So after a lot of back and forth, I’ve decided the trail of 1st Lieutenant GW Bush’s military service is, if not cold, plenty confused.
Does it matter if a contender for national office has a military service record? I think not. You can find exemplary presidents who didn’t fight for their country and rascals who did. What does matter is if one choices are consistent with their beliefs and policies. If someone wants to be considered for the post of commander-in-chief, their own decisions on military service should be considered fair game. If they opposed a war and actively sought to get out of it, that may not be the most admirable course but it’s not dishonest. Being willing to let others take your place in a war you support is morally wrong.
So while the president may not have been absent without leave and did, as best we can tell, perform the minimum required to earn his honorable discharge, that’s all he did.
Retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert. C. Lloyd Jr., a former personnel director for the Texas Air Guard during the time of Bush’s service, said of the payroll and personnel records, “This clearly shows that 1LT George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both 72-72 and 73-74 which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner.”
Lloyd was later interviewed by the Boston Globe , which questioned whether Bush had met “minimum training” requirements in addition to “minimum retirement” credits. The newspaper said Guardsman are required to serve 15 days of active duty to meet training requirements. The Globe quoted Lloyd as saying of Bush: ” Should he have done more? Yes, he should have. Did he have to? No.”
So even if you think the president did his duty, keep in mind he did the absolute minimum: if that’s how he handles public service — as a burden to be shirked when it proves inconvenient — is that the best we can do?