Q: You've also said that the President was removed from flying status because he failed to meet the physical requirements, he didn't take the physical. Yet the second memo from Lt. Colonel Killian, dated the 1st of August 1972, says, "He was suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to Air Force Air National Guard standards and failure to meet an annual physical exam." (italics are mine.) So there's two reasons in there that he was removed from flying status, not the single reason that the White House has talked about, that he didn't meet the physical requirements. It says here he didn't meet performance requirements.

DAN BARTLETTT: No, the records have been clear for years that President Bush did not take a physical because he did not need to take a physical because, obviously, the choice was that he was going to be performing in a different capacity. That might be official language, but the bottom line is President Bush did not take that physical, so that does not suggest, nor is there any evidence that President Bush did. And the reason why is as I stated, that it was clear, as it says in your own documents, that President Bush talked to the commanders about the fact that he'd be transferring to a unit that no longer, or did not fly the plane that he was trained -- he was trained and a fighter pilot on F-102, which he flew for four years. And in this case, he was going to a unit in Alabama that didn't fly that plane.

Note that Dan Bartlet did not address the first reason for suspension from service - that Bush had a "failure to perform to National Guard Air Force standards." He only addresses the fact that W didn't take the physical.

My questions are these...
1) if Bush got permission for skipping the physical (which should have occurred in April 1972), why does this memo from August 1972 site the failure to take the physical as a reason for suspension?

2) how did Bush fail to meet National Guard standards as indicated by the August memo?

Follow this CBS link for the actual memos that were just released.

Perhaps if Bush didn't have a history of somewhat shady actions, his National Guard service would not be questioned again now. But since documents keep surfacing and facts keep coming out, I think that the press and the public have a right to the truth in this matter.

Check out Kevin Drum's commentary. An excerpt:

This story is a perfect demonstration of the difference between the Swift Boat controversy and the National Guard controversy. Both are tales from long ago and both are related to Vietnam, but the documentary evidence in the two cases is like night and day. In the Swift Boat case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence indicates that Kerry's accusers are lying. Conversely, in the National Guard case, practically every new piece of documentary evidence provides additional confirmation that the charges against Bush are true.

As an aside, if you read the entire transcript from the Bartlett interview, you'll see how Bartlett tries to discredit Ben Barnes, the man who has come forward to say that strings were pulled to get Bush into the Guard. Bartlett basically says he's not credible because he's a Democrat and a Kerry supporter.

If that argument is followed through to its logical conclusion, we really shouldn't believe a word Dan Bartlett says since he is W's "Communications Director" and he would certainly be likely to spin everything said about the president.

And why is that bringing up W's Guard service is "dirty politics" according to White House staff, but swift boating John Kerry is not? I'll bet we'll be hearing more cries of dirty politics from W in coming days... my hope is that the media and the Kerry campaign won't let W get away with it.

¶ 10:30 AM