did none of the last three posters even bother to read the article that totally and completely refutes the AWOL in ALABAMA canard?
this article, and the two earlier in this thread, utterly, completey debunk these charges. anybody that contines to pusue this at this point is just spreading malicious lies and innuendo. but, if you wanna play that game, i've got a story about kerry and an intern... i hate to post the same article twice, but here's the relevant passage: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040210-082910-8424r.htm -- Another frequent charge is that, as a member of the Texas ANG, Lt. Bush twice ignored or disobeyed lawful orders, first by refusing to report for a required physical in the year when drug testing first became part of the exam, and second by failing to report for duty at the disciplinary unit in Colorado to which he had been ordered. Well, here are the facts: First, there is no instance of Lt. Bush disobeying lawful orders in reporting for a physical, as none would be given. Pilots are scheduled for their annual flight physicals in their birth month during that month's weekend drill assembly -- the only time the clinic is open. In the Reserves, it is not uncommon to miss this deadline by a month or so for a variety of reasons: The clinic is closed that month for special training; the individual is out of town on civilian business; etc. If so, the pilot is grounded temporarily until he completes the physical. Also, the formal drug testing program was not instituted by the Air Force until the 1980s and is done randomly by lot, not as a special part of a flight physical, when one easily could abstain from drug use because of its date certain. Blood work is done, but to ensure a healthy pilot, not confront a drug user. Second, there was no such thing as a "disciplinary unit in Colorado" to which Lt. Bush had been ordered. The Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver is a repository of the paperwork for those no longer assigned to a specific unit, such as retirees and transferees. Mine is there now, so I guess I'm "being disciplined." These "disciplinary units" just don't exist. Any discipline, if required, is handled within the local squadron, group or wing, administratively or judicially. Had there been such an infraction or court-martial action, there would be a record and a reflection in Lt. Bush's performance review and personnel folder. None exists, as was confirmed in The Washington Post in 2000.
That's right all you lunitic fringe liberals! They found ONE guy (how much did it cost Rove?) to refute ALL of these other people who have said that they didn't recall Jr in Alabama. So drop it! Move along...nothing to see here! CASE CLOSED!!!!!
I read the article. It doesn't mention why Bush was grounded. You mentioned in another post that there was some reasonable explanation for this and I wanted to know what that was.
The Bush supporters can't get their stories straight. One guy says he saw him six times. Unfortunately, the billing records says he was only paid for four appearances. Oops, need to work on that story. The dates on the pay records don't align with the dates for the unit he claimed to be with either. The POTUS said he would released all his records on national TV and now he has his aides say no, we won't do that. What exactly has he got to hide? Is there something wrong with asking him to back up his definitive word with actions or are his words worthless?
An interesting article. This might eliminate the issue. The only thing about this man's report is that it contradicts the records released from the whitehouse recently. According this guardsman Bush showed up each weekend and he was aggressive in performing his duty. According to the records released by the Whitehouse there are huge periods of time when he wasn't there or paid for being there. This is the best defense I've seen to date of Bush's service.
If having the utmost respect for the United States Constitution is the equivalent of "hating America", then I am definitely the biggest America-hating sonofabitch on the planet. I hate America so much I want to see it replace the only pResident in history who has used the United States Constitution as his own personal toilet paper. Any questions, blasto?
I was among the last three posters, and didn't mention anything about this issue at all. What's your point? I have been consistent about this: unless Bush out and out lied, I don't think this is a big deal, and hope it doesn't distract from the real issues this election should be about.
This article would be a good defense if Bush had ever been back later to take those physicals. He didn't just miss the deadline for the physical once, and then took it a month or so later. He missed two physicals and never had his flight privileges restored.
basso, if ONE person (referred to the AP by a "republican close to Bush") saying "yes, I saw him" and several people (maybe some admittedly voting for Democrats) saying "nope, never saw him" conclusively closes a case for you, I'm jealous: that must make all of life's complexities very simple for you. The truth is that he was probably there for some or most of the time he was supposed to be, and probably not all of it. He avoided Vietnam, exploiting his dad's connections. Whatever. Coming completely clean the first time it came up would have been the best "strategery" but that's not his MO for some reason. I think he been getting some very bad advice for years in that respect.
i'm curious, exactly what combination of statements, records, denials and facts would satisfy you? in this thread alone i have provided three separate articles from sources as disparate as the boston globe and the weekly standard that put the lie to every significant aspect of the charge Bush was AWOL. if you refuse to believe it, that says much more about your agenda than it does about the actions of the president 30 years ago.
Of course the one name mentioned in Drudge report was W. Clark. Today Clark has debunked the 'information' in Drudge's little story. Yet when it comes to the recent guardsman who says he saw Bush, the man's own testimony is refuted by the records that the Bush Whitehouse has already released. The case is far from closed. But a witness is a big plus for Bush.
my lede was just taking up where you left off. but you're avoiding the issue. the case against bush has now been proven to be false, and yet you won't/can't accept it?
in this thread alone i have provided three separate articles from sources as disparate as the boston globe and the weekly standard that put the lie to every significant aspect of the charge Bush was AWOL. if you refuse to believe it, that says much more about your agenda than it does about the actions of the president 30 years ago. You could turn that around and say the other articles put the lie to every statement in these articles and that your refusal to believe them says much more about your agenda than the actions of the president 30 years ago too. We have clearly conflicting statements from similarly credible sources. In what possible way does that make it clear that one side is right and the other is wrong?
Where has it been proven false? There are refutations to every bit of proof that you've given. Do you presume that the witness who conflicts with the national guard records is proof? Do you presume that an article which talks about how some ntl guard pilots might miss a physical only to take it later explains away how Bush missed two physicals and never took any of them later? The only thing that comes close to being debunked is the guy who claims there was a coverup. Even that is a guy's word vs. another guy's word.
Again, this does not explain why Bush was grounded. It says there is no evidence that he disobeyed lawful orders to report for his physical. I never made an accusation that he skipped the physical because he was afraid of taking a drug test. I don't know why he missed his physical. You seemed to suggest there was some reasonable explanation for this, but you haven't provided it. I think the undisputed facts are that he did not take his physical and was grounded. Therefore he could not perform the duty which he was trained at great expense to the taxpayers. Is there a reasonable explanation for why Bush (not other hypothetical pilots) Bush, missed his physical and was grounded?
it bears repeating, since you refuse to see or acknowledge the truth: "i'm curious, exactly what combination of statements, records, denials and facts would satisfy you?"
(edit: that only bear repeating in your mind, but hey, if it makes you happy...). basso, you're smarter than that. I am not choosing to believe anything. Two different sets of people are saying two very different sets of things. If you are choosing to believe the one set while disregarding the other, that clearly speaks of an agenda. Good lord. What has happened to you? I stated, in my previous post, a reasonable assessment of the possible truth that does at all match either "side" of this issue. Please read it before you throw a Limbaughism like "agenda" at me again. One last time: I don't care whether or not he served or showed up or whatever. I care about the way this adminstration handles information. If you think I have an agenda to slander the administration by calling them dishonest or deceptive, that's your right I suppose. I will call and always have called the facts as I see them. Sometimes I am wrong. In this case, this administration clearly share information that helps their cause and they will do anything they can to suppress, distort, or discredit any information that hurts their agenda. They are not alone in this behavior, but the degree is something I've never before seen (outside of disturbing historical or fanciful fictitious Orwellian examples). Signing out of this AM radio thread.
The statement, record, denial, or fact that explains why Bush missed his physical and was grounded. You still have not provided one.
