead you straight to skullduggery.

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

6 Responses to Lucky Accident! Bush Military Records Are Gone!

  1. MP says:

    Keep those thoughts in mind when you review the report from the intelligence comittee today. Bush is not providing you the information you want, so you assume he’s hiding something. Saddaam didn’t provide the information the world wanted…..

  2. Steve says:

    Unless one assumes that the Bush Administration has a time machine and is keeping that fact from us, you have to conclude that, yes, this is plain, old-fashioned incompetence (and perhaps, simply just Murphy’s Law) at work. The records were destroyed in 1996 and/or 1997, deep in the heart of the Clinton years.

  3. Joe says:

    hmmm … if so Steve, why were we told about it now?

    It’s like someone after discovery and everything deciding in the middle of a trial to wait to say, “oh, so sorry, that information was destroyed years ago!”

    Did they just find out about it now? If so, it suggests they really wasn’t even intending to supply all the information, since it was asked for months ago.

    Those glasses are a tad too rosy eyed.

  4. Pingback: the Greater Nomadic Council

  5. Debra Slivka says:

    Hello–thought you all should know about this tiny item in your big time-bro’s column which blows the lid off this “destroyed in 96 or 97” tall tale–seems AP was told the records “do exist” circa 6/25/04!

    Please make sure the entire civilized world is informed, or at least Froomkin’s editor at the Post.


    librechik from DU

    via Atrios

    By Dan Froomkin
    Special to
    Friday, June 25, 2004; 11:43 AM

    From the argument: “A significant controversy has arisen in the ongoing campaign over the President’s military service during the Vietnam War, and specifically whether he performed his required days of service during a period between May 1972 and May 1973. Allegations have been made that the military personnel file for George W. Bush released to the press earlier this year is not complete. The public has an intense and legitimate interest in knowing the validity of these claims, which may well be answered by reviewing the microfilm copy of the personnel file in the Texas archives.”

    Associated Press Assistant General Counsel Dave Tomlin told me yesterday that AP reporters began trying to get the documents back in February, but hit roadblock after roadblock.

    Tomlin said the AP has been informed that the microfilm in question does indeed exist. Tomlin said that because paper records can vanish and be tampered with, the microfilm “would erase any questions.”

  6. Carolyn Barker says:

    That does sound kinda odd, doesn’t it? Why were his military records destoryed?


Comments are closed.