1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

National Guard records show that George W. Bush didn't meet the commitments, or face

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Oski2005, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    National Guard records show that George W. Bush didn't meet the commitments

    I'm surprised this hasn't been posted. Anyways, there is new info, it turns out Bush was also supposed to have served in the Massachusetts Air National Guard and of course, he didn't.

    Bush fell short on duty at Guard
    Records show pledges unmet
    September 8, 2004

    This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.


    In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

    But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

    [/b]He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.[/b]

    On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

    But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," (IE, HE LIED) Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

    And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.

    Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

    The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after [/b]Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.[/b]

    Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not ''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: ''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years."

    That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

    ''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."


    Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush ''took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

    But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. ''There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

    Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. ''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said.

    After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that obligation in two successive fiscal years.

    Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb, who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. ''I see no evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that document, he should have fulfilled his obligation."

    The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.

    Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970, after five additional months of specialized training in F-102 fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron.

    In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

    And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months.

    Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

    Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.

    BUSH'S MILITARY RECORD

    May 27, 1968 Bush pledges to do 39 days of Air National Guard duty a year for six years. Enlists as an airman basic in the 147th Fighter-Interceptor Group, Ellington Air Force Base, Houston, and is selected to attend pilot training.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nov. 25, 1968 to Nov. 28, 1969 Attends and graduates from flight school at Moody Air Force Base, Ga.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dec. 1969 to June 27, 1970 Trains to be an F-102 pilot at Ellington.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    July 1970 to April 16, 1972 As a certified fighter pilot, attends frequent drills and alerts at Ellington.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    May 24, 1972 Has moved to Alabama to work on a US Senate race. Gets permission to serve temporarily with a unit in Alabama.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    May 1, 1973 The two lieutenant colonels in charge of Bush's unit in Houston cannot rate him for the prior 12 months, saying he has not been at the unit in that period.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    May to July 1973 Logs 38 days of duty in Houston after special orders are issued for him to report for duty as he prepares to move to Cambridge to attend Harvard Business School.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    July 30, 1973 Last day in uniform, according to his records. Bush signs a pledge to train with an Air Force Reserve unit in the Boston area until May 26, 1974. But he never does.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Bush's military records


    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/
     
    #1 Oski2005, Sep 8, 2004
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2004
  2. Faos

    Faos Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    15,370
    Likes Received:
    53
  3. Batman Jones

    Batman Jones Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 1999
    Messages:
    15,937
    Likes Received:
    5,491
    For every accusation against Kerry a :eek:

    For every accusation against Bush a :rolleyes:

    Why not just use the smilies?
     
  4. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Bush isn't making it a huge part of his campaign, as John Kerry is. That's why these silly attempts at discrediting the President's military service are sliding right off his back, whereas the Swiftboat messages are hurting Kerry.
     
  5. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,885
    Likes Received:
    41,411
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  6. outlaw

    outlaw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    3
  7. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Give me a break, Sam. Bush was uplifting our brave troops' morale when he did that. That wasn't done at a campaign stop.
     
  8. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,885
    Likes Received:
    41,411
    [​IMG]
     
  9. halfbreed

    halfbreed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,157
    Likes Received:
    26
    These are the same liberals who justified Bill "Draft Dodging" Clinton saying that military experience was not necessary to be president and that any attacks on him were desperate.
     
  10. bigtexxx

    bigtexxx Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2002
    Messages:
    26,980
    Likes Received:
    2,365
    Great point. Oh, the irony that the liberals speweth forward!


    Samuel, I caught you before you edited your smiley face message. I liked the old ones better.
     
  11. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    Clinton admitted he skipped out while Bush and his people continue to say he met all of his requirements. Clearly, he did not meet all of his requirements. That means he and his people are lying.
     
  12. Rocket104

    Rocket104 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2001
    Messages:
    898
    Likes Received:
    4
    I hate the fact that American politics devolves into "liberals vs. conservatives". Stop doing that. Think. Analyze. Don't just regurgitate.

    This is 2004. Not 1992. Not 1996. Not even 2000. Please.

    In this election season, there are two lines of thought.

    Serving in military -> knowledge of defense and security -> prerequisite of current Presidency (Kerry)

    Presidential experience -> knowledge of defense and security -> prerequisite of current Presidency (Bush)

    Now, because Bush/Republicans/SBVfT/527s attacked Kerry's service, it undermines his defense argument. To counter, Kerry/Democrats/TfT/527s is attacking the same thing for Bush.

    This is dumb. It won't work because of the line of thought above. No one except the set Democrats cares about Bush before age 40. The cocaine, the drunkenness, the skipping service...

    You can say whatever you want regarding Bush's connections, elitism, disregard for the law and the armed forces, blah blah blah. It won't connect with voters. This is more lame crap from the DNC.
     
  13. halfbreed

    halfbreed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2003
    Messages:
    5,157
    Likes Received:
    26
    I'm not regurgitating. I'm just making an observation. I didn't say anything about their validity of the argument. I personally don't care either way on either candidate as I don't feel it necessary to serve in the military to be President. I'm not turning it into a liberals - vs conservatives, I'm just merely pointing out the fact that the same people who said it was OK before are now saying something totally different. You could say the same thing about the Conservatives who said (in 1990s) that it IS necessary, but the only difference is that Clinton never served and Bush did even if he was let out early. I'm not tyring to polarize only to point out hipocrisy.
     
  14. outlaw

    outlaw Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    4,496
    Likes Received:
    3
    what about Cheney's 5 deferments?
     
  15. SWTsig

    SWTsig Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,055
    Likes Received:
    3,755
    *character check*

    so you're saying its perfectly okay for the president to lie about his past....

    good to know where ya stand.



    just because he's a republican doesn't mean everything he says is true, or even good natured. it is perfectly okay (and healthy) to occassionally question authority.... it'd disturbing to see so many blindly support someone who has - IMO - made some pretty big mistakes...... hell, he even admitted that he has.
     
  16. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    I heard a discussion about Kerry joining the Navy because he was refused a deferment to go study in Paris. No wonder he's so pissed that Cheney got five!

    Can anybody debunk this story?
     
  17. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's sad that:
    A. the national media has yet another "Bush in the Air National Guard" day, showing how they march in lockstep to the marching orders of the NY Times. Haven't we rehashed this now for the FOURTH damned time since 2000.
    B. It's sad that Kerry is so pathetic and bumbling that his allies in the media bring this up for his benefit. If this isn't proof of a left-leaning bias, I don't know what is.

    The desperation from you on the left makes me feel a lot better about this election. Hopefully a big landslide can negate the legal trickery and "irregularities" the Democrats specialize in come election day.
     
  18. FranchiseBlade

    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,813
    Likes Received:
    20,472
    Why debunk something with absolutely no proof on it's side? If Kerry couldn't get a deferrment why wouldn't he just join the National guard? Why would he volunteer to go to Nam, and then volunteer for more dangerous duty once he was there. The logic of Kerry's action debunks that non-story.

    giddy, that story is worse than any e-mail you've ever posted. There is nothing to put truth to that story, no evidence at all that you've posted. I could say that I heard Cheney kidnapped Roma babies throughout Europe and sold them into slavery to get his 5 deferments. Can anyone debunk that story?

    The fact is that Bush lied. They'd been telling us all along that they had released all Bush's military records. All of a sudden just the other day there are some more military records of Bush's released.
     
  19. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    You made the point I was about to FB. The onus is on you to prove that story giddy. I heard that all of your political beliefs come from chain emails, can you debunk that with documentation?
     
  20. gifford1967

    gifford1967 Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Messages:
    8,307
    Likes Received:
    4,653
    New Questions On Bush Guard Duty
    WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2004


    As a fighter pilot for the Texas Air National Guard, then-Lt. George W. Bush was assigned to fly F-102's out of Houston's Ellington Air Force Base. Early on, he received excellent evaluations, say reports released years ago by the White House.

    What has never surfaced before, reports CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, are four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Mr. Bush's squadron commander. They could help answer lingering questions on whether Lt. Bush received special consideration during his military service.

    The first memo is a direct order to take "an annual physical examination" – a requirement for all pilots.


    Another memo refers to a phone call from the lieutenant in which he and his commander "discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." And that due to other commitments "he may not have time."

    On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered.

    A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment.

    Killian's memo, titled 'CYA' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

    Thirty-one years later, supporters of now-President Bush have been critical of opponent John Kerry's Vietnam record. Now it's the president's turn to answer tough questions about his own service.

    It was just what the White House had hoped to avoid – a new examination of the president's military record just as he seeks to reinforce his credentials as a wartime leader. And Republican officials wasted no time taking dead aim at Ben Barnes' claim that he pulled strings to get George W. Bush into the National Guard, reports CBS News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts.

    "I chalk it up to politics," said White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett. "They play dirty down in Texas. I've been there. I see how it works. But the bottom line is that there is no truth to this."

    Asked if this is dirty politics, Bartlett replied, "Oh, I think it is."

    They also undercut the personal notes Mr. Bush's former commander, Col. Jerry Killian, wrote for his own files, saying "it's impossible to read the mind of a dead man."

    More difficult to brush off are two official memos that seem to contradict previous White House statements.

    One "orders" the president to report for a physical. The White House has said the physical was "not necessary" because the president stopped flying.

    And where the White House says the president's flying status was revoked simply for missing that physical, the memo points to both the missed physical and "failure to perform to (USAF/TexANG) standards."

    "The official files tell the facts," says Bartlett. "And the facts are President Bush served. He served honorably. And that's why he was honorably discharged."

    It's not just the newly discovered memos causing trouble. There are new questions as to why, when he moved to Massachusetts to attend Harvard Business School, Mr. Bush did not sign up with a reserve unit there, as he promised in a letter when he left the Texas National Guard

    And why, with his erratic attendance record, he was subject to neither discipline nor active duty call-up as provided for in his contract with the Guard.

    Larry Korb, an assistant Secretary of Defense under President Reagan has reviewed the Mr. Bush's record and believes he did not fulfill his contract.

    "Essentially, Bush gamed the system to avoid serving his country the way that most of his contemporaries had to," Korb said.

    And on top of all this, the Democrats' answer to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth unleashed an ad Wednesday charging President Bush was AWOL from the Alabama National Guard in the summer of 1972.

    But like their Republican counterparts, Texans for Truth has a credibility problem. While the chief accuser, former Alabama Guard pilot Bob Mintz, says in the ad it would have been impossible for Mr. Bush to have gone unnoticed, in an interview earlier this year with CBS News, Mintz admitted he's not a smoking gun.

    "I cannot say he was not there," Mintz said. "Absolutely positively was not there. I cannot say that. I cannot say he didn't do his duty."


    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/printable641481.shtml

    So let's be clear- contemporaneous records show that Bush disobeyed a direct order to take his physical and for that, and failure to perform other required duties, he was grounded. What possible justification could there be for this dereliction of duty?
     

Share This Page