Boston Globe Lets Dan Bartlett
Keep Lying About
Bush's AWOL Military Records

The Boston Globe has abandoned its quest for the truth about Bush's grounding and AWOL during his National Guard duty, and now is attacking John Kerry's military record. In an open letter to Globe reporter Michael Kranish, Bob Fertik documents Dan Bartlett's latest lies. We demand complete and truthful answers to the 2 questions posed by Walter Robinson of the Globe back on Feb. 14: why Bush went AWOL for many months in 1972-73, and why Bush was grounded.

April 20, 2004

An Open Letter to Globe Reporter Michael Kranish

Hi Michael,

As you may know, I have written extensively on Bush's military record:
http://democrats.com/smokingjet

I was credited by the  Boston Globe on 2/10/04 with obtaining the first "untorn" version of Bush's retirement points for his "missing year" 1972-73.

Since you're parsing every word from Michael Meehan, to be fair you need to parse every word from Dan Bartlett too, and be as relentless in your follow-up questions.

Let me quote from your article:

White House communications director Dan Bartlett, in a telephone interview, contrasted Bush's action with that of Kerry's. "The president made a pledge before the American people, and he made his complete file available to the media and the public," Bartlett said. "They were able to review all of his medical records"

Bartlett is lying. The public was not able to review all of his medical records, nor was most of the media.

According to the Washington Post on Feb. 13, 2004,

The White House did not release 44 pages of medical records that Bush's aides received this week, but it allowed a small pool of reporters to peruse them for 20 minutes. Bartlett said that was to maintain a zone of privacy.

Since your attack on Kerry dwells on the controlled access of parts of his records, I'm sure you'll note the broader access offered by the Kerry campaign (all legitimate reporters, not just a pool) and the absence of any time restrictions.

Bartlett continues:

and we fully released the remainder of his military files, including evaluations and performance sheets as well as days served.

Bush did not release the remainder of his military files. According to veteran reporter Jim Moore, author of Bush's War for Re-election,

Bush has not provided his signature to authorize a complete release and printout of the entire microfiche record from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. The microfiche was sent to Danny James' office in VA., printed out, and then vetted before being given to the White House, where it was vetted again. Then it was given to reporters. If Bush would sign a release form, the entire file could be printed out for review by anyone who wanted. McCain did so in South Carolina during the primaries in 2000 when Karl Rove started his attacks on McCain being mentally unstable.

In particular, Bush did not release his disciplinary files, so we still have no answers to these two crucial questions from your own Walter Robinson on Feb. 14, 2004:

An initial review of the more than 300 pages found no additional documentation about why Bush went months without attending required drills while he was living in Montgomery, Ala., and at his home base in Houston between May 1972 and May 1973.

The documents also do not clear up another mystery about Bush's military service: why then First Lieutenant Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, did not take his required annual flight physical examination in mid-1972. On Aug. 1, 1972, he was suspended from flight status for not taking the physical, and never flew again...

Earlier this week, two retired National Guard generals told the Globe that it was almost unheard of for a military aviator to miss an annual flight physical. And the Globe reported that Guard regulations would have required an investigation of Bush's failure to take the physical.

But the new records contain no hint of any such inquiry.

On March 14, the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, WA revealed new information that might illuminate the question of Bush's grounding:

Military rules used in 1974 to ground two Washington Air National Guard airmen with access to nuclear weapons also applied to a Texas Air National Guard unit where Lt. George W. Bush was a fighter pilot.

Some military researchers and a former Texas Guard lieutenant colonel believe the stringent regulations -- known as the Human Reliability Program -- may have been invoked to stop Bush from flying Texas Air National Guard jets in 1972.

At the National Guard Bureau, now headed by a Bush appointee from Texas, officials last week said they were under orders not to answer questions.

The bureau's chief historian said he couldn't discuss questions about Bush's military service on orders from the Pentagon.

"If it has to do with George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Vietnam War, I can't talk with you," said Charles Gross, chief historian for the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C.

Rose Bird, Freedom of Information Act officer for the bureau, said her office stopped taking records requests on Bush's military service in mid-February and is directing all inquiries to the Pentagon. She would not provide a reason.

Air Force and Texas Air National Guard officials did not respond to written questions about the issue.

James Hogan, a records coordinator at the Pentagon, said senior Defense Department officials had directed the National Guard Bureau not to respond to questions about Bush's military records.

I personally tried to find answers to both of these questions by requesting additional information from the military through a FOIA request that I filed on 2/24/04. I have not received the documents I requested. Moreover, I can no longer get any replies from the public affairs officer with whom I had most cordial relations:

Col. August Schalkham 303-676-6515 800-525-0102x71217 arpc.pa@arpc.afrc.af.mil august.schalkham@ARPC.DENVER.AF.MIL

I assume I am the victim of the same information blackout that the Spokesman-Review exposed.

Bartlett continues:

The president lived up to his commitment he made to the public, and we should expect the same from his opponent."

To assist the media in its investigation of these important matters, I will publish this letter as an open letter on Democrats.com here:
http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=201