Every Saturday morning I look forward to the Jack Kelly column on the Op-Ed page of the Blade. As surely as things fall down, Kelly can be counted on to recycle half-informed (not to mention half-formed) arguments from the right side of the blogosphere, and dutifully march forth to make the GOP sanctioned argument of the week. His modus operandi is simple and unvarying: report the facts that support his thesis, ignore everything that undermines it and end with an overblown claim that Democrats (or the "nay-sayers" or peacenicks or Bush-critics) are nothing more than unrepentant liars. He rarely lies outright (though I have caught a few), but his one-sided presentation of the facts always produces a deeply deceptive column. I warn you, if you try to make pro-Republican arguments based on what you read in a Jack Kelly column, you will quickly establish that you are an easily hoodwinked fool. There are good honest conservatives out there, but Jack Kelly isn't one of them, he exists to regurgitate the GOP line of the day.

His column this week is no different. The title of his column is "Exploding the AWOL Myth", but he does nothing of the sort. In fact, his performance features so much boot-licking that I suspect that he is hoping for a Pentagon appointment if President Bush is re-elected (he held one during the Reagan administration). The best place to follow this story is in the blogs (note: this is something I don't say very often). Calpundit is doing a great job of not only following the story but actually adding something to the debate by analyzing in depth the documents and arguments being made. Josh Marshall, as usual, is doing a great job following the political story, and his insider perspective on the Washington press corps is invaluable.

Kelly's argument is this:

Filmmaker Michael Moore has called Mr. Bush a "deserter." The Democratic National Chair<0x00AD>man, Terry McAuliffe, has said Mr. Bush was AWOL (absent without leave) from the Texas Air National Guard.

These charges were investigated, and found baseless, in 2000 by the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. But Democrats are unwilling to let facts get in the way of a good smear.

He then claims to go through the President's military career, highlighting praise from Bush's superior officers, and "proving" that George Bush was a gifted fighter pilot.

There are a lot of allegations and innuendo circulating about George Bush's military career, but this column is easily swatted down by referring only to uncontested details of his service. The well-established facts show that Bush's service was far from exemplary, and that Bush, through his various political campaigns has consistently kept much of his record hidden. The public, uncontested record shows a George Bush that falls well-short of Kelly's eager, talented fighter jock.

In fact, let's start with the young Lt. Bush. Yes, by all accounts he was a gifted pilot, and would have been a credit to the National Guard save for one fact: George Bush skipped a required physical, and was subsequently grounded. After the US military spent tens of thousands of dollars training him to guard the skies of the US, he just didn't bother to have the mandated physical, and thus was forbidden to fly military aircraft. Needless to say, such actions are not considered acceptable in the military during a time of open conflict.

From the Boston Globe:

Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.

Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.

"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.

Seems to put something of a crimp in Kelly's point, doesn't it? Ex-special forces pilot and blogger John Robb wrote:

A couple of days ago, I pointed out that pilots are required to remain on flight duty during their entire commitment period.  There isn't any option.  So, why did Bush drop his flight status?  Why didn't he show up for his physical?  Why isn't there any record of disciplinary action for this conduct? I have never seen or heard of anything like this in my nearly 12 years in the military.  If I had avoided a flight physical to get out of flying, the military would have court marshaled me.  The military system is inflexible.  It has to be.  You can't expect a soldier to charge up a well defended hill if he has the option to drop his weapon and go home whenever he wants.

This happened in August of 1972, a full year before his early discharge, and nearly 2 years (23 months, actually) before his commitment was met. So the picture of an eager, talented pilot painted by Kelly is totally false for a third of the time he was in the Guard, according to official military records. This fact is undisputed by President Bush. One of Bush's explanations for not having the physical is that his personal doctor was unavailable, but the physicals can only be performed by qualified flight surgeons, and there was one available on the base.

Mostly, the debate has swirled around the President's fulfilling his duty in the months between Sept. 1972 and his discharge in Oct. 1973. And the official record is clear: George Bush didn't serve as much time as he was required to:

Still, the records that were unearthed from a Colorado records facility show Bush appeared for training on nine occasions, for 25 days, during the contested 12 months. But the records also make it clear why he fell short of minimal requirements: Bush did no duty at all between April 16 and Oct. 28, 1972. Nor did he appear for monthly training in December 1972 or in February and March of 1973.

[. . .}

Bush performed 25 days of weekend and active duty between May 27, 1972, and May 26, 1973. The minimum annual requirement for National Guard service in 1972 was one weekend a month -- 24 days -- and 15 days of active duty -- the same basic requirement that exists today, Lieutenant Colonel Coennie Woods of the National Guard Bureau said in an interview.

This is further supported by the military document released Friday night by the White House. From the Washington Post today:

But the tone of Bush's military file changed abruptly, and with no documented explanation, in May 1972, when Bush sought to transfer to Alabama. That began a period of months in which, the documents suggest, Bush did not actively pursue Guard service and the Guard did not actively pursue him.

For Bush's fifth year in the Guard, May 1972 to May 1973, Bush earned a total of 41 "points" for his service and was granted another 15 "gratuitous" points by his superiors, bringing him above the 50-point minimum requirement for the year. There are no records showing he participated in any Guard activities from May 1972 through the end of October 1972.

On May 24, 1972, Bush sought to transfer from his Houston Guard unit to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron for an unpaid assignment. Two days later, the unit's commander accepted him but added: "The continuation of this type unit is uncertain at this time and we may last 3 months, 6 months, a year or who knows! With this in mind, if you are willing to accept assignment under these circumstances, welcome! We're glad to have you."

There is no evidence Bush reported to the reserve unit. Retired Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, the commander who wrote Bush's acceptance, told the Birmingham News that Bush never showed up. "He was looking for a place to hang his hat, but he never came by," Bricken said.

Again, this is uncontested (based as it is on military records) and clearly refutes Kelly's main thesis that George Bush was a sterling and honorable officer.

The strangest aspect of this whole controversy is the reluctance of the administration to release President Bush's complete military records. Every other presidential candidate has done this routinely, yet the President has not. Even Friday night's document dump did not release his entire records.

Yet on Sunday, President Bush publicly, and unequivocally promised to release everything:

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.

Note well the President's response, especially the words "yes" and "absolutely". Despite the crystal clear promise, this week the White House has steadfastly refused to release his full records. There is a lot of spin on this point, but the facts are clear: the President said everything would be released but has not done so. These facts are uncontested. Now, nearly one week after the interview with Russert, all of the records have not been releases--medical and tax records are still missing. They would clear up the whole issue, but we still haven't seen them. I don't think that wondering why the President hasn't kept to his promise is out of line. Do you?

So there you have it. Jack Kelly's portrait of Bush is a fantasy, and you don't have to resort to reading partisan spin to prove it. Kelly wrote: "Lieutenant Kerry's military record compares favorably with that of President Bush, who served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard, but who never heard a shot fired in anger." John Kerry received a Bronze Star and multiple Purple Hearts for actions carried out under fire. George Bush was a pilot who was suspended from flying because he was (at best) too lazy to have a physical and had to be awarded "gratuitous" points for service just to meet the minimum requirement. You may hold your own counsel on Kerry's fitness for the presidency, but to claim that the service record of these two men is in any way equivalent is begging to be roundly and widely mocked as a fool.

And Jack Kelly is unquestionably a fool, a liar and a shameless propagandist. And he is about as shit-poor of a columnist that the Blade employs.

If you are unfamiliar with the details of the AWOL issue, you should know that these point are only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to follow the story further, the blogs of Kevin Drum, and Josh Marshall are go places for continuing coverage. Slate magazine has a short overview here, and both the Boston Globe and Washington Post are the key newspapers covering the saga.

[Later Addendum:Mother Jones magazine has a comparative timeline of the military service of Lt.s Bush and Kerry. Look at it and draw your own conclusions about the veracity of Kelly's column]
4:33:18 PM  #