W AWOL from the TANG, but the military loves him. Hmmmm.

Expect plenty of disagreement. Just keep it civil.
User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:24 am

W for war but eager to avoid it, prof recalls

BY CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

President Bush' former Harvard Business School prof says his ex-student supported the Vietnam War but wanted somebody else to fight it.

Yoshi Tsurumi said yesterday that Bush told him his father's connections got him into the Texas Air National Guard. "But what really disturbed me is that he said he was for the Vietnam War," said Tsurumi, who has also taught at Baruch College and the City University of New York. "I said, 'George, that's hypocrisy. You won't fight a war that you support but you expect other people to fight it for you.' He just smirked."

Tsurumi, who crossed paths with Bush in the early 1970s when the future President was studying for his MBA, previously has criticized Bush's economic policies and described him as a mediocre student who "believed people were poor because they were lazy."

But Tsurumi's new volley comes as Bush has been battling allegations he got preferential treatment at the height of the divisive Vietnam War. Bush, according to Tsurumi, "had no sense of guilt" about getting into the Guard while others wound up fighting in Vietnam.

"He was very casual about it," the professor said. "I said, 'Lucky you, how did you manage it?' He said, 'My dad had a good friend who put me at the head of the waiting list.'"

The White House declined to comment on Tsurumi's recollections, but Bush has denied that his father, who was a congressman at the time, pulled strings to get him a much-sought-after berth in the Guard.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:36 pm

Rspaight wrote:Tsurumi, who crossed paths with Bush in the early 1970s when the future President was studying for his MBA, previously has criticized Bush's economic policies and described him as a mediocre student who "believed people were poor because they were lazy."

Image
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

User avatar
Patrick M
Posts: 1714
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: LukPac Land

Postby Patrick M » Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:24 pm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 915-3.html

Q Scott, on the National Guard documents on "60 Minutes," the First Lady says she believes these are forgeries. The RNC has accused the Democratic Party of being the source of these documents. Knowing then what you know now, would you still have released those documents when you did?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's a hypothetical question, John. We received those documents from a major news organization. We had every reason to believe that they were authentic at that time. And in keeping with the spirit of releasing documents and being open about all the documents that we have, we made those documents available to everybody else so you could look at them yourselves. Since that time there have been a number of questions that have been raised about these documents and their authenticity. There continue to be questions raised. Those are serious issues; they ought to be looked into fully.

The one thing that is not under question is the timing of these orchestrated attacks by the Democrats on the President's service. These are old, recycled attacks, and the Democrats have made it clear that they intend to try to tear down the President and throw the kitchen sink at us because they can't run on John Kerry's record, and because they see him falling behind in the polls. And that's what this is about.

Q Does the President agree with the First Lady that these are forgeries? And does he agree with the Republican Party in that the Democrats are the source of the forgeries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Mrs. Bush was expressing her view. The view of the White House is that these are serious questions that have been raised and they ought to be looked into. Many media organizations are looking into them as we speak. They're interviewing additional experts. They have raised additional questions about it, and those are serious questions that ought to be looked into fully.

Q Should Congress look into them? Because Christopher Cox has called for a congressional investigation of these documents. Does the White House agree that a congressional --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that's an action that Congress has taken. Again, we think that they ought to be fully looked into, and many news organizations are looking into them. They're talking to experts. There are many experts that are raising questions about these documents. And many of those media organizations have continued to raise questions about those documents.

Q Does the White House believe that taxpayers' money should be spent looking into those documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, again, that's a decision that you should address -- a question that you should address to Congress. That's a decision that the Congress made.

Q You don't care how the taxpayers' money is spent?

MR. McCLELLAN: Like I said, these are serious questions. They ought to be looked into fully, and most news organizations are taking a look at those questions.
...
Q If I can go back to the Guard documents for a moment. Putting aside for a moment the question of their authenticity, is it your position that, in fact, the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party are behind the release of these documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it's our position that there are orchestrated attacks going on by the Democrats and Kerry campaign to tear down the President because they are falling behind in the polls. They have made that very clear. It has been documented in media reports that they intend to continue to bring up these old, recycled attacks. People are looking into where these documents came from. There have been some reports of who might have been involved in these documents. Media organizations are looking into it. It should be fully looked into. But in terms of the timing of these old, recycled attacks on the President, it's clear that this is an orchestrated effort by Democrats and the Kerry campaign. And that's what I'm talking about when I talk about these latest attacks.

Q But there's -- orchestrated attacks are part of political campaigns. There have been orchestrated attacks from the White House on Kerry over things.

MR. McCLELLAN: And look at the timing of all this.

Q I'm asking about the providence of this stuff. Do you believe it came from them?

MR. McCLELLAN: I believe that the Democrats and the Kerry campaign are behind these old, recycled attacks on the President's service, absolutely. The President has praised Senator Kerry in his service during Vietnam, and the Democrats and Kerry campaign simply are recycling old attacks because John Kerry is falling behind in the polls.

This race should be about the future. The President is focused on talking about the future and how we lead this country going forward in the war on terrorism, and how we lead going forward to address the many challenges that we face. There are some critical challenges facing this nation over the next four years. The first and foremost is how we lead in the war on terrorism, and that's where this debate should be focused. That's where the American people want the debate focused. Yet Democrats are clearly orchestrating attacks on the President because they can't talk about the future, and they can't win when the discussion is on the issues.

Q Could you cite the evidence you have to support that assertion?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. Just yesterday the Democratic National Committee launched what they called Operation Fortunate Son. Fortunate Son was the name of a book from the 2000 campaign that was written by a convicted felon who was widely discredited. And this whole effort is simply to attack the President. That's what it is about. The Democrats -- and then you have this so-called group, Texans for Truth, which is lead by a Democrat operative in Texas who has the support of the MoveOn.org organization. These are just a few examples. You have an op-ed that was written by Susan Estrich that talked about how the Democrats are going to start engaging in personal attacks on the President's character. And the American people deserve better. It's just sad to see that the debate -- that they are lowering themselves to this level.

Q Scott --

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, go ahead.

Q Scott, presumable --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to you, Les.

Q Hold on there, Lester.

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana had a question.

Q Scott, can you say for certain that -- are you aware of any other documents regarding President Bush's service in the Guard that have not been released?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, actually, we talked about this earlier today -- some questions came up this morning. And if you'll recall back in February, the President directed the Department of Defense to do a comprehensive search, gather all the records, so that we can make them available publicly. The President's personnel, payroll and medical records were released in their entirety -- I notice you had a comment the other day, I just want to make sure that's clear and that's what I referred to back then. Since that time, there were some further media inquiries. The Department of Defense went back and did -- apparently they didn't do as comprehensive a search as we had requested, and they found some additional documents that weren't in any of those files. And so they have continued to scour through additional files that aren't part of the President's personnel, payroll, and medical files to see if there are any records relating to the President. And my understanding is that that work has continued. I don't know the latest update on it at this point.

Q Have you or others in the White House seen documents that have not yet been released?

MR. McCLELLAN: I have not. I'll try to check. We've been traveling, but I don't know of any other specific documents that have been found at this point. But I know that they're -- I know they're continuing to look at that, so that's a very real possibility.
Chuck thinks that I look to good to be a computer geek. I think that I know too much about interface design, css, xhtml, php, asp, perl, and ia (too name a few things) to not be one.

Matt
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

CBS's Rather Apologizes for Bush Guard Documents

Postby Matt » Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:52 am

Poor Dan Blather. :lol: :roll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35531-2004Sep20.html

CBS's Rather Apologizes for Bush Guard Documents
He No Longer Has Confidence in Documents Authenticity

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 20, 2004; 12:37 PM

CBS News anchor Dan Rather apologized today for the "60 Minutes" story charging that President Bush had received favorable treatment in the Texas Air National Guard.

"We made a mistake in judgment and for that I am sorry," Rather said in a statement.

After standing by the story and the now-discredited documents on which it was based for two weeks, CBS acknowledged the problems pointed out by many other news organizations and a legion of online bloggers. While stopping short of saying the memos purportedly written by Bush's late squadron commander in the Guard were fake, Rather is no longer defending their authenticity.

"After extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically," he said. "I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where -- if I knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

The anchor, who has been the face of CBS News since succeeding Walter Cronkite in 1981, added: "It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism."

The statement represents a huge embarrassment for the network, but it may help defuse a crisis that has torn at the network's credibility.

There was no immediate explanation of how CBS was "misled" by its source, whose identity the network did not disclose. However, Rather plans to air as soon as today parts of an interview with Bill Burkett, a former Guard official, who is widely believed to have played a role in providing CBS with the memos. Burkett, who has urged Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks," has refused in the past to comment in an e-mail to The Washington Post on whether he had been CBS's confidential source.

Burkett, who retired from the Austin headquarters of the Guard in 1998, has said he once saw some of Bush's military records in a trash can. He also says he overheard a conversation among Guard officials about sanitizing the president's military records, which Guard officials strongly deny.

Burkett's motivation could be suspect because he said in a Web posting last month that he tried to contact John F. Kerry's presidential campaign with information for a "counteratack."

During the weekend, Bush told the Manchester, N.H., Union Leader that "there are a lot of questions" about the CBS documents "and they need to be answered."
-Matt

Matt
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:57 am

-Matt

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:12 pm

It's a shame that this has become all about those four memos. It's not like there aren't tons of unchallenged official documents out there that tell the same story. (Heck, even Killian's secretary says that while she never typed those memos, what's in them is accurate.) It's just that the So-Called Liberal Media would rather talk about whether the four CBS memos are fake than ask why Bush lost his flight status and refused to take his physical.

But in the end, all that is kind of irrelevant (the hypocrisy of someone who skipped out on his military commitments posturing as a "war president" notwithstanding). I'm more interested in things like health care and Iraq than in how much coke Bush snorted or how many pieces of shrapnel are in Kerry's leg.

Ryan

PS - That cartoon is pretty dumb. Is anyone seriously suggesting that Rather forged the documents himself and is blaming Bush? I know you conservatives hate Rather with a frothing rage, but come on.
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Sep 20, 2004 12:42 pm

Dan Rather should resign...just like allpresumably well-intentioned people who make big mistakes based on poorly-vetted information.

Unless your presumably well-intentioned mistake actually results in a country going to *war*...then you shoudl be re-elected

Meanwhile, there's *still* a year missing from Bush's record of service, and new documents are *still* coming out from the White House, even though they said everything had come out months ago.

But at least that rat bastard Dan Rather has been given a black eye!

And speaking of timing... isn't it curious that there were several terrorism alerts whike Kerry seemed to be leading the polls...including one right afte rthe Demo conventions, during the
'bounce' period, that appears to have been based on *three year old information* -- -- but since Bush began pulling ahead, there haven't been any?

Matt, you want to address these issues?
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

User avatar
lukpac
Top Dog and Sellout
Posts: 4585
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby lukpac » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:06 pm

krabapple wrote:Matt, you want to address these issues?


My guess is "no".
"I know because it is impossible for a tape to hold the compression levels of these treble boosted MFSL's like Something/Anything. The metal particulate on the tape would shatter and all you'd hear is distortion if even that." - VD

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:20 pm

Here's an article from that evil, left-leaning Salon. It's a good one-stop for all the unanswered questions that have *nothing* to do with the CBS memos.

Bush in the National Guard: A primer
The flap over dubious documents has obscured the real story. Here it is.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert

Sept. 20, 2004 | Under order from U.S. District Court Judge Harold Baer Jr. to find and make public any of President Bush's military records that had not already been released, the Pentagon late on Friday released yet another batch of documents. None of the new paperwork addresses the lingering questions surrounding Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the height of the Vietnam War, how Bush's own records indicate he missed mandatory duty for months at a time, or how he managed to go unsupervised for nearly two years. The federal court order stems from an ongoing lawsuit filed by the Associated Press in June to obtain all of Bush's relevant records. In February, when White House aides told reporters they had made public "absolutely everything" about Bush's military service, the AP noticed several obvious gaps and went to court to obtain additional documents.

The lawsuit had already resulted in the disclosure of previously unreleased flight logs that indicated that Bush, a fully trained pilot since 1970, often flew two-seater training jets in March 1972, shortly before he piloted a plane for the last time. This despite his promise, when he entered the Guard's training program, to serve as a full pilot until 1974.

What is also already known is that in the spring of 1972, with 770 days left of required duty, Bush unilaterally decided that he was done fulfilling his military obligation. Also in the spring of 1972, Bush refused to take a physical and quickly cleared out of his Guard base in Houston, heading off to work on the Senate campaign of Winton "Red" Blount in Alabama. Referring to that period, one of Bush's Guard flying buddies remarked to USA Today in 2002, "It was an irrational time in his life."

It may have been an irrational time for him, but Bush managed to focus intently on not serving in the Guard in any significant capacity again. His public records paint a portrait of a Guardsman who, with the cooperation of his Texas Air National Guard superiors, simply flouted regulation after regulation (more than 30 by Salon's count) indifferent to his signed obligation to serve.

The details can get a bit obscure, but the basic timeline of Bush's service between 1972 and 1974 is easy to follow: In spring 1972 Bush attempted to permanently transfer to a non-flying Alabama Guard unit. During the second half of 1972 he missed many of his required weekend training drills. At the end of the year he returned to Houston. Bush then had to make up the absences he had stacked up while in Alabama through "substitute service" training in 1972 and 1973. In July 1973, Bush asked to be released by the Texas Air National Guard so he could attend Harvard Business School. In September, the Guard let him go, and the Air Force officially dismissed Bush in November 1974.

Yet looking at the already available public records, they raise as many questions as they answer about Bush and his surrogates' accounts of his service -- because from his Alabama transfer to his missed physical to his substitute service to his "inactive status" to his honorable discharge, it was as if Air Force and Guard regulations simply did not apply to Lt. Bush. He seemed to become a ghostlike figure, doing -- or not doing -- whatever he pleased, unsupervised and unrated by his commanders. One serious question is whether some of Bush's superiors may have played an active role in hiding Bush's shoddy record -- pressured perhaps by powerful politicians -- by crediting him with crucial makeup training days that appear dubious in nature.

None of the discrepancies detailed below between Bush's accounts and what his records show are based on the disputed memos reportedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian that were aired by CBS News two weeks ago. CBS executives now concede they have concerns about the memos' authenticity, but stress that the contents accurately reflect the turmoil Bush and his chronic absenteeism created for the Texas Air National Guard, as reported by others who worked with Killian. In an interview with New Hampshire's Manchester Union Leader on Saturday, Bush would not say the documents were forgeries. He added, "There are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered." But the authenticity of the memos, which contain very few facts about Bush's actual service, is a sideshow in the effort to determine the truth about Bush's military service. (Independent researchers such as Paul Lukasiak, retired Army Col. Gerald Lechliter and Marty Heldt have contributed to this ongoing effort to uncover the facts.)

Consider the following anomalies:

(Note that statements below that certain documents do not exist, or that Bush failed to obtain proper authorization, are based on the White House's repeated insistence that all relevant Bush military documents have been made public. Some of these documents, of course, may yet turn up.)

-------------------------------------------------

Bush flew for the last time on April 16, 1972. Upon entering the Guard, Bush agreed to fly for 60 months. After his training was complete, he owed 53 months of flying.

But he flew for only 22 of those 53 months.

-------------------------------------------------

Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.

But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.

-------------------------------------------------

In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.

But Bush failed to get the authorization.

-------------------------------------------------

In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.

But no such document exists.

-------------------------------------------------

He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit.

But Bush did not.

-------------------------------------------------

He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander.

But Bush did not.

-------------------------------------------------

He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general.

But Bush did not.

-------------------------------------------------

He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves.

But Bush did not.

-------------------------------------------------

On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his "permanent address."

But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.

-------------------------------------------------

On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code.

But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.

-------------------------------------------------

On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation.

But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.

-------------------------------------------------

Bush's transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston.

But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.

-------------------------------------------------

According to Air Force regulations, "[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter."

But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.

-------------------------------------------------

Bush's unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.

But his unit never reported Bush's absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.

-------------------------------------------------

In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush's failure.

But no such FEB was convened.

-------------------------------------------------

Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.

But Bush's commanders made no such request.

-------------------------------------------------

On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.

But there's no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)

-------------------------------------------------

However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush's formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents.

But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.

-------------------------------------------------

When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or "unit training assemblies" (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush's substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.

But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.

-------------------------------------------------

Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 -- a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.

But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.

-------------------------------------------------

Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.

But after 1972, when Bush's absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.

-------------------------------------------------

To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.

But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.

-------------------------------------------------

On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.

But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn't remember if he'd ever been grounded.

-------------------------------------------------

Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn't undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.

But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.

-------------------------------------------------

Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.

But Bush's last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.

-------------------------------------------------

Bush's unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush's absenteeism should have prompted what's known as a DD Form 44, "Record of Military Status of Registrant."

But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush's draft board in Houston.

-------------------------------------------------

Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.

But Bush's request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.

-------------------------------------------------

Each of Bush's numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a's, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush's own signature.

But no such documents exist.

-------------------------------------------------

During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are "beyond the control" of the Guard member.

But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.

-------------------------------------------------

Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.

But at the end of April, when Bush's Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report."

-------------------------------------------------

On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush's commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush's duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.

But Bush's commanders ignored the request.

-------------------------------------------------

Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.

But that's not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month -- one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as "Appropriate Duty," or APDY.

-------------------------------------------------

On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.

But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.

-------------------------------------------------

Despite the laundry list of Guard discrepancies, Bush, when asked about his service this weekend, insisted, "I did everything [my superiors] asked me to do."
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:40 pm

lukpac wrote:
krabapple wrote:Matt, you want to address these issues?


My guess is "no".


Hey, give him a few hours, at least .
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant

Matt
Posts: 538
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24 pm
What color are leaves?: Green
Spam?: No
Location: People's Republic of Maryland

Postby Matt » Mon Sep 20, 2004 8:05 pm

Dan Rather should resign...just like allpresumably well-intentioned people who make big mistakes based on poorly-vetted information.


I don't think Rather should resign over this incident. I also don't believe Rather was well-intentioned given the nature of the subject. He should have been more objective regarding Burkett's documents.

Unless your presumably well-intentioned mistake actually results in a country going to *war*...then you shoudl be re-elected


As far as Iraq goes, Bush was not the only person (or politcal party) claiming Iraq had WMD. I believe he thought what he did was right. We will know in early November Krabapple.. What can I say?

Meanwhile, there's *still* a year missing from Bush's record of service, and new documents are *still* coming out from the White House, even though they said everything had come out months ago.


Until he is either proven AWOL (or not) I don't know exactly how to respond to your remark. There is not enough concrete evidence either way that will stick so far.

But at least that rat bastard Dan Rather has been given a black eye!


As a reporter he really should have considered his source. This hype will die soon, I bet.

And speaking of timing... isn't it curious that there were several terrorism alerts whike Kerry seemed to be leading the polls...including one right afte rthe Demo conventions, during the 'bounce' period, that appears to have been based on *three year old information* -- -- but since Bush began pulling ahead, there haven't been any?


Now this is interesting. If true, I admit it was a shitty tactic. Makes me wonder how serious some actually do take polls. I sincerely hope that the Bush administration would not toy with the public through bogus terror alert elevations meant as a diversion. Then again, would an elevation in the terror status really sway anyone's vote?

Hey, give him a few hours, at least.


Thank you, Krabapple.
-Matt

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:47 am

Matt wrote:I also don't believe Rather was well-intentioned given the nature of the subject. He should have been more objective regarding Burkett's documents.


Search for: Rather
Replace with: Bush

Search for: Burkett's documents
Replace with: Intelligence on Iraqi WMD

All Krabapple is pointing out is that the right wing went absolutely ape with rage over CBS's mishandling of these documents, but doesn't care at all about the White House's mishandling of the WMD intel. This is especially bizarre, considering that the consequence of CBS's mistake was egg on their face, while the consequence of Bush's mistake was over 1000 dead soldiers and growing Mideast instability.

As far as Iraq goes, Bush was not the only person (or politcal party) claiming Iraq had WMD.


But he was the only one who attacked them. That was his decision, and he deserves the credit for its successes and blame for its failures.

I believe he thought what he did was right. We will know in early November Krabapple.. What can I say?


The election will not determine Bush's motives in attacking Iraq.

Until he is either proven AWOL (or not) I don't know exactly how to respond to your remark. There is not enough concrete evidence either way that will stick so far.


Actually, there is a lot of evidence that he didn't fufill his obligations, and exactly none that he did. (Unless, like the White House, you count an honorable discharge as evidence, which is sort of like using the absence of a speeding ticket as evidence that you weren't speeding.)

I sincerely hope that the Bush administration would not toy with the public through bogus terror alert elevations meant as a diversion.


I'm willing to bet that if Kerry takes the lead again in the polls, we get another terror alert.

Then again, would an elevation in the terror status really sway anyone's vote?


Well, the Bush team keeps warning us that the terrorists will strike again in an attempt to "influence the election," so they must think the threat of terror has an influence.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

Gee Oh Are Tea
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 5:54 pm
Location: Fallujah, Ontario

Postby Gee Oh Are Tea » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:07 pm

Rspaight wrote:Well, the Bush team keeps warning us that the terrorists will strike again in an attempt to "influence the election," so they must think the threat of terror has an influence.

Ryan


We've heard this mantra quite a bit since the Madrid train bombings likely influenced the Spanish elections a few days later. Speaking strictly as an outsider from Canada, it looks from here that Bush may pull this thing (the election) off narrowly (to the detriment of not just Americans but the world at large).

It's true that this election will be determined by an act of terrorism. But not between now and November 2. Bush's whole campaign is built around September 11, and I think this will propel him to victory based on how bamboozeled the American public seems to be. At last count, September 11 was also responsible for Hurricane Ivan and the Yankees' poor pitching.

Cliff

User avatar
Rspaight
Posts: 4384
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
Location: The Reality-Based Community
Contact:

Postby Rspaight » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:27 pm

We've heard this mantra quite a bit since the Madrid train bombings likely influenced the Spanish elections a few days later.


I agree that they influenced the elections (how could they not?), but not in the generally accepted "the terrorists frightened the easily startled Spanish simpletons into voting for the guy who would pull out of Iraq" way.

Judging from the news coverage at the time, it seemed to me that people in Spain were furious with the government for frantically trying to pin the blame on Basque separatists in a naked ploy to separate the bombing from the issue of Iraq. When the details of the government's cover-up attempt filtered out on the eve of the election, the election turned into a referendum on the cover-up, not the bombing or the war.

Like they say, it's never the scandal that sinks you, it's the cover-up.

Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney

User avatar
krabapple
Posts: 1615
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:19 pm

Postby krabapple » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:52 pm

Matt wrote:
Dan Rather should resign...just like allpresumably well-intentioned people who make big mistakes based on poorly-vetted information.


I don't think Rather should resign over this incident. I also don't believe Rather was well-intentioned given the nature of the subject. He should have been more objective regarding Burkett's documents.


By 'well intentioned' I mean, *he* thought he was doing the right thing...as surely you believe Bush & Co thought too, re: Iraq. My point is that there's a huge irony in bashing
CBS compared to the boo-boo Bush has made.

Btw, I *do* think there;s a case for Rather resigning...as well as Mapes, the producer of the spot.


Unless your presumably well-intentioned mistake actually results in a country going to *war*...then you shoudl be re-elected


As far as Iraq goes, Bush was not the only person (or politcal party) claiming Iraq had WMD. I believe he thought what he did was right. We will know in early November Krabapple.. What can I say?


November won't tell us whether Bush thought what he did was right. Nor will it tell us whether what he did in Iraq was right. It will only tell us if a majority of hte electoral college
thought he was right enough on enough stuff to stay president (or that Kerry is wrong on too muchs stuff to be president). The truth isn't decided by election.

As for what you can say: you can say that *even some notable republicans and conservatives*
are saying that Bush made a big mistake with Iraq, by 1) making it a focus of antiterrism, rather than sticking with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda 2) ignoring ambiguities in the pre-war
intelligence re: WMD and 3) abysmal planning for the postwar operation, and vast miscalculation as to the response of the Iraq populace and the number of troops required to maintain security.

Behind all this is the mass of evidence indicating that certain factions close to and within the administration (i.e., Paul Wolfowitz and the other authors of the mid-90s manifesto) intended to go to war with Iraq either way, from the start of the administration, and that in a post-9/11 world, WMDs were a convenient rallying cry to get the public to go along (they admit that the real reasons, which were strategic and involved a somewhat utopian long-term vision for a democratic mideast, would not fly for the American public.)

Bush needs to acknowledge all this . Maybe he already has; Robert Novak published a rumor yesterday that Bush would announce a troop pullout -- *after* the election.


Meanwhile, there's *still* a year missing from Bush's record of service, and new documents are *still* coming out from the White House, even though they said everything had come out months ago.


Until he is either proven AWOL (or not) I don't know exactly how to respond to your remark. There is not enough concrete evidence either way that will stick so far
.

Again: there is a missing year of records about Bush in the Guard. The White House has claimed that all extant records have been released...but new records have subsequently emerged. Those are facts.

As usual, perform the substitution test: if it was *Kerry* whose record boasted a *missing year*, and had made such conflicting statements about the existnece of records, would you be so sanguine? YOu can BET that Karl Rove wouldn't. He'd be milking it for all he could.




But at least that rat bastard Dan Rather has been given a black eye!


As a reporter he really should have considered his source. This hype will die soon, I bet.


We still don't know who the source of the papers was; for another, they haven't been proved to be fake. Behind it all, of course, lies the still-unexplaned events surrounding Bush's tenure in the Guard. These papers only touched on one small aspect of that.

It was also interesting that the White House didn't immediately denounce these papers as fakes, when the story first broke...it's also interesting taht the first technical critique of them came just *four hours* after the story broke, online from a lawyer with deep ties to conservative and Republican organizations.

And speaking of timing... isn't it curious that there were several terrorism alerts whike Kerry seemed to be leading the polls...including one right afte rthe Demo conventions, during the 'bounce' period, that appears to have been based on *three year old information* -- -- but since Bush began pulling ahead, there haven't been any?


Now this is interesting. If true, I admit it was a shitty tactic. Makes me wonder how serious some actually do take polls. I sincerely hope that the Bush administration would not toy with the public through bogus terror alert elevations meant as a diversion. Then again, would an elevation in the terror status really sway anyone's vote?


Of course it could, since it plays on people's sense of personal security...it also distracts them from other issues (like, say, John Kerry's latest speech).

At least one of the polls showing a Bush surge, btw, has been shown to overcount Republicans. (the Gallup poll).
"I recommend that you delete the Rancid Snakepit" - Grant