Professor says Bush revealed National Guard favoritism

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-16 06:17am

There was a rather interesting article on CNN about Bush's own comments on his ANG service record...

Source

CNN wrote:Professor says Bush revealed National Guard favoritism

From Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Monday, September 13, 2004 Posted: 6:53 PM EDT (2253 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A business school professor who taught George W. Bush at Harvard University in the early 1970s says the future president told him that family friends had pulled strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard.

Yoshi Tsurumi, in his first on-camera interview on the subject, told CNN that Bush confided in him during an after-class hallway conversation during the 1973-74 school year.

"He admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad -- he said 'Dad's friends' -- skip him through the long waiting list to get him into the Texas National Guard," Tsurumi said. "He thought that was a smart thing to do."

While the campaign has not responded directly to Tsurumi's allegations, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said last week, "Every time President Bush gets near another election, all the innuendo and rumors about President Bush's service in the National Guard come to the forefront."

Bush has said in the past that neither he nor his father sought special treatment for him. "Any allegation that my dad asked for special favors is simply not true," he said in 1999.

Tsurumi said Vietnam was a top topic among the 85 students in his class, when he was a visiting associate professor at Harvard from 1972 to 1976. He now teaches at Baruch College in New York.

"What I couldn't stand -- and I told him -- he was all for the U.S. to continue with the Vietnam War. That means he was all for other people, Americans, to keep on fighting and dying."

Tsurumi got to know Bush when the future president took his "Economics EAM" (Environmental Analysis for Management), a required two-semester class from the fall of 1973 to the spring of 1974, Bush's first year at Harvard's business school.

Bush had transferred to Air National Guard reserve status before he enrolled in the MBA program. He had enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968 and trained to fly fighter jets until he was suspended from flying status in August 1972 for failing to submit to an annual physical, according to Bush's military records released earlier this year.

Tsurumi said he remembers Bush because every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group.

"Lazy. He didn't come to my class prepared," Tsurumi said. "He did very badly."

Tsurumi concedes that he disapproves of Bush's politics. He wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper, the Scarsdale Inquirer, that derided the president's claims to "compassionate conservatism."

"Somehow I found him totally devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline," Tsurumi said. "What I remember most about him was all the kind of flippant statements that he made inside of classroom as well as outside."

Tsurumi says he is not working for any Democratic group for the Kerry campaign. "The only activity I do is to vote for him," Tsurumi said.

But Tsurumi has been speaking out against Bush by giving newspaper and radio interviews.

The professor's comments come as a former Texas politician, former state House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, has said it was he got Bush into the Guard.

Barnes, a Democrat supporting John Kerry, says he called the head of the Texas unit in 1968, at the request of a Bush family friend. Bush's father was then a U.S congressman.

CNN's Jonathan Wald and Jennifer Icklan contributed to this story.

So, it seems that the compassionate conservative who supports the troops and who says that he has never lied about his record spontaneously told a rather different story to his professor back when it had just happened. What a fucking scumbag, but that's something we knew already...

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 06:20am

They should really make a TV commercial with interviews from this guy and Killian's secretary about the truth behind George W. Bush's lies.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-16 07:54am

I don't think Bush revealed anything. "Champagne squadrons", particularly during the Vietnam era, were well known. This is just the most high profile case of it that's ever been seen.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-16 08:18am

Gil Hamilton wrote:I don't think Bush revealed anything. "Champagne squadrons", particularly during the Vietnam era, were well known. This is just the most high profile case of it that's ever been seen.

True enough, but Bush has freely chosen to comment on it earlier, yet now he is denying anything like that ever happened. In other words, he is lying about what happened. Remember Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? So many people said that they couldn't care less that he banged her, but that his lying about it was what made it so bad. this is exactly the same thing. People might have forgiven him for the ANG escapades if he'd own up to them, but since Shrub has chosen to lie about them, he might as well burn.

Edi

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2004-09-16 08:26am

The problem is, people have become desensitized about the lies.Hell, the whole administration lies, it isn't just one man or woman.
But if the "other side" is ever caught in a lie, everyone goes into "angel" mode and acuse them of lying.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-16 09:05am

Warspite wrote:The problem is, people have become desensitized about the lies.Hell, the whole administration lies, it isn't just one man or woman.
But if the "other side" is ever caught in a lie, everyone goes into "angel" mode and acuse them of lying.

Then the other side should call them hypocritical lying fuckwits as often as they can, supported by a quote from the administration or Bush to promise to do something followed by a quote of what they really did. Then hammer them on the lying. Constantly, incessantly. When you drive the same thing into people's heads long enough, often enough, it should stick. The lies about WMD and Saddam/AQ links did.

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 09:07am

I really can't understand the Democrats' failure to make effective attack ads against GWB. He's given them so much ammunition, yet they flounder. What the fuck is wrong with these guys? I've seen ads from local public-sector unions that are more effective with less ammunition than the Democratic National party is putting out.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-09-16 10:01am

Amen. A simple tactic would be to link Dubya's cowardice then with his cowardice today and point out that his yellow streak is very long one. Tie his desertion to My Pet Goat to the Shit Boaters to his unwillingness to face an audience that isn't handpicked. Then a greatest hits ad of Bush's lies. Tie both in with economy and -PRESTO!- a Kerry landslide.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-09-16 10:25am

Elfdart wrote:Tie both in with economy and -PRESTO!- a Kerry landslide.

Assuming that Kerry doesn't make a bigger ass of himself in the meantime. that's asking for miracle on the scale of parting the Red Sea.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-09-16 10:35am

When the Daily Show can put together a devastating two minute blurb showing Bush's position on OSamma and the war and see it quickly and blatantly morph to Sadaam and Iraq it makes you wonder who the fuck is in charge of the campaign. I can understand on an intellectual level that you want to run a 'positive' campaign but let me clue you in on something: You can't run a positive campaign when you don't stand for anything. Dukakis Mk II has not laid out a coherent platform since the DNC and worse yet, he seems to be tailoring his responses to the particular audience he is in front of instead of a national audience. You can get away with that on a Senatorial campaign but certainly not a presidential one.

GOD someone needs to either jump start this shit or arrange for Dukakis Mk II to step down and shove Dean in there real quick. At least I knew where he stood.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 12:13pm

Personally I'm wondering where all of these 'witnesses' were four years ago?

Gore's people knew how to play dirty and they would have loved to hear from Knox, this professor, and Burkett.

These 'relevations' don't pass the smell test any more than most (a few, such as the debunking of 'Christmas in Cambodia' and his story about being in Vietnam when MLK was asassinated, were true) of the Swift Vets 'relevations' did.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 12:17pm

Glocksman wrote:Personally I'm wondering where all of these 'witnesses' were four years ago?

Gore's people knew how to play dirty and they would have loved to hear from Knox, this professor, and Burkett.

These 'relevations' don't pass the smell test any more than most (a few, such as the debunking of 'Christmas in Cambodia' and his story about being in Vietnam when MLK was asassinated, were true) of the Swift Vets 'relevations' did.

Bullshit. The Swift Vets so-called "revelations" were totally unsupported and in many cases contradicted by the official records. These revelations are consistent with the official DoD records.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 12:33pm

Not true.

The official records backed the Swifties contentions that Kerry had never been in Cambodia in 1968 and that he was not in Vietnam when MLK was shot. The rest of their claims weren't backed up by Kerry's released records, but he still refuses to relase almost 100 pages of his official records. WTF is he hiding?

And as far as these witnesses go, again I ask just where the hell were they four years ago when the issue came up during the campaign? Why not testify then?

I don't doubt GWB got in the guard because of his Daddy, I just doubt the veracity of a 'witness' who can clearly remember specific conversations with and specific details about one student that happened over 30 years ago out of the thousands of students he's had before and since.

Forgeries and exposed lies do matter simply because the ensuing controversy disguises the larger truth that is supported by the official DoD documents about Bush's not showing up for drills.

The best thing for the Kerry campaign would have been for Dan Rather and 60 Minutes to have sat on their 'story' and let the AP docos expose the facts about what happened.

Instead, Gunga Dan got suckered.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 12:37pm

Glocksman wrote:Not true.

The official records backed the Swifties contentions that Kerry had never been in Cambodia in 1968 and that he was not in Vietnam when MLK was shot. The rest of their claims ...

Precisely. Only the most unimportant claim was backed up by the records. All of their key claims were either unsupported or OUTRIGHT CONTRADICTED by the records.

I don't doubt GWB got in the guard because of his Daddy, I just doubt the veracity of a 'witness' who can clearly remember specific conversations with and specific details about one student that happened over 30 years ago out of the thousands of students he's had before and since.

I remember all of the cocky spoiled-rich brats I've ever had to deal with in any capacity. I don't think I'm unique in that respect.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 12:54pm

I remember all of the cocky spoiled-rich brats I've ever had to deal with in any capacity. I don't think I'm unique in that respect.

Thousands of them?

Remember we're talking about an Ivy League school back in the early 70's. Most of the student body would have been cocky spoiled rich brats.

He could have remembered the conversations, but again, where was he four years ago when this exact same controversy was being hammered out? Did he forget and then have Total Recall™ last week?

Like I said, I don't doubt for a minute that Bush was in the Guard because of his connections. I do doubt this professors story about it.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-09-16 12:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:
I don't doubt GWB got in the guard because of his Daddy, I just doubt the veracity of a 'witness' who can clearly remember specific conversations with and specific details about one student that happened over 30 years ago out of the thousands of students he's had before and since.
I remember all of the cocky spoiled-rich brats I've ever had to deal with in any capacity. I don't think I'm unique in that respect.

I get the strangest feeling that the number of such people is higher at Ivy League schools...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-16 12:59pm

Oh puh-lease, even among cocky spoiled-rich brats, there are some that are going to be worse than others, and GWB was probably in the top percentile. Or are all of them coke-snorting drunk-driving assholes getting by solely on Daddy's influence and somehow getting admitted with C averages? None of the spoiled-rich brats that I knew were that bad.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-16 01:08pm

Did you read the quote? ". . .every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group." He was memorably bad.

BTW Harvard may be a hard school to get into, but it also one that is hard to fail out of.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2004-09-16 01:37pm

Edi wrote:Then the other side should call them hypocritical lying fuckwits as often as they can, supported by a quote from the administration or Bush to promise to do something followed by a quote of what they really did. Then hammer them on the lying. Constantly, incessantly. When you drive the same thing into people's heads long enough, often enough, it should stick. The lies about WMD and Saddam/AQ links did.

Edi

Too much "Post 9/11 patriotism"-syndrome? Remember when all critics were quickly shush-ed away with the label "un-american" or "un-patriotic"?

It seems the politicians got that so ingrained in these last years, they just can't criticise anyone in power without expecting being arrested for treason. Just like the admnistration is using the "War on Terror" label as a means to get what it wants, anyone criticises and BANG! you're labeled as un-american, or flip-floper, or whatever word is "in" these days.

(BTW, I'm all for fighting terror, but with some semblance of valid claims and concrete proofs.)

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-09-16 03:06pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:Did you read the quote? ". . .every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group." He was memorably bad.

BTW Harvard may be a hard school to get into, but it also one that is hard to fail out of.

Not so bad that he failed the class and didn't go on to graduate. From everything I've heard Bush was a mediocre student, not a failing one.

And yet again, where was this guy four years ago during the first brewup over AWOL's service?

Did he have a Total Recall™ moment as well?

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-16 03:41pm

I don't know about you, but I remember assholes from elementary school. He didn't have to fail to be a memorable, terrible student.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-16 03:53pm

You are missing the point IO, the guy remembered it, but somehow sat on this knowledge up until this very point in time. Let's be honest, Bush's champaign service has been muck raked since he ran for governor, why is it only now that this specific story is coming out? Were the stakes not high enough in 2000? Did Bush fail to send the professor a Christmas card? It is awfully coincidental to have somebody step forward with pristine memories at this late date in the affair.

Korvan · Post by **Korvan** » 2004-09-16 03:55pm

Glocksman wrote: And yet again, where was this guy four years ago during the first brewup over AWOL's service?

Did he have a Total Recall™ moment as well?

Four years ago, the guy probably just didn't care enough to raise any stink. Back then, noone had any real idea how bad GW would mess things up. Now the prof does now, and his desire to keep GW out of office is now greater than his reluctance to get involved (which will likely have some personal consequences).

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 03:57pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
BTW Harvard may be a hard school to get into, but it also one that is hard to fail out of.

It's hard to fail out of Harvard? How is that?

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-09-16 04:39pm

It is obvious to anyone with a brain that Bush had preferential treatment. Why would he make a big stink about it until it became an issue? And when did it become an issue? That's right, just recently. And the Glocksman thinks Gore was good a dirty tricks. Compared to what Dubbya did to McCain alone, the Dems are rank ammatures.

Harvard doesn't like having people fail out of it. They have a reputation of something of a "safety net" that helps to arrange tutoring for students who are doing poorly.

One should note that the advantage of having an MBA from Harvard isn't that the education you get there is so superior to other schools, but the kind of people you meet while attending their Business School.