Home | Community | Message Board


Lil Shop Of Spores
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Deserter-in-Chief
    #3108161 - 09/08/04 03:14 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/opinion/08kristof.html?hp

"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the full 32-page analysis here). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/09/08/campaigns/index.html

Bush campaigns before the faithful for whom distressing facts are dismissed with sarcasm and ideology is implacable. Yet at this moment of disdain a discovery that cast light on Bush's character suddenly emerged, something with the potential to alter the momentum of the campaign. On Wednesday, the Boston Globe published documents proving that Bush, whose spotty record in the National Guard was always mysterious, "fell well short of meeting his military obligation." Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, was quoted: "It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable." And on Wednesday night, CBS's "60 Minutes" broadcasts the first interview with former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who explains how he manipulated the system to get young George his safe posting in the "champagne unit" of the Texas Guard during the Vietnam War. The program also reveals additional documents showing that the president he never fulfilled his service.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 6 months, 6 days
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3108456 - 09/08/04 04:28 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Here's the original report from Lechliter, without the translation by Kristof or the Globe. It's hard to read but he comes off as anal retentive and a toe fucker (as Frank would say). "He had a dental on a Saturday that he got 6 pts for when he should have only gotten 4" Here's the link http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf
It's on another thread too so if I fucked up you can find it there. Read it for yourself without Kerry's henchmen telling you what you should think about it.


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: zappaisgod]
    #3111220 - 09/09/04 01:24 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Read it for yourself without Kerry's henchmen telling you what you should think about it. 

:lol:  Why don't you start by actually reading it?

From Lechliter's conclusion:

"My research confirms the conclusions about Bush?s military
service by Martin Heldt that were published in several articles in
2000, available at the above-mentioned ?Online Journal? website, and
by the Boston Globe reporters in their numerous articles. As
Robinson and Latour noted in the above-mentioned article, Bush?s
commander, who according to Bush?s biography was a friend, probably
thought Bush lost interest in flying, wanted out of the ANG prior to
fulfilling his commitment, and did not press the issue. It is
likely that he knew pursuing any corrective action would have
brought him much aggravation and been damaging to his own career
because Bush was politically well connected in Texas. His commander
probably chose the easy way out, but his choice has nothing to do
with the morality of Bush?s behavior or whether Bush met his
obligation to the TXANG. His commander?s connivance at ensuring
Bush paid no penalty for his flagrant violation of regulatory
requirements for attendance at training and taking a flight physical
in no way excuse Bush?s disgraceful, selfish behavior.

"In the final analysis, the record clearly and convincingly proves
he did not fulfill the obligation he incurred when he enlisted in
the Air National Guard and completed his pilot training, despite his
honorable discharge. He clearly shirked the duty he undertook in
1968 upon enlistment and in 1969 upon completion of his flight
training at Moody AF Base. Less than two years after Bush won his
solo wings, he walked away from his duty to serve as a fighter pilot
while troops were still dying in Vietnam. Moreover, he received
fraudulent payments for INACDUTRA."

Toe-sucking, anal retentive stuff? 

George W. Bush uses family connections to weasel his way out of a war that he publicly claims to support.  Once he gets a plum champagne unit assignment in the TXANG he uses his connections to weasel his way out of fulfilling even THAT much in the way of his duty to his country.  He bilks taxpayers out of the million bucks they spent to train him as a pilot, and then accepts fraudulent payments for service he didn't perform.

Years later, when he becomes a politician, he allows his henchmen to impugn the military service records of his opponents  and his party's opponents, spreading rumors and lies about men who endured a living hell in the service of their country: first John McCain, then Max Cleland, then John Kerry.  That's not what I call "character"--that's moral depravity of the highest order.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3111327 - 09/09/04 01:44 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

No desertion, no AWOL. Same tired old crap the Dems tried to smear Bush with in 2000.

From http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002460.php#trackbacks --

The Hill: Bush Fulfilled Obligations Each Year In TANG


The Kerry campaign and the mainstream media have played up George Bush's Texas Air National Guard service, claiming for months that Bush went AWOL while transferring to Alabama after the Air Force started phasing out the F-102 he flew for years. The Hill, a DC newspaper targeted at the political elite in the nation's capitol and hardly a bastion of conservative thought (although Byron York writes for National Review), has analyzed the new data ( http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx ) released by Bush earlier this year, and their analysis shows a much different picture than that painted by Kerry or the media:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.


Not two years of weekends. Two years.



The National Guard requires its members to accumulate at least 50 points each year of service time in order to meet their obligation. Points are awarded for various kinds of duties, but the points are what matters when determining whether someone gave enough service for each year. The Hill calculates Bush's points for each year of his service (May to May):


1968: 253
1969: 340
1970: 137
1971: 112
1972: 56
1973: 56 (two months, discharged July 1973)


Bush served for five years, four months, but accumulated enough points to have covered 15 years of Guard service (over 750 points). More importantly, Bush served two years of completely active duty and two years of higher-than-normal reserve duty before scaling back, mostly due to his desire to work on Roy Blount's campaign and the phasing out of his aircraft. During his four years actively flying homeland-defense missions, he flew a notoriously cranky aircraft that hardly constituted "milk-run" duty.


Did George Bush see combat? No, a point that George Bush has often made himself. But he didn't join the TANG to be a weekend warrior, at least not for the first four years, which the media and the Kerry campaign skip over when trying to insinuate that Bush was (and is) some sort of coward. Nor does Bush make his TANG service or his youth a central qualification for his candidacy the way that Kerry had almost exclusively focused his campaign credentials on Viet Nam.


The TANG records prove that George Bush met his obligations for his National Guard service and honestly earned his honorable discharge. Now, perhaps, John Kerry will sign a 180 so that we can apply the same level of review to his records to determine if he is being honest about the service he holds out as his primary qualification for the Presidency.

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

Just to toss in a point of my own, it has been noted many times in these discussions that the US military doesn't award honorable discharges to deserters or to those who have been AWOL.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3111355 - 09/09/04 01:51 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

EchoVortex writes:

Once he gets a plum champagne unit assignment in the TXANG he uses his connections to weasel his way out of fulfilling even THAT much in the way of his duty to his country.

Incorrect. See my post above.

Years later, when he becomes a politician, he allows his henchmen to impugn the military service records of his opponents and his party's opponents, spreading rumors and lies about men who endured a living hell in the service of their country:

Sorry, you must have confused John F Kerry with George W Bush.

first John McCain...

Incorrect.

... then Max Cleland...

Incorrect again.

... then John Kerry.

Three strikes. You're out.

That's not what I call "character"--that's moral depravity of the highest order.

Again, it's clear you have made a rather large typo. Kerry and his surrogates are the ones who slandered the millions who served honorably in Viet Nam. Not Bush. Kerry is the shameless political opportunist who has no character.

pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: Phred]
    #3111357 - 09/09/04 01:52 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Just to toss in a point of my own, it has been noted many times in these discussions that the US military doesn't award honorable discharges to deserters or to those who have been AWOL.

Even those who have fathers with the influence of George Bush?

Shrub wouldn't hop to it. No doubt the thought of "serving" his country on the front line filled his breeches. Perhaps that's when he learned "the walk"?  :smirk:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3111404 - 09/09/04 01:58 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Look, I don't know why people get so caught up in this. Bush served in the texas Air National Guard when thousands of men his age were were getting killed overseas. He wasn't exactly heroic. And he wasn't exactly the smartest frat kid to crunch a beer can on his forehead. I think the wisest thing for people on the left to do is emphasize those facts and not spend their time digging up relatively minute new ones.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: Phred]
    #3111470 - 09/09/04 02:06 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Just to toss in a point of my own, it has been noted many times in these discussions that the US military doesn't award honorable discharges to deserters or to those who have been AWOL.

pinky


I see, so because somebody uses connections to get away with it, then it must be okay! Uh, yeah . . .

Bush is a coward, a weasel, and a hypocrite who is happy to let others die for causes he thinks are worthwhile but has never had the balls to put his own neck out on the line. He then built his political career out of a tarnishing the names of people who DID risk their lives, including that of his fellow Republican, John McCain.

The best source of information on Bush's record is here: http://www.glcq.com/

Another interesting link for those who are not Bush's beyotches:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/09/bush_guard_duty/index.html

This is long but I'm posting it in its entirety since non-subscribers won't be able to access it.

Sept. 9, 2004 ?|? On Feb. 13, as controversy swirled around President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House released more than 400 pages of documents on the press corps, proving, it claimed, that Bush had served honorably and fulfilled his commitment. The sudden rush of records, often redundant, jumbled and out of chronological order, generally left reporters baffled. From Bush's point of view, the document dump was a political success, as the controversy cooled and the paper trail ran dry.

In retrospect, it's doubtful that even White House aides understood all the information embedded in the records, specifically the payroll documents. It's also unlikely they realized how damaging the information could be when read in the proper context. Seven months later, the document dump is coming back to haunt the White House, thanks to researcher Paul Lukasiak, who has spent that time closely examining the paperwork, and more important, analyzing U.S. Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, Lukasiak arrived at the overwhelming conclusion that not only did Bush walk away from his final two years of military obligation, coming dangerously close to desertion, but that he attempted to cover up his absenteeism through swindle and fraud.

Lukasiak's findings, detailed on his Web site the AWOL Project, have since been bolstered and augmented by independent research by the Boston Globe and the Associated Press. On Wednesday, CBS News reported what may be among the most damaging details yet: that Bush's squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian, complained he was being pressured by higher-ups to give Bush a favorable evaluation after he suspended him from flying for failure to take his annual physical exam. Titled "CYA," Killian's memo concluded, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

But for the last several months, Lukasiak has practically had the AWOL story to himself, as the mainstream media mostly seemed silenced by the big February document release, the daunting task of decoding military personnel records, and the repeated refrain from the Bush White House that the president was honorably discharged. Among the three most compelling conclusions reached by Lukasiak in his new, meticulous research, are:

Bush's request to transfer to an Alabama Guard unit in 1972, in order to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend, Lukasiak found, was not designed to be temporary, but rather was Bush's attempt to sever ties completely with the Texas Air National Guard and find a new, permanent unit in Alabama for which he was ineligible, where he wouldn't have to do any training during his final two years. His superiors in Texas essentially covered for Bush's getaway. However, the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colo., which had final say, uncovered the attempted scam, put an end to it, and admonished Bush's superiors for endorsing Bush's bogus request. (The CBS News report shows that the locals were chafing at interference from "higher-ups" presumably connected to the powerful Bush family). In the interim, Bush simply ignored his weekend duties for nearly six straight months, not bothering to show up at military units in either Alabama or Texas.

The White House has conceded that Bush missed some required weekend training drills, but insists Bush promptly made up those drills and earned enough annual credits for an honorable discharge. In fact, according to Lukasiak's research, based on the procedures in place at the time requiring that makeup dates be completed within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill date missed, between half and two-thirds of the points credited to Bush for substitute training were fraudulent. Some of the points credited to Bush were "earned" nine weeks beyond the date of the missed drill. According to Air Force policy, Bush could not have received permission for substitute training that far outside the accepted parameters. The evidence is also overwhelming that Bush failed to get authorization for substitute training in advance, suggesting the points were awarded by the Texas Air National Guard retroactively and without any supporting paperwork. The fraudulent points are key, because without them Bush would have fallen far short of meeting his annual obligation, which meant he should have been transferred to active duty for 24 months and made eligible for service in Vietnam.

On Oct. 1, 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in order to move to Boston and attend the Harvard Business School, where he was still obligated to find a unit in Massachusetts to fulfill his remaining nine months of duty, or face being placed on active duty. Once again, Bush made no such effort. But the Air Force in Denver, acting retroactively, in effect overturned Bush's honorable discharge and placed him on "Inactive Status" effective Sept. 15, 1973. When Bush left Texas, his personnel file was sent to Denver for review. The ARPC quickly realized Bush had failed to take a required physical exam, his Texas superior could not account for his whereabouts covering nearly a 12-month period, and due to absenteeism Bush had failed to "satisfactorily participate" as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Bush's "Inactive Status" meant his relationship with the Air Force (and the Guard) was severed and he was therefore eligible for the draft.

Soon afterward, large gaps began appearing in Bush's paper trail. Lukasiak concludes that only last-minute intervention, likely from Bush's local Houston draft board, saved him from active duty, as well as finally securing his honorable discharge, removing his "Inactive Status." Ironically, that means strings were pulled to get Bush out of the Guard in 1973, just as they were pulled to get him enrolled in 1968.


The AWOL Project's conclusions are bound to give Dan Bartlett concern. He's the White House director of communications and has served as Bush's point person over the last five years regarding inquiries about National Guard service. Dating back to the 2000 campaign and right up to this day, Bartlett has routinely changed his stories regarding Bush's service depending on what information was available to the public. As more and more documents trickle out and it becomes increasingly obvious Bush received wildly favorable treatment during his Guard days while doing his best to skirt his duties, Bartlett is left trying to stake out explanations that haven't already been discredited. And those options are shrinking.

Bartlett's latest flip-flop surrounds Bush's failure to locate a new Guard unit and fulfill his duty while attending Harvard Business School. In 1999, Bartlett said Bush had reported for duty at a Massachusetts Guard unit as required. This week Bartlett conceded to the Boston Globe he must have "misspoke," because it's clear Bush made no effort whatsoever to serve out his term while living in Boston. That answer is reminiscent of Bartlett's response during the 2000 campaign when asked about Bush's failure to take a required military physical in 1972: "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take a flight physical exam." But that response is directly contradicted by the Air Force Specialty Code, which required a physical regardless of flight status.

On Wednesday, Bartlett told CBS News, in response to Jerry Killian's memos, "It's impossible to read the mind of a dead man." He then reverted to his usual refrain: "The official files tell the facts," says Bartlett. "And the facts are President Bush served. He served honorably. And that's why he was honorably discharged."

The shifting explanations and obfuscations coming from the White House are one reason why the Guard story remains dangerous for Bush. The controversy, after all, is not merely about how he received a million dollars' worth of free pilot training and then stiffed the government when it came time to pay it back in service. It's also about how, for the last decade, Bush and his advisors have done everything possible to distort, if not erase, the truth about Bush's service record in order to advance his political career.

The detailed research from Lukasiak, a Philadelphia caterer, deals strictly with the contents of Bush's military service documents, particularly those after April 1972, when Bush decided -- on his own -- to stop flying. But what's fascinating is that when recent news reports from Salon, the Associated Press, CBS and the Boston Globe are layered on top of the AWOL Project research, they fit together almost seamlessly, revealing a vivid portrait of Bush as a young man whose military service was evaded.

Last week Salon reported that in late 1972 George H.W. Bush phoned a longtime Bush family confidant in Alabama, Jimmy Allison, to ask if there was room on the local campaign he was managing for Bush's troublesome son George, or "Georgie" as he was called. "The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Linda Allison, his widow, told Salon. "After about a month I asked Jimmy what was Georgie's job, because I couldn't figure it out. I never saw him do anything," said Allison. Asked if she'd ever seen Bush in a uniform, Allison said: "Good lord, no. I had no idea that the National Guard was involved in his life in any way."

This week a new advocacy group calling itself Texans for Truth announced that it will air a television commercial featuring a former Alabama National Guard pilot who insists he never saw Bush in 1972 at the small Guard unit at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, where the president claims he served. The pilot, Bob Mintz, has told a consistent tale. In February, he told the Memphis Flyer newspaper: "There's no way we wouldn't have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him." Mintz was referring to the news on the base that somebody from Texas with political influence was coming to train with the unit. "I was looking for him," said Mintz.

On Wednesday night, on CBS's "60 Minutes," in an interview with Dan Rather, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes went public for the first time about how he pulled strings to get young Bush a coveted slot, at the height of the Vietnam War, in the Texas Air National Guard. "I've thought about it an awful lot and you walk through the Vietnam memorial, particularly at night like I did a few months ago and, I tell you, ... reflecting back, I'm very sorry about it, but you know, it happened and it was because of my ambition, my youth and my lack of understanding. But it happened and it's not ... something I'm necessarily proud of."

CBS also reported on four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander. One memo ordered Bush to take "an annual physical examination" -- an order he refused. CBS reports: "On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered. A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment. Killian's memo, titled 'CYA,' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, 'I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.'"


This week, the AP reported that a thorough analysis of Bush's military documents indicate obvious gaps in his service along with equally gratuitous gaps in his paperwork. Specifically missing are: "A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing." "Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status." "A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him." "Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions." "A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas."

In February of this year, Salon interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard, who claims he observed aides to Bush going through his military file in 1997 to remove any embarrassing information, tossing documents in the trash, allegedly the types of documents that might help answer many of the unanswered questions surrounding Bush's Guard service. "Activities occurred in order to, in my opinion, inappropriately build a false image of the governor's military service," Burkett told Salon. Burkett first went public with his accusations in 1998 and has told the same story consistently for six years.

Also last February, Salon reported that Bush's mysterious decision in the spring of 1972 to stop flying and subsequently refuse to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which meant random drug testing for pilots, including Guardsmen.

Meanwhile, the White House has not been able to produce anything or anybody with any credibility to contradict the growing body of evidence that suggests Bush deliberately walked away from his duties and that Bush and his handlers continue to lie about his military service. Retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun was the one witness who was brought forward this year to back up Bush's story that he actually showed up in Alabama. He recalled seeing Bush at training sessions between "eight to ten times from May to October 1972." Yet not even Bush's own payroll records suggest he did drills in Alabama at the time Calhoun allegedly spotted him. (Amazingly, ABC News on Wednesday used Calhoun as a credible witness to bolster Bush's account, despite the fact that the dates Calhoun cites don't even match up with Bush's.)

There's also no paper trail to support Bush's claim that he completed any service following 1972. As Lukasiak notes, each substitute training Bush completed, and there were many, should have generated authorized AF Form 40a's: "All told, Bush performed 'substitute training' on at least 20 days. Thus there should be, at the very least, 20 AF Form 40a's with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the name and signature the officer who supervised the training, and Bush's own signature." But not one such form exists.

A similar absence of information surrounds Bush's dubious explanation of his attempted transfer to Alabama. The move should have generated a small mountain of paperwork. Under normal circumstances, 10 steps are required to transfer:

1) The Guardsman announces that he will need to relocate.

2) His personnel officer explains the relocation policies and procedures to him.

3) The Guardsman signs an acknowledgment that he has received the relocation counseling.

4) The personnel officer gives the Guardsman a certification of satisfactory participation, which he will need to get approval for a transfer.

5) The Guardsman locates an appropriate Ready Reserve position with a new unit, and submits a "Transfer Request Form" (Form 1288) and a new "Ready Reserve Service Agreement (Form 1644), along with the certification of satisfactory participation, to the "receiving unit."

6) The receiving unit "indorses" the request on the back of the Form 1288, and provides the Guardsman with certification that an appropriate position is available in that unit.

7) The Guardsman gives Form 1288, Form 1644, the certification of an appropriate position, and a letter of resignation to his current unit commander.

8) The unit commander indorses the request, and forwards it to the state adjutant general.

9) The adjutant general approves the request, and discharges the Guardsman from the Air National Guard to the Air Force Reserves.

10) The Air Force Reserves assigns the former Guardsman to his new unit.

In Bush's case, according to Lukasiak's research, "There is no statement of counseling, no certification of satisfactory performance, no certification of a suitable vacancy, no letter of resignation, no discharge papers, no discharge orders, and no reassignment orders."

There are also indications that Bush -- unwilling to fly, take a physical or report for duty -- was trying to mislead Guard officials with his transfer application. When asked for his permanent address, Bush listed the P.O. box for the Alabama campaign headquarters he worked for temporarily. When asked to note his Air Force Specialty Code, Bush wrote down 1125B, the designation for F-89 or F-94 pilots. At the time of his transfer request, both of these planes had been retired from service in all components of the Air Force, including the Guard and Reserves. Bush's accurate code was 1125D, designing an F-102 pilot. At the time, F-102 planes were still very much in use. It was an error Bush made more than once on the application. Lukasiak writes: "The odds of Bush being able to scam his way into a non-training unit [in Alabama] would be enhanced if his specific skill set was one which was no longer useful to the Air Force."

In May 1972, Bush was informed that the unit in Alabama he requested was clearly unsuitable for a pilot of his stature, yet he pressed on, and his Texas superiors endorsed the transfer request and submitted it. But the Denver headquarters caught the scam and rejected it. The Texas chief of military personnel sent a curt warning to Bush's unit about the clearly bogus request: "Attention is invited to basic communication."

Lukasiak's work has created a storm in the blogosphere. (He's also a Salon Table Talk member, and an active thread is devoted to his research.) He makes no secret of his conviction that Bush used his family connections to evade the draft. The AWOL Project concludes: "Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically influential family. There is no other explanation for Bush's records. None."

Of course none of that stopped Bush from hyping his military service as he launched his political career. In 1978, during an unsuccessful run for Congress in West Texas, Bush produced campaign literature that claimed he had served "in the US Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard." In 1999, when asked by an A.P. reporter why Bush had claimed to have served specifically with the U.S. Air Force when he'd only been in the National Guard, Bush's spokesperson Karen Hughes insisted the claim was accurate because when Bush attended flight school for the Air National Guard he was considered to be on active duty for the Air Force. That was plainly false, as the A.P. noted, citing Air Force policy, which stated Guardsmen are never considered to be members of the Air Force active duty.

Just four years after escaping his military obligations, Bush was already trying to rewrite his military record for political gain. Bush said he strongly supported the Vietnam War, obscuring how he spent several years, after securing a safe spot in the National Guard, evading his military obligation. Now President Bush orders Guardsmen and Reservists to shoulder an unprecedented load -- physically, financially and emotionally -- in the war in Iraq. As new information at last begins to emerge about what he really did, Bush and his aides are still at work covering up the record. His ultimate war is with the truth about his past.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3111482 - 09/09/04 02:08 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Case closed.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineEchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: Phred]
    #3111542 - 09/09/04 02:20 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

ncorrect. See my post above.

Your post above has no substance, and doesn't take into account the most up-to-date information.  The evidence is overwhelming that Bush used family influence to get a spot in the National Guard and used it again to cover up the fact that he didn't even fulfill his duties in that regard.

first John McCain...

Incorrect.

... then Max Cleland...

Incorrect again.

... then John Kerry.

Three strikes. You're out.


Sigh.  Pinky, if you honestly think that Bush had nothing to do with the lies about McCain, Cleland, or with the Swift Boaters there is nothing I can do to help you.  Really. 

Again, it's clear you have made a rather large typo. Kerry and his surrogates are the ones who slandered the millions who served honorably in Viet Nam. Not Bush. Kerry is the shameless political opportunist who has no character.

No, Kerry came back and fought to have those men brought home to safety instead of dying for a misguided and ultimately futile adventure.  Bush kept rooting for the war to go on, which would have meant more and more of those men dying needlessly, while he shirked his duty.  If you honestly think that Kerry's actions were the less moral of the two, you truly live in a twisted mental universe.  The only explanation for this I can offer is that  since you yourself have never seen fit to put yourself in harm's way for these wars you consider so worthwhile, you must feel some sense of kinship with Bush.  Two great Randian "Prime Movers" who simply sit back and tell others when to die!  :nonono:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3112825 - 09/09/04 11:42 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Bush kept rooting for the war to go on, which would have meant more and more of those men dying needlessly, while he shirked his duty

:thumbup:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: Gijith]
    #3112865 - 09/09/04 11:55 AM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:
Look, I don't know why people get so caught up in this. Bush served in the texas Air National Guard when thousands of men his age were were getting killed overseas. He wasn't exactly heroic. And he wasn't exactly the smartest frat kid to crunch a beer can on his forehead. I think the wisest thing for people on the left to do is emphasize those facts and not spend their time digging up relatively minute new ones.




it's always the petty shit and never the real issues....


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3113302 - 09/09/04 02:13 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

The George Bush smearing won't work, because he is the President. If you want to decide whether he is fit to be President, you need look no further than the last 4 years. Why would I go back 30 years when I could just give him a job evaluation of how he has done as Commander in Chief? What a useless premise and a waste of time. What is more valid, disputed service in the national guard, or the concrete things he has actually done as President?


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisible1stimer
Religion=Rape
Registered: 11/18/01
Posts: 1,280
Loc: Amerika
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3113340 - 09/09/04 02:22 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Why would I go back 30 years when I could just give him a job evaluation of how he has done as Commander in Chief?



Because the administrations tenure has been nothing but smoke and mirrors, lies and deceit. It's hard to tell anything about George W. Bush with all the different faces he wheres. He ran as a compassionate conservative to appeal to moderates in 2000, but his presidency has turned out to only represent a select few in America. He says one thing and does another. Bush lies and he surrounds himself with cronies that will lie for him and do his durty work. He has led a shadow presidency from day 1. If you look back at his history, it is just more of the same character profile. That is why you need to know what he was doing in the vietnam days.

We need to know our presidents life story to know what makes him the man he is.


--------------------
ash dingy donker mo gollyhopper patty popiton rockstop bueno mayo riggedy jig bobber johnathan pattywhacker gogboob t-shirt monkey.

There is such emotion in the distortion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3113345 - 09/09/04 02:23 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

JesusChrist said:
The George Bush smearing won't work, because he is the President. If you want to decide whether he is fit to be President, you need look no further than the last 4 years. Why would I go back 30 years when I could just give him a job evaluation of how he has done as Commander in Chief? What a useless premise and a waste of time. What is more valid, disputed service in the national guard, or the concrete things he has actually done as President?




Concrete things? I guess getting over a thousand of our troops and tens of thousands of iraqis killed for no good reason is "concrete"? I guess doing nothing to turn the economy around after 9/11 (and the tech bubble) is "concrete". I guess giving tax cuts that will only put us further into debt and sets up future generations to be even further in the hole is "concrete". I guess trying to enshrine bigotry and hatred in the constitution, in the form of a gay marriage ban, is "concrete"? I guess ramping up the nuclear arms race again by developing new nuclear technology is "concrete"?

I gotta stop before I get worked up about all his failures.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: unbeliever]
    #3113726 - 09/09/04 03:27 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

You make my point for me. You obviously have made up your mind on him because of his performance as President. That is what everyone is going to do. That is the only point I was making. Didn't mean to get you worked up, good luck to you.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 28 days, 19 hours
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3113945 - 09/09/04 03:55 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

All of this brings up an interesting question...

Which is better:

a) a president that skipped out on war, lied about it, and now supports war
b) a president that volunteered for war, lied about it, and now supports war

I hate these damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of elections. *sigh*


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: Seuss]
    #3114043 - 09/09/04 04:11 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

If Kerry had a plan, then maybe people could argue the relative merits and debate the strengths vs. weaknesses. If all it takes is to run on a platform that you aren't George Bush and that "W stands for wrong", then you have 300 million people that are also qualified to be President.

"W" STANDS FOR WRONG!

My three year old can smack down better than that. Please.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: EchoVortex]
    #3115821 - 09/09/04 10:40 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

From EchoVortex's first post in the thread --

And on Wednesday night, CBS's "60 Minutes" broadcasts the first interview with former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who explains how he manipulated the system to get young George his safe posting in the "champagne unit" of the Texas Guard during the Vietnam War.

Yes, I've read a bit about Mr. Barnes. He is clearly a fair and impartial source, being a Nantucket neighbor of Kerry's, vice chair of the Kerry campaign, and is the third largest fund raiser for Kerry (after Alan Solomont and Orin Cramer).

Wednesday night's "60 Minutes", in addition to airing its clumsily forged documents, also had Barnes onscreen. Barnes alleged that he got Bush into the Guard when he (Barnes) was Lt. Governor of Texas. This claim can seen on this video link http://69.59.167.160/. It seems there's a problem -- Bush was sworn in by the National Guard on May 27, 1968 (as one of EchoVortex's other links correctly reports). But Barnes wasn't Lieutenant Governor of Texas until 1969. When Bush joined the TANG, Barnes was US Representative to the UN in Geneva. 60 Minutes also failed to point out that Barnes, in his comments on the show, was repudiating his previous statement under oath that he had no contact with the Bush family concerning the President's National Guard service. (Anyone surprised that Barnes would contradict a statement he made under oath probably doesn't know his long history of political scandal and financial misdealings.)

Oops!

Folks, the Kerry campaign is in pure desperation mode. They can't even plant convincing lies any more.

As for 60 Minutes, I wonder why such a prestigious and award winning "investigative journalism" show can't bother fact-checking such an obvious blunder. I mean, even 60 Minutes must be aware that many of their viewers in Texas recall Barnes's stint as Lieut. Gov. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that Dan Rather would sell his soul to the devil rather than see Bush re-elected, could it? Perish the thought!


pinky


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


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSkikid16
fungus fan

Registered: 06/27/02
Posts: 5,666
Loc: In the middle of the nort...
Last seen: 11 years, 8 months
Re: Deserter-in-Chief [Re: JesusChrist]
    #3115922 - 09/09/04 11:02 PM (12 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

"W" STANDS FOR WRONG!


I must admit, this is one of the most annoying catch phrase I've heard any politician use in a while.


--------------------
Re-Defeat Bush in '04


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Army desertion rates up 80%
( 1 2 all )
zorbman 2,054 26 09/05/08 01:59 AM
by Coaster
* CIA chief: Iraq wasn't imminent threat Learyfan 1,162 13 02/07/04 03:45 AM
by Xlea321
* U.S. Military Deserters Flee To Canada
( 1 2 3 all )
exclusive58 2,485 53 06/18/05 10:07 AM
by exclusive58
* Migrants reported found in desert Los_Pepes 632 5 10/24/05 06:41 PM
by bukkake
* Help Wanted: US Border Protection Chief
( 1 2 3 all )
afoaf 1,891 42 09/29/05 08:58 PM
by The14thWarrior
* Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked
RandalFlagg
347 0 08/29/05 04:02 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Roberts Confirmed as Chief Justice lonestar2004 893 18 10/01/05 01:38 PM
by Redstorm
* Bush nominates Roberts as chief justice knumb 804 13 09/06/05 02:25 AM
by Redstorm

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,688 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.2 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.