Let's see if we can sum up the Senior Chief's message--"the dog ate my homework."

Basically, Senior Chief is setting up a series of strawmen and knocking them down. Does paperwork get lost in the military? You bet. Happens all the time. What doesn't happen, though, is that people can't corroborate their presence (or lack thereof) for a period of a year and a half.

All Bush really needs to do is produce someone he served with. Plus, it would be really helpful if Bush could tell us what he his duties were during this disputed period of time. Bush's story has varied from "flying with my unit" to "I can't remember" with several stops in between.

I'll bet Senior Chief could tell us exactly what his duties were at the Naval Reserve HQ. And I'll bet he could tell us who his supervisor was and some of the people he served with.

Second, nobody has said NG units don't get sent overseas. But as the Senior Chief knows full well, certain units have a far greater liklihood of going than others. Given the fact the F-102 was no longer being used in Vietnam (and was virtually retired from service in Europe) by the time Bush qualified, the chances of the TX ANG going to VietNam were extremely remote.

It's a nice try by the Senior Chief but it doesn't wash. How many folks get accepted into a unit ahead of thousands in a waiting list? How many folks get direct commissions who aren't MDs or JDs? How many people get flight school with pilot aptitude tests of 25%?

No he doesn't, Jade.

He has an honorable discharge - they don't give those to people who are AWOL.

He doesn't have to prove a thing - YOU do.

Oh, by the way - an "Honorable" trumps an officer who "doesn't remember" everytime.

I'd like to believe it's all a big nasty lie, Bill, I really would, but I'm really curious as to why there hasn't been a whole parade of people who served with him coming forward to confirm his story. I'm an Army Reserve vet, and if one of the guys from my unit were being accused of this, I'd be calling the media to set it straight, as would every other guy in the unit.

If the media really wants to sink its teeth into this, they'll do that homework for us; they'll get the names of all the guys in Bush's unit and start asking them what they remember. Then we'll be better able to make a decision on who's telling the truth here.

Let's have BradDad answer the question: why has Bush's story changed? Why won't Bush release his record? Why can't Bush produce a witness to his reserve duty?

Facts are stubborn things, BradDad. Plainly, Bush lied about what he was doing during that missing year and a half. In his autobiography, he told us he was flying with his unit. Later, he told us he couldn't fly because his unit didn't have "the right planes." Still later, Bush says he can't remember what he was doing but that he was doing something.

Which story are you willing to swallow, BradDad?

So say Bush releases his record and none of that shows he was awol, would you accept it. No, I don't think so. It would be, "Oh, he had it doctored". And what if his unit members showed up and said, "Hey I was there and he was there". Would you accept that? No you wouldn't. It would be on to another attack as in, "oh that didn't work, how about this".

Just face it, your hatred of GWB drives you and no amount of evidence will ever change that. Bush derangement syndrome.

Well the left certainly has their witnesses and one of their star witnesses has been revealed as unreliable. The burden of proof still rests on their side and the case falls apart more each time it's investigated.

capt joe -

I agree totally. But the Bush-haters smell blood on this and they're going to push it as far as they can. The latest is their effort to dig up ANG pay records to see whether W ever got paid for the meetings in question. (As an Independent, I must say the whole episode is reminiscent of the hunt for Clinton's draft records.)

JadeGold, arguing strawmen and obfuscating aren't really valid tactics for debate now are they...so why do you and all the other AWOLers rely so heavuly on them? Rather than rebut all your points again, let me just cover the basics:

Let's revisit the facts, shall we?

Links to Documents that show GWB requesting permission to train with the 187th Tac Recon Gp.and that show he got approval.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc2.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif

Link to GWB's DD-214, note status at tope of page (hint:HONORABLE)
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

Link to a document that references to GWB's Honorable Discharge:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif

Link to document that provides chronological listing of GWB's service and his service during the months of May, June and July of 1973:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc16.gif

Links to the UCMJ Aricles 86, 90 and 92:
Absence without Leave: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-86.htm
Disobeying Superior Officer: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-90.htm
Failure to obey regulation: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-90.htm

Now a few comments:
AWOL - I do not think it means what you think it means. Reservist can only be AWOL if they fail to report for yearly training or if they fail to report when their unit is mobilized. Missing your weekend drill does not make you AWOL, missing your two week annual training session does. Did Dubya miss some drill weekends? Yes. Did Dubya miss his annual trainning session? Not that I'm aware of. If you have any proof that he did, please make it available - otherwise it's just another BS unsubstantiated accustaion.

To those who say, "All Bush has to do...", excuse me but exactly where the hell do any of you get off telling the President to do jack? All y'all are the ones spouting off about Bush being AWOL or a deserter. The BS baseless accusations are being made by you, not him and the weight of the record evidence and the bulk of the testimony from those that have served in the military support the President and not your BS black helicopter conspiracy theories about Dubya and his family connections. So either put up or shut the F*&% up and get on with your lives.

And another thing - "technically speaking"? WTF is up with that? "Technically speaking" translates as - "Well, you're right. But I cannot aknowledge that fact because I've built a lovely set of strawmen and I've dredged up buckets if mud and bile to smear the president with so I'll just ignore the truth and keep asking for more proof."

Next, for all those military/aviation/history experts who are nattering on about the antiquated F-102 and that it wasn't in Viet Nam when Bush was Qualified, let's be clear here: F-102's were flown in Viet Nam by several air guard units as part of Palace Alert through Jun of 1970. Bush qualified the same month that Palace Alert was shutting down and though he lacked the number of hours they wanted in a pilot (1,000+) he volunteered anyway. While it was extemely probable that he wouldn't go to Viet Nam at that time, nothing in the military is ever certain. So was volunteering a safe bet? Probably. Would I have done it? Hell no.

Finally, Did Dubya get favorable treatment in line jumping to get into the TANG? Sure, I don't doubt it. What's your point? Do you think that Gore didn't use Daddy's status as a Senator to get a nice job as a hack writer serving in the rear areas? You betcha. What's your point? That life is unfair? Get over it.

How many folks get direct commissions who aren't MDs or JDs? About 11% according to the Air Force. Apparently it helps to have a really high score on the officer aptitude section.

Finally - we all know that GWB received an Honorable Discharge, it's not a supposition it's a documented fact. An Honorable Discharge means you completed your service and performed honorably, meeting or exceeding the standards of performance and conduct. It cannot be awarded anyone who was AWOL or had an Unauthorized Absence prior to being discharged - that's a fact of military life. So if y'all want to continue with the charade let's see some sources and document your accusations or STFU and give this dead damn horse a rest.

JadeGold, arguing strawmen and obfuscating aren't really valid tactics for debate now are they...so why do you and all the other AWOLers rely so heavuly on them? Rather than rebut all your points again, let me just cover the basics:

Let's revisit the facts, shall we?

Links to Documents that show GWB requesting permission to train with the 187th Tac Recon Gp.and that show he got approval.
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc2.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif

Link to GWB's DD-214, note status at tope of page (hint:HONORABLE)
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif

Link to a document that references to GWB's Honorable Discharge:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif

Link to document that provides chronological listing of GWB's service and his service during the months of May, June and July of 1973:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc16.gif

Links to the UCMJ Aricles 86, 90 and 92:
Absence without Leave: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-86.htm
Disobeying Superior Officer: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-90.htm
Failure to obey regulation: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/ucmj/blart-90.htm

Now a few comments:
AWOL - I do not think it means what you think it means. Reservist can only be AWOL if they fail to report for yearly training or if they fail to report when their unit is mobilized. Missing your weekend drill does not make you AWOL, missing your two week annual training session does. Did Dubya miss some drill weekends? Yes. Did Dubya miss his annual trainning session? Not that I'm aware of. If you have any proof that he did, please make it available - otherwise it's just another BS unsubstantiated accustaion.

To those who say, "All Bush has to do...", excuse me but exactly where the hell do any of you get off telling the President to do jack? All y'all are the ones spouting off about Bush being AWOL or a deserter. The BS baseless accusations are being made by you, not him and the weight of the record evidence and the bulk of the testimony from those that have served in the military support the President and not your BS black helicopter conspiracy theories about Dubya and his family connections. So either put up or shut the F*&% up and get on with your lives.

And another thing - "technically speaking"? WTF is up with that? "Technically speaking" translates as - "Well, you're right. But I cannot aknowledge that fact because I've built a lovely set of strawmen and I've dredged up buckets if mud and bile to smear the president with so I'll just ignore the truth and keep asking for more proof."

Next, for all those military/aviation/history experts who are nattering on about the antiquated F-102 and that it wasn't in Viet Nam when Bush was Qualified, let's be clear here: F-102's were flown in Viet Nam by several air guard units as part of Palace Alert through Jun of 1970. Bush qualified the same month that Palace Alert was shutting down and though he lacked the number of hours they wanted in a pilot (1,000+) he volunteered anyway. While it was extemely probable that he wouldn't go to Viet Nam at that time, nothing in the military is ever certain. So was volunteering a safe bet? Probably. Would I have done it? Hell no.

Finally, Did Dubya get favorable treatment in line jumping to get into the TANG? Sure, I don't doubt it. What's your point? Do you think that Gore didn't use Daddy's status as a Senator to get a nice job as a hack writer serving in the rear areas? You betcha. What's your point? That life is unfair? Get over it.

How many folks get direct commissions who aren't MDs or JDs? About 11% according to the Air Force. Apparently it helps to have a really high score on the officer aptitude section.

Finally - we all know that GWB received an Honorable Discharge, it's not a supposition it's a documented fact. An Honorable Discharge means you completed your service and performed honorably, meeting or exceeding the standards of performance and conduct. It cannot be awarded anyone who was AWOL or had an Unauthorized Absence prior to being discharged - that's a fact of military life. So if y'all want to continue with the charade let's see some sources and document your accusations or STFU and give this dead damn horse a rest.

First of all, I don't think this is a really important issue. Are we suddenly going to conclude that Bush isn't fit to be President? Well golly, guess what he's doing now.

However, I am curious about this issue, since it doesn't seem to have been definitely resolved, and that seems odd. How complicated can this be?

My understanding is that:

1. Bush's record was examined and there is a 7-month gap from May 1972 to November 1972 where there is no record that he performed any service. He was in Alabama at the time, and his 2 superior officers there say that he never showed up for duty.

2. He was formally suspended after failing to take his annual physical.

3. He went from Alabama to Houston in November 1972. His 2 commanding officers in Houston there failed to complete his annual report in May 1973, writing that he had not been observed in Houston, and noting that he had been training in Alabama -- even though he was not training in Alabama.

My questions are:

1. Is any of this inaccurate? (My primary source is the dailyhowler.com website. If any of this is untrue, I would appreciate something more substantial than "that website is done by a Bush-hater.")

2. Why is it not a big deal that Bush missed at least seven months of service, and possibly more? Reading this website, I get the idea that he only needed 4 years of service, and he already fulfilled his quota by the time May 1972 rolled along. But then why we was he still around at all?

I quite enjoy the "Bush-hating scum lie" framework you guys have set up here, but I don't see where these issues have been addressed.

Not one shred of evidence? Just 'your understanding'? Wonder where you got that.

The time missed was made up which was enough for an honorable discharge. Again, AWOL is a specific charge, as is deserter, and there is no evidence he qualified for or was charged with for either, other than fuzzy memories.

paystubs?

bush awol

Tinfoil?

spk jackass

Not one shred of evidence? Just 'your understanding'? Wonder where you got that.

I see that you're exactly the kind of objective person who can keep me informed. It seems fairly clear that Bush missed time -- there are 5 different commanding officers on the record for that, and no named sources who disagree. I cited a source for my "understanding" -- www.dailyhowler.com.

As HH says, AWOL is a specific charge and there is no evidence that Bush was charged with that. However, it is unclear that Bush ever made up the time. He might have, he might not have; the issue is very unclear. Again, you can see the dailyhowler.com site for details. The news media hasn't sorted this out yet, which is embarassing for them, IMO. Or should be.

Finally, this isn't a big deal, as I said before. I just don't know how this story hasn't been definitively resolved though.

bab,

Some of what the Daily Howler has is factually accurate, some of it isn't, and some of it is just off the deep end. A lot of it has to do with the fact that the documents are available via FOIA and if you aren't familiar with Military procedures, as well as the differences between active and reserve life, it's easy to misinterpret things and convince yourself that Bush was AWOL.

Interestingly enough the documents I've linked to are provided by a "Bush AWOL" guy who's lack of familiarity with military procedure and protocol has convinced him that he has proven that the President was in fact AWOL while I've been using the same documents and my own experiences in the Army and knowledge of the military to prove the exact opposite.

GWB does have a gap in his service record where he missed several months of weekend drill. At that time he was no longer on active duty but reserve duty. That's significant because a reservist isn't AWOL if they just miss drill, you simply make up any missed drill later. A reservist is only AWOL if they miss their annual training and Bush made his. He did serve in Alabama at the time and two reviewing officers marked that they had not observed him for the purposes of evaluation. The second page of the review document explains why:

"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 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

It does not say he never showed up for duty but that he was training with the 187 Tactical Recon Group, and I've seen nothing that says he wasn't training with the 187th in Alabama, so I assume that he was. Why? Because in my experience the paperwork is often lost, late or just plain wrong. So I just figure they lost it between Alabama and Texas. I mean, imagine the shock to discover that the military might have lost paperwork about a 1st lieutenant from the TANG performing equivalent training with an AANG unit back in 1972! Surely they made copies and everyone kept one just in case...

Why I don't think it's a big deal in three simple steps:

1 - the Air Force didn't think it was a big deal back in the day and they were a lot closer to the problem than we are. So if it was good enough for them it's good enough for me.

2 - he received an Honorable Discharge. An Honorable Discharge means you completed your service and performed honorably, meeting or exceeding the standards of performance and conduct. It cannot be awarded anyone who was AWOL or had an Unauthorized Absence prior to being discharged - that's a fact of military life. So if the Air Force didn't have a problem with his service and they saw fit to award him an Honorable Discharge, what's the big deal?

3 - most of the people who are suddenly so interested in GWB's service and wether he served his commitment to the armed forces are the same people who normally spit on the armed forces. I find their sudden concern for those wear the uniform (and those of us who have worn the uniform) to be slightly disconcerting and more than a tad disingenuous.

Much as it may surprise you, not everyone who has questions here is a "Bush hater". I've actually been a strong Bush supporter. But as a supporter, I have questions about this issue, and I want answers. I've never been a blind, unwaivering loyalty kinda guy, not for Bush or for anyone else. That, to me, is at least as bad as irrational hatred, and arguably far more dangerous where leaders of great nations are concerned.

I'll answer a couple of bab's questions:

2. He was formally suspended after failing to take his annual physical.

The paperwork I saw stated that he had been "suspended from flight status". Often in military parlance words mean exactly what they say. A grade of "satisfactory" in some inspections is a good as you can get. In this case, I have no doubt that "suspended" simply means he was no longer in a flight status and was offered with no prejudice. For a real-life analog, when I was working with nuclear weapons I was part of the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), a method used to monitor and judge the reliability of members in sensitive positions. However, when I had a very bad cold and was prescribed a medicine with codeine, my service record was annotated "removed from PRP". Unless you understand that this was just an administrative requirement it could, taken by itself, look pretty bad.

3. He went from Alabama to Houston in November 1972. His 2 commanding officers in Houston there failed to complete his annual report in May 1973, writing that he had not been observed in Houston, and noting that he had been training in Alabama -- even though he was not training in Alabama.

Again, words mean what they say. "Not observed" is a common phrase that is shorthand for "I have to write a report on this person for administrative reasons, but I cannot make a meaningful report that is fair to both the member and his peers (against which he is compared) because I haven't personally seen enough of his performance." In the NOB (Not OBserved) it even says why. Again, from personal experience, I have probably had at least a half dozen NOBs in my 17 years, usually because I had been at the command too short a period to make a meaningful evaluation of my performance against my peers.

I have intentionally stayed away from the first question of service in Alabama (also aluded to in the tail of question 3), as I only wanted to address old cannards that I have heard many times that fly in the face of my personal experience. I feel the "seven month gap" (which really represents fourteen days of work) is probably a case of missing paperwork. While I am aware of one COL not recalling him, I believe I have also read accounts from others who do. Considering that he seems to have made up these 14 days on other non-scheduled drills, it's not surprising to me that most people in Alabama don't remember someone who wasn't really a part of their regular unit and just showed up a few times to make up work.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, guys. I appreciate it.

captjoe: "So say Bush releases his record and none of that shows he was awol, would you accept it. "

Again, every candidate with military experience has not been the least bit hesitant to release their military records. Except Bush.

Why?

No, captjoe, this is merely whining on your part. If Bush was willing to prove he drilled as he's claimed, it would shut up the Michael Moores (and JadeGolds).

OTOH, what does it say about your credibility when you're willing to believe and defend someone who has already lied to you about his service? Let's just recap a few of the lies. Bush claimed he received no preferential treatment to gain entry into the TX ANG. Yet, several TX politicians have said they greased the way for Bush. Next, the disputed NG service; Bush claimed in his 1999 autobiography ("A Charge to Keep")he was flying with his unit. During the 2000 campaign, Bush amended this to say he was with a unit that didn't have "the right planes." Still later, Bush admits he can't remember what he was doing.

Robert Modean is being a bit dishonest when he claimed "About 11% according to the Air Force" receive direct commissions.

http://www.princetonreview.com/cte/articles/military/airforcedc.asp

"Candidates for direct commission enter the USAF as trained professionals in the medical, legal, engineering or religious fields. Special consideration is given to their unique educational backgrounds and experience, and as a result direct commission candidates are not required to undergo the standard military training regimen. Only approximately 11% of officers entering the USAF are judged eligible for Direct Commission. Candidates are admitted via Direct Commission due to the Air Force's need for their specialized professional skills; all are screened quite thoroughly. As a result, only a recruiter will be able to answer specific questions about eligibility as well as questions about rank upon enlistment. Direct commission officers typically make a standard 4-year service commitment."

Note that George Bush didn't meet a single criteria for direct a commission. Nor did he make a standard 4-year service commitment.

Frankly, Submandave is creating more canards than he is dispelling.

Bush cannot produce a witness to his service during this disputed period. Nor, apparently, does he remember what he did.

Perhaps, Submandave will tell us the value to our nation and our armed services of having a reservist who apparently did nothing and reported to no one? It seems logical (and more cost-effective) to fill reserve units with inexpensive paperweights if the goal is to do nothing and not interact with anyone.

Moreover, Submandave seems to believe that one could go missing for a year due to lost paperwork. This is utter nonsense. This means not only has a unit's attendance paperwork gone AWOL--but so have pay records, income tax records, mess bills, retirement point records, duty logs, security logs, etc. have also mysteriously disappeared. Gosh, the pattern seems to be if it had Bush's name on it--it disappeared.

Another misconception by Mr. Modean should be addressed.

"Next, for all those military/aviation/history experts who are nattering on about the antiquated F-102 and that it wasn't in Viet Nam when Bush was Qualified, let's be clear here: F-102's were flown in Viet Nam by several air guard units as part of Palace Alert through Jun of 1970. Bush qualified the same month that Palace Alert was shutting down and though he lacked the number of hours they wanted in a pilot (1,000+) he volunteered anyway."

Mr. Modean is counting on readers without military backgrounds to assume the AF suddenly shut down the F-102 program in June of 1970.

The military never shuts any program down suddenly unless there's an enormous, heretofore undiscovered safety problem discovered.

Usually, programs are "sunsetted" or phased out over a period of several years. It's a sound practice; it's cost-effective from the standpoint of wringing the most service life out of an asset while at the same time introducing the replacement assets into deployment. Thus, it's a certainty the F-102 program was earmarked for extinction several years prior to Bush even thinking about what strings to pull to get into the NG.

What is this "burden of proof" business about Bush being AWOL? As if there is some gentleman's agreement in politics that each side must prove a statement made against a candidate according to some standard of proof!!!??? How funny that all nature of charges were thrown at Clinton and Gore that were never proven. How many times have I heard someone joke about how Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet"? He never said it if you check the record, but that doesn't stop conservatives on the attack. Fine, in politics everything is fair game and if the "Bush was AWOL" charge is such a "lie" that you claim it to be, then the Democrats are suicidal to use it. It would be nice if you whining conservatives would stop crying about playing this political game under the rules that you have established. Better yet, keep whining and complaining and the American public will see you for what you are.

So two wrongs make a right... and "Gore never said it" is a tad misleading as well, as he said he took the initiative in creating it, which judging by those words and comparing them with the facts, is also a misleading statement.

To take a note from Josh Marshall, if you really, really believe Bush was AWOL you can convince yourself, lack of proof be damned.

HH misses the point. Most likely, deliberately.

Gore's "internet" claim can be verified; the entire transcript is there for anyone and everyone to see.

OTOH, Bush claims service during a time when the only documentation that exists notes that he is missing. And to fog up the issue even more, Bush's story concerning this time period has changed 4 or 5 times.

I'd suggest HH look at the latest from Josh Marshall which has a very good idea from Phil Carter (one I've advanced previously).

The "Gore created the Internet" legend did lead to a largely accurate refection that Gore was prone to self-puffery, even if the acutual facts were not technically accurate. Similarly, "the Bush was AWOL" statements confirm the popularly held view that Bush has been coddled and protected throughout his life because of the privileged family he was brought up in. To me, it's all politics from both sides. To the extent that I call conservatives whiners, there are just as many liberal whiners.

WooHoo! JadeGold learns how to GOOGLE!

No, seriously. I have asked JadeGold repeatedly to cite and source if the accusations were to continue and I laud him/her for doing so. I do however protest, albeit mildly, that I was being dishonest in my claim. You see JadeGold et al. have continually dressed up the fact of GWB's direct commission as if it was the smoking gun, some how proving he got preferential treatment and we must all start despising him as much as they do. Sorry, but that's not quite right.

Now I will agree with JadeGold, that in fact GWB did not meet any of the criteria for a direct commission nor did he sign a standard four year service contract (he actually signed a six year contract and served 5 years, 4 months and 5 days). Of course this is only relevant if GWB started off his career in the TANG as a 2nd Lt. and bypassed the standard military training regimen. He didn't and it isn't.

Bush had graduated from Yale with a BA and prior to entering the TANG he went to Westover AFB to test as a pilot candidate. We all know the results: he scored a qualifying grade (barely) on the pilot section with a 25%, he was better as a navigator with a promising 50%, but it was the officer's aptitude section that no one seems to want to discuss - GWB scored in the 95th percentile when the standard at the time was 88th percentile, that's an outstanding score even today. So if you've got a young guy who graduated from Yale and enlisted as an Airman who just happens to have an outstanding aptitude to be an officer, why is it surprising that he was given a direct commission? If his name was John Smith and he was a pig farmer from Iowa would you care? I didn't think so.

Mr. Modean: You were caught in an unfortunate untruth. As you note, direct commissions (in the AF) are given to about 11%. Of course, you omitted the operative detail--that one must have a specialized professional skill or advanced degree.

Bush simply didn't qualify under any of these criteria.

Again, Mr. Modean attempts to snow those without military backgrounds into believing a score in the 95th percentile on a leadership test is something rare. It isn't. I'll wager most college grads could score higher than Bush.

I still can't believe all of this is being talked about. I don't profess to know everything about this story. But let's examine a few facts:

For all of those who are accusing Bush of being AWOL, a deserter, etc. When you accuse someone of doing that, you must have evidence. When you drop the conspiracy theory out there, and don't support it, you are immediately surrendering all intellectual credibility you have or had. Period.

What if someone just suggested, 'Well, a girl was raped in town last night, and Bob claims he was at home alone. But no one saw him at home, he didn't talk to anyone, so it's very plausible that he is lying and is guilty.'

There is a reason why people aren't just arrested. It's called INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Even in a forum like this, it is good form to actually have evidence when you are accusing someone of something. Your hollowness is resounding. I bet most of you were on forums years ago defending everything Clinton did, even when there was resounding evidence supporting accusations against him. I bet not one of you ever accused Gore of using his connections to get out of dangerous Nam duty, even though there have been people who testified that they were ordered to keep Gore out of harms way. Yet not one word from you, because you agree with his political stances.

Personally, I don't care or give one rat's ass whether Clinton got out of service due to an educational deferment, or if Bush got out by joining the National Guard. That was the game back then. Everyone tried to avoid the draft. If you did it legally, good for you. If you ran to Canada, shame on you. Dean is probably the most guilty, he avoided it with a medical deferment for his bad back, then spent 14 months skiing in Aspen. Gee, have any of you Bush haters said ONE WORD about that? I doubt it.

Lastly, any of you more than 35 years old, can you remember everything you did 25 years ago? 20 years ago? I can't remember jack from that far back. That is not an excuse, just a fact. If someone came and asked me to document things about a job that far back, I wouldn't be able to tell them 95% of the people I had worked with. Maybe some of you raise some good questions. Maybe you don't. But if you have any proof at all, bring it on. Otherwise, start exercising some intellectual credibility and STFU. If this was a Democrat you liked, you would have shut up LONG AGO and proclaimed him worthy of the title of POTUS. At least be honest and admit that the only reason you are still talking about it is because he is a Republican.

It was 30 friggin' years ago.

I would "not remember" just about everything personally. Heck, I don't remember alot from 5 years ago.

Unfortunately, Bush haters have the burden of proof to show he dissapeared for a year. And apparently he was a great pilot, so why wouldn't it be better for him to fly and fight than be on hte ground and shot? This twisted logic that dictates you must take the most dangerous job to do your duty is poppycock.

So as not to confuse those readers unfamiliar with the military, a direct commission means an armed service commissions someone as an officer without OCS (Officer Candidate School) or successful competion of an ROTC or Federal Military Academy program.

The armed services do this to recruit those with specialized skills or qualifications (i.e.; lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc.) Usually this requires advanced degrees and/or significant experience in that particular expertise.

A BA from Yale just wouldn't make it. And Bush frankly admitted his academic background was somewhat spotty.

Another strawman setup By JadeGold needs to yet again be dealt with. I didn't count on readers assuming anything, that's your department JadeGold.

Now to address the latest load of crap.

"The military never shuts any program down suddenly unless there's an enormous, heretofore undiscovered safety problem discovered."
I agree. I can almost hear you gasp with delight, but then if you ever took off the partisan ray-bans and actually read what I wrote instead of attempting to impart some deeper, sinister meaning to it maybe we wouldn't have to keep going back and correcting your mistakes, like the next doozy.

"...Thus, it's a certainty the F-102 program was earmarked for extinction several years prior to Bush even thinking about what strings to pull to get into the NG."

Actually JadeGold, the F-102 Delta Dagger was originally designed to intercept Soviet bombers coming over the North Pole. As an interceptor it had no guns but did carry 6 radar-guided missiles. The plane was the third in the century class and entered service in 1954. They were underpowered and very dangerous to fly, in fact the whole century class was dangerous to fly. They were very active in Viet Nam through 1969 by which time the F-105 had largely replaced them and the program Operation "Palace Alert" had begun winding down. The F-102's were not retired from service until 1976 and I fail to see what bearing that has on anything anyway.

The fact is that you simply resent GWB your real problem with him is the class and priviledge and what you assume he did to get where he is. It is you, JadeGold, who've not been honest with anyone, let alone yourself, as to your need to continue to troll and post errant "gotcha!" notes. I laud your tenacity but if you have something of substance to say that doesn't boil down to, "George Bush came from a rich family and used his father's influence to get ahead and I don't like him so there! *Nyah!*", please share that next time otherwise do shut up.

Greg: "I would "not remember" just about everything personally. Heck, I don't remember alot from 5 years ago."

The problem is Bush has said he can't remember only recently--after having claimed he was flying and having claimed he wasn't flying because his unit didn't have "the right planes."

He only said he couldn't remember after it came to light he had his flight status suspended and was ineligible to fly any military aircraft.

Stranger still is the fact nobody has come forward to say they served with Bush during this disputed period of time. Surely, you'd think somebody might have remembered a guy who got appointed president of the US.

Think about it. I can remember going to second grade with a kid who grew up to be a very successful TV and Movie producer. I can remember playing HS and college football against several guys who wound up in the NFL.

Let me settle this, please. You Bush devotees are in for a shock. Rcords have been found documenting Bush's so-called AWOL months in 1972-'73. They have been sent to Kerry to use as he wishes. The Democratic National Committee is giddy over the prospect that Bush will not only be soon revealed as a Vietnam coward but be caught in a lie of historic size.

TommyJ:

Yes, you're correct, there is no official "burden of proof" involved in slinging baseless charges at a political figure. Yes, the repubs did that throughout the 90s at Clinton. I hated them for it, and voted for Clinton largely because of it. Now the Dems are doing the same thing, and I hate it. Not because they're hurling accusations, but because they have nothing to back it up and because it's so obviously a mark of the same sort of impotence the repubs showed with Clinton.

All you guys have to do is provide evidence. If Bush is really that bad, it shouldn't be so hard.

Please don't embarrass yourself further, Mr. Modean. The F-102 Program as you correctly mention, was a bomber interceptor. As the NVA had no bombers (save for prop jobs which the pilots would toss grenades from an open cockpit window), the F-102's utility in Vietnam was limited and had been rotated out of deployment in VietNam and the time Bush qualified.

By 1972, the F-102 had largely been phased out of Europe.

Again, Mr. Modean, the F-102 Program had been sunsetted by the time Bush Sr. had prevailed on Bob Bullock to see if his son could get into the TX ANG.

JadeGold: "Mr. Modean attempts to snow those without military backgrounds into believing a score in the 95th percentile on a leadership test is something rare. It isn't. I'll wager most college grads could score higher than Bush."

By definition, 1 in 20 score at the 95th percentile or better. I'll gladly take the bet.

Actually JadeGold, I don't have the time to continue this lovely dance as you continue to obfuscate, change direction and selectively address issues. And by the by, if you think a 95th percentile is that easy to get on the Officer Aptitude section you either fail to compehend the concept of the normal distribution or it is you who is once again deliberately misstating the facts. By virtue of being in the 95th percentile 94% of those who take the test were below him in ability. Again you neglect to include facts that fail to support your bias, such as the fact that an 88th percentile was the average, meaning Bush was doing far better than the average college grad who took the test. You said, "I'll wager most college grads could score higher than Bush." Not only do I doubt that my friend, I doubt if you could score as high as Bush.

Now I did not say that a BA from Yale would do the job, again you deliberately misstate me to build your case. Shame shame JadeGold, it seems your little lies are getting out of hand. I said, "if you've got a young guy who graduated from Yale and enlisted as an Airman who just happens to have an outstanding aptitude to be an officer, why is it surprising that he was given a direct commission?" You didn't answer that question, either because you cannot or because you will not. Either way I am done for the day. Carry on without me JadeGold, I'm sure you'll find plenty of opponents to take up the fight.

Tom C: Since the exams are also given to HS grads and not a few in search of a GED--I'd love to make the bet. Simpson's Rule and all.

Unless college graduates make up no more than 10% of the test takers, you lose. Don't embarass yourself (as you regularly admonish others) by making me explain the math to you.

>>>submandave: The paperwork I saw stated that he had been "suspended from flight status". Often in military parlance words mean exactly what they say. A grade of "satisfactory" in some inspections is a good as you can get. In this case, I have no doubt that "suspended" simply means he was no longer in a flight status and was offered with no prejudice. For a real-life analog, when I was working with nuclear weapons I was part of the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP), a method used to monitor and judge the reliability of members in sensitive positions. However, when I had a very bad cold and was prescribed a medicine with codeine, my service record was annotated "removed from PRP". Unless you understand that this was just an administrative requirement it could, taken by itself, look pretty bad.

___

I believe the relevant document is here: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

It also says that "Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination." This doesn't sound like a "technicality" to me, but I could be wrong.

____

It seems that the big issue is whether or not Bush served at all after May 1972. There's a "torn" document:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc99.gif

that supposedly records Bush's service in the 1972-1973 year, but Bush's name isn't on the record, only his middle initial. The social security on the sheet has been "redacted." If it's Bush's, there's really no story here; if it's not, then there are a lot more questions to be answered.

don't forget to mention you went to a "federal" institution for your higher learning, JadeGold - then again I have yet to see where you have answered that question any where it has been asked.

and just for sh*ts & giggles check out what else JadeGold thinks:

http://jadegold.blogspot.com

not many of you know, but JadeGold is a serial troll. he dances around the facts without hardly answering the questions posed to him. the evidence is out there he needs medication, just do as JadeGold does, and google his name.

How many times have I heard someone joke about how Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet"? He never said it if you check the record, but that doesn't stop conservatives on the attack.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

That's a direct quote. Let's not quibble about the difference between the verbs "to invent" and "to create", shall we?

Ooh, Harry. We're so scared.

Of course, John Kerry's despicable acts on the homefront after returning from an abbreviated tour are well documented.

Reid tells us of Kerry's "despicable acts" which include exercising his First Amendment rights after winning a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts in a war which Bush and Cheney actively avoided.

My, how terrible.

BTW, for those who might be interested--my fan "Anon" is named Victor Ramirez.

He thinks he has a 'cool' beard.

And, it appears he got those purple hearts by shooting dead soldiers and, I dunno, paper cuts.

Harry: Sure they have. And we'll believe you when we see them, no? (I imagine that since they're So Very Important, there's some good, moral, for-America's-best-interests reason they were only sent to Kerry's Campaign, and not, say, Newsweek, Time, and the NY Times, right?)

Everyone: You're actually treating JadeGold as a serious person who is susceptible to mere reason and logic? Ah, the folly of inexperience.

Bab: You realise that an SSN is "private" information, and that it's "redacted" because it's a big bad no-no to publish it without permission, right? And "suspended" for not "accomplishing" a medical exam? Right. "Missed the exam, so suspended from flying". No relation to AWOL status at all. The military has this strange habit of saying exactly what it means, even if they use strange acronyms or phrasings to say it. When they say someone was suspended from flight status for missing a physical, it means exactly that and not some other thing.

I agree completely with Brad et. al. - an Honorable Discharge removes any plausible doubt about completing terms of service.

(Also, I personally know people who were in the reserves ... and I also know that missing a training session is not significant, as long as you make them up. Even beign gone for months, if that is the case, doesn't matter, as long as the requirements are met. An honorable discharge indicates that they were met. What's difficult about this? The fact that it's Bush, evidently.)

Wow, just amazing. I'm sitting here shaking my head in amazement at this.

I'll tell you this - I have two children growing up in this great country, and they remember 9/11. They know, and I know, that there are some very deadly people in the world who hate us and want to destroy us - NOT because of anything we've done, but simply because of who we are.

For me it boils down to this: who do I want as our Commander in Chief - President Bush, who recognizes the urgency of defending ourselves, or a man who threw *someone else's* medals over a fence, and who's voting record is left of Bush, who believes we need the approval of the UN to act?

People who believe that are blind to the makeup of the UN. I'm not calling for us to leave the UN, but we should be wise enough to realize most of the inhabitats of that building love to see us smacked around.

And *puhlease* don't embarrass yourselves with whining "but WHY do they hate us." If a mugger comes after my wife or kids, I couldn't care less why he's a mugger. Our nation has done more - and continues to do more - to help other nations than anyone else. Why, is beyond me.

"BTW, for those who might be interested--my fan "Anon" is named Victor Ramirez.

He thinks he has a 'cool' beard."

>Wrong again, JadeGold, as usual.
>Just ask Victor.
>But thanks for playing.

I think it's actually pretty clear what happened. Let me say at the outset that I don't much care what President Bush did 30 years ago regarding this so-called "issue". The real energy behind this issue is the way that the President wraps himself in the American flag and sends supporters, surrogates and sympathizers out to say that those who don't agree with him regarding various aspects of his foreign policy are unpatriotic or worse. People haven't forgotten Max Cleland's mugging. That is what gives this phony issue legs in an emotional sense.

So here's what I believe. Don't ask me to prove it. I've been following this on the howler and here and have looked at all the statements and sources you folks cite. But this is only opinion.

George Bush graduated from Yale and wasn't much interested in getting drafted into the Army. His father got him into the Air National Guard, and not just any Air National Guard unit, but one that was chock full of privileged sons of Texas. As somebody three years younger than Bush, I remember how incredibly difficult it was to get into the National Guard, in any branch, in the late '60's. It took pull, and George Bush had it in spades.

By the end of '71 or so, and certainly by '72, Vietnamization was in full swing. Force levels in Vietnam were dropping dramatically, and draft boards across the country were needing fewer and fewer men. The one where I took my physical, in the summer of '72, was finding half of the candidates physically unfit to serve. The likelihood of somebody who was less than assiduous in fulfilling all his Guard duties going over there, or in fact almost anybody who didn't want to go going over there, was miniscule by that time. I think he accidentally fell through the cracks by being transferred back and forth in '72, that nobody cared much, and he decided he didn't either. I doubt very much he planned it. It was just easy and expedient.

Remember that the George Bush of those days, by his own admission, was quite different than today's George Bush.

As for the honorable discharge, well, as many have pointed out, military records of the time weren't faultless, as though they ever are. Can you seriously imagine some low-level functionary denying the son of George Bush an honorary discharge based on these facts in 1973, with the way the country was in those days? I can't. The country was also quite different in 1973 than it is today.

As I said, I don't care about this issue.

I do care about his fundamentalist religious approach to issues of social policy, his feckless, swaggering foreign policy, his Machiavellian (and I mean this quite literally: Karl Rove is a great fan of The Prince) advisors, the consequent dissembling manipulation of public opinion in which he and his Administration engage, the degree to which he embraces crony capitalism, his irresponsible fiscal policy, and his instinct for comforting the already comfortable. Those things I care about.

But I don't hate him, and I'm not angry.

This is a great discussion. I find it amusing that the anti-Bush forces play so fast and loose with the "facts," and in the same breath claim that it is no different from the Clinton bashing of the late 1990s. They’re right as to the latter point, of course. BUT AREN’T THEY ALSO ADMITTING THAT THERE CLAIMS ARE ALL BASED ON LIES AND HALF-TRUTHS?

While the available record seems to favor Bush's version of events, doesn't it seem wise for him to dig up a few people he served with to corroborate his story? True, it won't quell some of his critics - nothing would - but it seems the right thing to do politically and it can't be that hard. Can it?

And wouldn't this destroy the credibility of the anti-Bush forces?

But wait! Look at most of the figureheads on the far left and the far right. Why, they lie all the time! Not misstate the facts, either. I mean bold faced, 100% (or at least 99.9%) provable lies.

An example, you say? Well, if you read this far, look what "TommyJ" says above:

"How many times have I heard someone joke about how Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet"? He never said it if you check the record, but that doesn't stop conservatives on the attack."

"Jade Gold" adds:

"Gore's "internet" claim can be verified; the entire transcript is there for anyone and everyone to see."

Why yes, Jade Gold, it is!

And just like the NFL, we have INSTANT REPLAY. So let’s take a look.

Here is the background: It's March 9, 1999. Gore's infamous statement is made during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition". (Sorry I can’t link to the transcript, but you can find it if you look.)
BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.
Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?
GORE: Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.
But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.
During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.
Let’s look at what he said again:

“During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

Was he misquoted? No. Were his words taken out of context? No. Did he mean to say he actually invented it? No. But the statement was made in the context of Gore claiming credit for lots of “initiatives” that “have proven important” to the quality of life in this country. He was bragging about his record and his words are as plain as day. They were fodder for so many jokes because, YES, he actually said “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

And you want to know the real kicker, folks. I don’t even give a shit. Not about Gore and the Internet, not about something Bush did or didn’t do 30 years ago, not about Clinton dodging the draft, and for that matter, not too much about Monica Lewinsky. (I do care about Mary Jo Kopechne, though.)

If you think this kind of stuff is important, I mean really critical to the future of the country, then that’s the real problem with this country, not George Bush, AL Gore, Bill Clinton or John Kerry.

And for the record, I am not that fond of Bush myself. But every time a Democrat opens his mouth to criticize the man – and he and the Republicans have earned some criticism – I hear only distortions and lies from the left. Rarely, if ever, do I hear an honest critique, free of rhetoric, demagoguery and outright lies – unless I look to the “Right”, that is. Read Sullivan, Reynolds, Volokh, Kaus, Jarvis, et al. I’d say they are all Independent, but the Left likes to call them Right Wingers – AND THAT’S THE FUCKING PROBLEM!

And those on the Left are incapable of seeing it. And as such, they have no credibility with me. None. Whatever they say, I tend to believe the exact opposite is true. You know why?

Because it usually is!

As a former Naval Air Reserve air crew member who went to Vietnam, and who lost squadronmates in STATESIDE training, I find this stuff pretty disgusting. As someone who lost his best friend in a stateside training accident in the New Mexico Air Guard, I find it painful. As someone who never got paid for any of his reserve training at his second reserve duty station, I know all about records getting lost (there is still no evidence that I ever was in that squadron).

More on this here.

For info on Kerry's "contribution" after the war and how veterans feel about it, go here, and then read all the comments.

Well, I was waiting for JG to get on a high horse again. Then I was going to mention this.

"For his actions that day, Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. Some controversy would arise with concern to the incident years later though when during a close election with William Weld in 1996, the Boston Globe's David Warsh questioned the circumstances of Kerry's heroism that day. Evidence emerged that the Viet Cong who had fired the rocket was alone and had already been wounded by the gunner on the ship. "

Wounded? Those were 50 caliber rounds! He was probably cut in half.

Questions have been raised on whether Bush received special treatment because of political connections. Kerry's family was not unconnected. Think that had nothing to do with him getting those fancy medals?

"Soon after his birth, the Kerry family returned to Massachusetts. This, however, was only a temporary residence for young Kerry, who was destined for an unusually privileged upbringing. Kerry's father, a diplomat in the Foreign Service, and his mother, Rosemary, was a member of the Boston Brahmin Forbes family, whose wealth is drawn primarily from its land holdings on Cape Cod, made certain that Kerry received the best education that their positions could afford him. Kerry was educated at Swiss boarding schools and attended an elite private school in New Hampshire, before enrolling in Yale University. "

Sigivald: "Also, I personally know people who were in the reserves ... and I also know that missing a training session is not significant, as long as you make them up. "

True enough. The only thing you're omitting is that reservists must get permission from their superiors and receive an authorized leave of absence.

And this permission is usually incumbent on things like medical emergencies, family problems, or cases where reserve duty might endanger employment.

A reservist cannot decide, unilaterally, that he or she wants to take a year or so off.

So, all Bush needs to do is produce that paperwork where a leave of absence was granted.

Malloy hits the nail on the head.

As I've posted before, nobody's going to prosecute Bush or make him serve as an E-1 or take away his discharge papers.

The fact that he shirked his military duties is just another event in a pattern of events where Bush has been handed unearned and unmerited opportunities on a silver platter and he's failed or otherwise screwed up. Then his family connections bail him out.

It happened with the TX ANG. It happened with Arbusto, Harken, and the Texas Rangers. He fails and is rewarded for failing. And then--after time--his failure is spun into a virtue.

I'll just quote TomCom in the Baldilocks comments: "In any event, those who accuse Pres B 43 of being AWOL, including, especially including, good civil libertarians who'd generally be among the first to tell us that someone is innocent 'til proven guilty, have the burden of proof with respect to this charge. It's an offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice & can get a perp some jail time."

Marshall's credibility on this (as if it wasn't on other issues) has been shot now that even the Daily Howler isn't buying it.

I took my analysis from the transcript and from an investigation... unless the term "creating" is from some Martian dictionary, Gore was exaggerating.

JadeGold -

John Moore ate your lunch. And you're not even particularly useful.

http://reason.com/9905/ed.vp.source.shtml

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/04/gore/index.html

"Vinton Cerf, the Stanford researcher who sketched out a design for the Internet in 1973, seconds that emotion: 'It is entirely fitting that the vice president take some credit for helping to create an environment in which Internet could thrive.'" Except Gore didn't say that just as he didn't say he "invented" it. Other defenders, without saying so in so many words, twist what he said into Gore saying he helped a whole lot with the internet. But he said what he said and if it's wrong to attack him for what he didn't specifically say, it's just as wrong to defend what he didn't specifically say. Salon, of course, didn't tell its readers here of Cerf's connections to the Clinton/Gore White House.

Tonto: I lose sleep over what John Moore thinks. I really do.

Again, HH is using Scott McClellan's talking points: Bush has an 'honorable discharge' so he must have done his time.

Of course, Bush also jumped to the front of waiting list of thousands to get into the TX ANG and received a direct commission and got into flight school (despite laugably low pilot aptitude scores) all on merit, too. Logical fallacy.

jadegold,

I am curious as to what makes you such an expert on military affairs? When did you serve? Which branch? What outfit? You denigrate the senior chief, his experience and his statements yet you provide us with no background on yourself. What are your bonifides (credentials if you will)?

P.S. Before you ask, I served in the AF from 1969-1973 and also recieved an honorable discharge. I also remember them losing my records when moving them from the old admin office to the new one.

JadeGold -

John Moore ate your lunch. With relish. Please excuse his burp.

Free-thinking, non-partisan jury of one here. Yes, he most certainly did.

Mr. Finger: First, to be clear, I did not denigrate the Senior Chief or his experience. I merely noted he created a number of strawmen--some completely unrelated to this subject--and proceeded to knock them down.

Second, if you wish for my bona fides--you may request them via my provided email. I graduated from one of our federal military academies, served as a commissioned officer on active duty and the reserves, and continue to work within the DoD community.

Third, as I've noted, the military--like any large bureaucratic organization can and does lose or misplace paperwork. However, it doesn't lose track of someone for a year and a half. Also, even if the AF lost every record that had your name on it--I'll bet you could produce someone that could vouch that you were where you said you were.

Sheesh - talk about making mountains out of molehills. As an example of what can occur in the Reserves/NG; I joined the Navy Reserve in 1963 with a six year total obligation. This included two years on active duty as a Radioman. Upon being released from active duty, I went back home and reported to my reserve unit for duty. I was "supposed" to spend the remaining 2 1/2 years of my enlistment in a "drilling" status (one weekend a month.) In reality, the local unit had all of the Radiomen they needed, and I was allowed to go into "Inactive" status at no prejudice to myself and my records were retired. The next year, I decided that I really had liked being in the Navy and reenlisted in the Regular Navy. As part of this process my service record was reconstituted from whatever records that had been retained by the Navy from my previous Reserve enlistment. Surprise! very little remained. Much of what I had done in the Navy from 1963-1967 totally evaporated and can never be proven/disproven from official records. Its so very easy to make assumptions about something you have never been involved in.

Hate to throw a ringer into this discussion, but when I was a naval reservist I broke my leg in an industrial accident and could not drill for some time. I could complete a required correspondence course and receive points that enabled me to have a satifactory year. Did GWB do the same?

USNR LT, onetime pilot trainee, USNA grad checking in...

I didn't have the patience to scroll through this whole thing, but I have two comments I'd like to make.

First, any discussion of the Air Force's current direct commission policy is irrelevant unless someone can show me that the same policy was in effect at the time of Bush's commissioning.

Second: "Tom C: Since the exams are also given to HS grads and not a few in search of a GED--I'd love to make the bet. Simpson's Rule and all."

No, those exams are not given to high school grads. You're probably thinking of the ASVAB. The ASVAB does not have an officer aptitude section. It tests general science, math, language, and mechanical aptitude, and that's it. Different test for officer candidates--the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test, in the case of the Air Force and ANG.

My, but some do take things personally, don't they?

Bab, your message is burried under a small mountain of bile, but I will try and answer you first. I wondered why you choce to describe the suspension as a "technicality", especially since I had not. Missing a flight physical does indeed require removing a member from flight status. The real questions this raises, though, are why he did not get a flight physical, either prior to suspension or after. It seems most logical to assume that he did not receive a flight physical while in Alabama because be was not in a flight status. After returning to Houston, he never returned to a flight status (contrary to what Top Gun et. al. would have you believe, there are lots on non-flying jobs in an air squadron).

Jade, I am not sure what questions, if any, you raise, but will provide you a few more anecdotes. Just as in any job, military members are not always 100% productive. There are days they, too, go in and punch the clock to get their paycheck. Maybe there just isn't much to do, or maybe it's boring admin stuff that isn't too memorable. There have been times in my reserve career where administrivia from up above has dominated my weekends for several months in a row, with no clear productive benefit I could see. Add to that the various training lectures and it's easy to loose a few months productive work. On the other hand, I haven't been to a regular scheduled drill in two months, but the rescheduled sessions I've done have been very productive, allowing me to concentrate on reading, evaluating and commenting on the documents I needed to all by myself without distractions.

I also find it interesting that while I addressed the "seven month gap" you felt a need to round it up to a whole year. I guess this is the same math that rounded up 343 combat deaths to 500 in a recent major media article I read. Others have addressed lost paperwork better than I could, but I do know that if I did not personally resubmit paperwork and records my drill point count would not be accurate, even though I may have been paid. Now, if I didn't care about retirement (as GWB apparently did not) as long as the green came in I could live without the agrevation of forcing the system to be accurate. As the "documentation" you keep calling for, the DD214 is THE definitive source for how much sevvice the individual performed and how that service is characterized. Since the DD214 does not support your suppositions, though, you dismiss it and call for something different.

BTW, the following article references quotes from people who knew about GWB's ANG service in Alabama.
http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=131

One minor point that may be of interest to all. A lot of records went up in smoke in a fire in St. Louis back around 1971. I know this for fact as my service records were in that fire. What didn't get burned got washed away. This has caused huge amounts of problems for me in regards to benefits, etc.

The youngsters seem to forget that computers did not always exist, and the paperwork filled huge warehouses. If GWB's records exist they may be buried in that mountain of paper - as good as non-existant.

You really have to have been in the military to truly understand how it works (or doesn't work). Civilians would be absolutely dumbfounded to see what goes on. Think SNAFU AND cluster f--k!!!!!

For the record, I served 2 (that is not a typo) tours in Nam, in the Army. I have two brothers who also served in Nam - one AF and the other USMC. Truth be told - I resent the hell out of anyone using their record or disparaging the record of military personnel. The AWOLers don't give a damn whether he was awol or deserted or whatever, it is simply another line of attack. If Bush was AWOL or deserted, Prove it beyond reasonable doubt. You make the accusation, you back it up. Same as in the real world.

If Kerry found a way to return early from his tour - more power to him. Would any of you have done any differently??

Okay - anyone really care to hear from a retired AF Reserve Personnel Specialist about the procedures for sign-in? Before they used magnetic cards (starting about 1991) and ID cards (starting about 1997 or so) they used to have 4 formations a day. On tables in front of the formation was what was called a "Form 40", which was a computer printout of the members of the squadron, with places for the the members to inital 4 times. Once for sign-in Saturday mornings, once for sign-out on Saturday evening, once for sign-in Sunday morning, and once for sign-out on Sunday evening.

If you didn't initial the Form 40, your supervisor had to accomplish a Form 40A on you. That listed who you were, and why you were absent, and whether it was an EXCUSED or UNEXCUSED absence - and whether you could make up the pay and points if it was an excused absence. Unexcused absences COULD NOT be made up, but COULD be converted to Excused (with no make up) with sufficient reason and commander approval.

You basically got ONE unexcused drill weekend per year - or 4 unexcused periods, each drill weekend being divided into 4 periods. You got over 4 unexcused periods in a calendar year, and you'd better have a good excuse to NOT send your records to the Air Reserve Personnel Center and drop you into Inactive Reserve status. And believe me, we dropped about 3, 4 a year out of a unit of 200 or so men.

The thing was, though, the Form 40s were used for pay. We'd send one over to Finance, and they'd input the member's SSAN for pay and points. A copy would be kept at the unit for 3 years, then destroyed. (It did, after all, have SSANs on it.)

If a member had enough unexcused absences to 'send his records to Denver' (Where the ARPC is) his unit records were bundled up and sent off complete with all Form 40As documenting why, AND a letter explaining that Joe Smith, having missed the drill weekends of March, April and May, is being transferred to the Inactive Reserve. That letter would be signed by the squadron commander, and endorsed by the wing commander. The member would NOT get an honorable discharge - he would be marked as incomplete and not get anything.

So at this point, to convince me that Bush missed drills, was AWOL or whatever, you can show me copies of his 40As from his records that were sent to ARPC when he failed to show for drill weekends. Or you can show me the request by his squadron commander to have him placed in Inactive Reserve status, or the Guard equivalent, with the wing commander's endorsement.

If you can't show me those, he wasn't AWOL. He may have been excused from drills, he may have missed them and made them up - but he wasn't AWOL.

The burden of proof is on those making the claim. If he was, there'd be paperwork showing it. If there isn't paperwork showing it, and he got an honorable discharge, he wasn't.

It's that simple.

J.

"If Kerry found a way to return early from his tour - more power to him. Would any of you have done any differently??"

The question is whether the line that is being peddled of JFK's unmitigated heroism is factual and reliable. Based on his dishonorable actions after returning home and, his recent profile in lack of courage defending his vote supporting action in Iraq, the pattern that is emerging suggests it is not.

Two supporting pieces of evidence are his early return home after suffering what were apparently minor wounds and, the account of the actions which won him his silver star, which suggest that the VC he went after was already gravely wounded if not dead.

The question is not what I or anyone else would have done. The question is honesty, veracity and trust. Just as Al Gore milked his "service" in Vietnam (as a military journalist well removed from the battle front) in the 2000 election to counter widespread (and accurate) sentiment that Democrats are soft on national security issues, I expect to see a reprise of the same type of dishonesty in the 2004 election. It is important to gather the pieces together so that the pattern of deception emerges into plain view.

Does Kerry get points for going to Vietnam in the first place? Sure. But, that positive becomes a negative if it is made out to be something more than it was. Having served in Vietnam is not going to innoculate Kerry from fears that, based on his anti-war record, his foreign policy would be marked by weakness and retreat from the war on terror. These terrorists we are up against are not the kind to live and let live. They will smell that weakness and vacillation and redouble their efforts.

Dear comment writers;

Having just ploughed through this entire section of comments on the "Bush was AWOL" charge, I will perform the service of breaking it all down to its core, so you can stop arguing about irrelevancies.

1. Bush entered the Texas Air National Guard (TANG). There is some question whether he got "jumped ahead" of other people, but that is irrelevant to the AWOL claim.

2. Bush trained for some time, received his wings, got his training in a specific aircraft (the F-102), flew for a while, received very good reviews as a pilot and as an officer.

3. In 1972, when he was no longer on active duty but was a drilling reservist, Bush transferred (legally) from the TANG to the Alabama ANG because he was to work on a senate campaign.

4. Since he was not flying in the AANG, and since he didn't show up for his flight physical (probably because he wasn't flying anyway), his flight status was changed to inactive. His duties at the AANG did not involve flying.

5. Here is the first claim that has any relation to the "AWOL" charge: the claim is that he failed to show up for his weekend drill during seven months in 1972 or 1973. The counter claim is that this is not a particularly egregious offense, and that the only consequence is that you eventually have to make it up.

6. Nobody here has claimed that Bush failed to attend his two-week yearly active-duty committment during either 1972 or 1973.

7. Bush supporters claim, and Bush attackers have not denied, that Bush did in fact make up the missing drills later. Nobody denies that he was awarded an honorable discharge; indeed, in one of the few pieces of evidence offered, his DD-214 discharge papers indicate he was discharged honorably.

So if I may be so bold, the entire dispute seems to boil down to this: is it true or is it false that an inactive, drilling reservist in 1973 could miss monthly meetings then make them up later without prejudice?

If it is true, then we can presume Lt. Bush was aware of that fact. Thus, he did no wrong in missing those meetings and making them up later.

If this is not true, then there is a second question to ask: is it true or false that he missed those meetings?

If (a) drilling reservists are NOT allowed to miss meetings, even if they make them up later; and if (b) he did miss meetings; then he may well have been lazy about fulfilling his duties... but even so, nobody has actually claimed that missing those meetings would constitute grounds for a charge of either AWOL or desertion.

I think the specific, legal charges of AWOL and desertion fall by the wayside immediately, and I think even JadeGold would agree.

So can we at least all focus on the only two questions that matter?

- Was it acceptable or unacceptable for a drilling reservist in the Alabama Air National Guard in 1973 to miss monthly meetings (but not the two-week activation period) and just make them up later?

- IF the answer to the above question can be shown to be "unacceptable," then did George W. Bush miss those meetings?

Answering the second question before the first is backwards; if it was acceptable, then there is nothing wrong with him having taken advantage of a provision of which he would have been well aware.

(It's like claiming an obscure deduction on your income taxes: it's only legally relevant whether or not you actually claimed it IF you first conclude that it was wrong for you to claim it. If you had the right to claim it, then you're just being fiscally responsible.)

Thanks,

Dafydd

Submandave: We can all exchange anecdotes about how the military lost our travel orders and the like. But, in the end, if we really wanted to provide verification we were someplace where we said we were--we could. Surely, there'd be a superior, a subordinate, a colleague who could vouch for us.

The fact is Bush refuses to open up his military records as every other candidate with military experience has not hesitated to do.

Morever, Bush's version of events has changed several times and not in minor ways. Can you explain this?

The fact remains that if Bush really wanted to stick it in his opponents' craw--he could easily do so. Just order up all his military records for public consumption.

Unless, of course, those records tell another story.

Sorry, JadeGold - the onus is on you to prove he wasn't there.

As I said - if he was awol, if he got sufficient unexcused absences to have his records sent to ARPC in Denver, then he wouldn't have gotten an honorable discharge.

That he does have a DD-214 stating he was honorably discharged means he completed his service to the satisfaction of the military personnel flight of his base, and to the satisfaction of his commander.

Like I said - show me his form 40As with the unexcused absences noted, show me the transmittal letter for his records when he was shuffled to the Inactive Reserve.

If they don't exist, and he got an honorable discharge, as far as I'm concerned he wasn't AWOL.

J.

Dafydd:

It was policy while we were still using the paper Form 40s that the member could make up allowed excused absences before the end of the fiscal year. If the absence was excused with no make up, then it couldn't be made up. If it was an unexcused absence converted to an excused one, then no make up was authorized.

Does that make things clearer?

J.

Jade,

Where are the 40A's?

Where's the change to IR?

Why the silence?

And yes, the military does lose people. I've been IRR for 7 years now. The Army has lost me twice for over a year, and also lost the fact that I was promotable.

And I ain't buying your military service. You present a lack of knowledge of rudimentary personnel issues. C'mon, convince me. You need to produce some records, including discharge papers. Anything less simply won't do. I don't believe you, thus you're a liar. The burden lies with you to prove me wrong.

And please, enough with the overused "strawman" -- it was played in about 1994.

Dafydd:

One last thing - if a member was getting out in, say, September - and the previous October through December had pulled about 75 active duty days, then did his two weeks - that'd be counted as 89 points towards a good year, along with 10 membership points for a total of 99. You needed (if I recall correctly) 60 points for a good year toward retirement. You got 10 points annually for being in. Each weekend drill was 4 points (for 4 periods), the two weeks got you 14 points. So if you did your 12 drill weekends that'd be 48, plus 10, plus 14, so you'd have 72 points towards a good year. The number of points matter when you retire (if you decided to stay in until you could) because the more points you had the more money you got when you reached retirement age. You did the bare minimums and you wouldn't get much, as you could guess. Active duty status before you got into the reserves counted for 1 point per day towards your total.

It was not uncommon for someone to get a bunch of points in the first few months of the fiscal year, and then have excused absences for the rest of the year. As long as they had enough points, (and didn't care about the pay or points they were missing) they didn't need to worry about making them up.

J.

Whoops - I see I forgot to add that their supervisors had to agree to it, also. They sign the 40As, and it was sometimes a real chore to get them to fill the things out.

JLawson:"Sorry, JadeGold - the onus is on you to prove he wasn't there."

The documentation we have--the only documentation, mind you--says he wasn't there.

Further, nobody's stepped forward from his unit to say "hey, I remember LT Bush!"

Still more, Bush's story has changed several times--indicating he has lied on at least several occasions.

So, the onus is really on Bush to clear this up.

Jadegold:

The Honorable Discharge proves he served in a satisfactory manner. That's all that counts.

I'd be hard-pressed to remember the names of the lieutenants I took care of just ten years back - much less lieutenants I knew 30 years ago.

Sorry, as I said you need to show me paperwork. Got any 40As with unexcused absences on them?

J.

Let's assume for a moment that the military has lost every scrap of paper with Bush's name on it.

And let's assume Bush honored his commitment during the disputed period of time.

How could Bush prove he served?

First, there'd certainly be others he'd have interacted with. They could step forward and vouch for him.

Second, income tax records. Remember, Bush said he served. He'd have been paid, right?

JLawson -

What's your take on whether pay records or income tax records for 1972-73 would clear this whole thing up? (At least to a dispassionate observer!)

JLawson:"The Honorable Discharge proves he served in a satisfactory manner. That's all that counts. "

It proves nothing. After all, Bush shouldn't have been able to go to the head of a waiting list for the TX ANG. And he shouldn't have received a direct commission. And he shouldn't have gone to flight school (again over a waiting list) based on lousy pilot aptitude scores.

All of these things aren't supposed to happen. Yet they did.

And Bush's version of events has changed--that shouldn't happen if everything's copacetic.

So when you tell me has an honorable discharge, I don't doubt it. I do, however, question how he received it.

Again, JLawson, if you want to shut all us naysayers up--you should be demanding Bush open up his military records.

Jadegold -

I think you're deliberately missing the point here.

The DD-214 is a record of an individual's service in the armed forces.

THAT is the culminating document of ALL a member's service. Every day he served, every decoration he got, the sum of all promotions.

It's used to qualify for educational and housing benefits, as PROOF that the person served.

If it shows an honorable discharge, then the service was deemed satisfactory.

If it doesn't, it wasn't.

We're talking a very binary concept here. Why are you having such a hard time accepting it?

J.

JadeGold seems to be a fan of LBJ's old "my opponent screws dead horses, and I'd like to see him deny it" ploy.

JadeGold seems to be a fan of LBJ's old "my opponent screws dead horses, and I'd like to see him deny it" ploy.

Jadegold:
For a person who claims to have attended a "federal institution of higher learning" (undergraduate program at Ft Leavenworth, perhaps?), you seem to be woefully uninformed about military matters. I have yet to see you post intelligently on: Articles of the UCMJ, Officer Efficiency Reports, DD forms, ASVAB/Officer Aptitute Tests or the details of military reserve drill procedures.
Unfortunately, you do appear to know what you know, which has very little to do with the subject at hand.
You say that you have served; Either prove it or STFU!

Tonto:

Pay records... I'll admit right off that I don't know what the document disposition rules were for pay records. At the unit level (where I was) we kept things on a three year cycle as far as Form 40s and 40As went. Attaboy letters we kept for five years, promotion orders we kept for five.

The paper Form 40s, as I said, got dumped after 3 years at the unit level. So if nothing happened to change the normal cycle during the time in question, those records would have been gone at the unit level by 1974, 1975.

AF financial records probably got stored to mag tape - but the problem there is getting a machine to read them. My best guess there is that most likely the tapes got scrapped in the mid-80s. Active duty and active reservist records would have been transferred to newer systems, and there would have been no reason to transfer the records of people who were gone.

Tax records - could you lay your hands on your taxes from 20 years back? I think the IRS recommends you keep them for 5 years - I doubt seriously they'd keep paper copies for 30. They MIGHT have records on mag tape somewhere - but considering the state of the art I'd imagine the last early '70s machine that could read them probably got scrapped in the early 80s.

It's funny - we can locate at least SOME pay records of Civil War soldiers - but those were on paper. With our current use of digital records a hundred years from now there's most likely not going to be any for the current military, unless a member keeps their Leave and Earnings statements...

J.

Tonto:

Pay records... I'll admit right off that I don't know what the document disposition rules were for pay records. At the unit level (where I was) we kept things on a three year cycle as far as Form 40s and 40As went. Attaboy letters we kept for five years, promotion orders we kept for five.

The paper Form 40s, as I said, got dumped after 3 years at the unit level. So if nothing happened to change the normal cycle during the time in question, those records would have been gone at the unit level by 1974, 1975.

AF financial records probably got stored to mag tape - but the problem there is getting a machine to read them. My best guess there is that most likely the tapes got scrapped in the mid-80s. Active duty and active reservist records would have been transferred to newer systems, and there would have been no reason to transfer the records of people who were gone.

Tax records - could you lay your hands on your taxes from 20 years back? I think the IRS recommends you keep them for 5 years - I doubt seriously they'd keep paper copies for 30. They MIGHT have records on mag tape somewhere - but considering the state of the art I'd imagine the last early '70s machine that could read them probably got scrapped in the early 80s.

It's funny - we can locate at least SOME pay records of Civil War soldiers - but those were on paper. With our current use of digital records a hundred years from now there's most likely not going to be any for the current military, unless a member keeps their Leave and Earnings statements...

J.

Good grief, one would think that JadeGold is the nom de plume for the DNC.

I mean, how many times can he repeat the same thing, all the time being AWOL on evidence? And on how many Blogs? No matter what anyone notes about how reserve/NG meetings work, Jade's there to conflate missing meetings with being AWOL.

Can it be the Big Equivocation, successor to the Big Lie?

As the kids say: Borrrrrring!

Folks, that's why there is such a thing as burden of proof. And it's not just at law, it's in