Category — Bush AWOL

Deborah Orin writes an article in today’s NY Post about the old Clinton War Room re-opening under Kerry. The first salvo in their attacks rehashes the Bush AWOL stories. I think this is a mistake because all it does is keep the Vietnam era front and center which will not help Kerry while the Swift Vets are still out there. I will cover more of the AWOL story later today.

THE Clinton war room is back — now operating at full throttle on behalf of John Kerry.

But the question is whether the slash-and-burn tactics that protected Bill Clinton against Sexgate prober Kenneth Starr will do as well against President Bush because, no matter how much Democrats hate to admit it, Bush is liked by most Americans.

Still, Dems vow to paint Bush as AWOL from the National Guard.

And they’re salivating over dreams of dishing dirt from Kitty Kelley’s upcoming Bush bio, said to even feature nasty tales about popular First Lady Laura Bush.

It’s as if Democrats are looking for emotional therapy now that Bush is climbing in polls.

Kerry’s campaign, which once boasted it had only positive TV ads, has churned out nine different Bush-bashing messages over the past week in a sudden shift to hard negative as Clinton pals get aboard.

Dems say they’re getting even for ads by anti-Kerry Vietnam vets if they blast Bush’s Vietnam-era record.

But Bush’s record is old news.

The revelations about Kerry hurt because most voters had no idea that some Navy peers despised him or that he’d painted fellow vets as war criminals.

“It makes Democrats feel good, but this is like a finger in the dike,” said a veteran Democratic strategist.

“The Kerry campaign is having a cerebral hemorrhage and they’re putting a Band-Aid on his little toe.

“You don’t win a campaign by calling a guy names. It’s not about having a war room. It’s not about fighting back.

“Kerry’s problem is that he still hasn’t explained why he wants to be president or where he wants to lead the country.”

By contrast, during the Sexgate impeachment furor, there was no doubt about where Clinton wanted to lead the country.

He had a record.

One of the prime reasons the take-no-prisoners war room worked against Starr was that most Americans liked the way Clinton was doing his job — in non-Monica Lewinsky moments.

Clinton stood for a lot more than just being anti-Starr. So far, Kerry stands for little more than being anti-Bush.

Now that Bush tops polls with more than 50 percent, being the anti-Bush isn’t enough to win. And the ultimate irony is that in their eagerness to whack Bush on Vietnam, the Clinton-turned-Kerry staffers are ignoring Clinton’s own advice to Kerry: Stop talking about Vietnam.

I was flipping through the channels last night and came across Chris Matthews on Hardball. They were just ending a segment with Michelle Malkin. I didn’t hear any of the interview but Michelle looked like she was ready to strangle Matthews. Now I know why, read Michelle’s full post here.

The one line I caught at the end of the interview is this (full transcript here):

Still ahead, David Gergen and Dana Milbank on the battle for the White House. We are going to keep things clean on this show. No irresponsible comments are going to be made on the show.

What an ass! He had just spent the whole interview with Michelle cutting her off and misrepresenting what she said then he has the nerve to say he is “going to keep things clean”! Of course as we know, Chris Matthews idea of clean is protecting Democrats. He certainly has no problem throwing mud at Republicans as we saw during the Bush AWOL controversy. The jerk hasn’t even read “Unfit for Command“, as Michelle point out:

Well, guess what? This foaming jerk Matthews, who called me irresponsible and kicked me off the show admitted that a) he himself had not read the damned book, b) he was not interested in asking Kerry about the specific doubts raised by vets about his wounds, and c) he had not and would not question Kerry about these specific allegations.

***

As the show broke for commercials, Matthews scrambled for his producers to see if what he said was true. And I’m irresponsible? One staffer ran to the office where I had left my copy of the book, and handed it to Matthews, who–for the first time, apparently–started flipping through it. I asked for my book back and politely said thank you. After I left, he trashed me again on the air and his scurrilous charges were repeated by his MSNBC colleague Keith Olbermann, who called me an “idiot.”

As Michelle points out in her post, the media and Democrats (same thing, I know) are desperate to knock down the Swift Vets:

I am used to playing hardball. I expect it. I am used to ad hominem attacks. I get more in a day than most of these wussies have received in their lifetimes. But what happened last night was pure slimeball and the unfair, unbalanced, and unhinged purveyors of journalism, or whatever it is they call what they do at MSNBC, should be ashamed.

What I take away from all this is that the Democrat Party waterboys in the media are in full desperation mode. I have now witnessed firsthand and up close (Matthews’ spittle nearly hit me in the face) how the pressure from alternative media sources–the blogosphere, conservative Internet forums, talk radio, Regnery Publishing, FOX News, etc. –is driving these people absolutely batty.

Keep bringing it on.

John Cole at Balloon Juice has a great description that sums up the interview:

It was stunning. It is almost like the major media outlets have decided to answer the question about media bias once and for all. Their answer?

“We are whores for the Democrats.”

Lorie Byrd also has a post with the aptly named title: Hardball — Against Republicans Only

It was never high on my viewing list anyway, but I for one will never watch MSNBC again.

My post below about how the media handled the Bush AWOL controversy has resulted in a lot of comments and e-mail ignoring Kerry’s lies, but attacking Bush for being AWOL. On top of that, I now see that Moveon.org has a new ad out recycling these false charges. Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit asks if the media will attack this ad like they attacked the Swift Vets:

I wonder if the media will point out those differences between the two ads. A number of decorated war veterans making allegations personally on camera that are backed up with considerable documentation versus a faceless narrator accusing the President of using his Daddy to get out of going to Vietnam and falsely accusing the President of “allowing false advertising.” I wonder if John Kerry will be asked to denounce the MoveOn ad. I also wonder if we will hear the media question MoveOn’s motives for the anti-Bush ad, the partisan source of their funding, and who those who appear in the ad voted for in the past.

It amazes me that this “story” continues to be pushed around even though there is no evidence to back it up. Yet Kerry is caught lying and it gets completely ignored.

Captain Ed wrote a post a few days ago that lists some of the evidence that shows he wasn’t AWOL. Those of you that can’t seem to get past the AWOL accusations should read it. Then you should go to Bill Hobbs blog where he has extensively debunked this story.

It’s time to take your own advice and MOVE ON!

After reading Neil Boortz’s column, I remembered one of the White House Press Briefings from February where the reporters sounded like a bunch of hyenas demanding the President prove he wasn’t AWOL even after the White House had released his pay records. So I did a Google search and found the transcript from the press briefing. Here are the questions that were asked about the AWOL controversy (it is quite long but worth reading), I’ll add more comments below:

MR. McCLELLAN: Good afternoon. The President, a short time ago, concluded his meeting with some economic leaders. This was a good discussion about the steps that we have taken to strengthen our economy, and the additional steps that we are calling on Congress to take to strengthen our economy even more, so that we can create as robust an environment as possible for job creation.

A lot of the issues that were discussed centered on addressing rising health care costs, promoting trade, making the tax cuts permanent, and passing a comprehensive energy plan. Those are all important parts of the President’s six-point plan to strengthen our economy even more.

And that’s the quick readout from the meeting. With that, I’ll be glad to go right into your questions.

Q On the attendance records of the National Guard, it said he had 56 out of a required 50 points. Is that considered a good attendance record, do you know? Or do you know what the maximum number of points you can get –

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, we were pleased to be able to provide you all with these additional records that just recently came to our attention. These documents clearly show that the President fulfilled his duties. And we had previously released some of the point summaries that you are referencing. There is more complete information relating to those point summaries that document the fact that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was serving in the National Guard back in the early ’70s.

Q Scott, a couple of questions I have — the records that you handed out today, and other records that exist, indicate that the President did not perform any Guard duty during the months of December 1972, February or March of 1973. I’m wondering if you can tell us where he was during that period. And also, how is it that he managed to not make the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, the records that you’re pointing to, these records are the payroll records; they’re the point summaries. These records verify that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties. These records –

Q That wasn’t my question, Scott.

MR. McCLELLAN: These payroll records –

Q Scott, that wasn’t my question, and you know it wasn’t my question. Where was he in December of ‘72, February and March of ‘73? And why did he not fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status?

MR. McCLELLAN: These records — these records I’m holding here clearly document the President fulfilling his duties in the National Guard. The President was proud of his service. The President –

Q I asked a simple question; how about a simple answer?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, if you’ll let me address the question, I’m coming to your answer, and I’d like –

Q Well, if you would address it — maybe you could.

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry, John. But this is an important issue that some chose to raise in the context of an election year, and the facts are important for people to know. And if you don’t want to know the facts, that’s fine. But I want to share the facts with you.

Q I do want to know the facts, which is why I keep asking the question. And I’ll ask it one more time. Where was he in December of ‘72, February and March of ‘73? Why didn’t he fulfill the medical requirements to remain on active flight duty status in 1972?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President recalls serving both when he was in Texas and when he was in Alabama. And that is what I can tell you. And we have provided you these documents that show clearly that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. And that is the reason that he was honorably discharged from the National Guard. The President was proud of his service.

The President spent some of that time in Texas. He was a member of the Texas Air National Guard, and he was given permission, on a temporary basis, to perform equivalent duty while he was in Alabama. And he performed that duty. And the payroll records, that I think are very important for the public to have, clearly reflect that he served.

Q Scott, when Senator Kerry goes around campaigning, there’s frequently what they call “a band of brothers,” a bunch of soldiers who served with him, who come forward and give testimonials for him. I see, in looking at our files in the campaign of 2000, it said that you were looking for people who served with him to verify his account of service in the National Guard. Has the White House been able to find, like Senator Kerry, “a band of brothers” or others who can testify about the President’s service?

MR. McCLELLAN: All the information that we have we shared with you in 2000, that was relevant to this issue. And all the additional information that has come to our attention we have shared with you. The President was asked about this in his interview over the weekend, and the President made it clear, yes, I want all records to be made available that are relevant to this issue; that there are some out there that were making outrageous, baseless accusations. It was a shame that they brought it up four years ago. It was a shame that they brought it up again this year. And I think that the facts are very clear from these documents. These documents — the payroll records and the point summaries verify that he was paid for serving and that he met his requirements.

Q Actually, I wasn’t talking about documents, I was talking about people — you know, comrades-in-arms –

MR. McCLELLAN: Right. That’s why I said everything that came to our attention that was available, we made available at that time, during the 2000 campaign.

Q But you said you were looking for people — and I take it you didn’t find any people?

MR. McCLELLAN: I mean, obviously, we would have made people available. And we — Mr. Lloyd, who has provided a statement to put some of this into context for everybody, made some public statements during that time period to verify the records that the President had fulfilled his duties. And he put out an additional statement now to put this into context. He’s someone with some technical expertise and someone that understands these matters, because he was in the National Guard at the time.

Q Scott, can I follow on this, because I do think this is important. You know, it might strike some as odd that there isn’t anyone who can stand up and say, I served with George W. Bush in Alabama, or in Houston in the Guard unit. Particularly because there are people, his superiors who have stepped forward — in Alabama and in Houston — who have said in the past several years that they have no recollection of him being there and serving. So isn’t that odd that nobody — you can’t produce anyone to corroborate what these records purport to show?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, we’re talking about some 30 years ago. You are perfectly welcome to go back and talk to individuals from that time period. But these documents –

Q Hey, we’re trying. But I would have thought you guys would have had a real good handle on –

MR. McCLELLAN: - these documents make it very clear that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties –

Q Well, that’s subject to interpretation.

MR. McCLELLAN: No. When you serve, you are paid for that service. And these documents outline the days on which he was paid. That means he served. And these documents also show that he met his requirements. And it’s just really a shame that people are continuing to bring this issue up. When –

Q I understand –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no, no, no. People asked for records to be released that would demonstrate he met his requirements. The records have now been fully released. The facts are clear –

Q Do you know that a lot of these payroll records are –

MR. McCLELLAN: — the facts are clear –

Q — you can’t read them. Have you looked at these? You can’t — how are we supposed to read these?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you can talk — one, we put it out on email. It’s a lot easier to read, I think, on the email version because that was the –

Q Oh, you did put it on our email?

MR. McCLELLAN: We are going to, if we haven’t already. But it was sent to us in email form from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado.

Q One other thing on this. To corroborate these records, will the President do two things — one, will he authorize the relevant defense agency in Colorado to release actual pay stubs for the President? And if those don’t exist, will the President file a form, as he can do at the IRS, to at least look for a ‘72 or ‘73 tax return that would corroborate what you claim are payroll summaries that he actually got paid for this duty?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think this information is his payroll records. It is my understanding this is the information that is available from his payroll records. And it shows the days on which he was paid. So that’s the information that I understand is available. In terms of tax returns, the President, like most Americans, does not have his tax returns from some 30 years ago.

Q But it’s possible that he could file a form requesting the IRS to search if they have a return for ‘72 or ‘73. Is he willing to do that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Obviously, if there’s any additional information that came to our attention that was relevant, we would make that information available.

Q Well, it could be relevant if he would file a form –

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that these documents clearly show that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties. I mean, these were the documents that people questioned and said should be made available. And we went back to double-check. We thought we had all the information that existed previously, but we went back to double-check after the comments that were made over the weekend, to see if there was any additional information available. And when we contacted the Personnel Center in Colorado, it was our understanding that the Personnel Center in St. Louis and Colorado were already working to pull this information together, and that this is the information that they have that is relevant to this topic.

Q So it’s your position and it’s the President’s position that these documents put this issue to rest, period?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I think these documents show that he fulfilled his duties. These documents show that he met his requirements.

Q Scott, two questions, one on the documents, one on the issue. There seems to be a discrepancy now in the President’s record that I wondered if you could help me with. These documents that you’re holding up show that the President showed up for duty in October and November of ‘72, January, April and May of ‘73. But the President’s officer effectiveness report, filed by his commanders, Lieutenants Colonel Killean and Harris, both now deceased, for the period 01 May ‘72 to 30 April, ‘73, says he has not been observed at this unit, where he was supposed to show up and earning these points on these days. How do you square –

MR. McCLELLAN: You’re talking about which unit?

Q The Texas — at the Ellington Air Force Base.

MR. McCLELLAN: From ‘72 to ‘73?

Q Correct. And certainly by — the President said he returned to Texas in November of ‘72. So some of these dates of service, which are in these records, ought to have been noted by his commanding officers, who, nevertheless, said, twice, he has not been observed here. Can you explain that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not sure about these specific documents. I’ll be glad to take a look at them. But these documents show the days on which he was paid for his service. And the President — as I’ve said, and we previously said during the 2000 campaign — recalls serving both in Texas and in Alabama during the time period you’re bringing up.

Q So he served, but his commanding officers didn’t know it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I don’t know the specific documents you’re referring to. If you want to bring those to me, I’ll be glad to take a look at them and get you the answers to your questions.

Q Okay. Then on the general issue, Senator Kerry has said that the National Guard was one way for people to avoid service in Vietnam. The President and the White House have taken umbrage at that, saying that’s denigrating the National Guard. In 1994, the President told the Houston Chronicle, in relation to his joining the National Guard, “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment, nor was I willing to go to Canada, so I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.” It sounds like the President, himself, acknowledged that he went into the National Guard because he didn’t want to go to Vietnam.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President — again, Terry, this issue has been addressed fully. Now we’re trying to change into different issues here. The President was proud of his service in the National Guard. He fulfilled his duties; he was honorably discharged. I think there are some that we’re now seeing are not interested in the facts. What they are interested in is trying to twist the facts for partisan political advantage in an election year. And that’s unfortunate.

Q It is a partisan issue. I’m not doubting that, I’m trying to explore it. One of the reasons the Democrats are raising it is because they’ve got a guy who was in Vietnam.

MR. McCLELLAN: Now it’s — he didn’t serve, now it’s a different issue — when the facts clearly show that he did serve, he did fulfill his duties, he did meet his requirements, he was honorably discharged.

Q But he didn’t want to go to Vietnam.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the facts are clear. It’s clear that some are not interested in the facts. It’s clear that some may be more interested in using this for partisan political advantage.

Q Scott, these are very hard to read, these payroll documents. Are you saying that every date listed on document five is a day that the President was actually — showed up, he was suited up, he was flying planes — that’s what that means? Because there are, you know, points for active duty, points for inactive duty. What, exactly, are these?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, and that’s why we put out the statement from Mr. Lloyd, so you could put that in context. He’s someone with the technical expertise that understands those matters and can explain what those points mean. And I think that his statement does that. In terms of the payments, you are paid for the days on which you serve.

Q The days on which you serve, meaning he was actually there on these dates listed, he was actually there –

MR. McCLELLAN: You are paid for the days you serve.

Q Is that what document five is, the dates he served?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, there was a time period when he was in Alabama, and he recalls serving in Alabama. He was still a member of the Texas Air National Guard at that time. What he was doing was performing equivalent duty, because he was working in Alabama at the time. And he also remembers serving in Texas, as well.

Q Scott, so, for example, in January ‘73, the President served, according to this, on January 4th, January 5th, January 6th in either Texas or Alabama — according to document five. Is that correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: You are paid for the days you serve. You have the documents right in front of you. These are documents straight from the Personnel –

Q Is that “yes”?

MR. McCLELLAN: — straight from the Personnel Center in Colorado.

Q Is that “yes”?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said you are paid for the days in which you serve. And, again, we’re talking about 30 years ago, Elisabeth. The President recalls serving in Alabama. He also recalls serving in Texas. That’s what he recalls. And that’s why –

Q But, again, — I know you’re going to bat this down, but there are people who –

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, there were a lot of people calling for these records to be released. We finally came across these records. They have been released, and these documents reflect the fact that the President met his requirements and fulfilled his duties.

Q And the fact that some of his officers don’t recall ever seeing him, are you suggesting that they just don’t remember after 30 years?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think I’ll let them speak for themselves. I’m not sure that they exactly said it in that way. Some different ones said different things.

Q They have. They have spoken for themselves. They don’t remember.

Q What is your answer to them about why they don’t remember seeing the President?

MR. McCLELLAN: That the President recalls serving. I just said that.

Q But why are they saying this?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you look at the records, if you look at these records, these records document that the President fulfilled his duties. These records reflect that he met his requirements, both in point summaries and that he was paid for the days in which he served.

Q Scott, can you just clarify, back to Elisabeth’s question here on document five? For example, in February and March of ‘73, there are no dates that appear, meaning he didn’t show up then, or what –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, I mean, we’re talking about 30 years ago, again. And these documents show the dates on which he was paid, which means those are the days on which you serve.

Q Does that mean, then, that he –

MR. McCLELLAN: I don’t have — Roger, I’m sorry, I don’t have an hour-by-hour itemization of everything he was doing 30 years ago.

Q Are you able to make out any of the paid amounts? How much did he get? I can’t read the letters.

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, this is going to be put out in the email version, as well, and you’re welcome to contact the Personnel Center. I’m sure that they will be glad to help you, as well.

Q Scott, may I re-ask Dana’s question? You keep saying he served — he fulfilled his duty, he met his requirements. You’re not saying, he drilled, he showed up, he attended. Is that intentional?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he recalls performing his duties, both in Alabama and Texas. I said that in response to Elisabeth’s question.

Q Define that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I don’t have a minute-by-minute breakdown of every single thing he did throughout that time period.

Q What did he do?

Q You keep saying the word, “serve.” Define “serve.”

MR. McCLELLAN: He met — he served both in Alabama, and he served both in Texas.

Q Doing what? Did that period — can you at least tell us the difference between inactive — because it’s not clear in these documents.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think that I’ll leave it to those who can explain these documents to do the explaining. That’s why we put the statement from Mr. Lloyd, who was in the National Guard at the time; he was someone that had the expertise to explain to you what these points mean. And that’s why we provided that statement. Obviously, the Personnel Center can tell you more about what everything means on these documents. We just received these late yesterday.

But the one thing that these documents clearly show is that the President of the United States fulfilled his duties when he was in the National Guard. He met his requirements and he was honorably discharged because he fulfilled his duties.

Q Just so I can be sure that I’m interpreting this crystal-clearly — you’re not making any claim here that the President attended, showed up, drilled on these days?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m telling you that he did — he does recall showing up and performing his duties. And you’re paid for the days on which you serve. And that’s what these documents reflect.

Q Scott, is it your –

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re going to stay on this topic, and then we’ll jump to other topics.

Q It’s your position that these documents specifically show that he served in Alabama during the period 1972, when he was supposed to be there. Do they specifically show that?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records. And we previously said that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas.

Q I’m not interested in what he recalls. I’m interested in whether these documents specifically show that he was in Alabama and served on the days during the latter part of 1972 –

MR. McCLELLAN: And I just answered that question.

Q You have not answered that question. You –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said — no, I said, no, in response to your question, Keith.

Q No, so the answer is, “no”?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said these documents show the days on which he was paid. That’s what they show. So they show — they show that he was paid on these days.

Q Okay, but they do not show that he was in Alabama when he was supposed to be –

MR. McCLELLAN: These are payroll records, and they reflect the fact that he was paid on the days on which he served.

Q Do any of them show that he was paid on days that he served in the latter part of 1972 when he was in Alabama? I don’t see any dates for that.

MR. McCLELLAN: It just kind of amazes me that some will now say they want more information, after the payroll records and the point summaries have all been released to show that he met his requirements and to show that he fulfilled his duties.

Q But these documents do not show that. They do not show that he was in Alabama and served at that time. I don’t even see any pay dates during that period.

MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments. No, they show pay dates during that fall of 1972 period.

Q They do?

MR. McCLELLAN: There’s October on there, there’s November on there, and then there’s January on there, as well, in ‘73. There’s some pay dates on there.

Q Okay, so then, do they specifically show that he served in Alabama during that time?

MR. McCLELLAN: They show payments in October; they show payments in November.

Q But just because he’s paid doesn’t mean that he served and worked there, does it?

Q Come on.

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, like I said, people call on us to release the records. We didn’t even know they still existed until just the other day. Now we’ve released the records, which document that the President fulfilled his duties. And now people are trying to move the goalpost even more.

Q You said in Alabama that he had served equivalent duty.

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s right.

Q Can you describe what that was, and what — why did he need to move to Alabama? What was –

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, Greg, you’re asking me to kind of break down hour-by-hour what he was doing during 1972 and 1973. What these documents show is that he was serving in the National Guard and he was paid for that service. And they show that he was serving in the National Guard and that he met the requirements necessary to fulfill his duties.

Q But his equivalent duty, does that he mean there was a base there he was flying out of? Is that what he recalls?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’d have to go back and double-check, but he remembers serving during that period and performing his duties, both in Alabama and in Texas.

And these are — look, these are questions we addressed all during the campaign. The issue that came up recently was some were trying to make an outrageous, baseless accusation. If I recall, some were using the comment, “deserter” or “AWOL.” I mean, that is outrageous; it is baseless. The President of the United States fulfilled his duties, he was honorably discharged. And now there are some that are not — are clearly not interested in the facts. They’re clearly more interested in twisting the facts to seek a partisan political advantage in the context of an election year. And that’s just really unfortunate that some would stoop to such a level.

Q Scott, what is it that took him to Alabama?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q — that took him to Alabama?

MR. McCLELLAN: It was a campaign, a senatorial campaign.

Q Scott, we all know people who tomorrow may not show up for work and will be paid. And their payrolls will show they were paid.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, when you’re serving in the National Guard you’re paid for the days on which you serve. I mean, it’s specifically related to the service.

Q Could you walk us through the sequence of events in the last few days that led to the production of these records?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure, sure.

Q And did those efforts begin after or before the interview with –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it was after. The questions came up in the interview on “Meet the Press,” and the President made it very clear, some of what I’m saying here. And he said, yes, I want all records out there. And it was our belief, it was our impression that all the records that existed that were relevant were already released. Back in the 2000 campaign, we went to the Texas Air National Guard to ask for records so that they could be released, and it was our understanding that the payroll records — it was our impression at the time that the payroll records didn’t exist.

Then after this weekend, after the interview, we contacted the National Guard here and asked them where would one go, if these records existed, to find them. We were just going back and double-checking. And we were put in touch with the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. So we contacted the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. It was our understanding at that time that the Denver and St. Louis offices were already working to pull this information together at the time that we contacted them –

Q On their own?

MR. McCLELLAN: That’s correct. They could explain more about why they were doing that.

Q Did you contact them on Monday, Scott?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ll double-check. I believe it would have been probably Monday before we were able to reach them. So, yesterday — yes, yesterday. I know there were conversations yesterday.

Q Who initiated the conversations?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, Dan Bartlett, from here, Communications Director.

Anyway, so he contacted them and found out that there was, indeed, additional payroll records. And the President authorized that those be made available, as he said he was going to do. He said he wanted all the records released that existed, that were relevant. And to our knowledge, this is all the records that exist that are relevant to this topic.

Q The letter from Colonel Lloyd says that he assessed the records. Did — there’s no indication that he had any direct oversight of President Bush. Did he?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q That Lt. Colonel Lloyd, did he have any direct oversight over President Bush at the time he served?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think he could address those questions, in terms of what his role was at the time in the National Guard. But he was certainly someone that had the technical expertise to be able to explain what the point summaries mean, in terms of the numbers, and what they reflect. So that’s what he did. And he stated — he made some comments back during the 2000 campaign; I’m sure you can go back and look at those, as well.

Q Just to be clear, what he’s saying today is that his assessment of the records is that the requirements were fulfilled.

MR. McCLELLAN: That the requirements were met. His own words are in his statements so I would refer you straight back to his words.

Q When did Lloyd make this memorandum?

MR. McCLELLAN: This one?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: In the last day. I think we received it yesterday from him.

Q — one date that I was –

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q Are you ready to take questions on a different subject?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re still on this topic, right?

Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America’s racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else’s medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting? What was he doing after he was honorably discharged?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’ve already commented on some of his views relating back to that period the other day. And, obviously, this was a time period also when he was going to get his MBA at Harvard. But the President was certainly proud to serve in the National Guard.

Q And would the White House consider those actions by Senator Kerry, that Jeff mentions fair game in the political season?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think — I know that that’s a way to try to draw us into a Democratic primary that is ongoing.

Q You’re there, my friend. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is an important matter that some have chosen — some have chosen to twist the facts. And it’s important that the facts are clear. And I think that these documents clearly show that the President met his requirements and fulfilled his duties. But, look, we’ll let the Democratic primary continue. They can work out their differences. I think if you have questions to address to people that made certain accusations, you should direct them to those individuals. Because now, in light of these documents, this is new information that clearly shows otherwise to what they were suggesting.

Q Scott, the President said clearly –

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me keep going. I’ll come back to you.

Q Wait a second –

MR. McCLELLAN: We have a few in the back. I’ll come back to you, I promise. But let me try to get to everybody in the room. I promise I’ll

come back to you. Ben I think had one, and then April. And did you have another one, Ron? Kind of slipped one in there.

Q The records show, between April 16, 1972 and October 28th there was no pay period, he wasn’t paid. That was when he was in Alabama. Now, you said some of the payroll records were lost, but that you know he didn’t serve. And was this the President remembering he didn’t serve?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it was for the fall period, when he — and again, I’d have to go back and look at the exact dates of when he was in Alabama. But it was during the fall that he made a request to perform equivalent duty in Alabama again. That was still a period when he would be a member of the Texas Air National Guard. But I’d have to go back and double-check those exact dates that he was in Alabama.

Q — wouldn’t have been paid for equivalent duty?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q You wouldn’t be paid for equivalent duty.

MR. McCLELLAN: You’re paid for serving. And equivalent duty is performing your duties for the Texas Air National Guard.

Q But the summary sheets state that he did not perform service in the third quarter of –

MR. McCLELLAN: These are not our summary sheets, these are the summary sheets from the Personnel Center in Colorado.

Q — payroll records were lost, but also, we know he didn’t perform service in that third quarter.

MR. McCLELLAN: You are paid for the days on which you serve.

Q So when he was in Alabama during that quarter, he didn’t perform service –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, I’m not sure that he was in Alabama during that whole period you are talking about. I’d have to go back and look. He requested — I know that he requested to perform equivalent duty during that fall time period when he was in Alabama. You are going back further than that. I’d have to double-check.

Q He left in May, I believe –

MR. McCLELLAN: I’d have to double-check the time period in which he was there.

Q Is this cumulative, the sort of thing you don’t have to perform every month, it’s just a matter of, out of the course of a year, you get your 50 points?

MR. McCLELLAN: You know, I’m not — there are people that have technical expertise in these matters. I think they’re the National Guard. You can direct those questions to those individuals. I’m sure that they would be glad to try to help you out.

Q You keep saying this is a shame, and you’re talking partisan politics, but don’t you think the American public, as well, particularly the U.S. military, who has been tested right now with the fact that they went to war on faulty intelligence, possibly, and now finding out that their Commander-in-Chief possibly tried to avoid going to the Vietnam War — don’t you think that the American public is owed a little bit more than photo copies that we can’t see things of? Don’t you think the military is owed a little bit more than just, “he served”?

MR. McCLELLAN: April, I’m really sorry that you phrased that question the way you did, some of it, when you were saying that they’re owed more than the documents that show that he served during that time period. Now, let me go back –

Q But wouldn’t someone know what he did?

MR. McCLELLAN: And the President — we have previously said, going back to the 2000 campaign and even before that, that he recalls performing his duties, both in Alabama and in Texas, during the time period that some have questioned. So let’s be very clear about that. Let’s be very clear about the facts. Because the American people should have the facts, and the facts are right here in these documents. The facts are right here in these documents.

Q We can’t see facts. We can’t see — these facts are very messed up, they’re blurred.

MR. McCLELLAN: April, I mentioned earlier that we were going to be putting this out on email, if we haven’t already, because it was sent to us in email form. You are also welcome to contact the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. I am sure that they will be glad to walk you through this.

Q You’re saying that this is political — this is all politics and everything and people are obscuring in putting the facts up. But people are not able to stand up for the President. There are dates that aren’t accounted for. You can’t even tell us what kind of drills or what-have-you. What do you say to the U.S. military –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we addressed all those questions back during the 2000 campaign fully. Let me be very clear: The issue that came up recently was an outrageous, baseless accusation suggesting that the President did not serve and did not meet his requirements. People called on us to release records that might be available to show that he, indeed — that he, indeed, did meet his requirements and serve and fulfill his duties. The records have been released. These records document that the President fulfilled his duties. Now people are wanting to go further than that. And these are the records that reflect his service.

Q You can detail your job. You can detail what you do as Press Secretary –

MR. McCLELLAN: And we did. During the 2000 campaign, we talked about this issue fully. You’re now going to a different issue. These issues –

Q It’s still the same issue –

MR. McCLELLAN: Let me be very clear here about this. There are some that made some very outrageous accusations about the President’s time in the National Guard. There was a call for us to release payroll records. The payroll records have been released, as they just came to our attention and we shared them with you very quickly. The point summaries showing that he met his requirements have been released. Those were records that were — that some called on us to release. We didn’t know that some of these records previously existed. Obviously, if they had, we would have been glad to share them with everybody at the time.

This issue was addressed fully four years ago. Like I said, it was really a shame that it came up four years ago, and it’s really a shame that it’s being brought up again this year. The facts are clear. Now, there may be some out there that are not interested in the facts. And those people clearly are simply more interested in trying to seek a partisan political advantage in election year, then the facts. That’s unfortunate.

Q I don’t really have a question that goes to the politics of this. I just want to ask a question about a contradiction, and a question about a specific record. After all of the things you repeated here, you cannot explain this contradiction, the fact that his payroll records indicate he was paid for a period of time for fulfilling service, and yet his commanding officers at that time wrote that he was not observed. Can you or can you not explain that contradiction?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you’re talking about the question that Terry brought up, I said I would glad to go back and look at the document that he’s referencing. I have not –

Q You know the document he’s referencing. Everybody does. His commanders –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I have not — I have not seen the document he’s referencing.

Q — are quoted repeatedly for years –

MR. McCLELLAN: You’re talking about quotes — you’re talking about quotes from individuals. And we said for years, going back four years ago, that the President recalls serving and performing his duties.

Q I understand that, but his commanders do not recall it. And, in fact, they say, that he was not observed. So can you explain the contradiction, or can’t you?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’ve seen some different comments he’s — no, I’ve seen some different comments made over the recent time period.

Q I haven’t seen any different — different comments from Brigadier General Turnipseed, not from his Ellington commanders, who said he was not observed. Can you explain the contradiction?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, I can’t speak for those individuals. I can speak for the President of the United States. And I can speak –

Q — the documents –

MR. McCLELLAN: And I can speak for the fact that the documents that — as far as we know, all the documents that are available relevant to this issue demonstrate that the President fulfilled his duties. Are you suggesting these documents do not reflect that?

Q I’m not suggesting — I’m asking, that’s all I’m doing. Here’s the second point, the President said to Tim Russert, very specifically, on Sunday, that he would be willing to provide pay stub records and tax return records to corroborate –

MR. McCLELLAN: And we addressed this situation previously.

Q — wait a second — to corroborate –

MR. McCLELLAN: It’s the second time you’ve asked this question.

Q Right, and I’ll ask it until we maybe get something — which is to corroborate these payroll records that are coming from one source. Will he request that all the records are released, from Denver and from St. Louis, to prove that he actually received money, not just that they say he did?

MR. McCLELLAN: These are the payroll records that we understand are available. This is it.

Q — all that’s there –

MR. McCLELLAN: It is our understanding that these are the payroll records that are available, yes.

Q Just out of curiosity, how much money does a person get paid for each day’s service, and is there any evidence that George W. Bush might not have accepted the money, might have turned it down?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, Connie, you’d have to go back and ask at the time what the pay was. Again, it shows the dates on which he was paid. And I think this goes into some of the amounts here on these papers.

Q Scott, new subject?

MR. McCLELLAN: Same subject?

Q Yes.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q Am I wrong in reading document five that he didn’t perform any days of service between April 16 and October 28 –

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we’ve been through this. Again, the documents –

Q I want to make sure that’s correct.

MR. McCLELLAN: — well, those are the documents. You have them right in front of you. I’m not disputing these documents. In fact, I’m saying that these documents demonstrate that the President fulfilled his duties. These are the payroll records.

Q Which of these dates refers to days he served in Alabama?

MR. McCLELLAN: I’m sorry?

Q Which of the dates in document five –

MR. McCLELLAN: If you look at the fall time period, that was a time period that he was in Alabama. Again, Keith asked this question earlier, and asked if it shows exactly where he was serving when he was paid. And I said, no. I said, what these documents show is that he was paid for the days on which he was — served. These are the payroll records that reflect the days on which he served.

Q On what date did he come back, did he return from Alabama?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think we’ve been through some of these issues previously. I don’t know the exact date off the top of my head. We’ll be glad to look back and try to get you that information. But those were all questions that were addressed previously. The relevant issue that was brought up by some recently was whether or not the President had served. The documents clearly show that the President served and met his requirements and fulfilled his duties.

Q Scott, could you just tell us, are these all the documents you got, you received, here at the White House, from Colorado, or have you kept some in reserve? And also –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, these –

Q — do you expect any additional documents from St. Louis or from Colorado?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as always, I said that we would — if there is additional information that comes to our attention, we will make sure to get you that information. This is the information that we understand is available from the Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado.

Q And that’s all that they sent you, this is the extent of all the documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, this is what they sent us. And we just put it in our own email and sent it out for you all.

Q Scott, Dan Bartlett told the Associated Press, in June of 2000, that he traveled to the Air Reserve Personnel Center and reviewed President Bush’s military file. He said, “I’ve read it, and there is nothing earth-shattering.” Did he see these documents when he reviewed the file? Did he see any other documents when he reviewed the file? And was there anything in the file –

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that’s a broad question about other documents. All the relevant documents relating to his service have been released –

Q So has Dan Bartlett ever seen these documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: — as we said. And as I said yesterday, everything that we had we released in 2004 — I mean, 2000, at the time, or during the 2000 campaign. It might have been ‘99.

Q There may be documents that were in that file –

MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is the first time this information has come to our attention.

Q So Dan Bartlett didn’t see these documents –

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I think I’ve answered this question up here, and I’ve answered it back for you.

Q I’ve got one more –

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re going to keep moving. Any more on this topic? Do you have this topic, this topic? Then Wendell is a new subject. We’re off this topic.

Those questions take up 37 minutes of a 45 minute press conference. The transcript shows the tenacity with which the press corp handled the AWOL controversy but it doesn’t even begin to show the contempt some of the reporters displayed for McClellan and the President. You can watch the video from the transcript page also. The attitude and disrespect from some of the reporters is unbelievable.

Can you imagine the reporters following the Kerry campaign covering the Christmas in Cambodia story like this? Of course it would be nice if they covered it at all!

The press considered the AWOL story that was over 30 years old to be extremely important even though they had no evidence to prove Bush was AWOL. Also notice how there was no questions about the political motivations behind the AWOL accusations.

Compare that to the blackout about the Cambodia story even though there is now evidence to show the story was made up forcing the Kerry campaign to change the story. In this case all we see are stories attacking the motivations of the veterans making the accusations. Also remember that Bush did not campaign on his military service but Kerry has based his whole campaign on his 4 months in Vietnam.

What media bias?

Update: Just wanted to say thank you to Captain’s Quarters, Power Line, Patterico, Dean’s World and everyone else that has linked to this post and welcome to all of you who have followed links over. To my new visitors, I hope you will take a look around some of my other posts and bookmark or blogroll me if you like what you see. Thanks for visiting the site!

Update 2: Check out this related post at Solomonia. He does an excellent job taking the media to task for its lack of reporting on the Cambodia story. Also see Lorie Byrd’s post at PoliPundit. She says the Kerry campaign should be begging for press coverage if they have nothing to hide. Then check out this post at Patterico’s Pontifications where he compares the LA Times coverage of the AWOL story to their complete lack of coverage of the Cambodia story.

Update 3: Woo Hoo! My first Instalanche! Welcome to everyone visiting from Instapundit. I hope you will take a look around some of my other posts and bookmark or blogroll me if you like what you see. While you’re here, take a peek at the new Homespun Bloggers crew that’s been started. Joining this wonderful bunch can be accomplished here. Thanks for visiting the site!

Neil Boortz does an excellent job comparing the media’s handling of the AWOL accusations against Bush as opposed to their handling of the Swift Boat Veterans’ accusations against Kerry.

The mask is off. Further denials are useless. After the events of the past seven days the ingrained leftist, pro-Democratic Party bias of the nation’s mainstream media has been fully exposed. All it took was for a certain Vietnam veteran to write a book daring to question the war hero status of Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry. Media lips are now drawn into a permanent snarl; the knives are out and the scent of blood is in the air. Circle the wagons and may the effort to protect the Democratic candidate proceed.

To make this scenario as clear as possible, I ask you to remember one basic difference between George Bush and John Kerry. George Bush is not running on his record of military service during the Vietnam War. John Kerry is. John Kerry is not running on the basis of his recent service as an elected official. George Bush is.

Now … turn back the calendar to earlier this year. George Bush was asking the voters of this country to reelect him on the basis of his previous four years as president and commander in chief. Suddenly Democratic detractors come forward with questions about Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard over 30 years ago. Democratic sycophants were using words like “AWOL” and demanding investigations. Blood had been thrown in the water with the media sharks and the White House press briefings immediately turned ugly. Reporters wanted details – all of the details – of Bush’s National Guard service. They wanted pay records, dental records, medical records, flight records and statements from fellow guardsmen confirming Bush’s participation. The AWOL word had been used and it was George Bush’s job to provide all of the information necessary to prove that it wasn’t so.

If you think back I’ll wager you can’t remember one single story from any of the alphabets (ABC, NBC, etc.) questioning the motives or the honesty of the people who brought the AWOL charges. Their motives were assumed to be worthy and pure. It was the president on the spot, not the detractors.

Now … let’s turn the calendar pages to early August, 2004. A group of Vietnam veterans step forward with some questions and charges about John Kerry’s record of service in Vietnam, the very record that John has presented to the American people as the sole and exclusive reason (save for their hatred of George Bush) that he should be the 44th President of the United States. If the media’s treatment of the George Bush AWOL charges were a guide, we would expect to see an immediate feeding frenzy from the mainstream media. Demands would be made of the Kerry campaign that records, documents and any and all other available evidence be presented to prove Kerry’s claims of heroism.

The Kerry campaign would be handling multiple demands from The New York Times, the Boston Globe, ABC, NBC and the rest of the locusts for all of the medical records pertaining to Kerry’s second and third Purple Hearts. Apologies would be demanded of the Democratic and Kerry lawyers who referred to Dr. Louis Letson, the physician who applied the band aid to Kerry’s first Purple Heart wound as a “phony” physician. Maureen Dowd would be opining about obscene Republican operatives daring to question the medical credentials of a man who undoubtedly had saved far more lives in Vietnam than John Kerry. Obviously, it hasn’t happened exactly that way. We haven’t heard one objective reporter asking Kerry to defend his lawyer’s name-calling. Change the fact situation just a tad. Have Dr. Letson make a statement supporting Kerry’s claims, and have a Bush lawyer refer to him as a “phony” physician. I don’t have to tell you how outraged the media would be, do I? I didn’t think so.

And what of the people supporting Kerry’s detractors? One columnist referred to a Houston homebuilder who had made a donation to the Swift Boat veterans as a “mysterious Republican moneyman.” Mysterious? A Texas homebuilder is mysterious? I think a Hungarian financier who finances Moveon.org and The Media Fund, both Kerry surrogates, might qualify as mysterious, but has anyone seen dark hints about the money behind these organizations?

If anyone else out there has a plan to write a book exposing liberal media bias in America, they should consider applying their efforts to another cause. The media is doing all too good a job of exposing itself.

From the looks of these pictures, I’d say the troops could care less about the AWOL “story”.

The Washington Times reports that the DNC won’t heed Kerry’s call to end ‘AWOL’ attacks.

Asked whether the DNC will heed Mr. Kerry’s call to drop accusations that Mr. Bush was AWOL, spokesman Tony Welch said, “the White House did more to advance this than anyone else” and that Mr. McAuliffe stands by his position.

So the White House is the reason that the Washington press corp was acting like a bunch of jackals last week. Lets review Kerry’s statements concerning the importance of service in Vietnam. In 1992, he said the following in defense of Bill Clinton having dodged the draft:

“What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary. The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our Nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation. We do not need to divide America over who served and how.”

I guess it’s OK to “divide America over who served and how” if Kerry benefits from it. On Feb. 4th Kerry said:

“I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard”

Here, Kerry implies that going to Canada is the equivalent of joining the National Guard. Tell that to the families of Guardsmen who have given their lives defending this country. And last night Kerry said:

“I have suggested that some people who are my advocates who’ve gone on that line of attack, it’s not one that I plan to do, it’s not one I have [done]”

Excuse me? “It’s not one I have done”, as I just stated, 2 weeks ago he was comparing the National Guard to running to Canada.

Here is Charlie Rangel on Meet the Press yesterday:

“To say that someone actually saw someone in the military and that’s supposed to close it?” Mr. Rangel said. “We’re challenging whether or not he’s properly served his country. I think these are legitimate issues.”

Funny, I don’t remember him challenging Bill Clinton on whether he “properly served his country” when he dodged the draft. So as usual, when a Democrat makes accusations against a Republican, evidence (2 witnesses now say they saw Bush on duty in Alabama) does not matter. What matters is the seriousness of the charge. But when a Democrat is accused of something, the evidence must be rock solid as can be seen in the way the press handled the Kerry affair rumors.

I was going to write my thoughts on the whole AWOL story feeding frenzy. But after reading Much Ado About Nothing, I decided not to reinvent the wheel. Read the whole thing for a good summary of why this whole “scandal” is baseless.

For more information, see Bill Hobbs. He has made it his mission to thoroughly debunk this myth for some time now.

President Bush greeting some “NASCAR Dads”:

Bush shows the dems that the AWOL rantings don’t scare him one bit by having his picture taken next to the car sponsored by the National Guard:

I thought this was a cool photo: