Did Burkett Witness Bush's Guard File Being Tampered With? We Don't Know.

This Boston Globe article casts doubt on Retired Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett's claims that he witnessed Bush's Guard file being "scrubbed."

[A] key witness to some of the events described by Burkett has told the Globe that the central elements of his story are false.

George O. Conn, a former chief warrant officer with the Guard and a friend of Burkett's, is the person whom Burkett says led him to the room where the Bush records were being vetted. But Conn says he never saw anyone combing through the Bush file or discarding records.

"I have no recall of that," Conn said. "I have no recall of that whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada."

Two things:

1) There was already reason to doubt Burkett's claims: namely, the fact that he doesn't, so far as I know, have any evidence. We shouldn't assume every allegation about Bush's Guard record is true simply because there's pretty good evidence he missed some time and because the Bush folks have been, shall we say, dishonest, in dealing with this. Absent evidence -- more evidence than just Burkett's say-so -- this "tampering" story shouldn't be presumed true.

2) Having said that, this Globe article doesn't prove that Burkett's charges aren't true. It simply says that three people involved in the story (Conn, Scribner & Allbaugh) say it isn't true. They, of course, have reason to say that: they'd all look pretty bad if they had knowledge of, or participated in, the cleansing of Bush's records. We have no way of knowing the truth at this point, so we must assume Bush & Co. to be innocent of these charges. But just as people shouldn't take an allegation without supporting evidence to be proof of wrongdoing by Bush & Co. (see point 1 above) we also shouldn't take the denials of three interested parties as proof that Burkett is lying.

Of course, both "sides" will do exactly what they shouldn't: some will say Burkett's statements are "proof" of scrubbing; others will say denials by Conn/Scribner/Allbaugh are "proof" that he's lying. People who make either of these statements should be distrusted.

Comments

[John W]

From the Allen/Milbank article in WaPo, dated Feb. 14, 2004:

"And the records show officials from Bush's home base in Texas declining to provide details of his activities between May 1972 to April 1973, even though such documentation was requested by National Guard headquarters. "

You can decline to provide a superior officer or command with the information they request? No one told the rest of us who ever served this country in a military capacity.

The question I want to ask is: is this the same Texas that Burkett is talking about? The one who's Air National Guard commanding officer he accused of destroying records and now heads up the National Guard in Washington?

Burkett is wrong only if the TANG people provide Bush's complete record, not if they decline to provide them.

Blech!

[John W]

I want to apologize.

My guess is the 'declining' refers to the 1973 TANG letter for failing to provide a performance review, not to the Texas Air National Guard recently declining to supply military records.

But still, where are the records from Texas and St. Louis that can be compared to those from Denver?