As my previous two entries have indicated, I have been a little distracted from my usual perusal of the news, and, as such, somewhat behind on my current events. I have not yet read the details of the records President Bush released regarding his National Guard service or possible lack thereof. However, one thing strikes me. If the president had records of his service, why didn't he release them when this whole dust-up began? I recall one of the arguments in the beginning of the pre-war debate over Iraqi weapons and UN sanctions being "Well, if Hussein really followed the mandate and destroyed the weapons, why wouldn't he release the records in time to avert a war?" The logic being that if one possesses the evidence to exonerate oneself, one should present it immediately. Well, if Bush really performed his National Guard duty and reported in Alabama, why wouldn't he release the records when the first inklings of the issue were raised several weeks ago?
Also, I read that Bush is putting forth his pay records as records that he performed his duty, in place of the lack of firsthand accounts of him performing his duty. Think just how much of a scandal might be caused if someone finds proof that he was paid even though he did not show up as scheduled.
No comments:
Post a Comment