This is simply not credible. We know that Lt. Bush's records were destroyed in 1998. [/sarcasm]

Damn. I was predicting a change in the goal by 2100 EST; it's only 1903EST.

They're quick.

Nah, they'll insisted on a holographic video recording of Lt. Bush's every single moment of existance between 1971 and 1972. Anything short of that proved that he not only went AWOL, but deserted. [/sarcasm]

It appears that most of the folks posting on that site could benefit from Depakote.

Damned if Chris Matthews isn't insisting that the records must have something to hide in them or they wouldn't have released them on Friday.

David Gregory thinks there is something meaningful that Bush was doing his service in Alabama but didn't get paid for months. (Another demonstration that he's never in his life dealt with the military.)

This is lookink more and more like the standard Bush 'brer rabbit' political strategy.

Let them think they've got you, then pull the rug out.

Helpful political advice for the Democrats: The next time Terry McAuliffe tells you to do something, do the exact opposite.

Well, we've learned on thing from this episode --- it IS possible to have your credibility ruined within the blogosphere. Kevin Drum is only believable amongst the DU crowd, now. Why he decided to throw it away, I'll never know, but it's pretty much gone.

Unfair, Ricky. I'm sure Kevin will push just as hard for the release of John F. Kerry's FBI files.

What did you expect?

I argue with these guys because it is easy than kicking stray dogs. ;)

The nice thing about all this is that the cards of everyone are on the table. True colors are revealed. Now you know what these guys are really about. No doubt at all.

I, for one, hope this is all over, so we can get back to focusing on how George W Bush is running the country into the ground.

Chris Wage - agreed lets focus on Bush and Kerry's records. Which will result in a 50 state Bush landslide.

By and large, I used to take Calpundit to be an honest brokerage of liberal opinion -- if my own arguments didn't stand up, I forced myself to do some rethinking. And he made some good points about Bush's budget numbers -- but on this Bush/National Guard thing, he revealed this trait of his to be absolute atomistic when it came to Bush bashing... there is nothing Bush could do to satisfying him on anything, other than a complete reversal on any policy -- and that is a reflection of Bush's flawed character that he can't stick to anything.

It's pointless.

Of course, the real story emerging from Bush's medical records is that he had (drumroll, please) *hemorrhoids*. Must have been hurt pulling G's in that F-102. Those seats were damn firm.

[Folks]

I have said it before... I-10 is littered with the roadkill bodies of people who "misunderestimated" George W. Bush.

(Ann Richards, for example, and Al Gore.)

I suspect he's doing the same thing with WMDs in Iraq. I'm sure David Kay was right that we're not going to find large stockpiles of CBW lying about; but I wouldn't be at all surprise if sometime in the summer, we're suddenly hit with a bombshell (heh, sorry) of something we did find, something that will obliterate the credibility of the lefty critics of the war.

I won't tug on Superman's cape. I won't "spit" into the wind. I won't pull the mask from the old Lone Ranger -- and I fer dadburn sure ain't a-gonna bet against Texas George!

Dafydd

Dayfudd-- surely you jest. Don't you realize, as soon as we "find" some WMDs, it'll only serve as further proof of a sham war as scripted as any Hollywood publicity stunt?

The fact that we *haven't* found WMDs yet *should*, logically, be proof against accusations that the war was founded on a nefarious lie-- because if it were, wouldn't the administration at least think to manufacture after-the-fact justification by planting WMDs for the troops to "find"?

Just shows how willing the Left is to use logic.

It's unreasonable optimism to think that finding WMDs now would sway any Leftist's opinion; to them, it would prove nothing but Bush's evil nature.

George W. Bush could find the cure for cancer, and the Left would claim it was just his plan to enrich the big drug companies.

I think sensible Dems (oxymoron?) know this story isn't going anywhere. But they are using it as a preemptive strike against Bush. They want Bush to say 30yrs ago doesn't matter. Then when Bush goes after Kerry's anti-war activities the Dems can say the same.
Related note - I asked a die hard anti-Bush guy at work to prove to me he attended a class in college. He pointed to his grade which I said didn't prove anything (like the honorable discharge). He said he might still have the textbook and/or notes which I of course said were altered or fake. I asked if the professor or anyone in the class remembered him being there which he couldn't say for sure. Then he lapsed into his Bush is a stupid coke head routine and I walked away.

How is it okay for Bill Clinton to abuse ROTC to avoid the draft. travel to Europe and protest the war with Socialists, but when Bush can't disprove a negative assertion it's further proof of his corruption?!

It's gone from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent" to "guilty even if proven innocent."

Check this out.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=2&u=/ap/20040214/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_military_records_75

These people have no shame. It raises questions? Yeah, like where was Bush at 2:32 pm on February 16, 1972? Where was he at 2:33 pm? Where was he at 2:34 pm?

Why is it that he has to document every single episode in his entire life, and no one else does?

This whole episode has prompted me to look at the records of both candidates. Now that I seen Kery's record after he returned, I am completely repulsed. Who would vote for a knob like that. yuck!

They're so blinded by hatred it is pathetic. If God suddenly handed them Bush's National Guard papers, they would question the source!

What I got out of the document dump was that in the 1971 and 1972 performance appraisals, Lt Bush was given amazing comments like "natural leader", "exemplary pilot" and someone who should be promoted above his peers.
He also apparently was turned down entry to the National Guard due to bad teeth, got the teeth fixed, and made it in! It sure sounded like he wanted in. He also applied for Vietnam, says someone from his base, but was turned down (as the war was ending). None of this will change one Democrat mind but it looks like the profile of a hard-working, dedicated, military officer serving his country with honor. That's what it was. End of story.

If Bush invented a completely free, and clean energy source, the left would complain about a loss of jobs in the oil industry and it being unfair competition to countries in the middle east. ;)

AWW

You've nailed it. The Hate Bushies want us to be worn down by their constant lies (Lt. Bush had an affair in a jet with a blonde intern, um cadet; oops, that allegation's not been released yet) so that we holler "Boring; who cares what happened in the Alabama NG 30+ yrs ago." Then the trap: They cry "Gotcha!!! We agree with you members of the VRWC; who cares what Kerry did with someone else's medals 30 yrs ago, what unprovable stories he spread about Viet Nam?"

BTW, everybody: That alleged Bush Harvard MBA? Everybody knows that it means the same as his alleged Honorable Discharge from the NG; Daddy got it for him, for that privileged, um, make that over-privileged, frat-boy alcoholic. I understand that a classmate has let it be known that Bush 43 couldn't identify in class the president of Acme Brick...

And you think that that marriage cert proves that he & Laura are married? Come on, that blonde cadet....

Dudes,
We haven't seen anything yet. The coming campaign is going to be one of the dirtiest in American history. Terry and his goons have been plotting since the Supreme Court turned back Gore's attempt to steal the 2000 election.

We must fight hard to refute the lies and ensure a Bush victory in November. A socialist victory will destroy progress we've made in the war on terror and wreck the US economy.

"Terry McAuliffe and his goons"?

The same goon squad whose "Get Jeb" strategy saw Jeb cruise to a 15-point win in the '02 Florida Governor's race? The same goon squad whose phuckwit tactics saw the Repubs add to their Senate, House, and Governor's seats in '02?

The gloves will come off when W starts unloading some of the $200M in his campaign war chest.

I can't wait. But just to be sure, I'm signing up as a precinct watcher. You don't think they got all those dimpled chads in Florida by handing just one ballot to registered Democrat voters, do you?

furious

At this rate, the Democrats' scandal-mongering will lose any credibility with the middle-of-the-road voter.

They'll simply be tuned out by the fall.

A recent message on a Democratic mailing list illustrates the point being made here:

"Just because Dubya hid out the war in the Guard does not now exhonerate him and the other rich 'Vietnam War cowards', as termed by Colin Powell, who used their family connections to avoid being drafted and serving in Vietnam. This guy was also allowed to 'skip his last year' in the Guard to attend acting classes --- yeah, like that's MORE important than 'defending the homeland against civil unrest' or 'a national emergency'!!!!!!!"

I think this is a pathetic position for the Democrats to be arguing.

I think this is a pathetic position for the Democrats to be arguing.

Esspecially since both Gore and Kerry got early-outs as well.

Matt Scholl
We haven't seen anything yet. The coming campaign is going to be one of the dirtiest in American history

You've got that right, though from my point of view, the picture of Fonda with Kerry sitting a few rows back without pointing out that the picture was from Sep. 1970 and Fonda went to Hanoi in July of 1972; as well as the black and white Photoshopped hatchet job of Kerry and Fonda at a podium that was up on NewsMax until Snopes outed it as the hoax it was are probably not exactly the examples you had in mind.

What was done to McCain in South Carolina is not going to be unchallenged when it's attempted again.

What Kerry and Bush did or did not do 30 years ago is relevant to their qualifications to be President only to the extent that each man's behavior then is predictive of what he would be like as President.

As Mark Steyn recently pointed out in the Telegraph, Bush has changed greatly since then. Among other things, he has become a born-again Christian and has foresworn alcohol. He's raised a family, run a business, been governor of Texas. It's therefore likely that his behavior in the 70s would have little predictive value with respect how he would serve as President. More importantly, we voters have the benefit of his recent experience as President. It's reasonable to assume that a second Bush term would be similar to his first term, factoring in the effect of being term-limited.

Applying the same process to Kerry, one should ask whether there is any indication in the interim that would indicate a change of philosophy from that of the VVAW spokesman of the 1970s. Less change => more predictive value. Not having researched his voting record in the Senate, I must rely on published reports that Kerry has consistently voted against defense expenditures, voted against Gulf War I, voted for the Iraq war but then voted to (in essence) defund it once the troops were on the ground. On domestic issues, it is reported that there are few if any more "liberal" Senators. It has also been reported that Kerry has initiated or co-sponsored comparatively few bills during his Senate term. One more thing -- he was Mike Dukakis's Lieutenant Governor. This record suggests that Kerry has not, in fact, changed much since the 1970s, and therefore his activities then should be more predictive of what kind of President he would be.

So Vetcurm, pictures or not. How do you reconcile what he did with the winter soldier thing? He sat in front of a congressional committee and brought in fake vets who (him included) spread bs stories of war crimes. Every vietnam vet was smeared by that action. He helped to propel the whole baby killer myth. Jane Fonda helped to finance that little foray into fantasy.

General Giap wrote in his memoirs that if it wasn't for kerry's VVAW org, he would have had to surrender. Maybe in a few years after he is elected OBL will write similiar memoirs. ;)

capt joe

As far as Kerry's testimony in front of Congress, I really haven't explored that in any depth so far, so I haven't made up my mind on it.

I consider the photo stuff to be a smear and an outright lie. Like I said before, they did it to McCain in South Carolina last election. Such stuff sets off my BS detector, because if a candidate has valid political positions they don't need to pull crap like this.

General Giap wrote in his memoirs that if it wasn't for kerry's VVAW org, he would have had to surrender. Maybe in a few years after he is elected OBL will write similiar memoirs.

I got that Gen Giap quote on another board, please allow me to paste here what I said there:

I haven't read Gen. Giap's memoirs, so I can't comment to that. I do find it very hard to square that with this:

In 1990, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Stanley Karnow asked North Vietnam's brilliant General Vo Nguyen Giap how long he would have resisted the American onslaught. "Twenty years, maybe 100 years!" he thundered. "As long as it took to win, regardless of cost."

Cecil B. Curry (author of a biography on Giap) characterizes him like this:

Giap is best known for his fanatical obsession with freeing his homeland from western domination and uniting it under the communist rule of Ha Noi; for staggering battlefield losses he was willing to absorb in furtherance of those ends; and for his skill as a logistician as he moved men and supplies across impossible terrain in sufficient numbers to accomplish his goals. His icy exterior overlay a temper so fiery the French described him as a "snow-covered volcano" and, sometimes, even Ho Chi Minh had difficulty keeping him within bounds.

That quote is completely congruent with what I know of the general attitude of the North Vietnamese, and that characterization consistent with my own memories. Giap dedicated his adult life to his cause. He lost his wife in 1941 in a prison (later called the Hanoi Hilton). One story is that she committed suicide after torture. American intelligence reported that the French beat her to death. Either way, I think you can see why Gen. Giap was committed.

And if you really want to talk about smear, how about what Ann Coulter said about Max Cleland? I have to admit I didn't think much of her before, but after what she said, as far as I am concerned as a vet, she's right down there with Hanoi Jane.

VetCum

Now that you've expressed your opinion on Ann Coulter, NewsMax, & John McCain & your indecision about the meaning of Sen Kerry's post-War actions, can we get back to the main point of this thread? That is, that there is no proof that Bush 43 was AWOL or a deserter from the NG.

TomCom

VetCum,

I'll take the bait. I read Coulter's article. Was any of it untrue? If not, zip it. Tell McAuliffe and the gang to stop inflating military records of the 1% of current Democratic leaders will military records and there will be no need to highlight the glaring inaccuracies. Kudos to Sen Cleland for his service. I'm proud of him. I still don't like his politics, though, and his service doesn't warrant him a free pass on national security.

I'm a current F-16 pilot, my twin bro is on his THIRD rotation in the Afghan AOR as an MC-130P pilot and my Dad did TWO tours in Vietnam as an F-4 pilot. G'dad did 4 years as a P-47 pilot in WWII. We all think Kerry is a back-stabbing opportunist, and we all see nothing wrong with Bush's ANG service. As pilots, we know how challenging flying F-102s was, and his Officer Performance Reports plainly state he was an above average fighter pilot and officer. Kerry on the other hand, despite his service in Nam, tried to waylay the military and intelligence services through an atrocious voting record and misguided speeches and papers. Kerry wants the GOP to "bring it" on national defense? Stand by to be thrilled Potsy.

Where does the current crop of military officers stand? Squarely behind GW. That will be plain come November when the GOP sweeps the military vote, despite the DNC trotting out a "war hero." Please. Be honest: The DNC's sudden lust for all things military is a farce...we in the military are not as impressionable or stupid as those on the left believe us to be. By the way...we also vote...in large numbers.

>>At this rate, the Democrats' scandal-mongering will lose any credibility with the middle-of-the-road voter.

Yep. They already lost me. I quit the party and I'm voting for Bush in November. I don't agree with much of what he does, but I support him in his actions against terrorism, including the Iraq War, and this is the primary issue that concerns me in the coming election.

As a Democrat, I was quite moderate, and my views on the issues have not changed. But my former party has changed a great deal. What was good and decent and noble in its aims has now been overrun by people in tinfoil helmets. The AWOL escapade -- which never had any credibility to anyone with critical thinking skills -- proves that in spades.

Laurie K.

Laurie K

I applaud your courage. That's the same reason Sen Miller is stumping for Bush, and the same reason I suspect Sen Breaux is retiring. My fiance's family are all Kentucky union Democrats. No fans of President Bush, but they voted Republican in the last KY Gov election and I suspect some of them will vote for Bush in November, like a lot of other southern Dems. The special interests and the American apologists of the Democratic party have taken over the joint, and the ranks of the GOP are growing daily. You don't have to swallow everything the GOP stands for (I'm not very far right myself), but the Democratic Party has absolutely nothing for me. Instead, they deride and mock all that I really stand for...individual freedom, free trade, love of God and country, a strong defense, low taxes, self-reliance, pro-business, pro-family...yep, pretty much anathema to the DNC right there.

Ivan:

Brilliant posts. One of the things I love about the blogosphere is that it gives military personnel like you (who I consider to be heroes) a voice in these debates that I personally find more convincing than any other source.

VetC..,
I seriously doubt the Kerry/traitor pictures were created or distributed by the RNC. I stand by my comment that the DNC will have no decency in this year's campaign.

What did Ann Coulter say about Senator Cleeland that wasn't true? All she did was to knocked him off of Terry's pedestal.

Ricky said:

Well, we've learned on thing from this episode --- it IS possible to have your credibility ruined within the blogosphere. Kevin Drum is only believable amongst the DU crowd, now. Why he decided to throw it away, I'll never know, but it's pretty much gone.

I think this is an important lesson. Many people used to link Kevin. I bet many stop.

If indeed bloggers believe all their own hype about being peer reviewed and more accurate than the regular media, then Kevin should no longer be considered reliable.

How many of you would link to Jayson Blair today?

It was not a surprise to me. In the past he has openly said he thinks it is OK to lie of you are scoring political points.

From my chair the best part is he got caught. He has been lying about everything ESPECIALLY economics for ages. I'm just glad it came home to roost.

ok, the friggen wmd's. if the us's info was so wonderful and conclusive, why haven't they managed to find them yet? morons.
i couldn't give a flying f$## if bush went awol, was a shit of a soldier or whatever. it's got nothing to do with what is now. really.
it's happened, i'm not happy, it's not right yet, get over it. i don't trust the yanks, well not at all really. but the germans have got their shit together. goin strong now. the iraqis are going through some deep shit. some brought on by religious bullshit, some by yankees with no clue making things worse, (don't get me wrong, what do i know, iraqis wanted to be rid of saddamn who sucks, but they're just a little confused with the new fascist dictators). people are people. we ain't perfect. as long as you've got people with guns, you are gonna get idiots holding them with no clue. sooner or later, the iraqis will get their shit together, make their nation strong again, and be the wonderful country of happy, smart, industrious people they can be.

Ivan

Ok, you're an F-16 driver. Answer me this:

Would you blow off a flight physical and get suspended from flying? Would your brother, your Dad, your GrandDad?

I'll grant you my experience is 30 years ago, but for the guys then, the answer was "Hell, no!"

In my unit, refusing to take a flight physical would have earned you an Article 92, but then again, I was active duty instead of Reserve or Air National Guard, so I'm not going to speak to what the Guard did then, because I wasn't there, and I don't know.

Since TomCom thinks I'm OT, I'll restrict myself to just the topic under discussion. All I'll say is this - I'm looking for the truth, if I catch you trying to spin me, you've lost me.

And by the way, that last line was not directed specifically at you, Ivan. I have no reason to doubt your veracity.

VetCum

I take it from your reply to me that you do not have even a scintilla of evidence that Bush 43 was AWOL or a deserter from the NG.

End of story on this thread.

So why all your irrelevancies? And why threaten me & impugn my bona fides?

TomCom

My understanding is the NG gave GWB orders to stay in Houston, and GWB chose to disobey those orders in going to Alabama. If this is true ....

My understanding is the NG gave GWB orders to stay in Houston, and GWB chose to disobey those orders in going to Alabama. If this is true ....

If that's true, it's going to be awfully hard to explain the part of his efficiency report that speaks so well of his plans to go to Alabama.

For God's sake, you dolt, at least bother to read the documents before you start spreading some damnfool rumors.

TomCom

1. The Air Force spent in excess of $250,000 (2002 dollars) teaching George Bush to fly culminating in his being qualified to pilot the F-102A interceptor, which he did in July of 1970.

2. On May 24, 1972 he applied to transfer from the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron in Houston to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery.

3. This request was disallowed by higher headquarters, because as an obligated Reservist, he could only transfer to another Ready Reserve unit, and not to an Air Reserve Squadron. The 9921st had no aircraft at all.

4. The request for transfer having been disallowed, 1stLt Bush should have resumed attendence at the 147th Fighter Group (the 111st FIS having been re-designated) and his flight duties. 1stLt Bush, the 147th, and the 9921st were all notified in writing of this.

5. We don't see any evidence of this attendence at the 147th FG. We do see a written confirmation on 29 Sep 1972 of a verbal order issued on 1 Aug 1972 suspending him from flight status for missing his flight physical.

6. Hence we have the two month period from 24 May 1972 when he requested transfer and left for Alabama, and 1 Aug 1972 when the verbal suspension from flying order was issued. This verbal order was issued by his commander because he failed to take his flight physical. He was "Absent Without Official Leave" from the 147th.

7. 1stLt George Bush should have gotten his annual flight physical in July of 1972. He was "Absent Without Official Leave" from the flight physical, because otherwise he would not have received the verbal (and then written) suspension from flight status.

Ok, is that sufficiently "On Topic" for you?

If you see any aspersions on your "Bona Fides" then I'm sure you'll point them out.

As far as "threats" go, my, but aren't we impressed with ourselves.

One more comment about me, and I'll ignore you, because in trying to make me the subject, you are being off topic.

6. Hence we have the two month period from 24 May 1972 when he requested transfer and left for Alabama, and 1 Aug 1972 when the verbal suspension from flying order was issued. This verbal order was issued by his commander because he failed to take his flight physical. He was "Absent Without Official Leave" from the 147th.

Do you have a link to the paperwork that states that?

VetCum

Boring.

I take it from your latest reply to me that you still do not have even a scintilla of evidence that Bush 43 was AWOL or a deserter from the NG.

At the very least, you need to brush up on your logic, esp. the "fallacy of equivocation": missing meetings alone does not equal AWOL, as we've been telling you. So rant on; you're one of the last persons on the planet to stick with the AWOL point.

BTW "AWOL" means "Absent Without Leave" not "Absent Without Official Leave" as you'd have it. Does this epitomize your understanding of Military Law, Regs, etc.?

TomCom

VC,

No, I would not miss a flight physical and jeopardize my flying status. However, if I was in a non-flying billet due to the F-16 being phased out, missing my flight physical would not be a big deal. I wouldn't skip it, mind you, but there may be valid reasons why I would postpone it or otherwise not have it done. No aircraft to fly = no need to have current flight physical. If one goes back on flight orders, then a physical could be ginned up rather quickly. There are very, very plausible reasons why this flight physical could have been missed. Would you remember the exact reason 30 years from now?

Also read a Newsweek article today stating GW was "DNIF," and going off flying status required an FEB (Flying Evaluation Board). Both of these events require paperwork. Article claimed the paperwork wasn't there, so he must by AWOL. There's a problem, though.

DNIF means Duties Not Including Flying, and is a status profered by a flight doc for health reasons, the most common being some type of 24 hour cold or other sickness. It's no biggie, and I've been DNIF twice this year for flu bug stuff. I have the AF Form 1042s stating as much. The article lead the reader to belive anytime a pilot is not flying (like in a staff job at the Pentagon) he's DNIF. Totally and unambigously FALSE. The two events are wholly unrelated, and a non-flying billet does not make one DNIF.

The next is an FEB. An FEB is usually held when a pilot is going to be administratively removed from flying status...usually b/c he did something stupid. An accident involving negligence or other event might trigger one's commander to initiate FEB proceedings. The article implied that everytime a pilot goes off flight status (say, to take that staff job at the Pentagon) an FEB is held. Again, completely and unambigously FALSE. It just doesn't happen.

Anyway, to shorten this up, NEWSWEEK implied both of these events would have happened to Lt Bush and some paperwork should have been generated. In the real world, neither of these events happened to Lt Bush, nor should they have. It's very very minor details like this that highlight the complete ignorance of some in the mainstream media. It would have taken very little effort to vett a few more sources (like, I dunno, AF pilots) to help this writer understand the military details he was reporting. However, doing so would have punched two very large holes in his theory...maybe that's why he didn't pursue it. It's unfortunate that not all readers will be able to know this guy is full o' crap. And the big lie is continued...

VC,

No, I would not miss a flight physical and jeopardize my flying status. However, if I was in a non-flying billet due to the F-16 being phased out, missing my flight physical would not be a big deal. I wouldn't skip it, mind you, but there may be valid reasons why I would postpone it or otherwise not have it done. No aircraft to fly = no need to have current flight physical. If one goes back on flight orders, then a physical could be ginned up rather quickly. There are very, very plausible reasons why this flight physical could have been missed. Would you remember the exact reason 30 years from now?

Also read a Newsweek article today stating GW was "DNIF," and going off flying status required an FEB (Flying Evaluation Board). Both of these events require paperwork. Article claimed the paperwork wasn't there, so he must by AWOL. There's a problem, though.

DNIF means Duties Not Including Flying, and is a status profered by a flight doc for health reasons, the most common being some type of 24 hour cold or other sickness. It's no biggie, and I've been DNIF twice this year for flu bug stuff. I have the AF Form 1042s stating as much. The article lead the reader to belive anytime a pilot is not flying (like in a staff job at the Pentagon) he's DNIF. Totally and unambigously FALSE. The two events are wholly unrelated, and a non-flying billet does not make one DNIF.

The next is an FEB. An FEB is usually held when a pilot is going to be administratively removed from flying status...usually b/c he did something stupid. An accident involving negligence or other event might trigger one's commander to initiate FEB proceedings. The article implied that everytime a pilot goes off flight status (say, to take that staff job at the Pentagon) an FEB is held. Again, completely and unambigously FALSE. It just doesn't happen.

Anyway, to shorten this up, NEWSWEEK implied both of these events would have happened to Lt Bush and some paperwork should have been generated. In the real world, neither of these events happened to Lt Bush, nor should they have. It's very very minor details like this that highlight the complete ignorance of some in the mainstream media. It would have taken very little effort to vett a few more sources (like, I dunno, AF pilots) to help this writer understand the military details he was reporting. However, doing so would have punched two very large holes in his theory...maybe that's why he didn't pursue it. It's unfortunate that not all readers will be able to know this guy is full o' crap. And the big lie is continued...

TomCom

I see you want it both ways. First you complain I'm off topic, then you complain I'm the "last one" on topic.

can we get back to the main point of this thread? That is, that there is no proof that Bush 43 was AWOL or a deserter from the NG

...you're one of the last persons on the planet to stick with the AWOL point.

So which is it?

BTW "AWOL" means "Absent Without Leave" not "Absent Without Official Leave" as you'd have it. Does this epitomize your understanding of Military Law, Regs, etc.?

Well, at least we know one person who doesn't let not having knowledge about a subject prevent him from holding forth on the it. He's just full of opinions even when he doesn't know the facts.

AWOL definition, wikipedia

Government handbook, Leave regulations

TomB
Do you have a link to the paperwork that states that?

Certainly. These are scans of the documents which were released in response to earlier FOIA requests.

Scan: Request for transfer -AF Form 1288 - 24 May 1972

Scan: Written Orders confirming Verbal Orders Suspending from Flying - 29 Sep 1972

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the words "AWOL" on those papers. Could you kinda give a direction where on the page they are found?

Well, at least we know one person who doesn't let not having knowledge about a subject prevent him from holding forth on the it. He's just full of opinions even when he doesn't know the facts.

Yes, YOU.

DOD (That's the Department of Defense) Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

MILITARY ACRONYMS AND TERMS

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

Military Acronyms and Dictionary

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

United States Army Regulations, Manuals, & Pamphlets

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

List of government and military acronyms

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

Common Air Force and AFROTC Acronyms and Abbreviations

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

Air Force Acronyms

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

Today's Army : Military Acronyms (DefenseWeb)

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

Navy Acronyms

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

GUARD & RESERVE FAMILY READINESS PROGRAMS TOOLKIT

AWOL: Absent Without Leave

TomB

Do you post under two names, Tom? I mean, that's ok, I'm just trying to get a feel of how things are around here.

Were you in any military service in 1971, 1972, or 1973?

I don't care what they say it is now.

I refer to it by what it was called then.

I know what they called it then, because I was there. So far, it's looking like you weren't there, and have to take the word of others.

In thirty years, it has drifted.

Are we reduced to pedantically arguing semantics, because if that's all you got, I'm hearing echos of "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

And that goes double for I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the words "AWOL" on those papers. Could you kinda give a direction where on the page they are found?

I will give you a little hint. Pay close attention to "Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: para 2-29m AFM 35-13."

Now, I'm not going to translate that for you. You've demonstrated what an internet über warrior you are.

Break out your handy-dandy search engine(s), and let's see what you can find. (Look for me a left handed monkey wrench while you are at it.)

Gee, it doesn't speak to "AWOL". I wonder what it does speak to? Hmmm?

Do you post under two names, Tom? I mean, that's ok, I'm just trying to get a feel of how things are around here.

No, I only post by this name here, ask Bill Hobbs to confirm that if you like.

Although, seeing as there are two of us here that have "Tom" in our names, I can see how you would be confused. You do seem to be easily confused.

Were you in any military service in 1971, 1972, or 1973?

No, and for that I'm truly sorry. But when I tried to enlist, they told me that due to the drawdown, they were no longer accepting 10 year-olds.

I don't care what they say it is now.

I refer to it by what it was called then.

Uh, no. This was the conversation between TomCom and you:

TomCom: BTW "AWOL" means "Absent Without Leave" not "Absent Without Official Leave" as you'd have it. Does this epitomize your understanding of Military Law, Regs, etc.?

You: Well, at least we know one person who doesn't let not having knowledge about a subject prevent him from holding forth on the it. He's just full of opinions even when he doesn't know the facts.

Nowhere there did you say anything about "now" vs "then". Although that too is a red herring.

I know what they called it then, because I was there. So far, it's looking like you weren't there, and have to take the word of others.

Of course.

I will give you a little hint. Pay close attention to "Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: para 2-29m AFM 35-13."

If you did spend any time in the service, and actually paid attention, you would know that "AWOL" is a specific charge. The fact that it appears nowhere in his records is proof that he was, in fact, not "AWOL".

Break out your handy-dandy search engine(s), and let's see what you can find. (Look for me a left handed monkey wrench while you are at it.)

Funny, it was YOU who first posted googled links that "proved" your defintion of "AWOL". Of course, that ended pretty bad for you.

But keep trying......

Oh, excuse me. That reply was to "TomCom" about the definition of "AWOL". I musta forgot to cc: you on that one, so you immediately jumped in. If you're not him, then you're taking his wing, right? Like I said, not a problem, just have to pay a little more attention to my six.

You do seem to be easily confused.

That's "amused" Tom, not "confused". I just love ad hominem attacks, they tend to be hilarious.

No, and for that I'm truly sorry.

Oh yeah, I can see those crocodile tears now. Tell me, was it "other priorities" for you too?
On the other hand, maybe you're trying to tell me that it's thirty years later, and you're still 10!!
The fountain of youth has been discovered at last!

If you did spend any time in the service, and actually paid attention, you would know that "AWOL" is a specific charge. The fact that it appears nowhere in his records is proof that he was, in fact, not "AWOL".

If you had spent any time in the service, then you would know that it only proves he wasn't charged.

Funny, it was YOU who first posted googled links that "proved" your defintion of "AWOL".

Ok, tell me how to respond to BTW "AWOL" means "Absent Without Leave" not "Absent Without Official Leave" as you'd have it. Does this epitomize your understanding of Military Law, Regs, etc.? without posting a citation?
I know because, like I said, I was there. Now, where does that leave people who weren't there? Don't take my word for it? Fine, I don't believe you either, so I have absolutely no expectation of you believing me.

Checked to see didn't you? I already knew it wasn't there. You see, I've got this little blue book of Air Force Regulations that they issued me waaay back there. What a shame it's not on the internet. What a shame you never were issued one.

I was hoping for some serious discussion, but so far what I'm getting is lightweight semantics and structural positings, except from Ivan.

Ok, time for TomCom to tag up and jump back in and claim I'm OT. (Just curious, do you guys wear similar masks when you tag team?)

Ivan

Short post, just to let you know I'm not ignoring you. Look, man, I know just how much you had to bust your a$$ to be a fighter pilot, even if I wasn't one myself.
If they have advanced as much as I think they have since they showed us those classified videos of the AC-130 Spectre operating over the Ho Chi Minh trail way back there, I stand in awe of what your brother is accomplishing with that MC-130 in Afghanistan.

I know we stand on different sides of this argument.

Just remember, for me, it is thirty years, and I didn't miss any. I can't help but feel if you asked your Dad, he'd say the same about his flight physicals.

VC,

Like I said earlier, there may be valid reasons he missed his flight physical. If I went to a non-flying job like Lt Bush did in Alabama, I might not take my flight physical for some reason. It might have conflicted with something else. I rescheduled my last flight physical due to a conflict. The fact he did not get a flight physical one year proves exactly one thing: He did not get a flight physical that year.

There seems to be two sides: He served honorably and impeccably, or he was AWOL. The true story likely lies in between. I believe (based on my own experiences and the evidence at hand) he served honorably but not perfectly. He did some great things in the Guard...just look at the glowing Officer Performance Reports lauding his abilities as a fighter pilot. Could he have done other things better and put in some extra effort n different areas? Sure. The same can be said of every single one of us, both in the military and civilian life.

The bottom line is that he was not AWOL, he did serve his required time, and he was honorably discharged. As far as leaving early, that is no big deal. The ANG and active duty were purging guys left and right at the time. It's a myth that the military does not let people out early...they do it all the time. I'm currently enrolling in a program called Palace Chase that will allow me to serve the remainder of my commitment (I have 8 mos left) in the AF Reserve. I'm gong to continue flying F-16s full time, I'm just going to do it in the AF Reserve.

Rest assured, I'm keeping all my paperwork. When I run for the Senate from Florida, I'm sure the next McAuliffe will attempt to smear me by saying I shirked by duty by 8 months! Anyway, there is no story here. Some may think GW was AWOL despite the facts, but I think those that take that line aren't honestly assessing the facts and, like many others, letting their distaste for Bush's policies color their judgement of his past actions. If you want to say he could've served better, fine, say that. But give up the AWOL charges. It's time to let that one go.

Well said Ivan, although I dare say it is wasted electrons when it comes to VC.

Anyway, here is another blog from a former reservist that goes over the record very thoroughly:

Milblog: Reserve points are important, right?

Guys

It ain't over...

Boring & annoying.

Both fair & balanced Chris Matthews & the alleged political expert on CNN (he awarded it his "Political Play of The Week") have opined that the Bush/AWOL story is a great thing for the Democrats 'cause it keeps the pressure on Bush (despite the fact that it's untrue & ludicrous!).

So, apparently, despite the words of wisdom from our host on this thread that it's over, some Democrat operatives are determined to keep it up, sans evidence, sans truth. Just keep repeat the unfounded statements
of others ad nauseum. The Big Lie. It works more often than we'd like. A friend of mine keeps saying that there must be something there since so many "experts" (anybody who repeats the charge)keep coming up with so much "proof" (repeating the charge) that Bush 43 was AWOL. Go figure.

And John F. Kerry gets to say "I'm not gonna comment on it." (I'll let my flacks do the dirty work for me, with the alleged pundits' acclaim, stupid!)

And so, I guess we soldier on, poking holes in this particular Hate-Bush
Balloon: The AWOL-Bush Balloon.

It's annoying to think that some of these Dem flacks (or GOP flacks, for that matter) might be on these threads. Now, pls note that unlike some folks, I understand Logic 101, esp., fallacious arguments & burden of proof. Let me state, then, that I have no evidence, none, nada, that anyone on this thread is a Dem operative or flack & so I make no such charge.

Do the terms "Democrat apologist" or slow learner ring a bell, however, when someone

(1) joins & says:

I know what I'm talking about here & here's what I'm gonna tell ya, definitively, ya see:

- Bush Missed NG Meetings (Details, some true, mostly false, follow);
- Missing NG Meetings = AWOL (the meaning of such acronym not understood)
- QED, Bush 43 was AWOL;

And

(2) keeps it up & up in the face of Logic 101 explanations:

(your details in your major premise are two weeks old & have been refuted, & your minor premise has an undistributed middle; not all Missed Meetings = AWOL under the UCMJ);

and keeps it up when records of attendance are supplied; or

changes the subject to Elect 2000 & John McCain and Elect 2002 & Ann Coulter?

Doesn't it seem to come down to Last Man (um, person) Standing?

But effective with Chris M. & CNN & Bush Haters I guess.

TomCom

On reflection, in my 3:12 PM Post, change my phrase "Democrat Apologist" to "Mindless Ritualistic Republican Demonizer".

TomCom

I found today's Wall St. Jour review debunking the History Channel's LBJ-killed-JFK invention, "The Guilty Men", quite in point with the Bush 43 was AWOL invention.

The essence of the review/debunking:

"And indeed, after 'The Guilty Men' first aired, the network seemed to defend the program with a statement saying it was 'presenting a point of view that has been meticulously researched.'

"It's a comment to bear in mind as one takes in the documentary's intricate
network of plots and dark connections. The narrative consists mainly of
pronouncements from alleged witnesses and sources offering clarifications on the order of 'I know beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson murdered Kennedy,' all of it seasoned with input from a collection of intense-looking characters
introduced as 'assassination experts.'

"Not to mention Madeleine Brown,
self-described as a mistress to Lyndon Johnson--the man, she says, who arranged
Kennedy's murder, and who, she declares, was just a wonderful person. She still
has the hotel room key he pressed on her--also a son who is, she confides, Lyndon's. In tones heavy with significance, she reports that the night before the assassination, Johnson had sought her out at a large party, to whisper that those Kennedys would never laugh at him again.

"Ms. Brown was but one of many similar exemplars of the film's meticulous
research."

Sounds strangely similar to the same "meticulous research" presented over & over again in these threads to "prove" beyond a shadow of a doubt that the strawberries were missing, er, that Bush 43 was AWOL.

Heh!

TomCom

http://www.awolbush.com/faq.asp

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html

How can one be AWOL when one does not accure leave in the National Guard or Reserves? People do not know how the Guard and Reserves work. Bush 43 could have had permisssion to miss drills. If he does not get a good 50 points for a good year, then its a bad year for retirement, and one has to make up a full calander year for a good one. He got an Honorable Discharge. BAD CONDUCT, UNDESIRABLE, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND DISHONORABLE DISCHARGES goes to total dirt bags that can not adapt to Military Life. Bush 43 was totally adaptable.

First off, I read through most of these posts, and I have to say, I am impressed. Hardly any facts, lots of spin. And lots of off topic distractions. The below is a copy of a post I did on another BLOG about the whole bush awol topic.

*******************************

I have done extensive research of this issue - and here are some of the facts:

1. bush got into the air NG because strings were pulled. people have testified to this, under oath. and the facts support this (see 2 below)

2. In support of point 1 above - bush scored in the bottom 25% of all applicants on the flight school entrance exam, and he had a couple of arrests on his record. military experts say that it is unheard of that someone would be accepted to flight school with these credentials, especially during a time when so many better qualified people were applying.

3. bush requested a transfer to alabama, the transfer was approved by the alabama unit, but REJECTED by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado. but he went to alabama anyway, when he was supposed to STILL BE attending every month in Texas (near houston).

4. it is unlikely he attended drills in alabama. there is not one shred of evidence that he did. of course, there is a chance he did, but several people testified that he was never seen there. AND it is highly unlikely that so much documentation could just accidently be "lost". no rosters, no reviews, all the standard things the reserves do and keep track of - every weekend. and it doesn't even matter, because the transfer was REJECTED.

5. the fact that bush went to an alabama reserve unit and got a dental check up and a couple of teeth capped DOES NOT prove he did any of his reserves duty while in alabama. it proves he didnt take care of his teeth and he took advantage of his military dental coverage. We know he was in alabama. The question is - did he go to his monthly training? this is a subtle point most people miss.

(example - I ran in the 2003 boston marathon. you don't believe me? here a reciept where I ate lunch at taco bell in boston on thursday april 17th, 2003 on Boylston Street ... that proves I did run the boston marathon. um, no it does not...)

6. After bush got back to texas from his trip to alabama, he did not start going back to his weekend drills with his houston-area unit - for a couple of months.

7. contrary to the media SPIN on this, a reservist IS in fact obligated to go every month to his monthly training. It's not optional. Ask any soldier in the reserves and they will tell the deal. Monthly drills can rescheduled, in advance, on a case-by-case basis with permission of the units commanding officer.

If anyone would like links to several different websites that document these facts - let me know.

It amazes me that the news is not doing its job to get the facts to the american public.

none of this should be any suprise.

people with money and power use it.
people in high places or with friends and family in high places get special treatment - all the time.
people in high places can get away with - just about anything.