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

The difference being why should Bush's National Guard service, or lack of, matter now? He's been President for four years now. It's not as if he's some unknown candidate.

 

I have detested Bush's policies as president but never had anything personal against him. That's starting to change. It looks like the elitist Bush with a priviliged background, and family connections couldn't cut the mustard in the air national guard, so he had to have his daddy pull some strings for him.

He disobeyed direct orders, was grounded not only for missing the physical but also for failure to perform standards.

I'm not even sure it matters in his run for Presidency or doing the job unless...

We want a person with integrity in the whitehouse. We want a person who is self reliant and doesn't need to fall back on family connections to get by. We want a person who fulfills their obligations and takes them seriously.

If those character issues are important to the President of the United States, then Bush is in trouble.

 

And with his record (if he were actually running on his record), he would get booted in a landslide if he didn't resort to smear campaigns and attacks.

 

How is he not running on his record? He's been President for four years.

 

Then why is John Kerry the only frigging thing the guy ever talks about??????????

 

Ok, here's the truth.


from : http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx
Bush’s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements.At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.


Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail:
***************************************

The hypocracy of the press is unbeliveable. When the records support Kerry, they love the records. When the records support Bush, they ignore the records. By the way, when will Kerry sign the the PF-180?

 

And Walter Robinson has been trying to make this pig of a story fly for monthgs, but, alas, he is a moron.

See: http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-banal11.html

Media failed to find facts behind Bush's service record

February 11, 2004

BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB Advertisement







President Bush has had a rough 10 days, beginning with the Tim Russert "Meet the Press" interview on Feb. 1 of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who charged Bush was "AWOL" and "never served in the military." Only a week later, Bush asked to appear on Russert's show in a clear attempt to stem the damage from these charges. For over a week they were endlessly repeated and never analyzed by the news media.

But the only basis for these charges was summarized by London's Sunday Telegraph on Feb. 8: "If the Vietnam veteran John Kerry becomes the next president, there will be one man to thank above all others: retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed."

It all started with a report by the Boston Globe during the 2000 presidential election questioning Bush's National Guard service. Walter Robinson cited retired Turnipseed, of the Alabama Air National Guard, as his source.

But in an interview , Turnipseed states that Robinson's reporting of their conversation was either distorted or based upon his misunderstanding of how the military functioned at the time of Bush's service. For Bush to be "AWOL" or "away without leave," he would have had to have been assigned to a unit and under its command.

Turnipseed states Bush was never ordered to report to the Alabama Air National Guard. He points out that Bush never transferred from the Texas Air National Guard to the Alabama Air National Guard. He remained in the Texas Guard during his stay in Alabama. This was confirmed by the Texas Guard. And Turnipseed added that Bush was never under his command or any other officer in the Alabama Guard.

Turnipseed added that Bush was informed of the drill schedule of the Alabama Guard as a courtesy so he could get credit for drills while in Alabama for his service record in the Texas Guard. There was no compulsory attendance.This was also confirmed by the Texas Guard.

Sen. John Kerry got in on the act on Sunday, asking, "was he [Bush] present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be? I don't have the answer to that question." But as Turnipseed points out, Bush was never "supposed to be" anything in Alabama. And Kerry doesn't have "the answer" because he is taking advantage of a partisan political fantasy that has stayed aloft this long because of the lousy job done by the press in reporting on it.

Now, Robinson is beginning to have second thoughts. His latest column states: "President Bush received credit for attending Air National Guard drills in the fall of 1972 and spring of 1973 -- a period when his commanders have said he did not appear for duty at bases in Montgomery, Ala., and Houston -- according to two new documents obtained by the Globe." How could Robinson have gotten it so wrong?

The most charitable explanation for this distortion is the almost total ignorance the press of the realities of military service and its record-keeping. Yet Turnipseed has been repeatedly called by news organizations since the Globe reporting four years ago, and no one has chosen to correct the errors he has tried to point out or cover his denials.

The most startling aspect of this story is that the press has continually treated this affair as a political debate rather than a matter of fact.

An Air National Guard officer such as George Bush left an extensive paper trail of service. The vital summary sheet of a military record is a simple form called the DD214 or NGB 22. It covers all the basic questions being asked about Bush today. Every military veteran has one.

Kerry has one. On it are listed his dates of service, the nature of his discharge and the medals and service ribbons he has every reason to be proud of. It was filed away at the time of discharge and is almost impossible to alter.

Did a single member of the thousands in the press take the trouble to look up just one DD214 or NGB22 -- President Bush's?

Apparently not. And that is the saddest part of the story.

There was already an exhaustive look at Bush's National Guard records published and available on the Internet to any reporter who has written on this in the last week. None of whom bothered to look it up. It's title? "The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, But Not AWOL, Either." It was "the first full chronology" and concludes "he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge."

The article included the pasteup pay records just released by the White House. It also included the "two new documents obtained by the Globe" by Robinson.

It was published four years ago in George Magazine. Its publisher was that well-known GOP supporter -- the late John F. Kennedy, Jr.

Thomas H. Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York.

 

The press reported heavily on the swiftboat ads which were not favorable to Kerry.

Now then, there are some facts in the article you posted, but there are other records too. Records that show that Bush was suspended from flying because he refused a direct order to take a physical and that he could not or did not perform the necessary standards. There are also some official memos that indicate that Killian was being pressured to give Bush undeserved favorable reports.

So if Bush got all the points he needed but didn't earn them it doesn't help his cause much.

As for the records, why were we told all along that Bush already released all of his records only to have new ones released just the other day?

 

i don't know how you guys have the strength to do this every day. the he said she said on both candidates' past is mind-numbing to me. like an election brought to you by the national enquirer.

 

Don't you guys ever get tired of posting the same crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. If I wrote "over and over" about 1000 more times, it would still fall short of accurate.

 

Amen to that

 

How do you know that? Do you have the transcript of his last speech or two from a recent campaign stop? Or are you just going by the :07 second sound clip you hear on the nightly news?

I'll be honest, I don't know the answer and have no idea what he or Kerry talks about at each campaign stop.

 

I think the two examples are entirely different. For the Bush Swift Boat Vets in every case there is documentation that backs up Kerry's record and shows the Bushies to be liars, yet the lies about Kerry got front page coverage for a week. The Bushies lies about his own *proud* service got almost zero coverage in the 2000 primaries and 2000 election. It's about time the truth about Bush's service record was *not* spiked.

 

Maybe Bush should be called up for his 24 months active service. I heard they need guys in Iraq.

 

CBS has launched an internal investigation

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200409\POL20040909d.html

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer

September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.

The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com homed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.I.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

According to an article on the CBS News website, the news program "consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic."

 

you would think they would be able to tell from the ink itself whether it was inkjet printer or typewriter ribbon ink.

 

i really hope they aren't fake. it would be pretty sad if that's true. i could see them being fake, but man it would be disappointing if they were. i don't know...it would be good to see some rock solid documentation rather than just speculation before anyone runs with this story.

 

www.drudgereport.com

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 09, 2004 22:45:32 ET XXXXX

CBSNEWS LAUNCHES INTERNAL INVESTIGATION AFTER SUSPICIOUS BUSH DOCS AIRED

**Exclusive**

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.

More from ABC here: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

 

So does this report suggest that 60 Minutes might have a left-leaning bias? NO WAY!!!

 

Just saw this story on ABC 13 local news and then Nightline. I don't think there's much doubt about whether those documents are fraudulent. Given the evidence cited, they probably are.

The question is not IF, but WHO fabricated these documents?

If it was the White House that forged these documents, and 60 Minutes was merely the messenger, then that is totally different than if 60 Minutes themselves forged the documents.