Editorial, San Diego Union-Tribune, February 11, 2004:
Meanwhile, the White House released pay records this week which also document the dates on which Bush was paid for National Guard duty. They provide further evidence that Bush did not shirk his obligations to the Guard between May 1972 and May 1973.
Of course, there are some die-hard Bush detractors who are unwilling to accept that the president did not go AWOL, that he was not a deserter. But the fair-minded can lay the controversy to rest once and for all.
Editorial, The Daily Iowan, February 11, 2004:
Amid accusations of being AWOL in the National Guard and lying to the American public about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush remained as confusing and contradictory as always during the “Meet the Press” segment Sunday on NBC.
On Tuesday, White House officials released payroll records demonstrating that Bush in fact did get paid for his service in the Guard. However, spokesman Scott McClellan admitted that the records do not specifically show that the president reported for duty. Bush’s response to reports of his first-lieutenant evaluation showing that the future leader had not been seen during 1972 is a simple, “They’re just wrong.”
2 replies on “So…we’re in agreement, then”
Apparently the San Diego Union-Tribune didn’t stick around for all of the press conference.
God, the UT. Say no more. San Diego’s a bastion of conservatism as it is but our paper goes beyond. It’s embarrassing. I just read the crossword which, like most of the rest of the paper, comes off the wire. Serious journalists? Not exactly.