AWOLGATE and the "Torn Document"

1. It appears that in 1999, the "torn document" was not part of Bush's official military record
2. The "torn document" was discovered in 2000 at a Texas Air National Guard base by a friend of Bush who had been asked to collect the records of his guard service
3. That friend specified that he later added the document to Bush's file
4. Subsequent FOIA requests of Bush's record turned up the torn document (and later its untorn version?)
5. Today in the White House press briefing, Scott McClellan offered the untorn document, along with pay records, as proof that Bush performed the requisite service
6. In response to a recent request to the records center for records of changes made to Bush's file, a representative of the records center states that no such records exist. The representative immediately thereafter states, in an apparent non-sequitur, that changes are normally made at the request of an individual veteran. He goes on to state that when such veterans, or their representatives, request a change, they are required by federal law to do so on specific government forms that are later added to the record. He then states that Bush's file contains neither any such forms nor any record of informal change to his file. Later, in another apparent non sequitur, the response specifies that changing or tampering with military records is a violation of federal law.

Soooo....
1. It appears that someone added a document to Bush's military record and did so without providing documentation of that addition
2. That person violated federal law by doing so and/or the document was added by someone other than a representative of Bush (a government agency?)
3. The document is the only record of Bush's service (other than pay stubs, which need not reflect actual service) presented by the administration
4. If someone added something to the file, why could they not simultaneously have removed records from the file? (could this be determined by comparing the complete fruits of the 99 and 2000 FOIA requests?) What could such records have indicated?

(This is all in addition to the substance of the torn document itself, which appears to indicate that Bush satisfied his service requirement through transfer to a "paper unit" that rewarded him for service that he didn't actually perform)

Albert Lloyd, the guy who first found the torn document on behalf of the Bush campaign back in 2000, and who at the time said he admired Bush and believed he had served honorably, now says that he's troubled by the absence of documentation of Bush's actual drills, and questions whether he will vote for Bush.

(I understand your WTF though. He is baffling.)

I've got a good friend working at Reuters who forwarded me stuff about the Bush family connection to Thyssen during the Weimar republic and the Nazis; how utterly filthy and ash-covered their money is really. I would like to see the Jewish lobby get hold of that: GWB's Yale fees paid through the slave labour of the dying in Auschwitz.

You would know because you posted that comment in between strapping barrels to the side of your Chevy to escape this oppressive land, right?

I would like to see the Jewish lobby get hold of that: GWB's Yale fees paid through the slave labour of the dying in Auschwitz.

You should know better than to believe anything anybody who works for Reuters has to say. That story is bogus.

It just feels like one more ill-fated and desperate attempt to build outrage in the American people with some (relatively) minor issue. It's a stupid strategy. It didn't work for eight years of Clinton. (He's a drug dealer! He's a murderer! He's a rapist! He's... by the time they actually had a real scandal, they were dead in the eyes of the American people.)

They need to look at how Clinton beat Daddy Bush - he pounded hard on the economy. He didn't look for character scandals in Daddy's history (and there was a rape accusation or affair, no?), he hit him on the economy. The Democrats need to leave this petty stuff behind and just go for the economy and dead soldiers.

What doesn't get mentioned there is that the Bushes are hardly the only wealthy Americans to profit greatly from and cooperate with the Nazis up to and including the war.

Yawn.

Also Milo, I said Jews, not necessarily Dems, might pursue it. I never said the Jewish lobby didn't already know about it. Mind, the way things are looking for Bush, he's losing trust on all germaine issues: the war AND the economy, as the spending on the former is having big, big repercussions for the latter. Kerry is smart to turn the tables on liberal-bashers when he calls GWB an extremist without getting vitriolic.

Both the Clinton and Dukakis campaigns were well aware, for example, that GHWB had a live-in mistress but did not use that information in either campaign because it was felt that it was the kind of classless thing Republicans do when they're down. Trust will, and should be, the reason Bush gets voted down.

But I can't understand how choosing a personal friend of yours in terms of honesty, intelligence, and competence over a "snivelling little fucktard" stranger you're arguing with over the internet is some kind of VOTE OF CONFIDENCE for your Jr Detective buddy.

Milo's point above re. wealthy US families' ties to Nazi finance is spot on.

I've posted a link to a summary of evidence debunking your claim.

You've called me a "snivelling little fucktard" with "wal-mart toys" -whatever that means - who sits at home eating Hamburger Helper in front of my television and "goading 'liberals'."

All I said to you was I thought it was ridiculous to think you had some kind of bombshell revelation for the jewish lobby.

You've got a lot of nerve accusing me of being the one with nothing but insults.

Milo already backed me up. I asked you to clarify your assertions about Reuters, and you haven't.

Your flame of truth is a lit fart.

And how about you knock of the whiney bitch routine? Just for this thread...

The author, Toby Rogers, has a good track record.

I don't need to whine but if you think I'm a bitch, again, whatever. And again, why do you cast aspersions on Reuters?

it is a little-known secret that this infrastructure became so costly to maintain that it is still in use today

How'd your assignment go? Drinking with us tonight?

it sux bananas, but i've at least made it nominally interesting now

i think Reuters stories can often be sloppy STRUCTURALLY - the lede is in the 3rd para, for instance, or three stories are crammed into one - but that's just time pressure. 15 seconds ahead of AP makes a difference. i'm sure they get things wrong from time to time stuart, every news outfit does as a matter of routine, but reuters is one of the only entities in the world (along with maybe one or two other orgz) whose facts you can simply repeat w/o attribution.

Does it not seem odd that at the end of the Rogers piece, after all the accusations, all he demands is that Bush donate $1.5 million to a holocaust reparation fund? And that the John Loftus quoted and thanked by Rogers is the president of the Florida Holocaust Museum, who trained Israelis as an Army officer in 1973. Loftus's website reads like a neocon pro-Israel laundry list, except for the Bush-bashing Nazi links. Seems sort of odd all around. If Bush finishes laying the groundwork for taking out the Sauds and Arafat, I think any exaggerated debts Prescott owes the Jews should be considered paid in full.

Why is that weird?

If Bush finishes laying the groundwork for taking out the Sauds and Arafat, I think any exaggerated debts Prescott owes the Jews should be considered paid in full.

The same Sauds who get invited to Bush Thanksgiving dinners? That's an interesting way of laying groundwork.

I'm more prepared to accept the views of Reuters journalists serving as correspondents in Iraq WRT the war than those of an armchair blowhard who doesn't do anything for anyone.

See, you're prepared to accept views they're not supposed to be giving.

My problem with Reuters (though they are by no means alone) is not that they have their own views or their own biases, or that I happen to disagree with those underlying biases (thought that doesn't help). It's that they deny that they print their views, which is quite obviously untrue.

Reuters news operations are based on the company’s Trust Principles which stipulate that the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Reuters must be upheld at all times.

Reuters has strict policies in place to ensure adherence to these principles. We are committed to accurate and balanced reporting. Errors of fact are always promptly corrected and clearly published.

Reuters is the largest international multi-media news agency, reporting extensively from around the world on topics ranging from financial markets to general and political news.

Some Reuters coverage, including pictures and video, is of wars or conflicts during which all sides are actively promoting their positions and arguments.

We are committed to reporting the facts and in all situations avoid the use of emotive terms. The only exception is when we are quoting someone directly or in indirect speech. We aim to report objectively actions, identity and background and pay particular attention to all our coverage in extremely sensitive regions.

We do not take sides and attempt to reflect in our stories, pictures and video the views of all sides. We are not in the business of glorifying one side or another or of disseminating propaganda. Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views.

The world relies on Reuters journalists to provide accurate, clearly sourced accounts of events as they occur, wherever they occur, so that individuals, organisations and governments can make their own decisions based on the facts.

THAT SAID - i have no problem with the 'deserter' tag being thrown at him, it's truer than the 'draft dodger' tag that was thrown at clinton, and ALOT closer to the truth than the rightwing 'omg kerry protested vietnam and he was at a protest with jane fonda and then she went to hanoi = HE'S A TRAITOR' bullshit they're already starting to work. fight fire with fucking fire, esp. since dubya was pro-vietnam war but nevertheless chickenhawked his way to some tequila sunrises in alabama. john kerry's record in vietnam and esp. after is as close to unimpeachable as you're gonna get with that war. george w. bush isn't fit to lick his boots.

I think anyone pulling the Kerry/Fonda connection or something close to it is pathetic, full stop. The implication that all who fight in a war and end up having serious questions about what was done and how it was carried out aren't worth the talking to or have somehow 'failed' their country -- which is what they're really trying to say precisely by honing in on the high profile example in question -- is contemptuous.

There has just been a R4 report on where the journalist said that Bush's prevarications were costing him dear, esp with vets who had neither connections nor the option of serving in the national guard.

JB did you do ROTC for school?

Ah, be careful about saying that, you should know better than to believe anything anybody who works for R4 has to say. That story is bogus. And clearly all the people interviewed were plants by Reuters!

Blount, am I correct in thinking that NOT ONE funeral or coffin landing has been attended by anyone to do with the gummint?

In a telephone interview from her Texas home, Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."

"I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS. A CBS reporter contacted her briefly before Wednesday night's broadcasts, she said, but did not ask her to authenticate the records.

Meanwhile, CBS got confirmation from several of Killian's colleagues and his CO, a current Bush supporter, that the memos reflect his thoughts at the time.

I actually think there's a much more obvious (if perhaps less technical) basis on which to argue that these are fakes. But I'm not sharing it.

But I'm not sharing it.

Oooooh. If only wingnuts were as smart as you.

Hmm?

BUSH DOCUMENTS

EVENING NEWS WITH DAN RATHER

9-10-04

Rather Lead In: There were attacks today on the CBS News "60 Minutes" report this week raising new questions about President Bush's Vietnam-era time in the Texas Air National Guard. The questions raised by our report include:

--Did a wealthy Texas oilman-friend of the Bush family use his influence with the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives .. to get George W. Bush a coveted slot in the National Guard .. keeping him out of the draft and any probable service IN Vietnam?

--Did Lieutenant Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer?

--Was Lieutenant. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to standards?

--Did Lieutenant Bush ever take a physical he was required and ordered to take? If not, why not?

--And did Lieutenant Bush, in fact, complete his commitment to the Guard?

These questions grew out of new witnesses and new evidence -- including documents written by Lieutenant Bush's squadron commander.

Today, on the internet and elsewhere, some people -- including many who are partisan political operatives -- concentrated not on the key questions the overall story raised but on the documents that were part of the support of the story.

They alleged the documents are FAKE.

Rather: MANY OF THOSE RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CBS DOCUMENTS HAVE FOCUSED ON SOMETHING CALLED SUPERSCRIPT... A KEY THAT AUTOMATICALLY TYPES A RAISED "TH". CRITICS CLAIM TYPEWRITERS DIDN'T HAVE THAT ABILITY IN THE 70S. BUT SOME MODELS DID....IN FACT, OTHER BUSH MILITARY RECORDS ALREADY OFFICIALLY RELEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE ITSELF SHOW THE SAME SUPERSCRIPT.

HERE'S ONE..... FROM 1968.

SOME ANALYSTS OUTSIDE CBS SAY THEY BELIEVE THE TYPEFACE ON THESE MEMOS IS NEW TIMES ROMAN.... WHICH THEY CLAIM WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE 1970S.

BUT THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY THAT DISTRIBUTES THIS TYPING STYLE.... SAYS IT HAS BEEN AVAILABE SINCE 1931. DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY ANALYZED THE DOCUMENTS FOR CBS NEWS.

HE SAYS HE BELIEVES THEY ARE REAL...BUT IS CONCERNED ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING EXAMINED BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE QUESTIONING THE DOCUMENTS....BECAUSE DETIORATION OCCURS EACH TIME A DOCUMENT IS REPRODUCED.....AND THE DOCUMENTS BEING ANALYZED OUTSIDE OF CBS HAVEBEEN PHOTOCOPIED, FAXED, SCANNED AND DOWNLOADED.... AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH WHICH WERE ALSO PHOTOCOPIES.

DOCUMENT AND HANDWRITING EXAMINER MARCEL MATLEY DID THIS INTERVIEW WITH US PRIOR TO THE 60 MINUTES BROADCAST.

HE LOOKED AT THE DOCUMENTS AND THE SIGNATURES OF COLONEL JERRY KILLIAN.... COMPARING KNOWN DOCUMENTS WITH THE COLONEL'S SIGNATURE ON THE NEWSLY DISCOVERED ONES.

Matley: "WE LOOK BASICALLY AT WHAT'S CALLED SIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT FEATURES TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S THE SAME PERSON OR NOT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM IDENTIFYING THEM.

I WOULD SAY BASED ON OUR AVAILABLE HANDWRITING EVIDENCE, YES. THIS IS THE SAME PERSON."

Rather: MATLEY FINDS THE SIGNAT'URES TO BE SOME OF THE MOST COMPELLING EVIDENCE...WE TALKED TO HIM AGAIN TODAY BY SATELLITE.

Matley "SINCE IT IS REPRESENTED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE DEFINITELY HIS... THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE THEY ARE HIS SIGNATURES."

Rather: "ARE YOU SURPRISED THAT QUESTIONS COME ABOUT THESE. WE'RE NOT, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU'RE SURPRISED."

Matley: "I KNEW GOING IN THAT THIS WAS DYNAMITE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND I KNEW THAT POTENTIALLY IT WAS FAR MORE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO ME PROFESSIONALLY THAN BENEFIT ME. AND I KNEW THAT. BUT WE SEEK THE TRUTH. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT YOURSELF OUT. TO SEEK THE TRUTH AND TAKE WHAT COMES FROM IT."

Rather: ROBERT STRONG WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD DURING THE VIETNAM YEARS. HE KNEW COL. JERRY KILLIAN, THE MAN CREDITED WITH WRITING THE DOCUMENTS.... AND PAPER WORK... LIKE THESE DOCUMENTS...WAS HIS SPECIALTY. HE IS STANDING BY HIS JUDGEMENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE REAL.

Rather: "WHEN YOU READ THROUGH THESE DOCUMENTS, IS THERE ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND THAT THESE ARE GENUINE?"

Strong: "WELL,, THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WAY BUSINESS WAS DONE AT THAT TIME. THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE MAN THAT I REMEMBER JERRY KILLIAN BEING. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT'S DISCORDANT WITH WHAT WERE THE TIMES, WHAT WERE THE SITUATION OR WHAT WERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED."

Rather: STRONG SAYS THE HIGHLY CHARGED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE GUARD AT THE TIME... WAS PERFECTLY REPRESENTED IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS

Strong: "IT VERGED ON OUTRIGHT CORRUPTION IN TERMS OF THE FAVORS THAT WERE DONE, THE POWER THAT WAS TRADED. AND IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE. FROM A MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDPOINT. IT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE."

Rather: IT IS THE INFORMATION IN THE NEW DOCUMENTS THAT IS MOST COMPELLING FOR PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORD IN THE NATIONAL GUARD. AUTHOR JIM MORE HAS WRITTEN TWO BOOKS ON THE SUBJECT.

Rather: "YOU'VE STUDIED PRESIDENT BUSH'S RECORDS FOR 10 YEARS.. ARE THESE DOCUMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD AS YOU KNOW IT?"

Moore: "THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH THE RECORDS AS I KNOW IT."

Rather: "PUT IT IN CONTEXT AND PERSPECTIVE FOR US ... THE STORY AND WHAT WE CALL THE COUNTERATTACK ON THE STORY. WHERE ARE WE RIGHT NOW?

Moore "I THINK WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAVE COME OUT. THE WHITE HOUSE, YOU SHOULD REMEMBER, HAS NOT DISCREDITED THE DOCUMENTS. THEY'RE RELYING ON THE BLOGOSPHERE AND OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THAT. BECAUSE THE WHITE HOUSE PROBABLY KNOWS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE IN FACT REAL."

Rather Tag: The "60 Minutes" report was based NOT solely on the recovered documents .. but on a preponderance of evidence .. including documents that were provided by un-impeachable sources .. and interviews with former officials of the Texas National Guard. If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it.

So far, there is none.

If there was kerning in the documents, the first place you'd notice them would be in the apostrophes. Look at "wasn't" in line 3 and "don't" in line 4. Notice the gaudy spaces in the contractions? That's called no fuckin' kerning.

Hey Joshua, I've typeset at a daily newspaper on a daily basis. I've used kerning extensively since 1986--yes, I kerned back in the old school days before typesetting software was even a glimmer in Adobe's eye. I am completely confident I know kerning as well as you think you do. As for Duncan Black or the link gabbneb provided to Daily Kos, the discussions there were amateur with regards to kerning. Sorry if your experience doesn't alert you to that Joshua.
Don, want to explain how a computer can make some letters hit at a higher or lower baseline or topline than others? Look at your document again. Check the numbers in the date, all instances of the letter e, the 'd' in "Hodges," the 'r' in "running," the fall and rise in the word "interference," etc. etc.

Hmm?

Piece. Of. Fucking. Cake. I could crank that shit out in 30 minutes.

Those docs could be very easily forged. Anyone who has spent any time with desktop publishing knows it. Which, I suppose, is why so many reputable people are willing to go on the record in the mainstream press saying that the docs look forged.

But are the documents forged? We don't and probably won't ever know--CBS appears a little gunshy towards transparency these days. Does the kerning appear suspicious? Yes, but it's far from conclusive as far as evidence goes.

the one who's a major Republican donor? or the one who defended John Demjanjuk?

Well, my experience didn't alert me to that for the simple reason that I didn't read the Daily Kos.

Piece. Of. Fucking. Cake. I could crank that shit out in 30 minutes.

I could do it in five.

1. Print document. (alleged forger)

2. Fax document. (forger to CBS)

3. Make a copy of faxed document. (CBS - > White House)

4. Scan copy of document and publish gif or jpeg on website. (White House -> everyone and their blog)

Blotching a document like that is a wee bit simpler than adjusting the baseline for a few hundred letters.

Actually, the first guy that came to mind was someone you referred to as"this (very smart) guy says these are in fact fakes"

So I guess he's not so smart, huh Gabbneb?

As for others, read the papers. They're there, and they're all not part of the VRWC.

And speaking of the VRWC, looks like they've gotten ahold of Hodges over at ABC:

"HODGES SAID HE WAS MISLED BY CBS: Retired Maj. General Hodges, Killian's supervisor at the Grd, tells ABC News that he feels CBS misled him about the documents they uncovered. According to Hodges, CBS told him the documents were 'handwritten' and after CBS read him excerpts he said, 'well if he wrote them that's what he felt.'

Hodges also said he did not see the documents in the 70's and he cannot authenticate the documents or the contents. His personal belief is that the documents have been 'computer generated' and are a 'fraud'"

my point exactly. Don could be the biggest kerning expert in the world, and his expertise would be irrelevant to the late-generation documents we're looking at now. Show us the absence of kerning in Bush's official records.

but to address Don's point - the original freepi argument was that these docs must have been created in Word because they exactly match a doc created in Word now. so by arguing that the 'forger' played with the baselines to differ from Word (and, illogically, turned kerning on from its default 'off' setting in Word), you're conceding that the initial challenge to the authenticity of these docs is faulty.

So I guess he's not so smart, huh Gabbneb?

no, he's very smart (even though he's still assuming that the font involved is Times Roman - this has been disputed elsewhere - and, without expertise, saying the signature doesn't match - it does to my eyes). but he's not one of the 'expert's i was referring to. and he's not saying what you think he's saying. see his two most recent posts here for his current thoughts, which boil down to that these docs are authentic, not 'forgeries', but were produced later than 1972, as part of an historical "cover your ass" file, not necessarily by Killian, and not necessarily in the TXANG, and that CBS has never asserted that they were produced contemporaneously on a typewriter, i.e. the rightwing blogosphere is arguing about, and has gotten the media to focus on, an irrelevancy.

As for others, read the papers.

I am reading the papers. The initial experts cited were William Flynn and Philip Bouffard. Bouffard has now changed his mind, having determined that these docs could have been contemporaneously produced on an IBM Selectric Composer, which may have been used by the Air Force at the time. Flynn (the guy who helped defend not just John Demjanjuk, but also Brigham Young) is now hanging his objection on two grounds, both of which are faulty, and supplementing them with his lay opinion on what machines would have been available to the military at the time (never mind that even if these docs were produced contemporaneously on a typewriter, they may not have been produced in a military office). He also acknowledges that he is reviewing poor copies of the documents (see same article), i.e. he appears to be backing off slowly. Another expert cited by the AP - Sandra Ramsey Lines - is a contributor to a group that grooms female Republican candidates.

And speaking of the VRWC, looks like they've gotten ahold of Hodges over at ABC:

yes, it's entirely possible that the Texas political establishment (not the VRWC, as traditionally used) got hold of Texas Republican Bush supporter Hodges. another possibility is that Hodges is backing off because he doesn't want to have to answer questions about how CBS came to possess the documents - something he knows about.

and note what he isn't saying - that he did not see the documents in the 80s or 90s; that CBS does not have handwritten copies; and that the documents don't reflect what Killian told him at the time.

Want to explain why the White House is refusing to dispute the content of the documents or to ask CBS to retract its story?

(of course, there's the possibility that he's Rove's plant here)

I never made that argument one way or another. So I guess if you want to say I'm conceding it, then that's up to you.

I had not seen the Brouffard retraction when I posted, but as for Flynn you're using your lay opinion ("both of which are faulty") and hardly closing the case on whether or not the docs are forged. No one's looking at the originals, and CBS, unsurprisingly, doesn't want to open anything up to scrutiny. Your suspicion of Ramsey seems like a stretch, and of Hodges, conspiratorial.

Want to explain why the White House is refusing to dispute the content of the documents or to ask CBS to retract its story?

I have no idea. Although I would assume that the White House would rather morons in the press chase charges of forgery than discuss the relevant issue at hand.

recall another similar event in the 2000 race - the case of Juanita Lozano. Someone with the same name is now a residential mortgage lender for Texas Capital Bank. That bank's holding company, it just so happens, has a board member who was at Harvard with W. It also appears to be the successor bank to the BCCI-linked Texas Commerce Bank, which employed one Jeb Bush.

""We believed Col. Hodges the first time we spoke with him. We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it.

Innocent Question - this is the Military Biography of George Walker Bush. Where is Alabama?

I dunno, how did this guy get one?

Look, a HURRICANE!

So the Democratic National Committee has just issued a press release demanding that the Republican National Committee come clean on their involvement with the forged National Guard documents.

We know, we know! It's fucking brilliant! How can we possibly make a joke about this -- and yet we can't stop giggling. It's like a guy staring down the barrel of a gun demanding to see the bullets. It's campaign jujitsu! They're going to confuse Ed Gillespie to death. Right fucking on.

Machiavelli to thread!

MILITARY SERVICE > Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20bama.html

wild horses couldn't drag me into this movie

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/27/george-w-bush-was-awol-but-whats-truth-got-to-do-with-it/