Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (1699)	2/11/2004 11:35:13 PM
From: ChinuSFO	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Bush proves payment but not presence February 12, 2004 The White House, trying to end a controversy over the President's Vietnam-era military record, has released documents showing George Bush received pay and retirement credit for 41 days of National Guard duty in 1972-73, but not definitively settling the question of whether he had reported for duty after a transfer. White House officials said on Tuesday that the newly discovered records showed Mr Bush had fulfilled his responsibilities as an Air National Guard member and that political adversaries who have accused him of shirking his duties were wrong. But critics said the records did not prove Mr Bush had actually reported for duty in Alabama in 1972 after being allowed to transfer there from Texas so he could work on a political campaign. "The handful of documents released today by the White House creates more questions than answers," said the Democratic national chairman, Terry McAuliffe, who helped revive the controversy recently by accusing Mr Bush of going "AWOL" in 1972. "The fact remains that there is still no evidence that George W. Bush showed up for duty as ordered while in Alabama." The White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, was careful in his statements about what the new records proved. When asked if they proved that Mr Bush had served in Alabama during the six months in 1972 when he had transferred there, Mr McClellan replied: "No. I think if you look at the documents, what they show are the days on which he was paid, the payroll records, and which we previously said, that the President recalls serving both in Alabama and in Texas." Mr McClellan also acknowledged that White House officials have not found anyone who served with Mr Bush in Alabama. If they had, "obviously we would have made people available". This story was found at: smh.com.au