Bush where was he?

[Ozoned]

This 'issue' will remain the #1 headline until cbs changes their position. Cbs will cave by Wednesday....

So much to do, so little time.

 

[1EZduzit]

I guess Bush isn't worried about defending his credibility and honesty?? That worries me. Is a simple statement that they are false documents is too much to ask from him. I think such a statement wouldn't drive the issue, but would help put it to rest. Considereing the preponderance of evidence against him I think it is only right that he take a stand. He knows what went down, if they are false just say so. Everyone is trying to discredit CBS, but they are standing by the documents. CBS has their reputation on the line, but I guess GWB is afraid to put his reputation on the line. As far as I'm concerned, it is just more preponderance of evidence against GWB.

Are they're reasons he is afraid to denounce the documents???

One of the big reasons I would like to see GWB put the document issue to rest is so the debates can focus on the issues instead of the mudslinging. Maybe they can, but I have suspicions that it will come up and waste time that could be better spent talking issues.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
This 'issue' will remain the #1 headline until cbs changes their position. Cbs will cave by Wednesday....

So much to do, so little time.

If they don't have a good source for these doc's then maybe, but if their source is solid then I doubt it.

 

[burnedout]

Former Dannelly worker: Bush not AWOL - The Decatur Daily:

By Eric Fleischauer
DAILY Staff Writer
eric@decaturdaily.com · 340-2435

Retired Master Sgt. James Copeland does not care so much whether people think President Bush went absent without leave in 1972, but one thing he hears bothers him plenty.

"Maybe the Bush family was well known in Texas, but we didn't know who he was here. He was just another guy in a flight jacket," Copeland said Sunday.

Copeland, who lives in Hartselle, retired from the Air Force on Jan. 31, 1980. He was the disbursement accounting supervisor, a full-time position, for Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery from Oct. 28, 1971, to Oct. 27, 1975. His office was less than 100 yards from the hangar where Bush performed drills.

Rumors say Bush went AWOL while assisting Winton "Red" Blount in an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate focus on 1972 and 1973.

Copeland, 65, remembers meeting Bush on two occasions. He does not remember the precise dates. On one occasion, Copeland said, Bush and Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun came to Copeland's office with a question about Bush's pay. Copeland is not sure, but he believes the question had to do with where to mail Bush's checks.

Why do I sense squirming to my left?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
I guess Bush isn't worried about defending his credibility and honesty?? That worries me. Is a simple statement that they are false documents is too much to ask from him. I think such a statement wouldn't drive the issue, but would help put it to rest. Considereing the preponderance of evidence against him I think it is only right that he take a stand. He knows what went down, if they are false just say so. Everyone is trying to discredit CBS, but they are standing by the documents. CBS has their reputation on the line, but I guess GWB is afraid to put his reputation on the line. As far as I'm concerned, it is just more preponderance of evidence against GWB.

Are they're reasons he is afraid to denounce the documents???

One of the big reasons I would like to see GWB put the document issue to rest is so the debates can focus on the issues instead of the mudslinging. Maybe they can, but I have suspicions that it will come up and waste time that could be better spent talking issues.

Bush doesn't need to defend himself. He's got a lot of people on the internet right now doing that for him.

Making any claims about the memos right now directly involves Bush and the White House. He doesn't need to be directly involved. By not involving himself it gives the appearance of not stooping to the level of mudslinging. The White House has issued the simple statement that they don't know whether the memos are real or not and that'a all they need to do.

Besides. How can Bush pronounce them fake or real? Did he have secret access to Killian's files? Is he a forensic document specialist? He wouldn't know. All he could possibly do would be to defer to authority, a person or persons who, no matter how much expertise they had, would automatically be branded as republican shills by the left anyway. So what would be the point?

Bush is not on the defensive here, CBS is. Bush is not the one that needs to refute anything, CBS does. So far they are slamming the door in your face and mine. I can't believe that doesn't piss you off. Are you not interested in getting to the truth of this matter?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Former Dannelly worker: Bush not AWOL - The Decatur Daily:

By Eric Fleischauer
DAILY Staff Writer
eric@decaturdaily.com · 340-2435

Retired Master Sgt. James Copeland does not care so much whether people think President Bush went absent without leave in 1972, but one thing he hears bothers him plenty.

"Maybe the Bush family was well known in Texas, but we didn't know who he was here. He was just another guy in a flight jacket," Copeland said Sunday.

Copeland, who lives in Hartselle, retired from the Air Force on Jan. 31, 1980. He was the disbursement accounting supervisor, a full-time position, for Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery from Oct. 28, 1971, to Oct. 27, 1975. His office was less than 100 yards from the hangar where Bush performed drills.

Rumors say Bush went AWOL while assisting Winton "Red" Blount in an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate focus on 1972 and 1973.

Copeland, 65, remembers meeting Bush on two occasions. He does not remember the precise dates. On one occasion, Copeland said, Bush and Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun came to Copeland's office with a question about Bush's pay. Copeland is not sure, but he believes the question had to do with where to mail Bush's checks.

Why do I sense squirming to my left?

Oh, what the hell do you know, righty?

 

[Ozoned]

Question:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Are they're reasons he is afraid to denounce the documents???

Answer:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Besides. How can Bush pronounce them fake or real? Did he have secret access to Killian's files? Is he a forensic document specialist? He wouldn't know. All he could possibly do would be to defer to authority, a person or persons who, no matter how much expertise they had, would automatically be branded as republican shills by the left anyway. So what would be the point?

And a pretty damned good answer, I might add...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Question:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Are they're reasons he is afraid to denounce the documents???

Answer:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Besides. How can Bush pronounce them fake or real? Did he have secret access to Killian's files? Is he a forensic document specialist? He wouldn't know. All he could possibly do would be to defer to authority, a person or persons who, no matter how much expertise they had, would automatically be branded as republican shills by the left anyway. So what would be the point?

And a pretty damned good answer, I might add...

Ah, Bush doesn't have to make a statement on whether the documents are real or forged. All he has to do is say they are untrue. He would know if there was any truth to the documents. He would know if his preformance was questioned. He would know if he was ordered to take a flight physical.

I must assume he is either not concerened about his credibility or honor if he doesn't defend himself or he is afraid of what may yet come to light about his ANG record.

That was the yardstick used against Kerry by the Swifty liars, now it's GWB's turn. Deny the allegations in these documents. It doesn't matter if the documents are real, the allegations are real and have been brought up before. A simple denial that the documents are unture, not an opinion of their authenticity is what I'm asking for.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Ah, Bush doesn't have to make a statement on whether the documents are real or forged. All he has to do is say they are untrue. He would know if there was any truth to the documents. He would know if his preformance was questioned. He would know if he was ordered to take a flight physical.

I must assume he is either not concerened about his credibility or honor if he doesn't defend himself or he is afraid of what may yet come to light about his ANG record.

That was the yardstick used against Kerry by the Swifty liars, now it's GWB's turn. Deny the allegations in these documents. It doesn't matter if the documents are real, the allegations are real and have been brought up before. A simple denial that the documents are unture, not an opinion of their authenticity is what I'm asking for.

The yardstick used against Kerry by the "Swifty liars"? Huh?

And what was Kerry's response to their accusations? I'll tell you what it was. Nothing. Nada. Nicht. He didn't say a word to them. He sent lawyers after them instead and the Dems instituted a mudslinging campaign against them to dig up dirt on whatever member they could. He made no response himself though. Then he walked up on stage at the DNC and had the audacity to salute and say "Reporting for duty." I bet that foolish move lost him a point in the polls right there.

So tell me, were you upset at Kerry for not confronting the SBVFT? Do you feel it's a reflection on his character, credibility, or honor; or somehow indicates that he had something to hide.

Ask yourself that before you demand a statement from Bush please.

Then ask yourself why Bush should craft a resposne to documents that are most likely forgeries anyway. If it ever comes out that the memos are real, then you can demand a statement from Bush. Until they are proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt, which seems highly unlikely, there's no sense at all in Bush replying to some manufactured allegations. He has stated previously he is proud of his guard service. That's all he need say at the moment.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Ah, Bush doesn't have to make a statement on whether the documents are real or forged. All he has to do is say they are untrue. He would know if there was any truth to the documents. He would know if his preformance was questioned. He would know if he was ordered to take a flight physical.

I must assume he is either not concerened about his credibility or honor if he doesn't defend himself or he is afraid of what may yet come to light about his ANG record.

That was the yardstick used against Kerry by the Swifty liars, now it's GWB's turn. Deny the allegations in these documents. It doesn't matter if the documents are real, the allegations are real and have been brought up before. A simple denial that the documents are unture, not an opinion of their authenticity is what I'm asking for.

The yardstick used against Kerry by the "Swifty liars"? Huh?

And what was Kerry's response to their accusations? I'll tell you what it was. Nothing. Nada. Nicht. He didn't say a word to them. He sent lawyers after them instead and the Dems instituted a mudslinging campaign against them to dig up dirt on whatever member they could. He made no response himself though. Then he walked up on stage at the DNC and had the audacity to salute and say "Reporting for duty." I bet that foolish move lost him a point in the polls right there.

So tell me, were you upset at Kerry for not confronting the SBVFT? Do you feel it's a reflection on his character, credibility, or honor; or somehow indicates that he had something to hide.

Ask yourself that before you demand a statement from Bush please.

Then ask yourself why Bush should craft a resposne to documents that are most likely forgeries anyway. If it ever comes out that the memos are real, then you can demand a statement from Bush. Until they are proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt, which seems highly unlikely, there's no sense at all in Bush replying to some manufactured allegations. He has stated previously he is proud of his guard service. That's all he need say at the moment.

Kerry did respond to the lies. He just waited too long. Bush should come out with a statement because it reflects on his credibility. After the WMD BS he has little to no credibility. Unless he has something to hide, what has he to lose??

During the 2000 race, Bush's team quelled the allegations by stating that Bush had not used illegal drugs in the past 25 years. The American public or the media did not push any further regarding the allegations.

That would take us back to 1975. Why didn't GWB deny illegal drug use going back to the begining of his ANG service? Or at least to the period of his missed physical? A lie of ommission? He has no credibility and no guts. I say, GWB, make a statement if you can.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Sorry due to work I have been AWOL from this thread. There have been 200+ posts since I last read this thread last Wed. So I will try my best to jump back in. Sorry if go over ground that has already been covered.

At first I thought these documents were real because I was under the impression that these were release back in Feb. with all the other Bush records. Now I see this is not the case, but rather from some undisclosed source and we just have to take CBS's word for it. :roll:

I forwarded these documents to my dad who also served in the Air Force but durning the late 60's and early 70's to see what he thought. I did because he might know more about how things worked then. (I served 88' to 93') He thought they were strange. He noticed some thing others have noticed as well. We're not talking about rather typewriters existed or not durning that time period but other technical things about the acutal writing of the doc itself.

In this document (subject CYA) It refers a Col. Staudt. Notice the date. August 18, 1973. Staudt retired in 1972. Maybe it was refering to a previous time?

An interest error is made in Bush's rank on one of the memo's, abbreviated in the memos as 1stLt. - note no space between 1st and Lt and the period after the Lt. But the correct AF abbreviation is 1st Lt with the space and no period. Again, a fundamental error of the kind that a lieutenant colonel or his secretary would not make. It's just too basic. In MS Word if you typed 1st Lt the "st" would get superscripted automaticly. But "1stLt." does not. Whoever wrote these memos was trying to get around this.

Another my dad commented on was what I said earier in this thread: People aren't ordered to take flight physicals, they are scheduled.
I really can't think of a reason why he would be ordered to take a physical.
Another I remembered when my dad said it; the way orders were issued. When I got orders sometimes I would literally get 127 copies of the order. Did I need all 127 copys. In short yes. They would circulate to whoever needed them. One copy would be in your personal file, others would be stored else where. If order was issued, where are the other 127 copies? Obviously, if he didn't follow orders not all of the 127 copies would get distributed, but a large number of them would have surived.

I noticed someother things, but to save me typing I will post a list I saw this on another forum (if I can find it, i will credit it) My comments are in italics.

1. The format used in this letter, dated 04 May 1972, which was allegedly prepared/published 16 months prior to Lieutenant Bush?s request for discharge, is completely wrong, as the letter is formatted in a manner that was not used by the Air Force until the very late 1980?s/early 1990?s.

2. The terminology ?MEMORANDUM FOR? was never used in the 1970?s.
However they were beginning to when I was in the AF

3. The abbreviations in this letter are incorrectly formatted, in that a period is used after military rank (1st Lt.). According to the Air Force style manual, periods are not used in military rank abbreviations.

4. The abbreviation for Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS) includes periods after each capital letter. Again, periods are not used.

5. In paragraph 1, the phrase ?not later than? is spelled out, followed by (NLT). NLT was, and is, a widely recognized abbreviation for ?not later than? throughout all military services, so the inclusion of ?not later than? was not a generally accepted practice and completely unnecessary in a letter from one military member to another.

6. Lt Col Killian?s signature element is incorrect for letters prepared in the 1970?s. This letter uses a three-line signature element, which was normally not used. Three-line signature elements were almost the exclusive domain of colonels and generals in organizations well above the squadron level.

7. Finally, the signature element is placed far to the right, instead of being left justified. The placement of the signature element to the right was not used or directed by Air Force standards until almost 20 years after the date of this letter.

The two memos refer to a flight physical and a flight review board, both IAW ("in accordance with") AFM 35-13. But that would stand for "Air Force Manual" 35-13, and manuals are guidelines only. They have no regulatory authority. No one takes a physical exam, flight or not, IAW a manual. Manuals relate to operational procedures, not enforcement of standards. Especially would a "flight review board" not be convened IAW a manual. Enforceable regulatory authority in the military derives only from two sources: the Uniform Code of Military Justice and orders. Regulations are a type of written order issued under the authority of a flag-rank officer.

What governs official procedures or requirements for physicals is a regulation, not a manual, because a regulation is an order and a manual is not. A regulation has much the same effect as law. Regulations are governing documents that must be adhered to, not advisory publications that permit ad-hoc deviations, as manuals do.

There is alot more but when time allows I will post more.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

As a pre-emptive strike:

According to Drudge the focus on Bush's records are shifting. I've this on DU (a left-wing website) as well.

From Drudge:

Faster than a CBS eye can blink, dogged Dems are set to take to the airwaves anew hoping to keep questions about President Bush's National Guard duty in play, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"George W. Bush's campaign literature claimed that he 'served in the U.S. Air Force.' The only problem? He didn't," slams a new DNC press release set for distribution.

Also
"But a form obtained by DRUDGE on Monday shows Bush was active duty Air Force, albeit for 120 days."

And for the sake for history, here is the history of the ANG and the USAF and how they came to be.
FORGING THE AIR NATIONAL GUARD

edit: I blame this on lack of research. If you want to nail Bush don't go after his Guard record. There is nothing to find. Would it not be better to attack his last four years, not his Guard record?

 

[burnedout]

CaptainGoodnight: From a retired army senior NCO's perspective, I can say nothing except thanks for the insightful commentary.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Ozoned
Question:

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit


Are they're reasons he is afraid to denounce the documents???

Answer:

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Besides. How can Bush pronounce them fake or real? Did he have secret access to Killian's files? Is he a forensic document specialist? He wouldn't know. All he could possibly do would be to defer to authority, a person or persons who, no matter how much expertise they had, would automatically be branded as republican shills by the left anyway. So what would be the point?

And a pretty damned good answer, I might add...

Ah, Bush doesn't have to make a statement on whether the documents are real or forged. All he has to do is say they are untrue. He would know if there was any truth to the documents. He would know if his preformance was questioned. He would know if he was ordered to take a flight physical.

I must assume he is either not concerened about his credibility or honor if he doesn't defend himself or he is afraid of what may yet come to light about his ANG record.

That was the yardstick used against Kerry by the Swifty liars, now it's GWB's turn. Deny the allegations in these documents. It doesn't matter if the documents are real, the allegations are real and have been brought up before. A simple denial that the documents are unture, not an opinion of their authenticity is what I'm asking for.

I have a thought on this and have had it for months . I believe that President Bush has better advisors than Kerry. The following should clarify the crux of your posts.

Imported and Originally posted by: Ozoned
At this time in the election cycle, almost everything is being politicized, and it would be prudent to think about the implications of an issue, before vocalizing it.

Kerry has been put through the wringer and demands have been placed upon him to voice his position on certain issues. He needs to learn when to keep his mouth shut.

Have a nice day.

 

[1EZduzit]

So just don't talk about anything you don't want to? Like his lies about WMD's and his cocaine use. That may work for some voters, but not for me. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since the great depression. He needs to be put out to pasture before he does something REALLY stupid.

Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So just don't talk about anything you don't want to? Like his lies about WMD's and his cocaine use. That may work for some voters, but not for me. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since the great depression. He needs to be put out to pasture before he does something REALLY stupid.

Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley

When I was talking about discussing this issue, I was thinking more about how this topic is being dicussed at the national level. If the Dems keep at this Guard issue they will lose the election. The reason why is people don't care about Bush's Guard service, or how much cocaine he snorted. They have tried this AWOL story ever since he ran for governor and it has not sticked. If the Dems plan on winning this election they should stay far way from this issue.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So just don't talk about anything you don't want to? Like his lies about WMD's and his cocaine use. That may work for some voters, but not for me. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since the great depression. He needs to be put out to pasture before he does something REALLY stupid.

Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley

Hearsay is the rock sitting at the top of the hill. Until it moves in the direction of denial or confirmation, it gathers no moss.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So just don't talk about anything you don't want to? Like his lies about WMD's and his cocaine use. That may work for some voters, but not for me. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since the great depression. He needs to be put out to pasture before he does something REALLY stupid.

Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley

Hearsay is the rock sitting at the top of the hill. Until it moves in the direction of denial or confirmation, it gathers no moss.

Yousay heresay, Isay fact.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/a...-david--name_page.html

 

[1EZduzit]

Kelley and Doubleday stand by her reporting, with the publisher issuing a statement last week saying that "everything she attributes to Sharon Bush in her book is an accurate account of their discussions." Doubleday also notes that while Sharon Bush has criticized Kelley to the press, she has not asked for a retraction or even contacted the publisher.

Sharon Bush's attorney, David Berg, said Monday that Sharon Bush was out of town and he planned to meet with her later this week to discuss "all potential remedies."

The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So just don't talk about anything you don't want to? Like his lies about WMD's and his cocaine use. That may work for some voters, but not for me. He's the worst thing to happen to this country since the great depression. He needs to be put out to pasture before he does something REALLY stupid.

Statement by Doubleday Regarding Kitty Kelley

Hearsay is the rock sitting at the top of the hill. Until it moves in the direction of denial or confirmation, it gathers no moss.

Yousay heresay, Isay fact.http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/a...-david--name_page.html

Could very well be a fact, but in its current state, it is still hearsay. Pictures would do the trick.

 

[Ozoned]

Court documents?

 

[Ozoned]

Conviction records?

 

[1EZduzit]

Let GWB deny it if he has the balls. NOT! His advisors told him not to and he can't think for himself, LOL

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL

I agree, it has gotten quite the rise out of you.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
LOL

I agree, it has gotten quite the rise out of you.

Apparently we are diametrically opposed because that is exactly what I was thinking about you.

I need to offer no more proof then the SBVFTT did, just a lot of different people saying things. That is the way they did it. I'm not afraid to sling mud with the rest of them. Hell, they started it.