NationStates Jolt Archive


Even the Air Force Times is critical of GW's record....

Zeppistan
22-09-2004, 14:58
What does the current issue of the Air Force Times say about GW's military record?

Nothing terribly complimentary (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-AIRPAPER-357916.php)

From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.

And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been.

...

Bush’s performance slipped. The descent began when Bush apparently did not follow an order to report for his annual flight physical in May 1972, which got him grounded.

The grounding was noted in one of the four documents unveiled by CBS — which were given to the White House, which released them to the rest of the media. It appears to be an order signed by Killian suspending Bush from flight status “due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered.”

Handwriting experts hired by many media organizations as well as other critics contend the document, and possibly all four, are forgeries. However, Killian’s order is confirmed by two documents that were not part of the CBS papers. The first is a White House-released letter from the commander of the 147th Fighter Group, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, to its Texas higher command dated Sept. 5, 1972, with a subject line of “Suspension From Flying Status.”

The letter documents the missed flight physical and the suspension, “effective 1 Aug 1972.” A Sept. 29 order from the National Guard Bureau further confirms the missed physical and the suspension.

On May 26, 1972, Bush asked in writing for reassignment to an Air Reserve squadron in Alabama so he could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Winton “Red” Blount, a close friend of his influential father. That was rejected because Bush was obligated to serve as a Ready Reservist until May 26, 1974, and was ineligible for assignment to the Air Reserve. About three months later, on Sept. 5, Bush asked to perform “equivalent duty” with the Alabama unit from September to November. Killian approved the request a day later. The orders went through on Sept. 15, and while Bush had missed the Sept. 9-10 unit training assembly, the document noted he could make the next two. Bush’s Officer Military Record shows an Oct. 1, 1973, discharge from the Texas Air National Guard and transfer to the Alabama unit.

Another White House-released document shows a total of 56 points Bush apparently earned during this 12-month period, but it’s awarded in one lump sum rather than credited for each training period. But this document also contains an error, listing Bush’s status as “PLT On-Fly” — meaning he was on flight status — when he had not been for a year. This, said retired Army Lt. Col. Gerald A. Lechliter, who has done an in-depth analysis of Bush’s pay records (www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/opinion/lechliter.pdf), makes the form’s authenticity suspect.

There’s also the record of a Jan. 6, 1973, dental exam performed on Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard Base, Ala. There’s nothing that documents why Bush, who reportedly returned to Texas after the election, didn’t get this work done closer to home.

Bush’s attendance and participation in weekend drills had been meticulously recorded up through May 1972. But other than the points record and the dental exam record, the year following Bush’s request for reassignment to Alabama is a blank.

In a fitness report supplement released by the White House this year, an administrative officer wrote, “Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.”

In the remarks section, Killian wrote that Bush “has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. … He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status” with the Alabama unit. Bush, however, was only authorized to be gone from September to November.

...

On Sept. 5, Bush formally asked Killian for a discharge from the Texas unit so he could attend Harvard Business School in Cambridge, Mass. Two weeks later, Hodges approved the request and honorably discharged Bush, administratively transferring him to Headquarters, Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver.

Two months earlier, on June 30, Bush signed a statement promising that if he left his Texas Ready Reserve unit, “it is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve Forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months.”

There is no record of Bush ever having signed on with a Massachusetts Reserve unit. In 1999, Dan Bartlett, working for the Bush campaign, told The Washington Post that Bush had completed his six-year commitment with a Boston unit. That didn’t happen, Bartlett recently told The Boston Globe. “I must have misspoke,” he said. The following March, Bush was redesignated as an “executive support officer.” In May, he was placed on inactive status. On Nov. 21 — apparently at Bush’s written request, according to an undated letter sent from Massachusetts and released by the White House in which he requests “to discharge from the standby reserve” — he received an honorable discharge “from all appointments in the United States Air Force.”




Pointing out the simple fact that has been nicely deflected by the CBS scandal. Even if the memos were forged, the story was still true.

GW signed a promise to serve in Boston else he would be eligible for involuntary 24-month callup. I hear that there are a few units in Baghdad who need replacements......
Biff Pileon
22-09-2004, 15:18
Pointing out the simple fact that has been nicely deflected by the CBS scandal. Even if the memos were forged, the story was still true.

GW signed a promise to serve in Boston else he would be eligible for involuntary 24-month callup. I hear that there are a few units in Baghdad who need replacements......

You sound like Dan "Whats the Frequency Kenneth?" Rather. The documents are fake, but what is on them is real. :rolleyes:

This is a non-story. Just like Kerry and Vietnam...it is irrelevent to todays world. The difference? Kerry is running on Vietnam and Bush is running on 2004.
Chess Squares
22-09-2004, 15:20
its the truth, the truth! close the gates and try to discredit it!
Snowboarding Maniacs
22-09-2004, 15:29
Half of Bush's campaign is him running as a "wartime President." Therefore, past military records should be fair game.
Gymoor
22-09-2004, 15:33
You sound like Dan "Whats the Frequency Kenneth?" Rather. The documents are fake, but what is on them is real. :rolleyes:

This is a non-story. Just like Kerry and Vietnam...it is irrelevent to todays world. The difference? Kerry is running on Vietnam and Bush is running on 2004.

No, Kerry is running on the premise that he will make a better president than the miserable failure we have in office at the moment. He's right. If you cared to crawl out from under your conservative rock, you'd notice that Kerry has been talking nonstop about today's issues.

Whether Bush runs on Vietnam or 2004, his record is horrendous either way. So what is Bush running on, exactly? Basically fear, disinformation, inaccurate attacks and more fear.

9/11! Mushroom Clouds! We'll get hit if we elect Kerry! Doom! Why are the Democrats pessimists? Nukyuler.

Yup, the above paragraph pretty much sums up Bush's platform. Pathetic.
Biff Pileon
22-09-2004, 15:34
Half of Bush's campaign is him running as a "wartime President." Therefore, past military records should be fair game.

Ok, thats fine....now...a rich, politically connected guy gets special treatment. Is that really a surprise? It shouldn't be, it happens every day. Therefore it is a non-issue. I know of one "connected" F-16 pilot that NEVER deployed to the middle east even though his squadron deployed 90 days on, 90 days off for several years. His father....a well known Democrat Senator from a swing state. It happens....it is part of life everywhere.
Gymoor
22-09-2004, 15:44
Ok, thats fine....now...a rich, politically connected guy gets special treatment. Is that really a surprise? It shouldn't be, it happens every day. Therefore it is a non-issue. I know of one "connected" F-16 pilot that NEVER deployed to the middle east even though his squadron deployed 90 days on, 90 days off for several years. His father....a well known Democrat Senator from a swing state. It happens....it is part of life everywhere.

Funny how Bush gets a free ride, but if Kerry so much as farts and blames it on the dog, you rise up in unholy fury with a yell of "liar!"
Keljamistan
22-09-2004, 15:44
No, Kerry is running on the premise that he will make a better president than the miserable failure we have in office at the moment. He's right. If you cared to crawl out from under your conservative rock, you'd notice that Kerry has been talking nonstop about today's issues.

Whether Bush runs on Vietnam or 2004, his record is horrendous either way. So what is Bush running on, exactly? Basically fear, disinformation, inaccurate attacks and more fear.

9/11! Mushroom Clouds! We'll get hit if we elect Kerry! Doom! Why are the Democrats pessimists? Nukyuler.

Yup, the above paragraph pretty much sums up Bush's platform. Pathetic.

Wow.

Double super secret wow.

An honest question: Do you really think that Kerry is that amazing?

Another honest question: Can you name one thing he has done in the Senate over the last 30 years?
Keljamistan
22-09-2004, 15:48
Bush and Kerry are on equally opposite sides of the "did stupid crap" coin.
Biff Pileon
22-09-2004, 15:50
Funny how Bush gets a free ride, but if Kerry so much as farts and blames it on the dog, you rise up in unholy fury with a yell of "liar!"

Bush got a free ride...so what. It happens.

Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam and got some medals....so what. A lot of people did.

The difference....Kerry only has that to run on. He has no Senate record despite being there for 20 years.
Stephistan
22-09-2004, 16:00
Lets just look at the facts.

Bush - son of privilege, dodged going to Vietnam.

Kerry - son of privilege , volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Enough said!
Gymoor
22-09-2004, 16:08
Wow.

Double super secret wow.

An honest question: Do you really think that Kerry is that amazing?

Another honest question: Can you name one thing he has done in the Senate over the last 30 years?

Wow. Triple dog super secret wow. What possible good would it do for me to list Mr Kerry's accomplishments only to have them ignored yet again? They've been posted here time and time and time again, and yet Kerry-bashers never seem to be able to absorb the information.

Seriously, would you even read them or care if I listed them?

Here's one off the top of my head: Spearheaded the investigations into the Iran-Contra scandal against almost overwhelming opposition and stonewalling.

Hell, if you piece together the conservative's criticism of Kerry, it doesn't even make sense. For example, how can the supposed number 1 liberal in the Senate be a flip-flopper? It would take dedication and single-mindedness to be that consistently liberal, don't you think? If he did nothing, how exactly does he earn that number 1 liberal designation anyway?

It's all a crock of you-know-what.
Biff Pileon
22-09-2004, 16:12
Lets just look at the facts.

Bush - son of privilege, dodged going to Vietnam.

Kerry - son of privilege , volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Enough said!

Volunteered and then got out of there as fast as he could. Why won't he release those medical records?
Gymoor
22-09-2004, 16:15
Bush got a free ride...so what. It happens.

Kerry spent 4 months in Vietnam and got some medals....so what. A lot of people did.

The difference....Kerry only has that to run on. He has no Senate record despite being there for 20 years.

He does indeed have a record in the Senate. A record, I might add, that conservatives have no problem "suddenly remembering in detail" if they want to attack a specific view (such as consistently supporting gun control legislation...as do law enforcement agencies...a very good thing in my view.)

But go ahead, keep spouting your inconsistent talking-points. It's a free country (for now.)
Chess Squares
22-09-2004, 16:17
Lets just look at the facts.

Bush - son of privilege, dodged going to Vietnam.

Kerry - son of privilege , volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Enough said!
we know that only works on LOGICAL people steph.

we are talking about people who think kerry should be thrown in jail as a terrorist while rationalizing bush's arresting random people
Stephistan
22-09-2004, 16:19
Why won't he release those medical records?

The Navy at the request of a conservative watchdog group known as "Judicial Watch" reviewed all of Kerry's medical records and came back with a finding that all his medals were given to him rightfully so and in accordance with the rules. So, I don't see why it's even an issue.
Gymoor
22-09-2004, 16:20
Volunteered and then got out of there as fast as he could. Why won't he release those medical records?

Gee, a moment ago you seemed to be sick of Kerry's Vietnam adventures, and now you want documents that the Navy has already reviewed and stated were perfectly okay? Who, exactly, is over-emphasizing Vietnam? Hmmm?
Chess Squares
22-09-2004, 16:22
The Navy at the request of a conservative watchdog group known as "Judicial Watch" reviewed all of Kerry's medical records and came back with a finding that all his medals were given to him rightfully so and in accordance with the rules. So, I don't see why it's even an issue.
because republican "experts", like sean hannity and bill o'reilly, havn't been able to see them and analyse them
Biff Pileon
22-09-2004, 16:28
The Navy at the request of a conservative watchdog group known as "Judicial Watch" reviewed all of Kerry's medical records and came back with a finding that all his medals were given to him rightfully so and in accordance with the rules. So, I don't see why it's even an issue.

No...they looked at the paper trail and said the medals were awarded properly. Only Kerry can release his medical records.
North Langeland
22-09-2004, 16:37
[QUOTE=Biff Pileon]You sound like Dan "Whats the Frequency Kenneth?" Rather. The documents are fake, but what is on them is real. :rolleyes:

HA!! I know the man who wrote the play "Kenneth whats the Frequency". strange, strange stuff...
BustOutTheCalculator
22-09-2004, 16:44
I'm still trying to grasp the link between past military service and the ability to be President.
1) Bush dodges going to Vietnam. What does this tell us about his ability to be commander-in-chief? Nothing, really.
2) Kerry served (4?) months in Vietnam. Again, doesn't show us anything about his ability to be a "war" president.

The past tells us little about either candidate. I usually ignore the early part of Kerry's senate career since he's been there so long. Read about the candidates. Look at Kerry's last, say, 10 years in the Senate. Look at Bush's presidency & governorship in Texas (though he's not exactly the same person we had as governor). Their recent political record will tell you more than what their propaganda speeches or whereabouts in the 70s. Clinton dodged the draft, and I don't think he did too bad a job (on the other hand, he wasn’t great either, but with politicians, you usually have to compromise).

P.S. 1990s Governor Bush would easily win this election over Kerry. He was closer to the center and a reasonable person back then. 2000s President Bush must hope to squeeze through with a narrow victory.

P.P.S. Of course, Kerry's realistically looking at a narrow victory if he wins.

P.P.P.S. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories over CBS' story. Maybe Rather is liberal, but he/they saw an exclusive story and ran with it w/o double checking everything. Still doesn't make it excusable, but at least their intentions were more in too to get viewers than bring down Bush.