Bush where was he?

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
1 memo 4, 1972

2 memo may 19, 72

3 memo aug 1, 72


4 memo aug 18, 73

Here are the documents that CBS obtained, however I am going to have to question their validity as they look like they were produced by a word processor and not a fixed pitch typewriter( i know of no word processers available in 72).

Notice the obvious example in document 4 witht he 187th. I dont know of any typewrite that could do superscript.

Nor do they look like the documents that were officially released

Feel free to correct my knowledge of 70s model typewrites and word processors.

LOL!!

The documents were already examined by CBS and their experts, but you question their validity based on the type??

I can't recall for sure, but I think some of the typewriters of the era had special symbols on them. Remember the typewriters that had the balls on them instead of individual keys.

Yes I do. These documents do not look documents that would have been produced with a typewriter.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Todd33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter

Both Selectric I and Selectric II were available in standard, medium, and wide-carriage models and in various colors, including red and blue as well as traditional neutral colors, and both used the same typeballs, which were available in many fonts, including symbols for science and mathematics, OCR faces for scanning by computers, script, Old English, and more than a dozen ordinary alphabets.

No doubt it was possible to do "th" back then.

And these selectrics used fixed width font (8,10,12CPI). These documents contain fonts that are not fixed width.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Since the heads were round (ball shaped) they could put the type right next to each other, not like a regular typewriter where every key was exactly the same width. They didn't need the same space to type an "i" as compared to an "m" Like they did when all the arms had to line up at the bottom in a uniformed fashion. I think that is what is confusing you here.

In other words, on a old typewriter, an "i" took up as much room as a "m" which was the 10 CPI. On the new ball head machines I think they still called it 10 CPI because the type letters were the same size. I'm tired, I hope that makes sense.
 

CaptainGoodnight

Golden Member
Oct 13, 2000
1,427
30
91
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Todd33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Selectric_typewriter

Both Selectric I and Selectric II were available in standard, medium, and wide-carriage models and in various colors, including red and blue as well as traditional neutral colors, and both used the same typeballs, which were available in many fonts, including symbols for science and mathematics, OCR faces for scanning by computers, script, Old English, and more than a dozen ordinary alphabets.

No doubt it was possible to do "th" back then.

And these selectrics used fixed width font (8,10,12CPI). These documents contain fonts that are not fixed width.

I don't doubt the authenticity of these documents. More military legalise.

I have done enough of this today. Will pick up on this later if I can (might not seeing today is my birthday 9/9)
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
1 memo 4, 1972

2 memo may 19, 72

3 memo aug 1, 72


4 memo aug 18, 73

Here are the documents that CBS obtained, however I am going to have to question their validity as they look like they were produced by a word processor and not a fixed pitch typewriter( i know of no word processers available in 72).

Notice the obvious example in document 4 witht he 187th. I dont know of any typewrite that could do superscript.

Nor do they look like the documents that were officially released

Feel free to correct my knowledge of 70s model typewrites and word processors.

LOL!!

The documents were already examined by CBS and their experts, but you question their validity based on the type??

I can't recall for sure, but I think some of the typewriters of the era had special symbols on them. Remember the typewriters that had the balls on them instead of individual keys.

Yes I do. These documents do not look documents that would have been produced with a typewriter.

Memos Show Bush Suspended From Flying
The White House released memos Wednesday night saying that George W. Bush was suspended from flying fighter jets for failing to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard.
The Vietnam-era memos add new dimensions to the bare-bones explanation of Bush's aides over the years that he was suspended simply because he decided to skip his annual physical exam. The exam was scheduled during a year in which Bush left Texas, where he had been flying fighter jets, to work on a U.S. Senate campaign in
White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CBS' "60 Minutes II," which first obtained the memos, that Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

So did the White House just dump these memos right after the CBS interview? Were they holding on to these documents or did they just find them the very day the interview goes on .... when they SAID they had released everything back in Feb. First, the pentagon finds more documents now this?
Yeah, GWB is forthright - my a** :thumbsdown:
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison

Nor do they look like the documents that were officially released

Feel free to correct my knowledge of 70s model typewrites and word processors.
Additionally, the placement of signature blocks on some documents in question should be an immediate cause for concern. Back then, signature blocks were usually set on the left margin, if memory serves.

Admittedly, if 60 Minutes II sought to generate interest, then the producers were successful. My wife and I watched the episode and, needless to say, were not at all impressed. Nothing new, convincing or substantive originated from Barnes' mouth except for more contradictions of earlier statements to the media.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
President Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot, according to documents made public yesterday.
link

Admittedly, if 60 Minutes II sought to generate interest, then the producers were successful. My wife and I watched the episode and, needless to say,...

Why "needless to say"? Because you're not being objective? Hey, your guy is being whacked around, it's hard to take, I know.
 

wiin

Senior member
Oct 28, 1999
937
0
76
Nothing new, convincing or substantive originated from Barnes' mouth except for more contradictions of earlier statements to the media.

Statement by barnes is old news. Considering that he is a Kerry fundraiser, however, of course his claim is going to be recycled eventhough he had to retrack his claim with his lawyer releasing the following:

"Neither Congressman Bush nor any other member of the Bush family asked Barnes' help. Barnes has no knowledge that Governor Bush or President Bush knew of Barnes' recommendation," the statement said.]Man Says He OK'd Bush for Guard

Barnes also said that he got Bush into the National Guard when he was lieutenant governor of Texas, but Bush was already in the Guard when Barnes became Lt. Gov.(1969-1973)Timeline of Bush's National Guard service

 

maluckey

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2003
2,933
0
71
arsbanned,

While I understand the confusion on MSNBC, and the Washington Post, it must be pointed out that there was no evidence that Bush did not carry out a direct order. A Direct Order must be given either in writing, or face to face with the Soldier. A standing order is one that is "policy", or understood to be the method for doing something. When your name comes up for a urinalysis, or physical, you are expected to attend the procedure. If you miss it, for whatever reason, you are contrary to orders. A form letter is filled in, and added to your file, stating that you did not attend the procedure. Upon a satisfactory completion of he task, this memo is normally amended, or trashed, to leave no doubts about compliance. No record contrary is the norm for establishing compliance.

The author of the article you linked to did not know this, or anything else about the military. Further, the documents in question were not part of the Official Records for Bush. They are part of the Batttalion Files, of his unit commanders. These files are for local use only, and are supposed to be trashed upon the soldiers transfer, or discharge. Every NCO and Officer with troops under them, keeps a Unit File on their employees.

I find it very very suspicious that a unit file was kept for 30 years...............My unit files were given to me to do with what I wished, when I transferred to my new unit. I kept them for posterities sake.


 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: charrison
1 memo 4, 1972

2 memo may 19, 72

3 memo aug 1, 72


4 memo aug 18, 73

Here are the documents that CBS obtained, however I am going to have to question their validity as they look like they were produced by a word processor and not a fixed pitch typewriter( i know of no word processers available in 72).

Notice the obvious example in document 4 witht he 187th. I dont know of any typewrite that could do superscript.

Nor do they look like the documents that were officially released

Feel free to correct my knowledge of 70s model typewrites and word processors.

LOL!!

The documents were already examined by CBS and their experts, but you question their validity based on the type??

I can't recall for sure, but I think some of the typewriters of the era had special symbols on them. Remember the typewriters that had the balls on them instead of individual keys.

Yes I do. These documents do not look documents that would have been produced with a typewriter.




K.I.S.S.?

 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
maluckey
I understand your frustration with the media. However, this needs to be pursued. Kerry has been pummeled by a media abetted Republican smear machine. Bush should not be subject to different rules.
All Bush has to do is stop lying and tell the truth!
See how easy that is!?
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
There is one major difference between this issue and the Swift Boat Liars' charges.
  • All the official documentation supports Kerry's service record and his version of events and refutes the Swifties' charges.
  • The available official documentation refutes Bush's version of his service record and supports the charges against him.
Originally posted by: charrison
Notice the obvious example in document 4 witht he 187th. I dont know of any typewrite that could do superscript.

Nor do they look like the documents that were officially released

Feel free to correct my knowledge of 70s model typewrites and word processors.
Oh boy! Free feels. A that price, I'll take a few. You may not "feel" the same once you see the IBM Selectric, first offered in 1961, and the Selectric II from 1971.
The ability to change fonts, combined with the neat regular appearance of the typed page, was revolutionary and marked the beginning of desktop publishing. Later models with selective pitch and built-in correcting tape carried the trend even further. Any typist could produce a polished manuscript.
.
.
The Selectric II had a lever (above the right platen knob) that would allow the platen to be turned freely but return to the same vertical line (for inserting such symbols as subscripts and superscripts), whereas the Selectric I did not.
You were saying???
 

Todd33

Diamond Member
Oct 16, 2003
7,842
2
81
Come on guys, we are catching the Shrimpboat thread in total post, we can do it!

This isn't a "he said, she said" event though. The evidence is overwhelming and Bush isn't even saying it's not true. All the records tell the truth and there isn't one person who will confirm that Bush was where he was supposed to be. I guess the debate is not really a debate anymore.
 

Drekce

Golden Member
Sep 29, 2000
1,398
0
76
go to Drudge...the docs shown on 60 minutes shown as proof that "Bush was AWOL" ARE FAKES!!!
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: Drekce
go to Drudge...the docs shown on 60 minutes shown as proof that "Bush was AWOL" ARE FAKES!!!
A bigger fake than Drudge?... or YOU? :shocked:

Drudge did NOT offer "proof" or even say the 60 Minuted documents ARE fakes. Drudge ACTUALLY said:
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake /// 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by CBSNEWS 60 MINS on Bush's guard service may have been forged using a current word processing program // typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program, Internet reports claim... Developing...
See my post, above, about the IBM Selectric typewriter. As always, Drudge is a loud mouthed moron. The technology most certainly DID exist to produce reports with that appearance.
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
MIGHT BE FAKE=GO TO DRUDGE! HE ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH!!!

Anyway, just read this:
"I conveyed my verbal orders to commander," Killian's memo stated.
Sounds like a direct order to me. I know when I was in the military, if a superior officer gave an order, he didn't want a lesson in semantics or to have you waffling about whether he really meant it or not.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOL...sh.guard.ap/index.html
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Originally posted by: wiin

Barnes also said that he got Bush into the National Guard when he was lieutenant governor of Texas, but Bush was already in the Guard when Barnes became Lt. Gov.(1969-1973)Timeline of Bush's National Guard service

This actually isn't the case. In the 60 Minutes interview he clearly says this happened when he was TX Speaker of the House (a position he assumed at the remarkable age of 26!).
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: wiin

Barnes also said that he got Bush into the National Guard when he was lieutenant governor of Texas, but Bush was already in the Guard when Barnes became Lt. Gov.(1969-1973)Timeline of Bush's National Guard service

This actually isn't the case. In the 60 Minutes interview he clearly says this happened when he was TX Speaker of the House (a position he assumed at the remarkable age of 26!).
According to the Associated Press, Barnes made a video back in May with the following statement:

"I got a young man named George W. Bush into the National Guard when I was lieutenant governor of Texas, and I'm not necessarily proud of that, but I did it," Barnes said in the 45-second video, which was recorded May 27 before a group of John Kerry supporters in Austin.
Barnes is a flip-flopping, partisan hack anyway. His statements are suspect and have been contradicted on a number of occasions by the Austin American Statesman, Dallas Morning News and the AP.

Nothing new to see here folks.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: burnedout

Barnes is a flip-flopping, partisan hack anyway. His statements are suspect and have been contradicted on a number of occasions by the Austin American Statesman, Dallas Morning News and the AP.

Nothing new to see here folks.
Umm... He said the same thing in both cases. How is he "flip-flopping" in any way? :roll: Maybe a flip-flipper, or a flop-flopper, or a flap-jacker, or a flack jacketer, or...
 

FelixDeCat

Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
30,643
2,593
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: burnedout

Barnes is a flip-flopping, partisan hack anyway. His statements are suspect and have been contradicted on a number of occasions by the Austin American Statesman, Dallas Morning News and the AP.

Nothing new to see here folks.
Umm... He said the same thing in both cases. How is he "flip-flopping" in any way? :roll: Maybe a flip-flipper, or a flop-flopper, or a flap-jacker, or a flack jacketer, or...

Said the desparate Democrat.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Salon's got a big piece on this today:

(Did I mention it's long? )

Stung!
A swarm of new media stories on young George W. Bush's dereliction of duty pops his heroic-leadership bubble.

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 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 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 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 because of 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. The White House director of communications 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," Bartlett said. "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 who evaded his military service.

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," Mintz said.

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 the 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 A.P. reported that a thorough analysis of Bush's military documents indicates 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 after 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 of 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 spokeswoman 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.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
AM talk radio head Michael Medved's response today?

"So what?"

:laugh:


Medved started ripping into some judge that had called in. The judge said he was a Libertarian and not a Democrat and the Medved starts yelling and calling him a Losertarian.


LMAO!!

The Bush-God fanbois are on their heels.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Stupid is as stupid does. Both sides are obfuscating and refusing to deal with legitimate issues in the here and now. I want to hear each candidate talk about pressing issues such as: immigration, fiscal responsisibility, trade deficits, job creation, health care, Iraq. HELLO?!? Anyone remember IRAQ?!?

I could give two sh!ts about Vietnam. :thumbsdown:
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |