"La-la-la! We can't hear you! Bush is AWOL!"

Will Kerry release his military records? I think the American People have the right to know how and why he was awarded his medals.

I think the American people have a right to know if Kerry was so traumatized by combat that he will do anything to avoid it - after all, it would be dangerous to have as president a man who would refuse to go to war under any circumstances. Our enemies would attack nonstop.

Yeah, but...

Uh, you should check out Richard Cohen's column. According to Cohen, it's entirely possible to get paid for National Guard "service" while never showing up.

So, even if Bush releases his pay stubs, it's not going to answer all the questions... nor should it.

Of course not. Then you'd have to find something else stupid to complain about.

Still...exactly what records exist that might put this question to bed for you, Jesurgislac? I mean, if Bush got points for appearing, what records do you think might show that he didn't?

Oh, well...I guess the Left has to crawl back to circulating (or manufacturing) stories about Jenna Bush drinking beer.

Lotta questions about that remain, I sure.

Cordially...

Uh, you should check out Richard Cohen's column. According to Cohen, it's entirely possible to get paid for National Guard "service" while never showing up.

So, even if Bush releases his pay stubs, it's not going to answer all the questions... nor should it.

Says more about the Guard/Reserves than it does about anyone person who has ever been a part of them. So?

Oh! I blinked...and I missed the goalposts being moved...again!

Tomorrow's Paul Krugman column will point out that even if there's photographic evidence of Bush on the base serving his time while holding up a newspaper of the date, it's not enough because the National Guard faked those photos all the time.

seems to me no one can prove the charges against GWB. there is proof to the contrary but it will never satisfy those who just don't like GwB.

they can only prove they question the President's records but in the end, they have no evidence of the President being charged with AWOL/UA or anything else and in the end prove nothing.

it is similar to the WMD issue - the lack of evidence does not prove their lack of existance.

C-SPAN is currently re-airing today's White House press conference. Watching this earlier today, I wanted so much for Bush to stalk into the room and tell those bastards to STFU!

Ah, how the media loves a scandal - even a self-created scandal.

Uh, you should check out Richard Cohen's column. According to Cohen, it's entirely possible to get paid for National Guard "service" while never showing up.

Uh, not that Richard Cohen is any reliable source, but if that tidbit is biographical, he should produce records showing he reimbursed the government for unearned income.

Or he should produce witnesses to him so doing.

Cordially...

I applaud Bush for finally releasing *some* of his records. However, to say pay records covering six days out of a disputed period of about eighteen months is pretty underwhelming.

I think if I were him, I'd hold back until it's far too late for you to challenge him on anything real.

But that's me; I'm petty and vindictive sometimes.

I've still to hear from anyone what records you know Bush has that he's not showing. Anyone? Bueller?

From the numerous posts I have read of yours, JadeGold, everything is pretty underwhelming to you.

Where are the records that say he was AWOL?

Where's that charge on paper?

Isn't that something the anti-Bush crowd should provide as part of their burden of proof?

Why is GWB providing papers when nothing has been presented to prove the accuracy of the accusation?

They made the charge, they should be able to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt and the evidence to the contrary continues to show up.

OMC: You've not been reading.

You still seem to be clinging to the notion that because Bush has an NGB 22 with "Honorable Discharge" on it--that proves he fulfilled his commitment.

OJ Simpson has paperwork that says he's not a murderer.

This is the issue, OMC. Did Bush legitimately fulfill his commitment to get that Honorable Discharge? The record has a pretty big hole in it of around 18 months. Further, Bush's version of events has repeatedly changed. Still more troubling is the fact that we can find friends, colleagues, acquaintances from Bush's life going back to his grade school---there doesn't appear to be anyone who remembers Bush being where he was supposed to be in AL.

You demand evidence. As well you should. We have it and it says Bush wasn't where he claimed to be.

JadeGold,

So where are the papers that show him being charged with AWOL/UA?

If there was no charge, why are we trying to accuse him of something else?

Along these lines of reason, we should be examining Kerry's actions post-Vietnam as part of sedition charges for aiding and abetting the enemy through his actions and affiliations with Jane Fonda and groups she bank-rolled on North Vietnam's behalf.

At least the evidence to that charge exists.

BTW, Jade, where did I say this?

"You still seem to be clinging to the notion that because Bush has an NGB 22 with "Honorable Discharge" on it--that proves he fulfilled his commitment."

Where did I say that his discharge validated his service?

Don't figurativelyfiguratively put words in my mouth.

BTW, Jade, where did I say this?

"You still seem to be clinging to the notion that because Bush has an NGB 22 with "Honorable Discharge" on it--that proves he fulfilled his commitment."

Where did I say that his discharge validated his service?

Don't figuratively put words in my mouth.

Sorry for the double post, tried to catch a typo.

Along these lines of reason, we should be examining Kerry's actions post-Vietnam as part of sedition charges for aiding and abetting the enemy through his actions and affiliations with Jane Fonda and groups she bank-rolled on North Vietnam's behalf.

I'm sure Karl Rove is one step ahead of you. Of course, he may not want the public to see a side-by-side comparison of Bush's and Kerry's VietNam record.

Of course, John F. Kerry has since admitted that he was ashamed of his service in Nam and would refuse to serve, had he a chance to relive his life.

Of course, John F. Kerry has since admitted that he was ashamed of his service in Nam and would refuse to serve, had he a chance to relive his life.

Run with it, Tonto.

It's almost as good as the rightwing meme that Kerry got "only minor wounds" to earn 3 PHs.

I'm not concerned with their actions during the Vietnam war because they both served honorably.

I would however love to see the side by side comparisons of how they acted outside those years, because Kerry's words and actions are completely in opposition to his actions over a much shorter time period.

There is a lot to say about a man who only chose to support his country for one tour of duty only to reverse himself for a few years prior and the thrity years since. The only reason Kerry joined the military was for his political career which he patterned after JFK.

I'm not concerned with their actions during the Vietnam war because they both served honorably

There's the spirit, OMC! Be sure to hammer Kerry on his war record. It's a winning strategy.

JadeGold -

You are sooo prone to premature extrapolations. May I suggest Prolong?

Kerry served bravely. No doubt here. But he was subsequently ashamed of that very bravery. Post-traumatic stress?

Kerry served bravely. No doubt here. But he was subsequently ashamed of that very bravery. Post-traumatic stress?

By all means, Tonto, push that angle. It's a sure-fire winning theme.

Actually, Tonto does raise an excellent point and I was too busy being facetious to acknowledge it.

Given the 2000 campaign race, when Bush faced off against John McCain, we saw Karl Rove use what I expect Kerry will face.

During the Bush-McCain race, Rove actually sent out operatives to suggest that McCain was mentally unstable as a result of his captivity as a POW in VietNam.

In SC, the Bush campaign also planted the rumor that McCain had a black daughter (McCain has an adopted daughter from Sri Lanka, IIRC).

So, it really will come as no surprise when Kerry is accused of PTSD or something similar.

JadeGold -

Wasn't sure you'd recognize a winning theme if you saw one. You are so vulnerable to rope-a-dope and tar-baby (both varietels) it brings tears to my ancient eyes. BTW, best wishes from Acidman.

JadeGold,

So you're saying what Kerry did away from Vietnam was ok in your opinion?

I know veterans who did more and did less during the Vietnam years. So why pick on that small issue?

If you judge based on Vietnam, then McCain makes Kerry look like a puss.

It wasn't Bush or McCain or anyone else who flew around with Adam Walinsky delivering anti-war speeches while on active duty. Christ, Kerry even asked for an early-out so he could pursue his anti-war agenda.

It was Kerry hanging out with Jane Fonda at Valley Forge and who threw someone else's medals on the steps of the Capitol Building in an effort to impress someone who cared.

So if GWB's AWOL is more important to you than Kerry's years of opposition to American security, so be it.

From the several emails I have received concerning you since finding this board today, I wonder if you are even genuine yourself.

OMC: Again, I urge you to push this issue.

Tell everyone how wrong it is for someone with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and 3 PHs to exercise his first amendment rights.

And please, please tell us about Bush's firm and unwavering commitment to the war in Vietnam; I believe when voters hear this rousing quote from Bush: 'I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment. Nor was I willing to go to Canada. So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”--they'll rally to him.

JadeGold -

I hereby take back my faint praise. Some commenters are just vicious, amoral bastards. Just sayin'.

You can 'just say' all you please, Tonto.

Damn straight, JadeGold. Acidman sez "hi".

Say 'hi' back, Tonto. Do I know 'AcidMan?'

JadeGold,

Nice attempt to deflect. They (those who have sent me email) warned me you would pull the bait-and-switch.

So what you are saying is that Kerry's excercising of his freedom of speech makes him a better man based on the content of his words and actions outside of Vietnam than GWB?

Or is it that you just don't like GWB out of some perverted jealousy?

I won't support a man who has voted in opposition to America's security his entire political career and falls to the left of a Kennedy based on his Congressional voting record.

Do you support leftists, Jade?

You can answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

"JadeGold" may not know Acidman, but "Guy Cabot" certainly does. Words have both meanings and consequences. Buh-bye, now.

Tell everyone how wrong it is for someone with a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and 3 PHs to exercise his first amendment rights.

When the photos and newsclippings of the rallies he helped organize are used against POWs still in tiger cages and being held in the Hanoi Hilton, is when it is wrong.

Do you feel the use of the anti-war movement against prisoners of war is not aiding and abetting the NVC cause?

Do you know the definition of sedition?

Feel free to answer any of the questions posed to you. I understand you rarely answer direct questions.

Jade,

GET OVER IT! There is no there there!

Both Sen. Kerry and President Bush served this country honorable.

Like my spouse many Americans served starting in 1976 unitl 1997 upon retirement. My spouse was able to wear a ribbon indicting service in the Vietnam era. My spouse DID NOT serve in Vam. Does that put into question their service? Does it make it LESS true or real that my spouse served this country for 21 years?

My spouse was also awarded a purple heart for being shot in the arm during a "Secret" mission therefore my spouse was unable to wear or acknowledge the purple heart nor it is in my spouses military records. I did not learn about it until we had been retired from the military for 5 years. Does it make my spouses medal any less deserved because it will never be public knowledge?

I wished I had the time to wait for Jade to answer.

Oh well, off to the gym.

OMC: What can I tell you? I say go for it if you think charging Kerry with sedition is a winner for you.

In fact, I encourage you to write the Bush-? 2004 campaign with your ideas.

Ordi: Great idea! The Bush -? 2004 campaign should let it leak out that Bush was missing from the last 2 years of his ANG commitment *because he was on a secret mission.*

That's the ticket!

Jade,

That is not what I said and you know it!!
Do NOT put words in my mouth or post my posts.

I was telling you the story of my spouse. WHICH you chose to ignore! Are you going to answer the questions asked of you in my post or not?

Or should I take your stupid-A$$ quip as the only response to my questions.

I guess you can not handle to debate or truth.

ordi -

JadeGold is highly intelligent, motivated and relentless ... among other things. But most of all, he is elusive. As in slippery. If he (?) is not a trial attorney, he missed his calling. Damned entertaining, in any event.

Ordi: It's like this: you tell me some anecdote about your wife, then you demand I apply it to Bush and try to reach some conclusion.

From what little we know from your anecdote, we can assume your wife didn't take off nearly two years from the service. She, presumably, can verify her time and whereabouts in the military.

Bush cannot. Or, more accurately, won't.

Tonto,

Thanks for the info! I would not call him/her entertaining. I would call him/her JADED.

JADED,

Tonto said you were highly intelligent, so did you deliberately miss the point or are you that simple-minded?

My spouse was awarded a Purple Heart while on a "secret" mission. To this date that mission and all about it is classified “Secret” so it will never in the public domain.

Point 1: My spouse is unable to produce documentation PROVING the existence of this mission or what happened during the mission and CAN NOT disclose their WHEREABOUTS while on the mission. Does that mean it did not happen or my spouse was not wounded or my spouse did not serve?

Point 2: You seem to maintain that Kerry has a more honorable service record than GWB because Kerry was in combat and GWB was not. Does that put into question ALL military people that NEVER served in combat? Does it make it LESS true or real that they served this country?

By your standards, my family should not be receiving the retirement pay and disabled Vets pay we receive each month because my spouse did not serve in combat nor can my spouse produce documents showing how or where the wound was received.

It is not about the so called "missing" time. If you knew ANYTHING about the Guard you would know that is a canard. Do not treat us like we are stupid. Get passed your silly canard. Cause we are not buying it.

Follow the conversation and answer the questions. If you can not get out of the debate!

Ordi: You keep repeating your wife was on a "secret mission."

Are you suggesting Bush was on a "secret mission?" And that he can't release his records in the interest of National Security?

JADED,

You keep repeating "my wife".

Are you suggesting I am married to a female?

Just some random thoughts after observing this tempest in a teapot.
GWB's records showed he performed the minimum amount of service plus some required by the ANG to be Honorably Discharged.
His flight instructor says he was one of the best pilots he trained in a plane difficult to fly.
One point the shrills seem to make is the general of the Alabama National Guard says he never saw GWB on base. But a further comment from the same general states that HE wasn't on the base that much. Since when do generals fraternize greatly with Lieutenants?
"Observation" of GWB also seems to be a sticking point. That is a process for report making. It Doesn't mean you were not in attendance. It means you were not being observed for efficiency reports.

A fair question may be "Did you alledge that vast numbers of the military in Vietnam committed atrocities?" Kerry did, under oath. If that is true, then why did he not then, or now, disclose those members to the process of military justice? If that is not true, but was part of the anti war protests, then Kerry lied, under oath, before Congress.

It seems to me in late 1972 and early 1973, the course of our military policy was to bring all members of the armed forces home. Demobilization was the order of the day. GWB asked and received permission to leave the ANG to attend Harvard. Kerry got sent home early for being wounded three times, two of which he himself described as light and characterized himself as walking wounded.
Instead of school, he elected to lead antiwar rallies for the VVAW. Some of their former members now say he wasn't in it for the anti war cause, but for political aspirations.
They both got out early. But one went to school and one went on to denigrate his fellow service members.

The White House Press Corps spent over thirteen minutes in minute detailed questions about the ANG records. I didn't hear one question about the news reports of al Qeada having suitcase nukes. Not one question about the homicide blast that killed 53 in Iraq. Not one question about the letter begging for help from al qeada to help start a holy war in Iraq. Not one question about all the nuclear material being dis-assembled in Libya and shipped to the U.S.
I'd call that biased reporting.
I'd call it a dead issue.

Meatsss: No, you're *hoping and praying* it's a dead issue. What will eventually be the end of this story will likely be that it will be demonstrated Bush simply got tired of the ANG--he got his wings and punched that ticket--and blew off the rest of his commitment. A less-than-diligent NG, not wishing to offend a family of privilege, let Bush out of his commitment.

BTW, I hope you all really push the Kerry story and his bad associations after VietNam. They are being promulgated by Ted Stampley. Stampley also did some fine work for Bush against John McCain.

Stampley's got an interesting past. Just like Bush.

JADED,

You keep repeating "my wife".

Are you suggesting I am married to a female?

JADED,

Yoo-HOO where are you?????? You slippery Demon-Rat.

You asked: Are you suggesting Bush was on a "secret mission?" And that he can't release his records in the interest of National Security?

Because you do not appear to have a comprehension above the 3rd grade -SIMPLY PUT:

My spouse can not produce documentation, nor can my spouse tell where they were, does that mean it did not happen or my spouse was not wounded or my spouse did not serve?

Interesting exchange. Jaded is a good button pusher, but doesn't seem to know the facts.

The awol story is a dead issue, there is no documentation supporting the claims of Bush being awol. The fact is, President Bush received an Honorable Discharge. End of Story.

Jaded, You don't "blow off" the NG and get a honorable discharge. Why is this an issue now, in the midst of a third election campaign of GWB? Why weren't these "concerns" raised to the current level we see now in 2000 or when he ran for Gov. of Texas? Why is a Dem activist in possession of his records, which were dribbled over 4 years to the Boston Globe? Records that show he was paid for his attendance at drills.

What is your objections to GWB? You seem to love the life of this story. You also object to investigations into Kerry's past. Get used to it. When people call you a deserter or having been AWOL, I think GWB has a right to get pissed off. Especially when the accusers show no proof to back up their charges.

Just like Kerry. He accuses fellow soldiers of war crimes and doesn't back up the accusations. He throws "his medals" over the White House fence, yet later they appear framed in his Senate office. He voted against the war in Iraq in 1991. He voted against a wide array of weapons systems the armed forces cuurently use. He voted to cut back funding for the intelligence services.
He voted for the 2nd Gulf war, then backtracks to say he meant it only to be a threat of the use of force. Doesn't the read these bills before he votes? Then he voted against funding for the troops in Iraq after the war. No, his post Vietnam conduct will just be a small part of what is discussed in the next 9 months. His ability to lead will be of major discussion.
When he wants to cede the defense of the country to the UN, that's an area for discussion.
When he rails against "special interests", yet has taken in, and continues to take in hundreds of thousands from these same special interests, that's an area for discussion.
I hear a lot of attack verbage against GWB, but not one word on how Kerry would protect the U.S. from further attacks. Not one word on what he would have done differently after the attacks in 2001.
GWB has displayed leadership in the last 2 years. Kerry has displayed a lack of such.
YOU want to hang you hat on this question of ANG service 30 years ago, then be prepared to have your candidate face questions on his actions from the same time period.

I find it odd (okay, you got me, not really) that the people who keep harping on the "Bush went AWOL" claim thought that Clinton's military record, or lack thereof, was no big deal.

I've had two reserve units work for my offices and probably 20+ Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) Marines work for me and it is entirely normal (with permission) to work extra days for several months so as to get off for extended periods later. That's how the reserve and Guard work. Also, who do you think has being flying the thousands of air caps around the nation these past two years? AF Reserve and ANG. Good bunch of highly trained and ready folks. Always have been.

Oh, and Kerry was much more effective in his efforts towards vietnam than given credit for. See the link under my "Posted by" link.

Kerry was riding high until this AWOL smear was brought up... Now Bush is back in the polls. Oops.

Chicago Tribune gets it right.

Bush is good at a number of things.
But his best thing seems to be providing rope. And more rope. And more rope.
Without any apparent effort, either.

"Chicago Tribune gets it right." HH, what was the article? The link required a login. Thanks.

I've got to admit I'm a little frustrated with this. We heard "we want the pay records" for days. So Bush releases the pay records, and now we find out the pay records don't prove anything. In their opinion.

Jade, just for the records, there's more that 6 lines on those pay records; they don't cut you a check for every day you serve, the cut a check a month no matter what; and no one who is reading the materials thinks there's any question of 18 months any more, not even the Boston Globe.

What the records show, once and for all, is that Bush accumulated more than the required days of service -- in fact, even though he got an early out, he served more days than his contract required. That's the way those contracts were written in those days. If you insist oncontrasting, say, Bush, Kerry, and Gore, the intellectually honest way to contrast it would be to note that Bush completed his full obligation, while Kerry and Gore got out early.

But somehow I don't think that intellectual honesty is chief among your concerns.

I skipped over half these comments because it seems like one big childish argument. There's only one thing that needs to be pointed out:

Bush's critics will never give up on their hope that Bush actually did somethign wrong, even when faced with the truth.

It doesn't matter what one person says about the National Guard. If a soldier does not fulfill his or her requirements or serve honorably, he or she will not get an honorable discharge. Period. The liberals can try to slander the military all they want, but that fact holds true.

Washington Times Op-Ed from a GWB Squadron-mate.
URL- http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm

President Bush, on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, when asked whether he would authorized release of everything to clear up the matter, responded "Yes, absolutely." Perhaps Bush's selective release of records that support his story is enough for his blind followers, but I would like for him to live up to the promise he made to America and sign a full release of his military records. If he refuses to do so, I think it is reasonable to assume that he is hiding something.

Man, I just don't believe you, Tommyj.

No pleasing some people, is there? Anytime the preponderance of evidence points at a conclusion you don't like, you'll change the specs for satisfaction. First the DD-214 equivalent. Then the pay and points sheets. Now you want his complete records. What's next, his next-to-last flight physical's results and a full color photo spread from his colonoscopy?

"He's missing full disclosure of ONE picture from his medical records! He must be hiding something, DESPITE having released everything else!"

Dude, give it up. It's not working.

J.

Tommyj is correct. Bush promised a 'full release' of all his documents pertaining to his NG service. Thus far, we've seen 6 days of pay records for a period of time that's not in dispute.

I think the real question is how many times can Bush lie to his defenders before they'll stop defending him? Look, you may not think Bush should release anything; maybe you think Bush should have told Russert where to stick it. But he didn't. He, instead, promised the full release of all his service records.

The only reason this debate is acrimonious is because Bush backers want to use it as an opportunity to stomp down their opponents, throwing around charges of "Bush hating" etc . . . Anything I say about Bush's military record is speculation to the extent that we do not have his full record before us. I certainly admit that the partial records released yesterday tend to support his story. But given that he promised to agree to release everything to clear this up on Sunday, I can't help remaining suspicious. Perhaps after the WMD and budget deficit fiascos, I just cannot give the President the benefit of the doubt anymore. And I find it galling that Bush can appear on national TV popping off that he has nothing to hide, seemingly agreeing to a full release of his military records (and later griping about Washington tricks where only one side of the equation is revealed) and then days later trotting out his press secretary to lamely explain that Bush didn't really agree to a full release. I can't see how even staunch Bush supporters can stomach this cynical form of creating obfuscation.

Thomas J,
What President Bush promised was to release the records that would clear up the matter of his being present in Alabama. His release of the pay records proves that he served his obligation. That fact clears up the matter.

What else do you want? Why?

Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

President Bush: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way.

President Bush's piecemeal release of records is not "everything" and until he authorizes release of his full military record (which would only require signing a simple one page authorization), the matter is not "cleared up." His military file exists and I understand the Department of Defense now has it. Why won't the president allow all his files to be released? I think that creates a reasonable suspicion that something is being hidden. Please note that, for purposes of bipartisanship and amicability, I have refrained from hammering on the president for outright lying in his assertion that his records were fully released in 2000.

>Russert: But you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

The pay records settle this, so every thing that is required to settle it has been released.

When looking at how his opponents twist every word and action to make him look as bad as possible. Do you blame him for being extra careful? The awol issue was settled in 2000, yet partisans still won't let it go.

All I can say is "Wow, is that your argument?"

For a group of people who relentlessly attacked Clinton for parsing words, you have the temerity to twist President Bush's words around to try to make us believe that Bush only authorized the release of records that exculpate himself?

Too bad Nixon could not claim that he only had to release portions of the tapes that exonerated him!! He never would have been forced from office!

Yeah, that's a good idea, let's allow the person under suspicion decide which documents "settle" the matter and which documents can remain hidden. That certainly qualifies as a release of everything to settle the matter, right? Sorry, I guess I am just playing another one of those "Washington tricks" again.

If you want to read a good article on why the release of records yesterday does not settle the matter, see this link:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/02/11/bush_guard/index_np.html

Actually my argument is shorter:

Honorable Discharge.

Since President Bush was honorably discharged, then I'm sure he would have no problem releasing his full military record (as he promised to the country) to show off his sterling service record. I'm glad that we agree!!!

I think a bit of calm reflection is in order. My problem with Bill Clinton was not what he did or did not do but the fact that he didn't tell the truth about it. My problem with George Bush is exactly the same. The bottom line is that we have documentation that would indicate that GW was ordered to report for a flight physical. There have been many stories about this but the bottom line is that he didn't. When I was in the military that was called disobeying a direct order. We have documentation that shows that he was ordered to report to a unit in Alabama and was even given 4 mandatory drill dates in October and November of 1972. Note this was not an arbitrary (if i feel like showing up situation) set of orders. He was ordered to report to the officer in charge of the unit (the guy who says he never saw him). When I was in the military you reported to where you were ordered to report when you were suppose to and if the person you were to report to wasn't there you reported to the duty officer or the duty NCO and covered your ass.(and if you were smart you got some documentation of the fact you reported). If you didn't report you were technically AWOL (sorry you can spin it anyway you want but thats the truth). Maybe its just an oversite maybe its just a paperwork SNAFU but its quite frankly an insult to those of us who did do our duty during that time and to those in the Reserves and National Guard who then and NOW did their duty to just arbitrarily blow it off as a bunch of BUSH haters playing games. I have too many of my friends whose names are on that wall in Washington DC who deserve the TRUTH to just blow it off.

What is this hangup with the so called Honorable Discharge. We all know what kind of unit GW was assigned to in Texas. (son of a Congressman, 2 sons of US Senators, son of a former Texas Gov. at least 6 Dallas Cowboy Football players and sons of various big time Texas business men and state politicians). The guys who ran that unit also were well aware of the connections of the people in their guard unit. For them to give GW anything other than an HD would have meant that they had to admit they lost track of one of their 1st Lt.'s for a year since they said they couldn't evaluate him as he had not been observed and that he was serving in a unit in Alabama which is now in question. They also would have had to explain why they didn't follow up on one of their 1st Lt's not bothering to show up for his mandatory flight physical and being dropped from flying status after the tax payers had paid a hundred grand to teach him how to fly airplanes. All kinds of unpleasant paperwork and some potentially unpleasant repercussions to their careers. Not real surprising why they might have just let it ride (smiles). Hey no judgements from me just a humble request for the TRUTH. Simply speaking to get anything other than an Honorable Discharge he would have had to have been brought up and convicted of some UCMJ offense either in a court marshal or an Art. 15 hearing and that was probably a lot more trouble for a "fortunate son" than these two career officers wanted to take on.

This Colonel answers ALL of the questions for anybody who was seriously looking for an answer. Clayusmcret

'Bush and I were lieutenants'
George Bush and I were lieutenants and pilots in the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS), Texas Air National Guard (ANG) from 1970 to 1971. We had the same flight and squadron commanders (Maj. William Harris and Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, both now deceased). While we were not part of the same social circle outside the base, we were in the same fraternity of fighter pilots, and proudly wore the same squadron patch.

It is quite frustrating to hear the daily cacophony from the left and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, et al., about Lt. Bush escaping his military responsibilities by hiding in the Texas ANG. In the Air Guard during the Vietnam War, you were always subject to call-up, as many Air National Guardsmen are finding out today. If the 111th FIS and Lt. Bush did not go to Vietnam, blame President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, not lowly Lt. Bush. They deliberately avoided use of the Guard and Reserves for domestic political calculations, knowing that a draftee only stirred up the concerns of one family, while a call-up got a whole community's attention.

The mission of the 147th Fighter Group and its subordinate 111th FIS, Texas ANG, and the airplane it possessed, the F-102, was air defense. It was focused on defending the continental United States from Soviet nuclear bombers. The F-102 could not drop bombs and would have been useless in Vietnam. A pilot program using ANG volunteer pilots in F-102s (called Palace Alert) was scrapped quickly after the airplane proved to be unsuitable to the war effort. Ironically, Lt. Bush did inquire about this program but was advised by an ANG supervisor (Maj. Maurice Udell, retired) that he did not have the desired experience (500 hours) at the time and that the program was winding down and not accepting more volunteers.

If you check the 111th FIS records of 1970-72 and any other ANG squadron, you will find other pilots excused for career obligations and conflicts. The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101, which required that more pilots be available for full-time instructor duty rather than part-time traditional reservists with outside employment.

The winding down of the Vietnam War in 1971 provided a flood of exiting active-duty pilots for these instructor jobs, making part-timers like Lt. Bush and me somewhat superfluous. There was a huge glut of pilots in the Air Force in 1972, and with no cockpits available to put them in, many were shoved into nonflying desk jobs. Any pilot could have left the Air Force or the Air Guard with ease after 1972 before his commitment was up because there just wasn't room for all of them anymore.

Sadly, few of today's partisan pundits know anything about the environment of service in the Reserves in the 1970s. The image of a reservist at that time is of one who joined, went off for six months' basic training, then came back and drilled weekly or monthly at home, with two weeks of "summer camp." With the knowledge that Mr. Johnson and Mr. McNamara were not going to call out the Reserves, it did become a place of refuge for many wanting to avoid Vietnam.

There was one big exception to this abusive use of the Guard to avoid the draft, and that was for those who wanted to fly, as pilots or crew members. Because of the training required, signing up for this duty meant up to 2½ years of active duty for training alone, plus a high probability of mobilization. A fighter-pilot candidate selected by the Guard (such as Lt. Bush and me) would be spending the next two years on active duty going through basic training (six weeks), flight training (one year), survival training (two weeks) and combat crew training for his aircraft (six to nine months), followed by local checkout (up to three more months) before he was even deemed combat-ready. Because the draft was just two years, you sure weren't getting out of duty being an Air Guard pilot. If the unit to which you were going back was an F-100, you were mobilized for Vietnam. Avoiding service? Yeah, tell that to those guys.

The Bush critics do not comprehend the dangers of fighter aviation at any time or place, in Vietnam or at home, when they say other such pilots were risking their lives or even dying while Lt. Bush was in Texas. Our Texas ANG unit lost several planes right there in Houston during Lt. Bush's tenure, with fatalities. Just strapping on one of those obsolescing F-102s was risking one's life.

Critics such as Mr. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, you know), Terry McAuliffe and Michael Moore (neither of whom served anywhere) say Lt. Bush abandoned his assignment as a jet fighter pilot without explanation or authorization and was AWOL from the Alabama Air Guard.

Well, as for abandoning his assignment, this is untrue. Lt. Bush was excused for a period to take employment in Florida for a congressman and later in Alabama for a Senate campaign.

Excusals for employment were common then and are now in the Air Guard, as pilots frequently are in career transitions, and most commanders (as I later was) are flexible in letting their charges take care of career affairs until they return or transfer to another unit near their new employment. Sometimes they will transfer temporarily to another unit to keep them on the active list until they can return home. The receiving unit often has little use for a transitory member, especially in a high-skills category like a pilot, because those slots usually are filled and, if not filled, would require extensive conversion training of up to six months, an unlikely option for a temporary hire.

As a commander, I would put such "visitors" in some minor administrative post until they went back home. There even were a few instances when I was unaware that they were on my roster because the paperwork often lagged. Today, I can't even recall their names. If a Lt. Bush came into my unit to "pull drills" for a couple of months, I wouldn't be too involved with him because I would have a lot more important things on my table keeping the unit combat ready.

Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts:

First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly — the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc.

If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user.

Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.

Finally, the Kerrys, Moores and McAuliffes are casting a terrible slander on those who served in the Guard, then and now. My Guard career parallels Lt. Bush's, except that I stayed on for 33 years. As a guardsman, I even got to serve in two campaigns. In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions.

While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian subarctic, the cold North Atlantic and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It didn't happen by accident. It happened because back at the nadir of Guard fortunes in the early '70s, a lot of volunteer guardsman showed they were ready and able to accept the responsibilities of soldier and citizen — then and now. Lt. Bush was a kid whose congressman father encouraged him to serve in the Air National Guard. We served proudly in the Guard. Would that Mr. Kerry encourage his children and the children of his colleague senators and congressmen to serve now in the Guard.

In the fighter-pilot world, we have a phrase we use when things are starting to get out of hand and it's time to stop and reset before disaster strikes. We say, "Knock it off." So, Mr. Kerry and your friends who want to slander the Guard: Knock it off.

COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired)
U.S. Air Force/Air National Guard
Herndon, Va.5

With all due respect to COL. WILLIAM CAMPENNI (retired) I would only suggest that he has somehow missed the point of this discussion. I certainly have no desire to denegrate the contributions of the reserves or national guard. All one has to do is look at the current makeup of the forces in overseas war zones (over 40 percent of current forces are from reserve or national guard units) to see the substantial contributions of these brave men and women. America has every reason to be proud of their service to our country. But we aren't talking about those who have chosen to live up to their obligations and commitments. We are talking about George Walker Bush President of the United States -- Commander in Chief -- the man whose decisions have ultimately put them in harms way.

Col Campenni writes:

"First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a MONTH OR SO (emphasis mine) for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc"

Sorry Col. but George Bush took an oath to serve for 6 years in the Texas Air National Guard. As a matter of fact when questioned about how he got into the guard in the first place he was quoted as saying that it was because he was willing to take on the lengthy commitment of pilot training and service. One part of that COMMITMENT to being a pilot is to maintain ones flying status. In order to do that one must pass the annual flight physical. As I understand it he had at the very least a three month window of opportunity around his birthday in June to take this required physical. Surely in three months he could have found an available time to accomplish this??? It has also been pointed out in numerous publications that there were available flight surgeons in Montgomery Alabama who could have performed the required examination. Bottom line is George blew it off and managed to get away with it.

Col Campenni writes:
"The Bush excusal in 1972 was further facilitated by a change in the unit's mission, from an operational fighter squadron to a training squadron with a new airplane, the F-101"

Sorry Col. but that excuse just doesn't pass muster.

"His unit continued to fly the F-102 until 1974 [Boston Globe 5/23/00] "If he had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out" said retired Major Bobby W. Hodges, "But I don't remember him coming back at all"..
" Lieutenant Bush, to be sure, had gone off flying status when he went to Alabama. But had he returned to his unit in November 1972, there would have been no barrier to him flying again, except passing a flight physical. Although the F-102 was being phased out, his unit's records show that Guard pilots logged thousands of hours in the F-102 in 1973."[Boston Globe 5/23/00]

Bottom Line is George blew off his obligation. Thank goodness that the brave men and women in guard and reserve units who he has sent to war didn't choose to do the same!

Mike:

1. The F-102 was being phased out. GWB didn't have the retention necessary for him to be trained into another plane and then be cost-effective. If he was offered the chance to extend and retrain, I haven't heard about it. It may have been offered, he may have turned it down - it doesn't matter.

2. The VietNam war was winding down, and many pilots were needing slots stateside. This called an overage - and in the case of two or more pilots looking for the same slot in a squadron, the most senior pilot will get the slot and the others will need to either look elsewhere, take non-flying assignments, or request a discharge - or be discharged for the convenience of the government.

3. The military is a heirarchial organization. If you've got 10 pilots looking for 3 flying slots, the 3 pilots applying with the most seniority will get the slots. Lieutenants are at the bottom of the food chain, especially one who's plane's being phased out and not being trained into another.

4. Re the physical - physicals of any kind in the Reserves are given once a month. As a victim of too many of them, it is a very rare thing when you can get the entire physical done in a single visit.

The longest physical I ever had done took over six months to accomplish, due to a radiologist who was out the first one month, a audiometry tech who didn't show the next, dental tech missing the third, my needing to reschedule two months to the alt drill weekend because we needed someone out at the base, and then the guy who ran the ECG machine calling in sick in the sixth. If I'd been in flight status, I'd have been grounded.

Missing the physical when he couldn't fly anyway wouldn't matter. It's a non-issue.

J.

Hmmm what part of my post was difficult to read. He had two years left on his responsibility in May of 1972. Not two months or three months but TWO YEARS. The unit he was in continued to fly the airplane he was trained on for until after his enlistment would have be over in 1974. The problems that he may or may not have had in getting a flight physical isnt my problem. Apparantly he somehow managed in 69, 70 and 71. It's an issue of responsibility and commitment (you know DUTY HONOR COUNTRY) nothing more nothing less. And GW came up short. Sorry you can spin it anyway you like but thats the ultimate bottom line. Was he the only rich kid who managed to get into a national guard or reserve unit. Heck no all you have to do is look at some of the other folks in his unit. Was he the only guy in the reserves or the guard who didn't take his responsibility as seriously as he might have. No to that one too. Does he owe you and I and all the guard and reserves who are presently in harms way half way around the world a straight answer. I think he does. Whether its an issue or not only time will tell.

Mike McDaniel, I think the biggest issue appears to be illiteracy and denial. Not on Bush's part, though.

Bush, by the records, did 5 and a half years, and all the duty days he was obliged to do. Like anyone in the Guard, he eventually moved to another job in another state, where there wasn't a flying billet for him -- at about the same time they told him that they were phasing out his plane and he knew he didn't want to re-up.

So he applied for an early release, which he got because (a) he was already eligible to go inactive, having finished his obligation, (b) they were up to their collective asses in active duty regulars who did want to stay in. (Remember, Gore got an early out from a combat zone to go to D school, and after only 5 months in theatre, at about the same time.)

Unless you're suggesting that anyone who didn't re-enlist was denying "duty, honor, and country", you're out of line.

Hmmm I really must work on my wording as it seems some have difficulty understanding what I say!
I'm out of line? I know where I was in 1968. I could cite you the names of some of my friends in 68 who didn't make it back from Vietnam. Good and honorable men who went in the place of people like George and his VP Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney. I didn't make the military a career choice but my job has called me to serve my country many times since. I have been to Afganistan twice and Iraq three times in the last year and a half. I mention that not to try and spout some crap bravado. My contributions were purely technical in nature and I happily relied on others far more agile (and certainly a hell of a lot younger) than myself to keep me from getting shot or blown up. I mention it only to suggest that I have earned the right to question the actions of my President. I don't take a backseat to anyone in service to my country and certainly not to George W. Bush. I'm not rehash all of what I said previously. I think my previous posts clearly state what my problem is with GW's performance as a 6 year obligated National Guard Pilot. Simply stated it was not George Bush's perogative to decide whether he wished to continue to fly airplanes and whether he needed to show up for his flight physical. He signed an obligation to fly for 6 Years. His commander in the air guard in Texas was clearly quoted as saying that if GW had returned to his unit in Texas he would have expected him to continue flying the F102 (which was not replaced in that unit for another two years after 1972) As far as his moving "to another job in another state" lets be clear about that. As I understand it he was a volunteer worker for the election campaign of one of his father's friends in Alabama. Actually other than a brief time working for a Houston Youth program later it doesn't appear that George Bush actually had a real paying job during that whole period from Yale until he went to the Harvard business school.
(other than flying F102's for the Texas Air National Guard of course) So you would have thought it might actually be a priority for him. I'll leave it to others to defend Al Gore or Bill Clinton etc etc. George Bush is the man who needs to provide some staight answers.

Hmmm I really must work on my wording as it seems some have difficulty understanding what I say!
I'm out of line? I know where I was in 1968. I could cite you the names of some of my friends in 68 who didn't make it back from Vietnam. Good and honorable men who went in the place of people like George and his VP Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney. I didn't make the military a career choice but my job has called me to serve my country many times since. I have been to Afganistan twice and Iraq three times in the last year and a half. I mention that not to try and spout some crap bravado. My contributions were purely technical in nature and I happily relied on others far more agile (and certainly a hell of a lot younger) than myself to keep me from getting shot or blown up. I mention it only to suggest that I have earned the right to question the actions of my President. I don't take a backseat to anyone in service to my country and certainly not to George W. Bush. I'm not rehash all of what I said previously. I think my previous posts clearly state what my problem is with GW's performance as a 6 year obligated National Guard Pilot. Simply stated it was not George Bush's perogative to decide whether he wished to continue to fly airplanes and whether he needed to show up for his flight physical. He signed an obligation to fly for 6 Years. His commander in the air guard in Texas was clearly quoted as saying that if GW had returned to his unit in Texas he would have expected him to continue flying the F102 (which was not replaced in that unit for another two years after 1972) As far as his moving "to another job in another state" lets be clear about that. As I understand it he was a volunteer worker for the election campaign of one of his father's friends in Alabama. Actually other than a brief time working for a Houston Youth program later it doesn't appear that George Bush actually had a real paying job during that whole period from Yale until he went to the Harvard business school.
(other than flying F102's for the Texas Air National Guard of course) So you would have thought it might actually be a priority for him. I'll leave it to others to try and defend Al Gore or Bill Clinton (smiles) George Bush is the man who needs to provide some staight answers.

Yes, you're out of line. It's clear that Bush had his units approval, even encouragement, to take the job in Alabama, since his efficiency report mentions it favorably. If you're in high dudgeon about it now, it doesn't have anything to do with any informed opinion.

You're out of line further to suggest that Bush flying air defense was somehow wrong. You continue to be out of line to complain about Bush going to Harvard when the ANG flew F-102s into '74, when his enlistment obligation ran out in 1973; as I said, unless you are suggesting that anyone who left the service when their enlistment was up was somehow wrong to do so, you've got nothing to stand on. You're complaining that Bush left the service instead of fighting for a space with an active-duty guy getting RIF'ed, and dared to take an early release from the inactive researve.

Oh, and get off that high horse about your service; I spent 20 years in "national technical means" or defense research, if things go well on Wednesday I may go back to it as Court Wizard to an O-8, and I ain't excessively impressed.

Golly charlie I don't recall that I ASKED for you or anyone else to be impressed at all! As I said in the previous post I didn't mention it in expectation that anyone would be impressed ... just to point out that after 35 years of service to my country in one way or the other I should be allowed to inquire respectfully what my commander in chief was doing in 1972 (a year that the U.S. sustained 561 Casualties in Vietnam and almost 4000 injuries). As for O-8's ---well charlie where I've been in the last year and half we didn't see a lot of O-8's. Just some field colonels who were ducking RPG's and the ever popular improvised explosive devices like the rest of us. As for the remainder of your post I'm not sure if I have the energy to even respond since it is so full of spin or out and out inaccuracy ( sure you aren't going to work in public affairs for this O-8?) that I don't even know where to begin.

Ok I know this is a waste of time for Charlie but I will try and cover the realities for others that might be reading this thread:

Charlie writes:
"It's clear that Bush had his units approval, even encouragement, to take the job in Alabama, since his efficiency report mentions it favorably. If you're in high dudgeon about it now, it doesn't have anything to do with any informed opinion."

Reality check: Bush's two supervising officers, Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, made it clear that Bush had "not been observed at" his Texas unit "during the period of report" -- the twelve month period from May 1972 through the end of April 1973.
In the comments section of this evaluation report Lieutenant Colonel Harris notes that Bush had "cleared this base on 15 May 1972, and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama.
Did I somehow miss the "encouragement" Charlie. They simply said they hadn't seen him in Texas and that he was supposed to be in Alabama.
The reality is that he had put in a transfer request in May of 1972 to go to ANOTHER UNIT (the 9921st) in Alabama and that request had been rejected.
Bush never received orders for the 9921st in Alabama. Such decisions were under the jurisdiction of the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado, and the Center disallowed the transfer. The Director of Personnel Resources at the Denver headquarters noted in his rejection that Bush had a "Military Service Obligation until 26 May 1974." As an "obligated reservist," Bush was ineligible to serve his time in what amounted to a paper unit with few responsibilities. The headquarters document rejecting Bush's requested Alabama transfer was dated May 31, 1972. This transfer refusal left Bush STILL obligated to attend drills with his regular unit, the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron stationed at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston. However, Bush had already left Texas two weeks earlier and was now working on Winton Blount's campaign staff in Alabama.

So his OER was not technically correct. Bush didn't apply for duty at Dannelly Air Force Base until September 1972. From May until September 1972 he was in limbo, his temporary orders having been rejected. And when his orders to appear at Dannelly came through he still didn't appear. Although his instructions clearly directed Bush to report to Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed on the dates of "7-8 October 0730-1600, and 4-5 November 0730-1600," he never did (at least there is no paperwork that ever indicates that he reported for duty on those dates to Turnipseed or anyone else. Even the recently released "pay records" don't mesh with any of those dates.)

Charlie Continues:
"You continue to be out of line to complain about Bush going to Harvard when the ANG flew F-102s into '74, when his enlistment obligation ran out in 1973"

Sorry Charlie his original enlistment obligation was from May 68 to MAY 1974!

Charlie Writes:
"You're complaining that Bush left the service instead of fighting for a space with an active-duty guy getting RIF'ed, and dared to take an early release from the INACTIVE RESEARVE"(emphasis mine)

Two things wrong here Charlie. Where is it that you can document that he was "fighting" for a spot with any active duty people. He was suppose to be flying F102 airplanes. The active guys would have been flying F4's or at least F101's. In 1972-73 the state of the art airplane in the Texas Air National Guard was the F102 (the airplane GWB was trained on and the airplane he was obligated to fly until May of 1974). The only thing that prevented him from flying that airplane was the fact that he failed to show up for a flight physical.
Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.
Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.
"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said."
He WAS NOT an INACTIVE reservist Charlie. He didn't transfer to the inactive reserves until October 1973 when he got stuck in a paper unit in Denver so he could go to Harvard. He didn't actually get his discharge until NOVEMBER 74 (why the extra 6 months in the paper unit in Denver?).

DOES ANY OF THIS REALLY MATTER? No not really. We are playing semantic games here. As I have mentioned in my other posts I am under no illusion that GWB was the first "fortunate son" who got special treatment during the Vietnam era nor do I begrudge him going to Harvard Business school. If GWB had not been such a drama queen about his macho top gun fighter image ( by leaving 6000 men and women on the abe lincoln who hadn't been home in 10 months sitting out in the pacific ocean off the coast of california so that he could get his dramatic fly aboard photo op) I probably wouldn't be quite as upset about it all. He is the man who has led us into a war with dubious justification (but thats for another thread). He is the man who continues to fight that war by calling up thousands of reserve and national guard members (including his own Texas Air National Guard Unit). These men and women are EXPECTED to answer the call (not go to Harvard or Alabama to work on a political campaign) and to their credit they HAVE! They deserve to get a straight and honest answer from their commander in chief and not some spin about how he got an honorable discharge.

"John Allen Muhammad, convicted last November for his participation in the D.C. sniper shootings, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978-1985, where he faced two summary courts-martial. In 1983, he was charged with striking an officer, stealing a tape measure, and going AWOL. Sentenced to seven days in the brig, he received an HONORABLE discharge in 1985."

Will Kerry release his military records? I think the American People have the right to know how and why he was awarded his medals.

Posted by: ordi at February 10, 2004 01:05 PM

Well Ordi as one who was there I can suggest that it's part of being in a place where there were real bad guys shooting real bullets. Our Commander in Chief would be unfamiliar with that experience

Will Kerry release his military records? I think the American People have the right to know how and why he was awarded his medals.

Posted by: ordi at February 10, 2004 01:05 PM

Well Ordi as one who was there I can suggest that it's part of being in a place where there were real bad guys shooting real bullets. Our Commander in Chief would be unfamiliar with that experience

Will Kerry release his military records? I think the American People have the right to know how and why he was awarded his medals.

Posted by: ordi at February 10, 2004 01:05 PM

Well Ordi as one who was there I can suggest that it's part of being in a place where there were real bad guys shooting real bullets. Our Commander in Chief would be unfamiliar with that experience

Jaded, You don't "blow off" the NG and get a honorable discharge.

Evidently, in 1972, if your name was George W. Bush, you could indeed "blow off" the NG and get an honorable discharge.

The facts are in. Bush blew off his last two years of service in the NG, and has told at least one direct lie about it. No one should care about what he did thirty years ago - except that he shouldn't brag about his "service" (less than 2 years of flying) and when he lies about it, directly or indirectly, those lies should be pointed out.

No one cared enough to report him AWOL then, but then he was just the son of George Bush, no one important in himself. Today he's the President of the US... and if he wants people to ignore what he did and didn't do 30+ years ago, he shouldn't tell lying boasts about it.

Bill Hobbs wrote:

"I think the American people have a right to know if Kerry was so traumatized by combat that he will do anything to avoid it - after all, it would be dangerous to have as president a man who would refuse to go to war under any circumstances. Our enemies would attack nonstop."

This is the same repellent and nauseating insinuation that Bush made about John McCain - that his captivity in North Vietnam made him too mentally unstable to be trusted as President. They also added the vicious rumor that he might have given secrets to the North Vietnamese for favors.

Both were absolute lies - and were so revolting that they have to be the all-time record low in campaign smear tactics. However, they were credited with McCain's 18 point victory in New Hampshire in 2000 within a month.

Now the sleaze is being recycled for Kerry.

If combat is so traumatizing that it, in and of itself, can disqualify John McCain and John Kerry, then it makes sense why this little draft-dodging weasel is the consensus favorite of the Right.

Geez, Louize...what SCUM.

Slartibartfast wrote:

I mean, if Bush got points for appearing, what records do you think might show that he didn't?

Actually, the records proving Bush to be a liar are all available - its just that his supporters refuse to acknowledge them.

Bush produced an artfully torn sheet with dates showing his "points" for late 1972 and into 1973 as "proof" of his "cram" service back in Texas. Unfortunately for Bush, the original is available from the official ARPC archives in Denver (where Bush's disciplinary squadron was located -more about that below).

The document isn't a Texas ANG doc, nor is it an Alabama ANG doc - it includes one date when Bush was assigned, but not present, in Alabama, and the rest when he claimed to be back in Texas.

The missing part of Bush's document shows that it is an ARF document. ARF is a squadron where reservists and NG personnel are assigned for disciplinary reasons. It is a "paper squad" that doesn't require drills, meetings, or even attendance. The punishment aspect is that all NG people assigned to ARF are subject to callup to Vietnam. Magically, Bush was able to avoid this aspect of his punishment.

This is what the public documentary record shows (despite Bush supporters' claims that there is no evidence):

The TANG official records show that Bush attended his last active meeting in May, 1972 (despite Bush's lies about later meetings).

Bush refused to take his flight physical in July, 1972. As a result he was grounded - never to fly again.

After his grounding in July and unexcused absence from meetings since May, Bush was suspended in August, 1972 and the official record of his suspension was recorded on September 29, 1972.

Bush was then transferred to the ARF squadron, where the first record of unearned points was October 29, 1972.

Bush did not "cram" 36 days of active duty in Texas during 1973. His own official Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary document shows that in his first year (5/27/68 - 5/26/69, he earned 226 active duty points. In the second year he earned 313. In the third, he lost interest and only earned 46. In the fourth (5/27/71 - 5/26/72) he was a chronic no-show and only earned 22 points. He earned no points in either his fifth or sixth years (the ANG does not recognize "paper" points from ARF - which is a Reserve punishment unit and not an ANG unit).

By the way, Bush's torn "copy" is NOT a copy of the official document. The official document lists his unit correctly as L9CMPY, while Bush's "document" lists it mistakenly as L9CHPY. Hmmmmm.....

The official documents exist, despite spin and hand-waving to the contrary. They are all available from official sources under the Freedom of Information Act. Scanned copies are available on the web - just go look.

BTW, the primary definition of Desertion under Article 85 of the UCMJ is:

"Any member of the armed forces who without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;"

The punishment for this in the same article is:

"c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct"

At a time when almost 60,000 Americans were being killed in a war that Bush supported, he couldn't even be bothered to complete his "weekend warrior" obligation.

The man (and I use the term loosely) is beneath contempt - as are his self-blinded hypocritical apologists.