Did Bush Desert Or Was He Absent Without Leave?
Harry Hope
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094496/
Is President Bush a Deserter?
How the military defines the crime.
By Brendan I. Koerner
Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004
Wesley Clark has been criticized for refusing to distance himself from
filmmaker Michael Moore's assertion that George W. Bush, who served
with the Air National Guard, is a "deserter."
What is the formal definition of desertion in the military, and does
it jibe with the particulars of President Bush's case?
The crime of desertion is covered in Article 85 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl85.htm.
A deserter, in addition to not showing up for work, must also have the
"intent to remain away therefrom permanently."
In a court martial, prosecutors can demonstrate such intent by
presenting evidence that the accused ditched his military uniforms,
bought a bus ticket out of town, or remarked to a friend that he was
never, ever heading back to base.
Evidence to the contrary might include leaving behind personal
property, a lengthy record of otherwise first-rate service, or
testimony that the accused's absence was due to substance abuse.
During times of crisis, a soldier can be ruled a deserter even when
she has not demonstrated any intent to leave permanently.
A member of the armed forces who takes off "with intent to avoid
hazardous duty or to shirk important service" can also be found guilty
of desertion, and the punishment for abandoning one's duty during
combat can include execution.
In rare instances, a desertion court martial is also possible when
someone joins another branch of the military, or a foreign army,
without first being "regularly separated"--that is, free and
clear--from their previous post.
As a practical matter, the military usually divides "absent without
leave" cases from desertions by considering the length of the
accused's time away.
According to a 2002 report by the U.S. Army Research Institute
http://www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf, a missing soldier is considered
AWOL until the 31st day of his absence, at which time his status is
changed to "Dropped From Rolls," the administrative term for
desertion.
Few soldiers classified as DFR ever face a court martial for
desertion, however; the report states that 94 percent of DFRs are
simply given less-than-honorable discharges.
Strictly speaking, Moore's charge is incorrect. "Deserter" is a
precise legal term reserved for those who've been court martialed and
found guilty.
Bush, by contrast, was honorably discharged in 1973.
The question then becomes whether Bush's status should have ever been
changed to the equivalent of DFR during his term with the Air National
Guard, which began after his graduation from Yale in 1968.
The president's allies and critics both seem to agree that Bush's
service was beyond reproach until May of 1972, when he left Houston,
where he was stationed, for Alabama, to work on a Republican
senatorial campaign.
The sticking point is whether Bush ever reported for duty with the
187th Tactical Recon Group, based in Montgomery, Ala., as he was
supposed to.
Bush claims that he did indeed show up for duty, though he did not
fly.
(A Boston Globe investigation from 2000 quotes a campaign spokesman
who said Bush performed "odds and ends" in Montgomery.)
Though Bush admits to missing a few required weekends while in
Alabama, he says he made up that time when he returned to Texas the
following year.
He received his honorable discharge in October of 1973, eight months
before his scheduled discharge, so he could attend Harvard Business
School.
There are conflicting accounts as to whether Bush ever really served
in Alabama.
The commander of the 187th Tactical Recon Group told the Globe that he
has no recollection of Bush's presence.
Several Bush friends, however, have insisted that they distinctly
remember the president attending drills in Montgomery.
The issue has become a partisan lightning rod, with organizations on
both right and left offering differing takes on the commander in
chief's time with the Air National Guard.
________________________________________________________
If Georgie would answer questions directly and show evidence that he
did not disappear from the guard but served his tour of duty during
the period in question the issue would be gone.
Harry
Daniel
Jeremiah
about the time that the first drug tests were mandated. If Clinton, who I
don't like, was a "draft dodging communist" than Bush was a "deserter," no
matter what the legal definition was at the time.
"Harry Hope" <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:dm8e10hv25vujoj67...@4ax.com...
Postpartisan-Libertarian
"Daniel" <sabot...@diespammersdie.com> wrote in message
news:elGRb.747$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> Neither
>
Spoken like a True Believer. Face it, rich kids whose Daddies were in the
military-industrial establishment didn't have to go to 'Nam - they got cush'
jobs that they didn't have to show up for when the drug tests started.
Daniel
"Jeremiah" <jere...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:dAGRb.822$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> It's funny that he "didn't" fly and then was quietly absent from duty just
> about the time that the first drug tests were mandated. If Clinton, who I
> don't like, was a "draft dodging communist" than Bush was a "deserter," no
> matter what the legal definition was at the time.
too bad his Honorable Discharge says otherwise.
Postpartisan-Libertarian
W was able to wave his family name around and cut in line to get a safe job
flying old planes that would never be deployed. Do you think it was that
hard for him to get an "honorable discharge?" He was a fourth generation
military-industrial/intelligence establishment son, for crying out loud.
The facts of the matter speak for themselves - he quit showing up to work
when drug tests were mandated and he had joined a political campaign...
while thousands of Americans were dying in a jungle for Rockefeller's access
to oil and the securitization of CIA drug networks after the fall of the
Chinese Nationalists and French Colonialism.
Daniel
"Postpartisan-Libertarian" <dont_e...@ASDF.com> wrote in message
news:RIHRb.1138$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Daniel" <sabot...@diespammersdie.com> wrote in message
> news:PsHRb.1320$2J1....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> >
> > "Jeremiah" <jere...@spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:dAGRb.822$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > It's funny that he "didn't" fly and then was quietly absent from duty
> just
> > > about the time that the first drug tests were mandated. If Clinton,
who
> I
> > > don't like, was a "draft dodging communist" than Bush was a
"deserter,"
> no
> > > matter what the legal definition was at the time.
> >
> >
> > too bad his Honorable Discharge says otherwise.
> The facts of the matter speak for themselves
i know, his Honorable Discharge DOES speak for itself.
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
yeah...OJ Simpson never killed anyone, because he was acquited
are you really this stupid?
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
so do knighthoods that you buy
Daniel
<Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
news:40174e61....@news.supernews.com...
unlike you, i actually know how the military works.
The Pretzel
Yeah?
It only means money and privilege means you can buy that rare animal-... A
bullshit that walks...
I wonder what the discharge cost...
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/
"Then came the crushing news that the former Speaker of the Texas House of
Representatives had testified under oath that he had been contacted by
Houston businessman "Sid Adger and asked to recommend George W. Bush for a
pilot position with the Air National Guard," and that he called General
James Rose and "did so." (Dallas Morning News, September 28, 1999.)
This testimony was brought about by a lawsuit alleging that the State of
Texas had allowed Gtech to keep its lucrative lottery contract in exchange
for former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes's silence about helping Mr.
Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard. Not long after Barnes gave his
testimony the case was settled out of court. (The Dallas Morning News,
October 30, 1999.)
So, despite all claims to the contrary, Bush had in fact received aid in
getting into the Texas Guard. Young G.W. Bush was sworn in on the very day
he applied, complete with a ceremony for the press. He was then sent to
basic training and given a special commission instantly making him a second
lieutenant. "
_______________________
Can you hear the Shrub laugh at you?
Sucker.
>
Postpartisan-Libertarian
You totally just parsed my sentance in half and offered no rebuttal.
Typical Bill O'Reilly-style jingoistic argumentation skills. The facts are
there for any body that doesn't blindly invest his faith in a dynastic
politician. A stamp on your exit papers that says "honorable" does not
prove or disprove any fact other than that the stamp is on the paper and the
gov't no longer cares.
If you want to know what the real Bush history is like, maybe you'll listen
to a highly-respected Republican. If you can read, check out Kevin
Phillips' latest book "American Dynasty" - he's the guy that engineered
Nixon's election and, like me, he's quit the Republican Party over the Bush
Clan. They're liars to the very core.
Postpartisan-Libertarian
If the glove doesn't fit you must aquit!
Daniel
"Postpartisan-Libertarian" <dont_e...@ASDF.com> wrote in message
if you knew anything about the military, you would know that paragraph is a
LIE.
George
> about the time that the first drug tests were mandated. If Clinton, who I
> don't like, was a "draft dodging communist" than Bush was a "deserter," no
> matter what the legal definition was at the time.
Nonsense.
Prove it.
George
"Postpartisan-Libertarian" <dont_e...@ASDF.com> wrote in message
You are full of shit.
George
<Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
How much do knighthoods cost? I'd like to known as "Sir George."
Brooks Gregory
"George" <spam...@nospam.forme.tv> wrote in message
news:bv8mkh$42l$0...@pita.alt.net...
This is part that these jerks don't seem to understand. Just how many
individual, honest, hardworking true American GIs are involved in signing
off on ones' discharge. It is a disgrace that anyone would slander those
guys just to try to make someone think they got bought off in order to give
some fellow they would only know as a serial number an Honorable Discharge.
These jerks should be ignored for the shameless bastards they are. They are
traitorous, treasonous bastards that have no bearing on what true Americans
believe.
When all of this crap began back in 1999, I was a political consultant for
several Democratic candidates, as well as later being a senior consultant
for Janet Reno in her run for Governor. I bought the document package from
Marty Heldt and we subjected them to the most thorough investigation one
could imagine. Why? Because if there was anything there, we damn sure wanted
to use it. But guess what? Only two of those documents proved to be
authentic and they were not even related to the charge being levelled. Many
of them are so blatant in their alterations it is almost funny. Several
purport to be signed by real live military personnel, yet they don't even
know the proper format for a military date.
These jerks push this kind of crap because they are worthless and know it,
suffering a guilt complex because of their own failures and just plain
ignorant of the ways of military affairs. They hurt us Democrats in the last
cycle because it just made it look like we would lie and cheat and commit
fraud and anything else it took to get our people elected. Voters are
smarter than that.
So, I say, don't worry about it. It failed last time around and it will
again. Slandering those guys that put their lives on the line to do that
which they swear an oath to do, "obey the orders of their Commander in
Chief" has never worked, and never will.
--
In politics, it's a very simple concept.
If you don't vote, you don't count.
Brooks Gregory
Al_Lien
news:elGRb.747$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com:
> Neither
>
>
>
Both
--
Check Out This Week's Reason To Vote Republican! We Want More Mercury!!
The top 52 reasons to vote Republican in 2004: #52-40 now posted.
http://top52reasons.50megs.com/index.htm
Check Out Bonus Reasons and Links Page!!
Al_Lien
news:bv8mg6$3pg$0...@pita.alt.net:
But you can't disprove anything he said. You can't even cast doubt upon
it.
Al_Lien
news:f6IRb.1243$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com:
>
> i know, his Honorable Discharge DOES speak for itself.
>
>
>
True, an honorable discharge after being AWOL for 17 months does speak
volumes...
ric...@nospam.edu
One can obtain a so-called honorable discharge and still be
guilty of misconduct. There is a document called a DD-214
that is issued apon discharge. In Bush's time, one of the things
that appeared on this document was a SPN (Separation
Program Number) code which indicated the reason for the
discharge. This website gives a list of SPN codes and
what they mean : http://www.landscaper.net/discharg.htm
Here is part of what you'll find there:
Even on an Honorable discharge, a "Spin Code" (SPN - Separation Program
Number) can hurt a veteran's chance of being hired by a prospective
employer. These spin codes were put on DD 214 (discharge papers) from the
1940's through the early 1970's. Veterans can request a new DD 214 with the
spin codes removed.
Examples of a few spin codes:
SPN 258 - Unfitness, multiple reasons
SPN 263 - Bedwetter
SPN 41A - Apathy, lack of interest
SPN 41E - Obesity
SPN 46C - Apathy / Obesity
SPN 463 - Paranoid personality
Note the following two spin codes that I found from that website's full
list:
SPN 282 - Misconduct/prolonged unauthorized absence for more than 1 year
desertion.
SPN 283 -Misconduct/AWOL trial waived or deemed inadvisable.
Clearly, the implication of SPN 283 is that you can be "honorably"
discharged for
being AWOL, provided the military has decided not to prosecute you.
Bush could set the record straight by making his entire military record,
including
his DD 214, public. He refuses to. I wonder why.
Richard
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
go join the GOP
jerks like you kissed AWOL Bush's ass, that's why the AWOL Wonder ate
your lunch in 2002
are you even remotely aware that AWOL Bush's would be commander told
the Boston Globe that AWOL BUsh never even showed up to Dannely AFB in
ALabama as ordered and was corrborated by his administrative officer ?
are you even aware that the AWOL Bush 2000 campaign admitted to The
New Republic that they could not produce so much as ONE aAlabama vet
to corroborate AWOL Bush's presence in ALabama?
where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk
no wonder you worked for Janet Reno...who frankly speaking, is a
horses ass, although preferable to AWOL Bush's brother
Thom
>
>"Daniel" <sabot...@diespammersdie.com> wrote in message
>news:PsHRb.1320$2J1....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
>>
>> "Jeremiah" <jere...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:dAGRb.822$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>> > It's funny that he "didn't" fly and then was quietly absent from duty
>just
>> > about the time that the first drug tests were mandated. If Clinton, who
>I
>> > don't like, was a "draft dodging communist" than Bush was a "deserter,"
>no
>> > matter what the legal definition was at the time.
>>
>>
>> too bad his Honorable Discharge says otherwise.
>
>One can obtain a so-called honorable discharge and still be
>guilty of misconduct. There is a document called a DD-214
>that is issued apon discharge. In Bush's time, one of the things
>that appeared on this document was a SPN (Separation
>Program Number) code which indicated the reason for the
>discharge. This website gives a list of SPN codes and
>what they mean : http://www.landscaper.net/discharg.htm
OK, lets start by clearing up a few things. The DD-214 IS NOT a
discharge paper. Your discharge is a DD-256 plus the service code.
Mine is a DD-256AF. My DD-214 was issued 2 years before I was
discharged.
I am also having trouble with these spin codes. Which line are they
on. My DD-214 dated 14 Jun 68 and has the following:
11a: type of transfer or release
11b Station effected
11c: Reason and authority (In my case it says (ADN 203 Expiration of
term of service) Chapter 3, Section A, AFM 39-10
Is the above (ADN-203) the spin code your refering to???
>
>Here is part of what you'll find there:
>
>Even on an Honorable discharge, a "Spin Code" (SPN - Separation Program
>Number) can hurt a veteran's chance of being hired by a prospective
>employer.
well being a Viet Nam Vet period kills it.
>These spin codes were put on DD 214 (discharge papers) from the
>1940's through the early 1970's. Veterans can request a new DD 214 with the
>spin codes removed.
>
>Examples of a few spin codes:
>SPN 258 - Unfitness, multiple reasons
>SPN 263 - Bedwetter
>SPN 41A - Apathy, lack of interest
>SPN 41E - Obesity
>SPN 46C - Apathy / Obesity
>SPN 463 - Paranoid personality
>
>
>Note the following two spin codes that I found from that website's full
>list:
>
>SPN 282 - Misconduct/prolonged unauthorized absence for more than 1 year
>desertion.
>SPN 283 -Misconduct/AWOL trial waived or deemed inadvisable.
>
>Clearly, the implication of SPN 283 is that you can be "honorably"
>discharged for
>being AWOL, provided the military has decided not to prosecute you.
It is looking more and more like he took an article 15 instead.
>
>Bush could set the record straight by making his entire military record,
>including
>his DD 214, public. He refuses to. I wonder why.
>
>
>Richard
Thanks for that
THOM
>
>
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
jajajja....ROTLMAO
Unknown
Plus there is the corruption factor. Honrable discharges are bought
and sold every day in america.
Gary DeWaay
> >Clearly, the implication of SPN 283 is that you can be "honorably"
> >discharged for
> >being AWOL, provided the military has decided not to prosecute you.
>
> It is looking more and more like he took an article 15 instead.
>
What does "article 15" mean?
--
Gary
George
<Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:27:57 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
>
> where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk
Because you *are* a lying, JERK!
Bush was not AWOL....
My final words on the accusation that George W. Bush was Absent Without
Leave while he was a member of the Air National Guard. After this, you may
debate among yourselves, but I will not be participating any more. Why?
It's a useless waste of time trying to enlighten you leftist dullards
because your minds are ALREADY made up and ou don't want the truth to get in
the way of your ranting.
Liberals take it as gospel that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The
story was first published (as far as I can tell), in a Boston Globe and/or
Washington Post article from 1999. Both the New York Times and the
National Guard Association Magazine have debunked the essential elements of
the accusation. The now defunct George Magazine also casts doubt on the
original articles.
But heaven forefend the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty
in our society.
There are numerous anti-Bush websites purporting to "HAVE EVIDENCE" that
Bush was AWOL. One poster "Toto" ("scar...@wicked.witch
<scar...@wicked.witch>) likes to refer to an anonymous Buzzflash document
purporting to claim, using what any reasonable person would call "hearsasy"
that records existed to prove that Bush was AWOL but were somehow suppressed
when he was governor. Further, "Toto" seems to think that by assuming the
conclusion (Bush was AWOL) as the premise, that this is all that is
necessary to make the case that Bush was AWOL. Sorry, Totto, you are not
only not in Kansas any more, you're not even on this planet because a
circulus in demonstrando argument proves absolutely nothing -- except that
you are a fool. And there is NO evidence that this anonymous letter was
ever sent -- to anybody. I'm willing to bet it's simply fabricated.
Other posters rely upon "timelines" based upon Bush's service records, from
these websites, that purport to show a period where Bush is absent without
leave. However, one such online "timeline" includes this disclaimer:
"NOTE: We are not familiar with military procedures or Bush's record and
cannot vouch for the accuracy of this table. All we did was take the
elements in the piece, and organize it so that the timeline may be better
understood. (A critical review of some elements is available here.) This
presentation is intended as a starting point for discussion."
So. The creators of the timeline WILL NOT vouch for it's accuracy, yet you
all take it as gospel that Bush was AWOL during that time period.
In fact, NONE of these timelines can point to dates when Bush was AWOL or
where there is a record supporting it, nor can they point to a record that
shows any entry documenting unauthorized absense. In fact, they can't
point to ANY adverse records about Bush's service, other than one that
showed he missed his flight physical.
These Bush-hating websites, it appears are long on invective but very short
of demonstratable, confirmable, reliable facts.
So, here's how it works in the real world with rational, intelligent, people
(which you AWOL believers are not).
You have made the claim that Bush was AWOL. The burden of proof is on you
to prove that Bush was AWOL. You simply can't wave your hands and be taken
seriously unless you can prove it. Without proof, you join the ranks of
Usenet kooks who rant about mysterious mind control rays. That is to say,
you are useless idiots.
When asked to prove your accusation, some of you only rely upon the original
Boston Globe article and the narrative it contains. Other of you, rely upon
web sites written to bolster this argument. I don't think many of you have
even bothered to read ALL the service record documents released and online
via the Freedom of Information Act. Because if you did, you'd find a BIG
FAT NOTHING.
Some of you have tried linguistics or sophistry to twist words in to proving
your argument, regardless whether or not the actual record and facts support
your verbal gymnastics. Sorry, boys and girls, REALITY trumps pretty words
and "logic" based upon wishful thinking. Reality also trumps the use of
fallacy (circulus in demonstrando, tu quoque, shifting the burden of proof,
straw men/red herrings), etc., that you liberals love to use so much. Here
is a clue, boys and girls -- your clever fallacies, faulty logic, invented
facts, and internal prejudices simply fail when confronted with the factual
record.
But the greatest idiocy is that some of you have read the documents and have
tried to advance an argument that the LACK of records for the period of time
in question is proof that he was AWOL. Lack of ANY evidence is not
evidence to support your claims -- it simply means that there is no
evidence, either way.
Here is the bottom line on Bush being AWOL: There are no records that show
that he was not present when he should have been -- with one exception: He
was late for his flight physical and was grounded.
This fact is important: The fact that he WAS grounded is proof that his
father DID NOT INTERFERE with his military career. It is proof that his
commanding officer was not afraid to write him up, and that the DoD was not
afraid to concur. It means that the other fiction you rely on -- that Bush's
father protected him is DEMONSTRATEDLY FALSE. So why didn't his commander
press an AWOL charge?
You know the answer as well as I: He had no grounds to do so.
As to what the record actually shows: It shows an Honorable Discharge, not
dishonorable or "general" which a charge of AWOL would have generated upon
conviction. It shows the record of a mediocre officer -- one whose career
would not rise to general officer rank.
But it does not show that most important evidence: A charge of being Absent
Without Leave. There is not even a HINT of such in the record.
Without positive evidence that Bush was AWOL, evidence that can ONLY come
from his servcie record to remain credible, you have no case. You have
nothing.
Bush was not AWOL.
Daniel
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a82555d8...@news.midco.net...
he doesn't know
Brooks Gregory
George, I don't know if you have any military background or not, but if you
do and you looked at those documents, you could very easily discover the
obvious forgeries, alterations and lack of authenticating seals.
If you want, go back to them and check out these things. One chronological
listing that is typed, except for a couple of handwritten entries. Wouldn't
you think the guy making those entries would at the very least know the
military date format? On another, look at the address of the Capitan. Do you
really thing official military or National Guard business would be conducted
using an officer's HOME ADDRESS? On another you will note the address as
being PO Box 34567, gosh isn't that imaginative? And, check out the ZIP Code
versus the city. Not even close. And check all the documents to see if you
can see any of the 3 required authenticating seals. I bought those documents
from the great Marty Heldt web site. Only 1 record actually has all three
authenticating seals and marks and it has nothing at all to do with the
charges being made.
This is an uban legend that a couple of guys are making a lot of money off
of. It was there well before the election of 2000 and had absolutely no
bearing at all on the election and will probably have even less now that it
has all been proven a lie.
The people that fall for this are a bunch of juvenille jerks that would not
know their ass from a bass fiddle when it comes to military matters. But, it
makes them feel like they are somebody amongst their playmates and that's
all they can claim as the major accomplishment in their miserable lives.
As for this comment:
> > where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk
If this little jerk wasn't such a frightened little bastard, so afraid of
his shadow he uses a phony name, he could avail him/her self of an
opportunity to find out where I come off with it.
Ed Medlin
"Jeremiah" <jere...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:dAGRb.822$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> It's funny that he "didn't" fly and then was quietly absent from duty just
> about the time that the first drug tests were mandated. If Clinton, who I
> don't like, was a "draft dodging communist" than Bush was a "deserter," no
> matter what the legal definition was at the time.
>
don't need a physical to NOT fly. There were drug tests in 1970 in the
military. I was in the military and remember the first ones. It was not done
individually, it was done to an entire unit at a time. There is also no drug
test in a flight physical. Only tests for high blood pressure and diabetes.
It is easier to pass a flight exam than a physical to drive an interstate
truck. There is no requirement to take a flight exam if you are not in
flight status.
EM
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.571 / Virus Database: 361 - Release Date: 1/26/2004
Ed Medlin
>
>
Exactly. Me too. I also joined the reserves after active duty and was in
during the same years the President was. It was a time of general
overpopulation in the military. We were pulling out of Vietnam, reservists
and guardsmen were routinely placed in non-pay/non-drilling status. Cutbacks
were rampant in the guard/reserves. It is my understanding that GWB was
placed on a non-drilling status in Alabama because they had no F-102s for
him to fly. Rather than pay him to sit around and do nothing, they just
changed his drill status. It was extremely common practice.
Ed
ulTRAX
I'm STILL waiting for ONE sign of intelligence from you Georgie.
Jenn
"Ed Medlin" <e...@edmedlin.com> wrote:
of which there is oddly no record and his own commanding officer states
he never showed up -- not that he was placed in non drilling status --
of course he couldn't fly -- not because there were no planes, but
because he had avoided the physical needed to fly
Daniel
"Postpartisan-Libertarian" <dont_e...@ASDF.com> wrote in message
news:PZGRb.930$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Daniel" <sabot...@diespammersdie.com> wrote in message
> news:elGRb.747$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > Neither
> >
>
> Spoken like a True Believer. Face it, rich kids whose Daddies were in the
> military-industrial establishment didn't have to go to 'Nam - they got
cush'
> jobs that they didn't have to show up for when the drug tests started.
>
>
well, until one of you LIEberal idiots can post FACTS, all you have is a lie
that keeps getting debunked.
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
hey Brooks "Jerk" Gregory:
let's repeat this paragraph and hope a little self-important jerk like
yourself may respond:
>are you even remotely aware that AWOL Bush's would be commander told
>the Boston Globe that AWOL BUsh never even showed up to Dannely AFB in
>ALabama as ordered and was corrborated by his administrative officer ?
>are you even aware that the AWOL Bush 2000 campaign admitted to The
>New Republic that they could not produce so much as ONE aAlabama vet
>to corroborate AWOL Bush's presence in ALabama?
your aware of those facts, Jerk?
Janet Reno hired incompetent Jerks like you? You must be the guy who
told her "Ken" was kinda cool.
Respond Jerk
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
<spam...@nospam.forme.tv> wrote:
>
><Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
>news:4018481b....@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:27:57 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
>
>>
>> where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk
>
>Because you *are* a lying, JERK!
>
>Bush was not AWOL....
>
>My final words
you must have posted 20 "final words" George.
I think today is day 28 of my response to one of your "final words"
you've ignored that
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
wrote:
>> unlike you, i actually know how the military works.
>>
>>
>
>Exactly. Me too. I also joined the reserves after active duty and was in
>during the same years the President was. It was a time of general
>overpopulation in the military. We were pulling out of Vietnam, reservists
>and guardsmen were routinely placed in non-pay/non-drilling status. Cutbacks
>were rampant in the guard/reserves. It is my understanding that GWB was
>placed on a non-drilling status in Alabama because they had no F-102s for
>him to fly. Rather than pay him to sit around and do nothing, they just
>changed his drill status. It was extremely common practice.
>
>Ed
Nice try Ed. But that contradicts AWOL Bush's statement through a
campaign spokesman that he kinda sorta remembers doing drills in
Alabama.
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
that conflicts with public statements by the AWOL BUsh 200 Campaign.
fair_and_balanced_hyco-limbaugh_fart_detector
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:27:25 GMT, "Postpartisan-Libertarian"
><dont_e...@ASDF.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>If the glove doesn't fit you must aquit!
>
>As soon as you find Nichole's blood in Bush's SUV get back to us, OK?
>Until then you're just another raving leftwing shill trying to smear
>President Bush.
we got his would be commander saying he didn't show up + corroboration
from his administrative officer + an admission by the AWOL Bush 2000
Campaign that they could not even produce one Alabama vet to
corroborate AWOL Bush's presence
now...you review with me the evidence to the contrary
>--
>From the official Howard Dean website forum,
>A typical Dean supporter comments on the
>capture of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein:
>
>Carrie B: "I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I
>feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."
Dude
Detector, still having his head up his butt, and smelling his own crap
wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:00:02 -0600, "Ed Medlin" <e...@edmedlin.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> unlike you, i actually know how the military works.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. Me too. I also joined the reserves after active duty and was in
>>during the same years the President was. It was a time of general
>>overpopulation in the military. We were pulling out of Vietnam, reservists
>>and guardsmen were routinely placed in non-pay/non-drilling status. Cutbacks
>>were rampant in the guard/reserves. It is my understanding that GWB was
>>placed on a non-drilling status in Alabama because they had no F-102s for
>>him to fly. Rather than pay him to sit around and do nothing, they just
>>changed his drill status. It was extremely common practice.
>>
>
>>Ed
>
>
>Nice try Ed. But that contradicts AWOL Bush's statement through a
>campaign spokesman that he kinda sorta remembers doing drills in
>Alabama.
Love how the dummycRATS are still yapping about this non-subject.
Thom
An article 15 is a very odd thing and is a generic catch all. I have
seen it used for all kinds of things. Its commonly called
"Nonjudicial Punishment"
My memory may fail me here but I believe you sign a Form DD-2627 or
something like that and take a punishment at the Squadron level rather
than going to Courts Marshall. All the AWOLs I ever saw got out of a
CM by takling an Article 15.
The seach engines came up with the following. Pretty long winded I
warn you
______________
SUBCHAPTER III. NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT
815. ART. 15. COMMANDING OFFICER'S
NON-JUDICIAL PUNISHMENT
(a) Under such regulations as the President may prescribe, and under
such additional regulations as
may be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, limitations may be
placed on the powers granted by
this article with respect to the kind and amount of punishment
authorized, the categories of
commanding officers and warrant officers exercising command authorized
to exercise those powers,
the applicability of this article to an accused who demands trial by
court-martial, and the kinds of
courts-martial to which the case may be referred upon such a demand.
However, except in the case
of a member attached to or embarked in a vessel, punishment may not be
imposed upon any member
of the armed forces under this article if the member has, before the
imposition of such punishment,
demanded trial by court-martial in lieu of such punishment. Under
similar regulations, rules may be
prescribed with respect to the suspension of punishments authorized by
regulations of the Secretary
concerned, a commanding officer exercising general court-martial
jurisdiction or an officer of general
or flag rank in command may delegate his powers under this article to
a principal assistant.
(b) Subject to subsection (a) any commanding officer may, in addition
to or in lieu of admonition or
reprimand, impose one or more of the following disciplinary
punishments for minor offenses without
the intervention of a court-martial--
(1) upon officers of his command--
(A) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without
suspension from duty, for not more that 30 consecutive days;
(B) if imposed by an officer exercising general court-martial
jurisdictions or an officer of general flag rank in command--
(i) arrest in quarters for not more than 30 consecutive
days;
(ii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's pay
per month for two months;
(iii) restriction to certain specified limits, with or
without suspension from duty, for not more than 60
consecutive days;
(iv) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay
per month for three months;
(2) upon other personnel of his command--
(A) if imposed upon a person attached to or embarked in a vessel,
confinement on bread and water or diminished rations for not more
than three consecutive days;
(B) correctional custody for not more than seven consecutive
days;
(C) forfeiture of not more than seven days' pay;
(D) reduction to the next inferior pay grade, if the grade from
which demoted is within the promotion authority of the officer
imposing the reduction or any officer subordinate to the one who
imposes the reduction;
(E) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not more
than 14 consecutive days;
(F) restriction to certain specified limits, with or without
suspension from duty, for not more than 14 consecutive days;
(G) detention of not more than 14 days' pay;
(H) if imposed by an officer of the grade of major or lieutenant
commander, or above--
(i) the punishment authorized under clause (A);
(ii) correctional custody for not more than 30 consecutive
days;
(iii) forfeiture of not more than one-half of one month's
pay per month for two months;
(iv) reduction to the lowest or any intermediate pay grade,
if the grade from which demoted is within the promotion
authority of the officer imposing the reduction or any
officer subordinate to the one who imposes the reduction, by
an enlisted member in a pay grade above E-4 may not be
reduced more than two pay grades;
(v) extra duties, including fatigue or other duties, for not
more than 45 consecutive days;
(vi) restriction to certain specified limits, with or
without suspension from duty, for not more than 60
consecutive days;
(vii) detention of not more than one-half of one month's pay
per month for three months.
Detention of pay shall be for a stated period of not more than one
year but if the offender's term of
service expires earlier, the detention shall terminate upon that
expiration. No two or more of the
punishments of arrest in quarters, confinement or bread and water or
diminished rations, correctional
custody, extra duties, and restriction may be combined to run
consecutively in the maximum amount
impossible for each. Whenever any of those punishments are combined to
run consecutively, there
must be an apportionment. In addition, forfeiture of pay may not bee
combined with detention of pay
without an apportionment. For the purpose of this subsection,
"correctional custody" is the physical
restraint of a person during duty or nonduty hours and may include
extra duties, fatigue duties, or hard
labor. If practicable, correctional custody will not be served in
immediate association with persons
awaiting trial or held in confinement pursuant to trial by
court-martial.
(c) An officer incharge may impose upon enlisted members assigned to
the unit of which he is in
charge such of the punishment authorized under subsection
(b)(2)(A)-(G) as the Secretary concerned
may specifically prescribe by regulation.
(d) The officer who imposes the punishment authorized in subsection
(b), or his successor in
command, may, at any time, suspend probationally any part or amount of
the unexecuted punishment
imposed and may suspend probationally a reduction in grade or
forfeiture imposed under subsection
(b), whether or not executed. In addition, he may, at any time, remit
or mitigate any part or amount of
the unexecuted punishment imposed and may set aside in whole or in
part the punishment, whether
executed or unexecuted, and restore all rights, privileges and
property affected. He may also mitigate
reduction in grade to forfeiture or detention of pay. When
mitigating--
(1) arrest in quarters to restriction;
(2) confinement on bread and water or diminished rations to
correctional custody;
(3) correctional custody confinement on bread and water or diminished
rations to extra duties or restriction, or both; or
(4) extra duties to restriction;
the mitigated punishment shall not be for a greater period than the
punishment mitigated. When
mitigating forfeiture of pay to detention of pay, the amount of
detention shall not be greater than the
amount of the forfeiture. When mitigating reduction in grade to
forfeiture or detention of pay, the
amount of the forfeiture or detention shall not be greater than the
amount that could have been
imposed initially under this article by the officer who imposed the
punishment mitigated.
(e) A person punished under this article who considers his punishment
unjust or disproportionate to
the offense may, through proper channels, appeal to the next superior
authority. The appeal shall be
promptly forwarded and decided, but the person punished may in the
meantime be required to
undergo the punishment adjudged. The superior authority may exercise
the same powers with respect
to punishment imposed as may be exercised under subsection (d) by the
officer who imposed the
punishment. Before acting on appeal from a punishment of--
(1) arrest in quarters for more than seven days;
(2) correctional custody for more than seven days;
(3) forfeiture of more than seven days' pay;
(4) reduction of one or more pay grades from the fourth or a higher
pay grade;
(5) extra duties fro more than 14 days;
(6) restriction for more than 14 days; or
(7) detention of more than 14 days' pay;
the authority who is to act on the appeal shall refer the case to a
judge advocate or a lawyer of the
Department of Transportation for consideration and advice, and may so
refer the case upon appeal
from any punishment imposed under subsection (b).
(f) The imposition and enforcement of disciplinary punishment under
this article for any act or
omission is not a bar to trial by court-martial for a serious crime or
offense growing out of the same
act or omission, and not properly punishable under this article; but
the fact that a disciplinary
punishment has been enforced may be shown by the accuse upon trial,
and when so shown shall be
considered in determining the measure of punishment to be adjudged in
the event of a finding of guilty.
(g) The Secretary concerned may, by regulation, prescribe the form of
records to be kept under this
article and may also prescribe that certain categories of those
proceedings shall be in writing.
>
>
>
>--
>Gary
Daniel
"Thom" <thoma...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:401994a0...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 23:25:58 -0600, Gary DeWaay
> <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
>
> > Thom, typed...
> >
> >> >Clearly, the implication of SPN 283 is that you can be "honorably"
> >> >discharged for
> >> >being AWOL, provided the military has decided not to prosecute you.
> >>
> >> It is looking more and more like he took an article 15 instead.
> >>
> >
> >What does "article 15" mean?
>
> An article 15 is a very odd thing and is a generic catch all. I have
> seen it used for all kinds of things. Its commonly called
> "Nonjudicial Punishment"
>
> My memory may fail me here but I believe you sign a Form DD-2627 or
> something like that and take a punishment at the Squadron level rather
> than going to Courts Marshall. All the AWOLs I ever saw got out of a
> CM by takling an Article 15.
actually, you have it backwards. the person recieving the Article 15 may
decline it and request to be court-martialed.
there are a couple different levels of Article 15
company grade and field grade.
most of these lunatics don't realize that they are also referencing the UCMJ
dated 2000 IIRC, which may have changed during the last 30 plus years. if
President Bush was AWOL for the amount of time alleged, he would have been a
deserter, dropped from rolls, and ineligible for an Honorable Discharge.
George
"ulTRAX" <ulT...@arabia.com> wrote in message
news:3513d8b1.04012...@posting.google.com...
I'm a man of direct speech. But if you want the long version, here it is.
Richard
Daniel wrote:
>if
> President Bush was AWOL for the amount of time alleged, he would have been a
> deserter, dropped from rolls, and ineligible for an Honorable Discharge.
You're talking about a person who was vaulted over several hundred other
more qualified candidates to get into the National Guard, something
that, in a sane world, wouldn't have happened either.
Richard
George
<Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 03:52:20 -0600, "George"
> <spam...@nospam.forme.tv> wrote:
>
> >
> ><Fair and Balanced Hyco-Limbaugh Fart Detector> wrote in message
> >news:4018481b....@news.supernews.com...
> >> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:27:57 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
> >
> >>
> >> where do you come off with this "jerk" shit, jerk
> >
> >Because you *are* a lying, JERK!
> >
> >Bush was not AWOL....
> >
> >My final words
>
>
>
> you must have posted 20 "final words" George.
Clearly, you didn't read it because you are still repeating that fucking lie
of yours that Bush was AWOL.
>
>
> I think today is day 28 of my response to one of your "final words"
>
> you've ignored that
Blow me, liar.
King Pineapple
news:jenn-3B37DB.1...@news.vanderbilt.edu...
>
> of which there is oddly no record and his own commanding officer states
> he never showed up --
You obviously missed the recent discovery of a NY Times story from November
3, 2000, in which the NY Times reported that said commanding officer, Col.
Turnipseed, had BACKED AWAY from his earlier allegation that Bush "never
showed up".
Face it, even the Clintongore smear machine was UNABLE to give the
"AWOL/desertion" story any truth back in 2000. If Clinton couldn't find any
dirt, no dirt existed.
"Bush may be a moron of sorts, but he is not stupid"
-Eric Alterman
ulTRAX
> "ulTRAX" <ulT...@arabia.com> wrote in message
> news:3513d8b1.04012...@posting.google.com...
> > "George" <spam...@nospam.forme.tv> wrote in message
> news:<bv8mg6$3pg$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > > "Postpartisan-Libertarian" <dont_e...@ASDF.com> wrote in message
> > > news:PZGRb.930$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Daniel" <sabot...@diespammersdie.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:elGRb.747$ee6...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > > > Neither
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spoken like a True Believer. Face it, rich kids whose Daddies were in
> the
> > > > military-industrial establishment didn't have to go to 'Nam - they got
> cush'
> > > > jobs that they didn't have to show up for when the drug tests started.
> > >
> > > You are full of shit.
> >
> > I'm STILL waiting for ONE sign of intelligence from you Georgie.
>
> I'm a man of direct speech. But if you want the long version, here it is.
>
> Liberals take it as gospel that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard. The
> story was first published (as far as I can tell), in a Boston Globe and/or
> Washington Post article from 1999. Both the New York Times and the
> National Guard Association Magazine have debunked the essential elements of
> the accusation. The now defunct George Magazine also casts doubt on the
> original articles.
I take NOTHING as gospel. But obviously you do.
> But heaven forefend the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty
> in our society.
You're speaking about a court of law. The ONLY issue here is TRUTH.
MY issue is that if the Right claims they value integrity... then if
there's credible evidence they have been lied to, or that someone
misrepresented their military service to get votes they would not get
otherwise... then they would WANT to get to the truth to see if their
trust is deserved. I have seen NO evidence that anyone on the Right
cares about the truth of this issue and instead rush to defend Bush
even as he hides the truth.
> Without positive evidence that Bush was AWOL, evidence that can ONLY come
> from his servcie record to remain credible, you have no case. You have
> nothing.
Have you called on Bush to release those records or address the issue?
Didn't think so.
> Bush was not AWOL.
You have no basis for that conclusion when you already admit all the
evidence has not been presented. The BEST an objective person can
claim is that they don't know.
I have in other threads said that given the conflicting evidence the
ONLY way to get to the truth is to ask Bush to release records and
address the issue. I have done so... but I bet you have not. Again,
ALL your actions prove you do not care about getting to the truth. You
have deluded yourself to the point that ILLUSION of integrity more
than integrity itself.
Daniel
"Richard" <ric...@nospam.edu> wrote in message
news:menSb.5200$EW.2039@okepread02...
so you are saying that the same commander that you LIEberals allege "never
saw" Bush, would put his own career in jeopardy by ILLEGALLY awarding a
"deserter" an Honorable Discharge? you cannot seriously believe this.
Gary DeWaay
> > You're talking about a person who was vaulted over several hundred other
> > more qualified candidates to get into the National Guard, something
> > that, in a sane world, wouldn't have happened either.
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
>
> so you are saying that the same commander that you LIEberals allege "never
> saw" Bush, would put his own career in jeopardy by ILLEGALLY awarding a
> "deserter" an Honorable Discharge? you cannot seriously believe this.
>
This all would be a non-issue if the Shrub wouldn't be so secretive of
his past.
Why doesn't he just explain what happened?
Kinda makes people think he is hiding stuff... agreed?
--
Gary
Miles
According to the law, you can't be awol unless you're on active duty.
Bush wasn't on active duty SO, he couldn't have been awol.
Brooks Gregory
"Miles" <miles_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:795a0678.04013...@posting.google.com...
BINGO!!! Give that man a prize.
Jim Warren
<dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote:
> Thom, typed...
>
>> >Clearly, the implication of SPN 283 is that you can be "honorably"
>> >discharged for
>> >being AWOL, provided the military has decided not to prosecute you.
>>
>> It is looking more and more like he took an article 15 instead.
>>
>
>What does "article 15" mean?
An article 15 is less than a court martial. They were given out in
droves in my airborne training unit. Usually a fine or priviledges
taken away. They were given for minor infractions.
remove word virus from return address
Life being what it is, seeks revenge.
Paul Gauguin (1848-1903)
ulTRAX
> According to the law, you can't be awol unless you're on active duty.
> Bush wasn't on active duty SO, he couldn't have been awol.
What law? Have an actual cite?
Lying-Liebral
"Gary DeWaay" <dewaay2...@sio.midco.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a8458399...@news.midco.net...
> Daniel, typed...
>
> > > You're talking about a person who was vaulted over several hundred
other
> > > more qualified candidates to get into the National Guard, something
> > > that, in a sane world, wouldn't have happened either.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> >
> >
> > so you are saying that the same commander that you LIEberals allege
"never
> > saw" Bush, would put his own career in jeopardy by ILLEGALLY awarding a
> > "deserter" an Honorable Discharge? you cannot seriously believe this.
> >
>
>
> Gary
Pssst, Gayr....It is a "non-issue"
4 more years baby.
The LIEbral
Richard
What I cannot seriously believe is that the likes of you
would have any meaningful knowledge or understanding
of the situation, one way or the other. Moreover, the
commander who went on record in the Boston Globe as not
seeing him, General Turnipseed, wasn't the person responsible
for giving president AWOL his "honorable" discharge.
Richard
Jane Sandringham
> If Georgie would answer questions directly and show evidence that he
> did not disappear from the guard but served his tour of duty during
> the period in question the issue would be gone.
>
All Bush has to do is grant permission for the military to release his
records. His pay history would put all of this to rest.
He has refused to do this.
George
"Brooks Gregory" <brooks...@sbctelco.com> wrote in message
news:6_xSb.7016234$Id.11...@news.easynews.com...
He get's a shit sandwich because when he reports for drill he *IS* on active
duty. If he misses a drill weekend, he is UA and AWOL.
George
You prefer slander and unsupported statements as "truth?"
>
> > But heaven forefend the principle that a man is innocent until proven
guilty
> > in our society.
>
> You're speaking about a court of law. The ONLY issue here is TRUTH.
And the truth is that the claim of AWOL is made up out of whole cloth, based
upon a lack of credible evidence in George W. Bush's military record that he
was absent without leave.
>
> MY issue is that if the Right claims they value integrity... then if
> there's credible evidence they have been lied to, or that someone
> misrepresented their military service to get votes they would not get
> otherwise... then they would WANT to get to the truth to see if their
> trust is deserved. I have seen NO evidence that anyone on the Right
> cares about the truth of this issue and instead rush to defend Bush
> even as he hides the truth.
I've read the FOIA supplied data that you leftists have put out on the 'net.
There is NO Article 86 charge laid. There is NO note that there is UA time.
There is a record that he missed his physical and was grounded. But there
is NO record that he was UA during the time in question.
There is absolutely NOTHING else bad in his service record, but there is an
honerable discharge.
>
>
> > Without positive evidence that Bush was AWOL, evidence that can ONLY
come
> > from his servcie record to remain credible, you have no case. You have
> > nothing.
>
> Have you called on Bush to release those records or address the issue?
He did. Back in 1999-2000. This is really old news.
> Didn't think so.
You didn't think. You NEVER think. You assume (ass-u-not-me)
>
> > Bush was not AWOL.
>
> You have no basis for that conclusion when you already admit all the
> evidence has not been presented. The BEST an objective person can
> claim is that they don't know.
I have plenty of basis -- an Honerable Discharge and the lack of ANY proof
in the record to the contrary.
>
> I have in other threads said that given the conflicting evidence the
> ONLY way to get to the truth is to ask Bush to release records and
> address the issue.
He has done so. There are no records that show UA or AWOL. Nothing. And
this from records that YOUR side has obtained via FOIA.
>I have done so... but I bet you have not.
I have no need to personally ask. You leftists schmucks have already done
so and put it on the 'net for us all to look at. Don't you trust the data
that YOUR side gets/
>Again,
> ALL your actions prove you do not care about getting to the truth.
You're a liar as well as a nincompoop.
I have repeatedly stated that I personally have reviewed his released
records. I have found (among other things), an honorable discharge. There
was a signed statement acknowledging that he is aware that missing drills
would result in his immediate transfer to full time active duty. I have
found a statement from DOD and the Secretary that he was grounded for
missing a flight physical.
But I have not found any Article 86 charges. I have not found any mention
of having any unauthorized absense. I have found no mention of a request
for leave, emergency or otherwise.
I have found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that substantiates a claim that Bush was
AWOL.
I have tried to be nice about this, but you FUCKING ASSHOLES HAVE YOUR
SYPHILITIC-LESIONED BRAINS ALREADY MADE UP AND THE TRUTH JUST CONFUSES YOU!
>You
> have deluded yourself to the point that ILLUSION of integrity more
> than integrity itself.
How can I be deluded when *I* refer to the record that you Bush-hating
LEFTISTS put on the 'net. Are you admitting that you schmucks are
deliberately LYING?
How can I be deluded when YOU folks can't prove the charge that you made up
out of whole cloth.
Bush was not AWOL. He did NOT dessert.
Why can't you people simply accept the truth?
George
"Jane Sandringham" <sandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f9bc1937.04013...@posting.google.com...
Wrong.
He did so in the 2000 election season. He gave full access to his military
records to the media. The media (NY Times) examined the record and
reported:
"But a review of records by The New York Times indicated that some of those
concerns may be unfounded. ... Another document showed that Mr. Bush served
at various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973, a period of time
questioned by The Globe." [JO THOMAS, "THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: MILITARY SERVICE;
Bush's Guard Attendance Is Questioned and Defended, NYTimes, Late Edition -
Final , Section A , Page 27 , Column 5, 11/3/2000]
Joe Myers
> Well, just like back in 2000, they couldn't find anything ELSE to
> throw at him. We've been all through this already, at least twice
> with GWB. When he ran for governor the first time the Democrats
> screamed he had been AWOL, when he ran for President in 2000 they
> claimed he had been AWOL. Each time it came out that he had served
> with distinction in the Air National Guard, had received an Honorable
> Discharge, and had never been charged by any military official with
> being AWO or any other crime. The Democrat activists screamed
> themselves hoarse that he was a deserter and it just made them look
> silly. In fact they ranted so much about it that the general public
> tuned them out as frothing ranters and raving lunatics - which they
> were.
Cite?
Jane Sandringham
> "Jane Sandringham" <sandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f9bc1937.04013...@posting.google.com...
> > All Bush has to do is grant permission for the military to release his
> > records. His pay history would put all of this to rest.
> >
> > He has refused to do this.
>
> Wrong.
>
> He did so in the 2000 election season. He gave full access to his
> military records to the media.
Actually, he didn't. During the 2000 election, Dan Barlett (Karen
Hughes' underling) showed "selected documents" to the NYT. The media
has NOT had access to Bush's complete military records.
Bush either deserted or he didn't. If you're in the National Guard - a
military obligation, papers are signed, an oath sworn - you meet once
a month, on the weekends, and once a year for two weeks of summer
camp. During these meetings you sign in, and, in formation, are
accounted for during roll call. Your presence or absence is noted in
what is called "the morning report." If you're not there, then these
simple tasks cannot be completed, and you're considered in the legal
sense Absent Without Leave (AWOL).
When you're AWOL from the National Guard for a specified amount of
time, and your whereabouts go unexplained (a phone call can tidy
things right up)you're reclassified as "active duty" and placed on
army time, which is to say, after 30 days you're listed as a
"deserter" and this changes everything. AWOL is a disciplinary problem
routinely punished by an Article 15 a fine, unit/base restrictions,
extra duty, a break in rank and pay, etc. Desertion on the other hand
is a felony and one is routinely court martialed. One aspect of
desertion is that the time loss has to be made up. If you're gone for
a year, then you make up the year.
One of the problems with Bush' military service is that during his
last year there is just no record of him showing up. (The period of
his absence corresponds with the miltary's implementation of drug
testing.)
Initially, Bush claimed he was there - but there just aren't any
records. He did not sign in when he reported to duty, he did not
attend any roll calls, his name does not appear on any of the morning
reports, nor has he been able to supply any other records - medical,
pay stubs, dental, arsenal, flight records, etc. - indicating that he
fullfilled the duties he swore under oath to complete.
According to an interview with Colonel Turnipseed (who retired as a
general), regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it
was made up within the same quarter. This Turnipseed quote comes as a
non sequitor – he did not offer it as an explanation of what happened
with Bush. It was a general explanation as to what the policy was.
The explanation that his (now) communications' director, Dan Bartlett,
gave in 2000 was that Bush "made up the missing time" in 1973.
Bartlett said that Bush got credit for 12 days of duty from November
through December 14, 1972. Bush' missing time spans much more than
that time period of that November/December quarter. The meager
documentation that Bartlett has offered as proof is incomplete and
unsigned.
Your own selective editing of the NYT article contradicts your claims.
"MAY BE unfounded" isn't "IS unfounded." Further reading of the
article and investigation uncovered that no satisfactory explanation
has been offered or found.
Bush skipped out on his military service. If he was George W. Smith,
he would have gone to jail.
In the words of Wilbert C. Hicks, Jr., Ramstein Air Base, Germany:
"George W. Bush entered Yale in 1964 and graduated in 1968. On May 27,
1968, Bush was 12 days away from losing his student draft deferment.
The Texas Air National Guard had a huge waiting list, a year and a
half. Yet Bush was admitted the same day he applied, regardless of any
waiting list. His unit, the 147th, was infamous as a nesting place for
politically connected and celebrity draft avoiders. Democratic Sen.
Lloyd Bentsen's son was in the unit, as was Republican Sen. John
Tower's. So were at least seven members of the Dallas Cowboys.
Upon completing basic training, Bush was given a "direct appointment"
without having to go through Officer Candidate School. This special
procedure also got Bush into flight school. He scored 25 percent on a
pilot aptitude test, the absolute lowest acceptable grade. He was
assigned to fly the F-102 Delta Dagger, a plane already being phased
out. In fact, the Air Force had ordered all overseas F-102 units shut
down as of June 30, 1970, just three months after Bush finished his
training. Since training is so airplane-specific, Bush was guaranteed
from the beginning to be safe from combat. He even used his training
on the obsolete plane to justify his early discharge, almost a year
before his scheduled discharge.
In May 1972, Bush stopped attending Guard duty. In August 1972, he was
suspended from flight duty for failing to take his physical. He won
his release from service in September 1973, nine months early, for
graduate school. There is much, much more about his Guard duty, none
of it complementary."
XXX
Sandringham) wrote:
LOL!!!! A whole lot of typing about nothing.
Bush received a "Honorable Discharge" in 73
Making it simple, for liberal simpletons.
George
> "George" <spam...@nospam.forme.tv> wrote in message
news:<bvnu36$39e$0...@pita.alt.net>...
> > "Jane Sandringham" <sandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:f9bc1937.04013...@posting.google.com...
>
> > > All Bush has to do is grant permission for the military to release his
> > > records. His pay history would put all of this to rest.
> > >
> > > He has refused to do this.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > He did so in the 2000 election season. He gave full access to his
> > military records to the media.
>
> Actually, he didn't.
Actually, he did.
You are a liar.
File an FOIA request.
> non sequitor - he did not offer it as an explanation of what happened