USS Liberty Challenge/Reward

(Steve Richter) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message . com...
The job of the court is to:
1) Establish the facts.
2) Check what "story" fits the facts best. The court can even
decide that two stories make sense and it can't decide which
one is true. (Something like a dead-lock jury.) Such a case
is very rare because the court, unlike a jury, can subpoena
more data.

Capt Boston on his and Adm Kidd's impression of the evidence heard by
the NCOI:

"... Each evening, after hearing testimony all
day, we often spoke our private thoughts concerning what we had seen
and heard. I recall Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring to the Israeli
forces responsible for the attack as "murderous *******s."

So?
A good judge may form an opinion after hearing half of the evidence
and yet have the integrity to change his opinion after hearing
all the evidence.

It was our
shared belief, based on the documentary evidence and testimony we
received first hand, that the Israeli attack was planned and
deliberate, and could not possibly have been an accident. ..."

So why did not they write just that in the report?
Why did not Capt Boston refuse to sign the report?
(Yes, a judge is allowed to do that.)
Did Capt Boston lied by signing a false report 37 years ago,
or does he lie now?
How can we check if his claims about Johnson and Kidd are true?
(Dead people usually refuse to answer questions.)

Admiral Kidd could submit his report with no "final conclusion" and
a comment "I can't submit final conclusions because the following
data, that can be accessed, is hidden." If Kidd suspected that
somebody hid data from his court then it was his right, and *duty*,
to write such a comment.

and officers of the IDF, are they obligated to report criminal acts
like the intentional crushing of young American protestors in Gaza?

The IDF officers obligation is to Israel, Kidd & Boston obligation
was to the US. If they signed a false report, knowing
that it was false, then they *FAILED* in their duty.

"...Admiral Kidd and I both felt it necessary to travel to Israel to
interview the Israelis who took part in the attack. Admiral Kidd
telephoned Admiral McCain to discuss making arrangements. Admiral Kidd
later told me that Admiral McCain was adamant that we were not to
travel to Israel or contact the Israelis concerning this matter. ..."

Admiral Kidd could write just that in his report. If he felt, rightly
or wrongly, that information was surpressed then he should have
reported that.

"...I know from personal conversations I had with Admiral Kidd that
President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of "mistaken
identity" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. ..."

What was the interest of Johnson & McNamara to cover up for Israel?
Do you realize that if they did what you say (a big if) then they
were guilty of Obstruction of Justice?

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

....and he just rolled over and played dead...
And you believe that an admiral would do just that without reporting
to the military justice system about such Obstruction of Justice.

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

Testimony by whom?
Can the person who gave the original testimony verify that?

OK, I am getting tired of your bull****. Your "evidence" is about
as good as the description of the Dreyfus trial in
Anatole France' "Penguin Island." It is too stupid to be even funny.

wrote in message om...
(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
According to Captain Boston, he and Admiral Kidd were
ordered in advance of the inquiry to conclude it was an
accident by President Johnson and Secretary of Defense
McNamara. That is, the Court of Inquiry was a sham which
produced a whitewash.

And you believe that the admiral just rolled-over, played
dead, and did not protest.

You have a pretty low opinion of your Navy's commanders.

Capt Boston's own words:

"...Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that
he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the
White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the
court's findings. ..."

"...I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know
that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the
public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to
Washington. ..."

"... Finally, the testimony of Lt. Painter concerning the deliberate
machine gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli torpedo boat crews,
which I distinctly recall being given at the Court of Inquiry and
included in the original transcript, is now missing and has been
excised. ..."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boston's sworn statement that Lt. Painter testified to the MGing of
the liferafts, but his testimony was not included in the NCOI report
is especially interesting. Here is an excerpt from an article
critical of the Liberty crew, basically calling them liars. The
article authors go after Painter, saying he testified to one thing in
court, but now tells another story. But Boston's sworn whatever
confirms what Painter is saying, that what he testified to was not
included in the final NCOI report!

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/hchannel2.html

------------------- start of pro Israeli bull
-------------------------

• The producers present at face value Mr. Painter's charge that
Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned Liberty life rafts that had been
placed in the water, which if true could be a violation of the laws of
war:

PAINTER: I climbed the ladder and opened the hatch and looked out to
the sea, and what I saw was the Israeli torpedo boats machine gunning
our life rafts in the water as they floated behind our ship.

Once again Mr. Painter contradicts both his own sworn testimony before
the Court of Inquiry, and that of his Captain. The Court's opening
question to Lt. Painter, after name, rank and organization, was:

On 8 June 1967, at about 1400 hours, an incident occurred aboard the
USS Liberty in which the vessel was attacked. Would you please relate
to this Court of Inquiry what you recall concerning that incident?

Nowhere in his response did Lt. Painter mention anything about Israeli
attacks on life rafts in the water. On the contrary, he testified that
most of the life rafts had been damaged and set alight during the
prior jet attacks on the ship, and that his crew pushed many of these
burning life rafts overboard:

At this time [after the torpedo attack], the DC central passed the
word to prepare to abandon ship. We then filed out to our life rafts
which were no longer with us because they had been strafed and most of
them were burned, so we knocked most of them over the side... All
during this time in Repair Three, my men were fighting fires and
knocking burning life rafts, etc.

What possible reason could Lt. Painter have had for omitting in his
testimony the charge which he now makes, that Israel attacked the
Liberty's life boats after they were put in the water? Why does he now
fail to mention that in fact he and his crew pushed the life rafts
overboard?

Whatever the reason for the divergence between Mr. Painter's present
claims and his testimony, Captain McGonagle also never mentioned any
attack on life boats during his testimony. On the contrary, he
testified that after the torpedo attack some crewmen mistakenly put
life boats in the water, and that he ordered them to stop because the
ship was in no danger of sinking:

------------ end of pro Israeli crap -------------------------------

ojunk (Mike Weeks) wrote:
Jim Watt _way wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:
Jim Watt _way wrote:
(Mike Weeks) wrote:

Oops; it's a comment made in 2002 by the 1967 [then-CIA director] Helms in
that
BBC trash production of "Dead on the Water"
Is it trash because it comes to a different conclusion to you?
You should really appreciate this; it's trash because it's a fairy tale.
And the evidence for that statement is?

You have yet to show any evidence that the book "The Liberty Incident" is a
fairy tale; since you admit to not having read it.

This is not evidence. This is 'changing the subject.' Whether or
not Watt read Cristol's book is hardly evidence that the BBC
production is a 'fairy tale.' This is just another example of the
kind of non sequitur Weeks often uses to muddy the waters.
How typical.

I've seen this video, and when they use a cropped BDA photo taken from a Mirage
IIICJ(R) which has been widely published since 1967 showing destroyed EAF MiGs
on the ground and attempt to pass it off as having been taken from an USAF
RF-4C flying for the IAF, piloted by USAF crews ...

The cropped photo doesn't show the Mirage's shadow at the bottom ...

You get just one example. Come back after you've read Cristol's book ...

Again, to imply that Watt's reading Cristol's book or not is 'evidence'
that the BBC production is a 'fairy tale' is totally bogus.

Your alleged proof concerning a cropped photo is your own personal
view, and as such is not evidence, it is just your opinion. This
just another example of the non-entity know as Weeks being omniscient.

wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:
wrote:
IMO the Navy's court of inquiry has a better record of finding the
facts than Congress.

But in a high profile case, leaders of a Navy Court of
Inquiry are subject to pressure of the President if that
President wants it to reach a certain conclusion.

Ha?
From http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj...dlj50p1835.htm
@The Supreme Court recognized potential problems with the independence
@of military judges in Weiss v. United States.139 The Court noted that
@military judges may be reassigned at any time because they have no
@fixed term of office. "Commissioned Officers are assigned or detailed
@to the position of military judge by a Judge Advocate General for a
@period of time he deems necessary or appropriate, and then they may be
@reassigned to perform other duties."140 Military judges also are
@accountable to their respective Judge Advocates General for their
@decisions. "By placing judges under the control of Judge Advocates
@General, who have no interest in the outcome of a particular [*pg 1858]
@court-martial, we believe Congress has achieved an acceptable balance
@between independence and accountability."141 What the Supreme Court
@failed to recognize is that Judge Advocates General may indeed have a
@significant interest in the outcome of cases when a large issue or
@principle is at stake.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Try reading the three volumes of Caro's LBJ biography,
since they will provide illuminating insight into what an
unethical fellow Johnson really was, and how he would
willingly break the law to further his political goals.

In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

wrote in message om...
In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

On 6 Jul 2004 09:00:29 -0700, (Issac
Goldberg) wrote:

wrote in message om...
In case you missed it, the president can not command military judges,
only the "Judge Advocates General" can do so. All the president
can, legally, do is to ask the court to take his testimony.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Your entire argument fails because you assume that all of
Johnson's actions were 'legal.'

One spectacular example of Lyndon Johnson violating the law
was his theft of the 1948 Senate election in Texas by means
of vote fraud.

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

Magnetic personality ?
--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Johnson was a pretty smart SOB. He knew that all his communication
with Kidd would be recorded. Had Johnson given Kidd a clear proof
that Johnson commited illegal acts, Kidd would have the power to
roast Johnson's ass either by the Senate or by the JAG.

Johnson just could not be that stupid.

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...
Johnson was certainly not stupid.

If he knew his conversations would be recorded, he was
powerful enough to have the recordings erased.

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

(Steve Richter) wrote:

Boston's sworn statement that Lt. Painter testified to the MGing of
the liferafts, but his testimony was not included in the NCOI report
is especially interesting. Here is an excerpt from an article
critical of the Liberty crew, basically calling them liars. The
article authors go after Painter, saying he testified to one thing in
court, but now tells another story. But Boston's sworn whatever
confirms what Painter is saying, that what he testified to was not
included in the final NCOI report!

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/alert/hchannel2.html

The link also shows how selective Camera can be. When it quotes
from the 1967 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, Camera
leaves out the comments by the Senators. Those comments clearly
indicate that the Senators do not accept McNamara's explanations.
Furthermore, the Senators had not been provided with the report
from Kidd's inquiry, despite their previous request.

Following are, first, the fragment of the hearings quoted in
Camera, and second, the same hearings including the parts that
Camera omitted:

First, Camera's selective account:

start

Secretary of Defense McNamara mentioned this incident in testimony to
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1967:

Secretary McNamara: ...In the case of the attack on the Liberty, it
was the conclusion of the investigatory body headed by an Admiral of
the Navy in whom we have great confidence that the attack was not
intentional. I read the record of the investigation, and support that
conclusion, ....

It was not a conscious decision on the part of either the Government
of Israel--
Senator Hickenlooper: Perhaps not.

Secretary McNamara: (Continuing) To attack a U.S. Vessel.

[undocumented deletion by Camera]

Secretary McNamara: No. There is no evidence that the individuals
attacking the Liberty knew they were attacking a U.S. ship, and there
is some evidence, circumstantial, that they did not know it.

[undocumented deletion by Camera]

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, I don't want to carry the
torch for the Israeli. It was an inexcusable error in judgment.

.....

Secretary McNamara: And an inexcusable error of professional tactics.
I would simply point out to you that, at the same time, I was denying
that we had struck a Russian ship in Haiphong Harbor [sic] and I
proved to be in error. These errors do occur. We had no more intention
of attacking a Russian ship than Israel apparently did of attacking an
American ship. (Cristol, p 95-96)

end

Second, the transcript including the parts deleted by Camera.
Included are punctuation marks as printed in the original
document published by the GPO [Government Printing Office] and,
if a deletion was made by the government, it is indicated
by '[deleted].' The definition of the legal term "res ipsa
loquitur" used by Senator Hickenlooper is at the end of the post:

start

Hearings on the Foreign Assistance Act of 1967 (S. 1872) Senate
Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, June 12,
July 14 and 26, 1967.

…

Senator Hickenlooper: I had intended to ask you about the Liberty
incident. Of course I didn't go through the minute investigation,
but there is a phrase in law called res ipsa loquitur. From what
I have read I can't tolerate for 1 minute that this was an accident.

Senator Case: It wasn't, nobody claims it was, do they?

Senator Hickenlooper: I think it was a deliberate assault on this
ship. I think they had ample opportunity to identify it as an
American ship. I may be utterly wrong, but I do recall that some
time ago we had some difficulties in the Bay of Tonkin where at
night without full identification or really full proof it was
assumed that certain torpedo boats made rather menacing approaches
to one of our destroyers and we rushed over here with the Tonkin
Bay resolution right away. A war was unleashed.

What have we done about the Liberty? Have we become so placid,
so far as Israel is concerned or so far as that area is concerned,
that we will take the killing of 37 American boys and the
wounding of a lot more and the attack of an American ship in the
open sea in good weather? We have seemed to say: "Oh, well, boys
will be boys." What are you going to do about it! It is most
offensive to me.

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, there are several
points I would like to make.

Senator Hickenlooper: If Nasser had come out there and even
fired a torpedo at it, I am quite sure what we would have done.

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, there are several
points I would like to make in reply to your question because –

Senator Hickenlooper: I am making some assumptions upon which
I don't have full information. I am sorry.

Secretary McNamara: I think you reaction is a very human one,
and to some degree it has been ours at times; but the first
point to establish, I believe, in determining a response is
intent. In the case in the Gulf of Tonkin there was reason to
believe that the attack was intentional. In the case of the
attack on the Liberty, it was the conclusion of the investigatory
body headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great
confidence that the attack was not intentional. I read the record
of the investigation, and support that conclusion, and I think
this, therefore, begins to –

Senator Hickenlooper: When you say it was not intentional, you
don't mean those guns fired themselves?

Secretary McNamara: It was not a conscious decision on the part
of either the Government of Israel –

Senator Hickenlooper: Perhaps not.

Secretary McNamara: (Continuing.) To attack a U.S. vessel.

Senator Hickenlooper: I think that could be conceded.

Secretary McNamara: In that respect, it differs materially from
the attack in the Tonkin Gulf.

If it was not the result of a conscious decision to a attack a
U.S. vessel, then I think we would be expected to respond in a
different fashion than we responded in Tonkin Gulf. Our Government
has made the strongest possible protest to the Israeli Government
on this matter.

I would be happy to make available to the committee the report of
the investigation if it chooses to examine it.

Senator Hickenlooper: Do we have any more reliable information
that the Government of North Vietnam intended for those torpedo
boats to attack an American ship?

Secretary McNamara: I think if we examine the intelligence data
at the time –

Senator Hickenlooper: (Continuing.) Than we do on this Liberty
incident!

Secretary McNamara: Yes, there is no question but what we have
more evidence here of lack of intent to consciously attack a U.S.
vessel than we had there.

May I finish by taking just one second to say I would like to go
back and examine the record of the Tonkin Gulf incident which
occurred 3 years ago, and on which my memory is a little hazy, to
determine the evidence of conscious intent of attack. I think it
is very clear.

[Deleted.]

There is no evidence of that in the case of the Liberty.

Senator Hickenlooper: There is no evidence, then, no evidence that
we have at all, that there was any communications between Tel Aviv
and the attacking vessels or the airplanes that apparently flew
over this ship several times at rather low altitude.

Secretary McNamara: No, There is no evidence that the individuals
attacking the Liberty knew they were attacking a U.S. ship, and
there is some evidence, circumstantial, that they did not know it.

Senator Hickenlooper: I probably shouldn't pursue this. But it
just doesn't sound very good to me. I can't accept these
explanations that so glibly come out of Tel Aviv and perhaps
some rather confusedly come out of our own investigation, I don't
know.

Secretary McNamara: I would suggest that you might like to look
at the investigation report, and, if you do, we shall be happy
to make the classified document available.

The Chairman: We asked for it about 2 weeks ago and have not
received it yet from Secretary Rusk.

Secretary McNamara: I will be happy to see that you get it
tomorrow if you wish, or today.

The Chairman: By the time we get it we will be on some other
subject.

Secretary McNamara: From the time you ask it of me, you will
have it in 4 hours. Jack, go over and ask for it to be sent right
over.

Senator Hickenlooper: It may not be what is in the report. It
could be conceivably what is not in the report.

Secretary McNamara: Well, there is nothing left out of the
investigation report that I have any knowledge of.

Senator Hickenlooper: It is inconceivable to me that the ship
could not have been identified. According to everything I saw
the American flag was flying on this ship. It had a particular
configuration. Even a landlubber could look at it and see that
it has no characteristic configuration comparable to the so-called
Egyptian ship they now try to say they mistook it for. If these
people were as well trained as they allege they are, and did what
they did, I don't know. It just doesn't add up to me. It is not
at all satisfactory.

Secretary McNamara: Senator Hickenlooper, I don't want to carry
the torch for the Israeli. It was an inexcusable error in judgment.

Senator Hickenlooper: That is what it looks like we are doing in
this country.

Secretary McNamara: And an inexcusable error of professional
tactics. I would simply point out to you that, at the same time,
I was denying that we had struck a Russian ship in Haiphong
Harbor; and I proved to be in error. These errors do occur. We
had no more intention of attacking a Russian ship than Israel
apparently did of attacking an American ship.

Senator Hickenlooper: I think that incident is totally different.
We didn't have torpedo boats in Haiphong Habor [sic] running
around looking at that ship and then firing at it after they
fully looked it over and saw it. I am not going to pursue this
any further.

Senator Aiken: I think, not only the committee, but the public
wants better information than they have had so far.

Senator Hickenlooper: The public is thoroughly dissatisfied
with the situation. I don't know. It is the seemingly cavalier
attitude expressed by Israel in some ways apparently accepted
by us on a very tragic situation. I think there is utterly no
excuse for it.

Secretary McNamara: I think there is no excuse, Senator Hickenlooper.
I completely agree with you, but it is thoroughly clear, based on
the investigation report, that it was not a conscious attack on a
U.S. vessel.

Senator Mundt: You mean by the pilots?

Secretary McNamara: By the pilots. They did not identify the vessel
as a U.S. vessel prior to the time of attack. You may consider this
inconceivable.

Senator Mundt: On the part of the attackers, yes. It seemed to be
broad daylight.

Secretary McNamara: They definitely did not. As far as we can tell.
All of the evidence points to the contrary.

Senator Mundt: You take their word for it!

Secretary McNamara: My conclusion is based on the investigation
report which did not discuss the identification with the Israeli
pilots or Naval personnel involved, but did examine all of the
circumstances of the attack and did discuss it with the commander
and even the men on the Liberty.

Senator Hickenlooper: Just to complete the record on this, I didn't
mean to pursue this. I am just quoting now from a Navy release from
the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. This is a release
on June 28 about this incident. I will read one paragraph.

"The Court – "

Referring, I take it, to the Court of Inquiry –

"The Court heard witnesses testify, however, to significant
surveillance of the Liberty on three separate occasions from the
air at various times prior to the attack – five hours and 13 minutes
before the attack, three hours and 7 minutes before the attack and
two hours and 37 minutes before the attack."

If they didn't identify that ship, then they are not as smart as I
think they are.

Secretary McNamara: I am not sure whether they did. I don't believe
they did. But in any event, they weren't the attackers.

The attackers, so far as we could tell, had not recognized the ship
and, in any event, had not recognized it as a U.S. ship.

Beyond that, as best we can tell, there were inadequate
communications between the aircraft and/or ships reconnoitering
and the attacking vessels. I think it is an inexcusably weak
military performance. That, I fully agree with. But I simply want
to emphasize that the investigative report does not show any
evidence of a conscious intent to attack a U.S. vessel.

end

The following definition comes from a legal dictionary:

res ipsa loquitur
(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for
itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent
if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury
even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence,
and without negligence the accident would not have happened.
Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being
constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul
Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury
even though no one saw the load fall. b) While under anesthetic,
Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not
part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a
dozen medical people in the room caused the damage. Under res ipsa
loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for
negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and
find it a handy shorthand for a complex doctrine.

wrote:

How?
The command to destory the naval records would have to pass several
hands between the president and the corporal that would press the
"erase" botton. Every hand along the way would be a risk factor that
could take an interest in the records just because the president wanted
them erased.

Well, here is one way to do it:

July 9, 2004
Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL, The New York Times

HOUSTON, July 8 - Military records that could help establish President
Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air
National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently
destroyed, according to the Pentagon.

It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including
former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage
deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it
added in notices dated June 25.

The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973
when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question.

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con,
by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr.
Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it
came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom
of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times
and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought
Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House
officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military
records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that
he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the
Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director who has said
that the released records confirmed the president's fulfillment of his
National Guard commitment, did not return two calls for a response.

The disclosure that the payroll records had been destroyed came in a
letter signed by C. Y. Talbott, chief of the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Office, who forwarded a CD-Rom of hundreds of records that
Mr. Bush has previously released, along with images of punch-card
records. Sixty pages of Mr. Bush's medical file and some other records
were excluded on privacy grounds, Mr. Talbott wrote.

He said in the letter that he could not provide complete payroll
records, explaining, "The Defense Finance and Accounting Service
(DFAS) has advised of the inadvertent destruction of microfilm
containing certain National Guard payroll records."

He went on: "In 1996 and 1997, DFAS engaged with limited success in a
project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. During this process the
microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged,
including from the first quarter of 1969 (Jan. 1 to March 31) and the
third quarter of 1972 (July 1 to Sept. 30). President Bush's payroll
records for these two quarters were among the records destroyed.
Searches for backup paper copies of the missing records were
unsuccessful."

Mr. Talbott's office would not respond to questions, saying that
further information could be provided only through another Freedom of
Information application.

But Bryan Hubbard, a spokesman for Defense finance agency in Denver,
said the destruction occurred as the office was trying to unspool
2,000-foot rolls of fragile microfilm. Mr. Hubbard said he did not
know how many records were lost or why the loss had not been announced
before.

For Mr. Bush, the 1969 period when he was training to be a pilot, is
not in dispute. But in May 1972, he moved to Alabama to work on a
political campaign and, he has said, to perform his Guard service
there for a year. But other Guard officers have said they had no
recollection of ever seeing him there. The most evidence the White
House has been able to find are records showing Mr. Bush was paid for
six days in October and November 1972, without saying where, and the
record of a dental exam at a Montgomery, Ala., air base on Jan. 6,
1973.

On June 22, The Associated Press filed suit in federal court in New
York against the Pentagon and the Air Force to gain access to all the
president's military records.

The lost payroll records stored in Denver might have answered some
questions about whether he fulfilled his legal commitment, critics who
have written about the subject said in interviews.

"Those are records we've all been interested in," said James Moore,
author of a recent book, "Bush's War for Re-election," which takes a
critical view of Mr. Bush's service record. "I think it's curious that
the microfiche could resolve what days Mr. Bush worked and what days
he was paid, and suddenly that is gone."

But Mr. Moore said the president could still authorize the release of
other withheld records that would shed light on his service record.

Among the issues still disputed is why, according to released records,
Mr. Bush was suspended from flying on Aug. 1, 1972. The reason cited
in the records is "failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

Mr. Bartlett, the White House spokesman, said in February that Mr.
Bush felt he did not need to take the physical as he was no longer
flying planes in Alabama. Mr. Lloyd, the retired colonel who studied
the records, gave a similar explanation in an interview.

But Mr. Lloyd said he was surprised to be told of the destruction of
the pay records that might have resolved some questions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/po...09records.html