Why doesn't Mr.W. Bush simply tell the American public?

[jokerswild]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26843-2004Feb9?language=printer

The above article states that the military is looking for his service records. Why doesn't Bush just tell the American people where and when he attended? It sholdn't be that difficult, unless he has alzheimers like Ronald Reagan.
Of course it is possible that he doesn't remember because he was in a blacked out stupor for 12 months.

Really, it should be quite easy for him to say, "oh I reported twice a month to a post in such and such a city for x amount of hours each time."

I bet that the military will find these records at the same time they find the purported WMD in Iraq. That is to say: never.

[MattHatter]

You Say Deserter, I Say More Dessert (http://www.michaelmoore.com) - (Jan, 27th, 2004) Michael Moore

He covers the topic nicely. (He has to after that Wesley Clark introduction fiasco)

Some of the talking heads initially came down pretty hard on Mr Moore but now it seems that John Kerry has mentioned it as well so it might just be ok for this info to move into the public conciousness.

(al gore dragged it out about a week before the election I think, pretty lame)

Fighting wars is for the poor and middle classes.




Matt


For those of you that dislike mr moore, I suggest you look for the 1st episode of his show "the awful truth" and see what he does for the fellow who needs a pancreas transplant from Humana. Mr Moore is a true hero for his time. (maybe 2nd episode?)

[bigpooch]

Entertainingly written article, I might add! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[jokerswild]

If I were the White House, I'm not sure that I would release those records. It indicates that he wasn't paid for 7 months, and made up the time at the end. If he did that in Vietnam, he would have been labled a deserter.

The records validate that he didn't show up. The White House says that those 7 months of records don't exist.

Just as I said, they will never be found.
These guys lie and spin more than Bill CLinton ever did.

I guess it depends on what the definition of "exist" is.

[MMMMMM]

"The records validate that he didn't show up. The White House says that those 7 months of records don't exist.

Just as I said, they will never be found."

So when Bush's records can't be found, it means they exist. When Saddam's WMD's can't be found, it means they don't exist.
OK, got it.

[MattHatter]

as a matter of fact.. I think I read on CNN that they just found them!

White House releases Bush's military payroll records (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html)


But just cause he got paid... does that necessarily mean he was there?

"But under questioning from reporters, McClellan said the records do not specifically show that Bush reported for Guard duty in Alabama, where he spent much of 1972 working on a Senate campaign. And he said the White House has been unable to locate anyone who remembers serving with Bush during that period."


Bush Bush Bush..... I wonder if it makes it better or worse that he might have gotten paid for not being there?


Matt

[MattHatter]

"So when Bush's records can't be found, it means they exist. When Saddam's WMD's can't be found, it means they don't exist.
OK, got it."


So, when the presidents actions may be inexcusable, in his defence, we undermine the credibility of he who dares question mr bush? Based on this persons opinon on another matter entirely?

Ok, got it.


Matt


PS: Don't take my sarcasm too seriously /images/graemlins/crazy.gif I would hate for this to cause this to devolvve into the sort of thing that usually results from sarcasm. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MattHatter]

"the sort of thing that usually results from sarcasm"

Laughter? /images/graemlins/laugh.gif


Matt

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]


But just cause he got paid... does that necessarily mean he was there?


Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really reaching this time Matt. Do you require a written affidavit that he was truly born since just because he exists doesn't mean he was really born without a copy of his birth record, right?

Wake

[George Rice]

While we're on the subject, I can't believe Russert didn't follow up on his questions better, especially on the AWOL issue. After Bush said that he had served and was honorably discharged, Russert should have pressed him on whether he missed any scheduled duty, etc., and if so how much. Now we're left with the press asking one set of questions and the administration responding to another set of questions.

A few of thoughts.

Why would a commanding officer make a note about not seeing one of his subordinates for a year? Seems to me a normal person would find out what a subordinate did before making a report, or delegate the task to someone who knew. Unless, of course, he had compelling reason to write that (To avoid something else being written and at the same time not writing a lie?).

Why haven't others Bush served with come forward to defend him? Certainly everyone knew who he was (a congressman's son, and in retrospect, a CIA chief's son, a Vice President's son and a President's son). Papa Bush's men remembered Papa Bush, and that was a much longer period of time.

Those serving in the National Guard today have every right to be proud and respected by our citizens. They give up much to train and be prepared for conflicts. Back in the 1960's many who wanted to avoid serving in Viet Nam tried to enlist in the Guard to avoid being drafted. Although some Guard units were activated, it was a much safer place than the regular Army. What's more, it was hard to get into the Guard, but many did so because of "connections".

All of this wouldn't be as big a deal if it wasn't for Bush landing on that carrier like a great warrior. A pretty creepy thing to do, in retrospect.

[George Rice]

I think Michael Moore is full of himself, at least recently. In Bowling for Columbine, he does two things I considered in bad taste.

The first was his interview with Charlton Heston. Heston is clearly not all there and Moore should have realized that and not used the interview in his movie. He could have found someone else. Previously, I liked Moore and disliked Heston. But after that interview I felt sympathy for Heston, who was suffering from the effects of Alzheimer's Disease.

The second was his confrontation of the KMart spokeswoman. He came off as a bully. Also, he didn't seem sincerely happy that KMart agreed to stop selling ammunition (more like disappointed with a smile on his face), and seemed to be using the kids as props.

Come to think of it, I wasn't crazy about his bringing the other nominees on the stage with him at the Academy Awards and then attacking Bush. He involved them in his politics without their permission.

[adios]

Heston's personal history is such that he has supported civil rights as well. Bowling for Columbine has been discussed at length here. IMO it was total garbage.

[MattHatter]

[ QUOTE ]
You are really reaching this time Matt. Do you require a written affidavit that he was truly born since just because he exists doesn't mean he was really born without a copy of his birth record, right?

Wake


[/ QUOTE ]


"But under questioning from reporters, McClellan said the records do not specifically show that Bush reported for Guard duty in Alabama, where he spent much of 1972 working on a Senate campaign. And he said the White House has been unable to locate anyone who remembers serving with Bush during that period."

That's all I was referring to.

Matt

[George Rice]

Matt's got a point. The fact that he got paid doesn't necessarily prove he showed up. Was he paid in regular intervals?

[Wake up CALL]

George have you bothered to look at the copys of those supposed orders on the internet?

Here a couple of PDF links for you Ordered to report (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif) which is actually an approval for a transfer request. And this one Special Orders (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif) which is what many sets of orders look like. The most intersting thing about this last link is when you scroll down to the named Lt George W. Bush it really says Lt George W. BusuXXXXX with the reaminder of the name blacked out. Last time I checked Bush was spelled, well, Bush not Busuxxxxx. Anyway sometimes orders are just orders and sometimes they are orders for someone else!

PS: I should add that you can reach these links and a cutesy little article from democrats.com here Bush Article. (http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154#item3)

[MattHatter]

LtCol William Turnipseed?

this is offtopic but that's just a hilarious name, I wonder if the privates giggle when they hear the name? (not if hes around im sure /images/graemlins/smirk.gif)



Matt

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote from Bush's approved transfer. I'm curious why (what does this mean, anyway?). Also, these orders require him to report for training on 7-8 Oct 72 and 4-5 Nov 72 with the 187 Tac Recon Gp. They were issued on 15 September 1972


[ QUOTE ]
Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly AWG Base, Alabama.

[/ QUOTE ]

That qoute from Lt. Colonel William O. Harris, Jr, the Comand Pilot at Tex AWG and was dated 2 May 1973. What was the "civilian occupation" referred to?

These two documents indicate that he had "cleared" Tex AWG on May 15, 1972 and had orders to report on October 7-8, 1972 and November 4-5, 1972 at 187th Tac Recon Gp in Alabama. His orders also state that he has "permission to perform equivalent duty with 187 Tac Recon Gp." This suggests a change from either non-permission, or that this was the first request. In other words, he's not already stationed in Alabama.

What's missing here is any explanation of what he did from May 15, 1972 until October 7-8, 1972, almost five months.

The other document you cited was dated 1 May 1973 and schedules "BUSU", or perhaps "BUSH" in a bad protocopy, for dates in the May 22 - Jun 7, 1973 range. I'm not sure of the relevance of this document, even if it was Bush (The first name, middle initial and rank are correct.).

So what did Bush do for those five months, why don't he give clear specific answers, and why don't the servicemen who served with him come forward?

[andyfox]

I got a kick out of the press conference today when the CBS reporter chastized the press secretary. "It's a simple question, why can't we have a simple answer?"

[adios]

I saw a short interview with Kerry tonight in which he stated that he wasn't going to make it an issue and that he wasn't going to comment on it anymore. He also stated that he was asking his campaign workers not to discuss it either. It's a bogus issue and one that pales in comparison to what some of the really important issues are. I suspect that Kerry realizes that it isn't a very important issue as well and to make it part of his campaign will probably hurt his chances more than it will help him. I also believe that Kerry is smart enough to know that if he wins he'll need cooperation from Republicans in Congress to make progress on his programs and policies. He's not likely to get too much by taking the low road so to speak. Also I think Kerry probably realizes that the hatred, acrimony, and the mean spirited attacks leveled against Bush by many of his supporters and even party leaders has the potetial to sour many voters on his candidacy. Still I give a tip of the hat to Kerry for showing a lot of class. A lot more class than many of his supporters have shown or will ever hope to.

White House Releases Bush Military Pay Records (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110956,00.html)

From the article:

Kerry, who is regularly accompanied by a "band of brothers" of military veterans who served with him in Vietnam, said Tuesday he has said all he is going to say about Bush's record.

"I just don't have any comment on it," Kerry told reporters between campaign stops in Tennessee and Virginia, which were holding their primaries Tuesday night. "It's not an issue that I chose to create. It's not my record that's at issue and I don't have any questions about it."

[MattHatter]

Good post, well put, I agree.

I think this issue... It's just 1 piece of a rich tapestry.

Matt

[jokerswild]

No, MMMMMMMMMM, neither ever existed. Please, please, please, take the alzheimer medication.

[jokerswild]

Kerry's character makes a good tapestry. Bush's lies make an outhouse smell like roses.

[MMMMMM]

jokerswild: "Kerry's character makes a good tapestry. Bush's lies make an outhouse smell like roses."

Sounds like a couple of innovative ideas for a textile business and an air-freshening product;-)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quote from Bush's approved transfer. I'm curious why (what does this mean, anyway?). Also, these orders require him to report for training on 7-8 Oct 72 and 4-5 Nov 72 with the 187 Tac Recon Gp. They were issued on 15 September 1972

[/ QUOTE ]

It means he will be elsewhere to satisfy his requirements! Was your question serious? The date discrepancy is more proof these are likely bogus.

[ QUOTE ]
Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly AWG Base, Alabama.

[/ QUOTE ]

That qoute from Lt. Colonel William O. Harris, Jr, the Comand Pilot at Tex AWG and was dated 2 May 1973. What was the "civilian occupation" referred to?

He was assisting in a campaign for a friend, that has been published several times.

These two documents indicate that he had "cleared" Tex AWG on May 15, 1972 and had orders to report on October 7-8, 1972 and November 4-5, 1972 at 187th Tac Recon Gp in Alabama. His orders also state that he has "permission to perform equivalent duty with 187 Tac Recon Gp." This suggests a change from either non-permission, or that this was the first request. In other words, he's not already stationed in Alabama.

Granting permission has no such implication that it had been previously witheld. Do I have your permission to write this? See?

What's missing here is any explanation of what he did from May 15, 1972 until October 7-8, 1972, almost five months.

He has pay stubs for the correct amount of active duty required for a NG. Isn't that enough?

The other document you cited was dated 1 May 1973 and schedules "BUSU", or perhaps "BUSH" in a bad protocopy, for dates in the May 22 - Jun 7, 1973 range. I'm not sure of the relevance of this document, even if it was Bush (The first name, middle initial and rank are correct.).

So what did Bush do for those five months, why don't he give clear specific answers, and why don't the servicemen who served with him come forward?


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you able to state exactly what you did everyday for a specific 5 month period over 20 years ago?

[MattHatter]

"Are you able to state exactly what you did everyday for a specific 5 month period over 20 years ago? " - Wake up CALL

If I were doing military service at that time. Yes I would remember.


Matt

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
He has pay stubs for the correct amount of active duty required for a NG. Isn't that enough?


[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't prove anything regarding the five month period in question. Missed time could have been made up later, or he could have been paid for work not performed.

[ QUOTE ]
Granting permission has no such implication that it had been previously witheld. Do I have your permission to write this? See?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but if a superior granted me permission to post here it would be reasonable to conclude that I requested it. And if it was not previously withheld then the request must have been made later and approved at that time. That still leaves a five month gap unaccounted for.

[ QUOTE ]
It means he will be elsewhere to satisfy his requirements! Was your question serious? The date discrepancy is more proof these are likely bogus.


[/ QUOTE ]

It could mean that or it could mean something different.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you able to state exactly what you did everyday for a specific 5 month period over 20 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I can't. But I can tell you where I was, that I was working 5 days per week, what job I had, how I got to work, approximately how much I weighed, where I lived. And if I had to I could probably prove it. And that's without someone asking me about it for the past several years.

You must see the discrepencies in the dates and realize that it has yet to be explained. Having pay stubs "for the correct amount" doesn't prove he served during those dates and you know it--it's misdirection. Offering it as proof suggests that your defense of Bush is motivated by politics and not the facts. If that's the case just admit it. You not fooling anyone anyway.

[MattHatter]

Peter Jennings is Reckless
On January 22, 2004, ABC News anchor Peter Jennings said the following:

"Mr. Moore said that President Bush [was] a 'deserter.' Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts."


But now the facts have come out. And more facts keep coming out every day. The definition of "desertion" is being AWOL for more than 30 days. AWOL is less than 30 days. Webster's dictionary defines "deserter" as:

"One who forsakes a duty, a cause or a party, a friend, or any one to whom he owes service; especially, a soldier or a seaman who abandons the service without leave; one guilty of desertion."


How long will it take for Peter Jennings to apologize to Mike and to the country?

Reckless? Not supported by the facts? That description, it seems, only belongs to Peter Jennings.

26 days and counting!



From Michael Moores website.


MAtt

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
You must see the discrepencies in the dates and realize that it has yet to be explained. Having pay stubs "for the correct amount" doesn't prove he served during those dates and you know it--it's misdirection. Offering it as proof suggests that your defense of Bush is motivated by politics and not the facts. If that's the case just admit it. You not fooling anyone anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

It proves everything!! They were for the correct amount of service, in the correct amount of money in the correct timeframe at the frigging correct location. Jeesh, give us a break or else start doing your own research.

Wake

[adios]

Wake don't you find this quote more than just a little amusing:

[ QUOTE ]
Having pay stubs "for the correct amount" doesn't prove he served during those dates and you know it--it's misdirection.

[/ QUOTE ]

coming from the king of misdirection and irrelevancy?

[Wake up CALL]

Yes Adios I do, I have made my last response to Mr. Rice.

Wake

PS: Keep up the good work, although we may be outnumbered two to one remember the liberals are only half armed in the battle. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
It proves everything!! They were for the correct amount of service, in the correct amount of money in the correct timeframe at the frigging correct location. Jeesh, give us a break or else start doing your own research.


[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't prove whether he missed his scheduled service during the five month period in question. You know this. Stop the crap. If you are just going to counter arguments with misdirection then you shouldn't respond to my posts. You'll fool noone and will just embarrass yourself.

Nice try, though. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[detox]

George W. Bush has long had a habit of giving people nicknames—and perhaps that's because he picked up a few along the way himself. Like the one he earned in 1972, when he left his home in Houston to work on the long-shot Senate campaign of Winton M. (Red) Blount in Alabama. Bush, then 26, would often turn up at campaign headquarters in Montgomery around lunchtime, recount his late-night exploits and brag about his political connections, according to a Blount campaign worker. All that made him slow to win over the Alabama crowd, who began to complain that Bush was letting things slide. C. Murphy Archibald, a nephew of Blount's who worked on the campaign that fall, told TIME that Bush "was good at schmoozing the county chairs, but there wasn't a lot of follow-up." Archibald, now a trial attorney in North Carolina, remembers that a group of older Alabama socialites, who were volunteering their time, gave Bush a nickname because they thought he "looked good on the outside but was full of hot air." They called him the Texas Soufflé.

Skimming the surface and skipping over details may be business as usual for a happy-go-lucky 26-year-old, but it's a problem for a President during a winter of discontent. Whether Bush performed his National Guard duties while he was working on the Blount campaign—as well as during much of the year starting in May 1972—was raised in his past campaigns and always fluttered away quickly, an issue regarded as irrelevant after two decades or more. But it has become germane this time in a way it never was before because for the second time in as many months—first on prewar intelligence in Iraq and now on his military record—Bush is caught in a gap between what he has claimed and what he can prove. At the same time, he's gearing up for a fight with a probable Democratic nominee whose record as a Vietnam War hero helps buy him credibility to challenge Bush on his military resume. Bush insists he did his duty in Alabama, but the records—and many memories—don't confirm it. And these days, people are paying a lot closer attention to the President's words.

All week long, the White House tried to complete two contradictory missions: keep Bush's promise to Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press to release all his military records—and change the story line as quickly as possible. First came the Bush pay stubs, which showed he was paid for some work during his Alabama sojourn but didn't prove he did any work. Then came a page of a dental exam, proving that he had at least turned up at an air base to have his teeth checked. And finally, when those documents weren't having the proper impact, the White House released 400 pages of military records on a late Friday afternoon. Those documents didn't solve the puzzle either, but by then the White House hoped that at least no one could accuse the President of hiding anything. "We're going on the offensive on this," says a top official. "The problem with the Democrats is that they always overplay their hand."

How Did Bush Get In the Guard, And What Were His Duties?

It was Bush's name that helped land him the coveted Guard-duty spot in the first place. Maurice Udell, the flight instructor who trained Bush, told TIME last week that "there was all kinds of people trying to get in, lot of 'em flying Cessnas. But Bush's stock went way up when I found out his dad was the youngest [Navy] pilot in World War II and got shot down. As far as I was concerned, who were they? When your dad flies in the war in combat, that gives you a leg up." It also probably didn't hurt that Bush's father was a Congressman from Houston.

After basic training and flight school, Bush spent most of his time in the service with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron at Ellington Field, a "champagne" unit based southeast of Houston. Suiting up for battle alongside scions of other Texas political families—Connally and Bentsen—Bush flew the F-102 Delta Dagger, a 1950s-era interceptor, at a speed of 600 m.p.h. over the Gulf Coast on the lookout for enemy aircraft. Duty at Ellington was relatively worry free; the Guard's air-defense mission was certainly a low priority in the 1970s. And the pilots had little fear of being called to active duty in Vietnam; they were flying nearly obsolete F-102s that were not suited to a guerrilla war. But the scene had a touch of glamour for a young man about town. The apron was often jammed with the sleek little jet planes of NASA astronauts who trained nearby and shuttled back and forth from Cape Canaveral, Fla. The 111th had its dangers: Bush and his wingmen often flew in formation, hovering just a few feet from one another's wing tips. At other times, they would wait in a ready room for hours, doing next to nothing on action-free alert drills.

[detox]

What Did Bush Have to Do to Fulfill His Guard Commitment?
Requirements for service have tightened in the past 20 years, but in those days, the Air Guard made it hard to fail. In Bush's era, a Guardsman was supposed to earn 50 points each year to meet his commitment and avoid, at least in theory, the risk of facing induction into the active-duty force. Getting to 50 was relatively easy if you just showed up. And if you missed your drills, you were allowed to make up points in other ways.

But the Texas Air Guard seemed to make it even easier. For example, several members of the Dallas Cowboys belonged to another unit of the Texas Guard, and each was cut plenty of slack every fall during football season. Henry Simon, a Fort Worth, Texas, lawyer who toiled as a clerk in the Texas Guard's Grand Prairie office during the 1960s, said airmen were given lots of chances to perform "equivalent service" to make up for missed drills. "I don't think there was ever an objective standard of what equivalent service was. It might be something like going to the noon meeting of the town council and accepting a proclamation praising the fine work of the Texas Air National Guard," Simon told TIME. "We'd fill out a form detailing what [the person] did, and he'd get credit for the drill."

When Bush decided to go to work for Blount, he was obliged under Guard rules to request an official transfer to a different Guard unit. He applied in May 1972 to a tiny postal unit in Montgomery and was accepted. There is no paper evidence that he ever reported for duty. Two months later, the Air Force overturned that transfer, and so Bush, in September, requested reassignment to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Field, about 15 minutes from downtown Montgomery. The unit flew planes but not the kind Bush could fly.

So Did Bush Report for Duty in Alabama or Not?
Depends on whom you believe. During his Meet the Press appearance, Bush twice told Russert that he reported for duty in Alabama. But for most of last week (and for much of the past four years), it has been difficult to find anyone who recalls seeing Bush at Dannelly Field. (At one point in 2000, 10 Vietnam veterans offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could prove he saw Bush on duty during 1972.) Even Bush had trouble explaining his job at Dannelly, saying he did "administrative work." John B. Calhoun, an Atlanta resident who served for 28 years in the Air Force and the Alabama Guard, told TIME he clearly remembers Bush reporting for duty on weekends starting in the summer of 1972, apparently before Bush officially requested reassignment there. Calhoun explained that Bush signed into his office and mainly read training manuals and safety magazines, signing out at the end of each drilling day. Bush kept a low profile, Calhoun said, and sometimes ate lunch with Calhoun in the snack bar.

But there are some discrepancies in Calhoun's account: he claimed Bush turned up more often than was indicated in Bush's official pay records for the period. And many other veterans of the 187th do not recall seeing Bush on base. Paul Bishop, a retired Air Force colonel who says he never missed a weekend drill in 27 years with the 187th, told TIME the physical layout of the unit's hangar made it "virtually impossible" for Bush to have met with Calhoun and for none of the unit's 800 other reservists to have seen him. "Fighter pilots, and that's what we are," says Bishop, "have situational awareness. They know everything about their environment, whether it's an enemy plane creeping up or a stranger in their hangar."

This much is known: for the first three years while he was in Texas, Bush had no trouble racking up hundreds of points each year, far in excess of what was required. He logged more than 600 hours of flying time and received glowing evaluations from his superiors. But in 1972, when he moved to Alabama, his points plunged. He earned only 41 points but was awarded the standard 15 "gratuitous" points from Texas Air Guard Major Rufus Martin for being a member in good standing—just enough to meet his obligation.

Why Did He Miss The Physical?
No question so unsettles some former Guardsmen as much as this: If Bush did report, as he contends, why did he let his medical certification lapse around the same time—a full two years before his Guard commitment was up? Four years ago, the Bush campaign said Bush didn't undergo the physical because his family doctor was back in Texas. That explanation doesn't wash; only flight surgeons can perform Air Force exams, and there were plenty of those in Alabama.

The official explanation has changed: the White House now says Bush didn't need to take the medical exam because he was no longer flying. But even if Bush wasn't planning a career in aviation, that explanation is difficult for other pilots to accept. Pilots routinely sacrifice everything to keep their "medical cert" current; the military is rife with stories of cheating by pilots to pass their physicals. And the government, which spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and keep its pilots flying, has never looked kindly on highly trained personnel, particularly pilots, standing down on their own. "There are certain things I expect from my pilots," said Major General Paul Weaver, who retired as head of the Air National Guard in 2002. "He should have kept current with his physicals." Some Guard veterans have speculated that Bush may have been dodging random drug tests, which were instituted in some military units as early as 1971. But there is no evidence to support that; in fact, the dentist who worked on Bush's teeth and who later became the commander of the base medical unit, told TIME that the Alabama Guard did not conduct random drug tests until the 1980s.

White House officials, surprised by what they call "the hysteria" over Bush's war record, concede that this has not been their finest hour. "We were a little rusty on this," said an adviser. Said another: "[The White House] swung at a pitch in the dirt."

But the White House has been off its game for weeks, and the hardballs just keep coming. Last week, as Wesley Clark endorsed John Kerry for the Democratic nomination, the retired four-star general said that "questioning our leaders, especially in time of war, is one of the highest forms of patriotism." That suggests a brutal campaign to come about the war that is still going on—especially since the two sides haven't stopped arguing about the one that ended more than three decades ago.

[George Rice]

What is your source?

[Wake up CALL]

Another jokester has joined the fray I see. Well I have time for a couple of corrections:

[ QUOTE ]
No question so unsettles some former Guardsmen as much as this: If Bush did report, as he contends, why did he let his medical certification lapse around the same time a full two years before his Guard commitment was up?

[/ QUOTE ] and [ QUOTE ]
The official explanation has changed: the White House now says Bush didn't need to take the medical exam because he was no longer flying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Close but no cigar! President Bush (then Lt. Bush) was not flight qualified on any aircraft located in Alabama. The F102 on which he was qualified in Texas were being phased out so there was no reason, without further intensive (and expensive) flight training for the Lt. to continue his flight status. If he had taken additional training and qualified on local aircraft you would be crying about all the additional money he caused the government to waste. You just cannot have it both ways.

[ QUOTE ]
At the same time, he's gearing up for a fight with a probable Democratic nominee whose record as a Vietnam War hero helps buy him credibility to challenge Bush on his military resume.

[/ QUOTE ]

Credibility with whom? Not any single person in their right mind equates fighting in the jungles of Vietnam with running the USA. Give we veterans (and the rest of the US citizens) a break and get off the hero bus. What has Kerry done for the country politically other than stall legislation, waffle on his positions and attempt to either block tax cuts or raise taxes?

[ QUOTE ]
But it has become germane this time in a way it never was before because for the second time in as many months first on prewar intelligence in Iraq and now on his military record Bush is caught in a gap between what he has claimed and what he can prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you equate service in the National Guard with acting on aquired intelligence reports? You are really stretching this comparison far past reality.

[ QUOTE ]
It was Bush's name that helped land him the coveted Guard-duty spot in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

More poppycock and liberal innuendo, his ability got him into the National Guard. They needed qualified pilots and they accepted them over other applicants, standard procedure during that era.

[ QUOTE ]
When Bush decided to go to work for Blount, he was obliged under Guard rules to request an official transfer to a different Guard unit. He applied in May 1972 to a tiny postal unit in Montgomery and was accepted. There is no paper evidence that he ever reported for duty.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears it was too much trouble for you to note that it was a non-active reserve unit. In case you are simply obtuse you do not report to a non-active unit, you simply "are inactive".

[ QUOTE ]
Two months later, the Air Force overturned that transfer, and so Bush, in September, requested reassignment to the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Field, about 15 minutes from downtown Montgomery. The unit flew planes but not the kind Bush could fly.

[/ QUOTE ]


The above was your best attempt at accuracy yet.

[ QUOTE ]
Paul Bishop, a retired Air Force colonel who says he never missed a weekend drill in 27 years with the 187th, told TIME the physical layout of the unit's hangar made it "virtually impossible" for Bush to have met with Calhoun and for none of the unit's 800 other reservists to have seen him. "Fighter pilots, and that's what we are," says Bishop, "have situational awareness. They know everything about their environment, whether it's an enemy plane creeping up or a stranger in their hangar."

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is some funny stuff there my friend. Care for a rebuttal? BTW I cannot find a single person who remembers seeing Paul Bishop in Alabama dring that time frame. Is he able to prove he was even there? /images/graemlins/smile.gif





"It's ludicrous to say that if he wasn't seen, he wasn't there," said Hart, 68, of Bascom, Fla. "The base, then, was open seven days a week, four weekends a month. There were 900 to 1,000 people coming and going. Do I remember seeing a lieutenant by the name of George Bush? I couldn't say that I never saw him."


PS: AWOL stands for absent without leave. It is quite a stretch to call someone AWOL who was never given either an Article 15 or courtmartialed for the offense AWOL. Typical liberal scare tactics, fortunately most of us have seen all the scary movies and are able to see beyond the Democrats' "special effects".

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I have made my last response to Mr. Rice

[/ QUOTE ]

As have I.

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
PS: AWOL stands for absent without leave. It is quite a stretch to call someone AWOL who was never given either an Article 15 or courtmartialed for the offense AWOL.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't stop conservative mouth pieces from call Clinton a draft dodger--even to this day. I guess democrats are held to higher standards in your world.

Let me see, the White House releases hundreds of documents regarding Bush's Guard service, and still nothing to cover the five month gap. Me thinks his arse is showing. As is yours.