PDA

View Full Version : Bush skipped ’70s drills, paper says



Keeyth
09-08-2004, 05:40 PM
Bush skipped ’70s drills, paper says
Boston Globe: No punishment for missing training

Reuters
Updated: 1:54 p.m. ET Sept. 8, 2004


BOSTON - President Bush fell short of meeting his military obligations during the Vietnam War and was not disciplined despite irregular attendance at required training drills, The Boston Globe said Wednesday.

In a re-examination of the president’s service in the Texas Air National Guard, the newspaper said Bush appeared to have broken his contract with the U.S. government by not joining an Air Force Reserve unit when he moved in mid-1973 to Massachusetts from Texas.

The military records of Bush and of his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who was decorated for his service in Vietnam, have featured prominently in the campaign for the presidential election on Nov. 2.

Republicans have made Bush’s leadership of what he calls a global war on terrorism central to his campaign.

In February, the White House released hundreds of pages of Bush’s military records that showed he was absent for long periods of his final two years of National Guard duty but said nonetheless he met service requirements.

However, the Globe focused on documents Bush signed in 1968 and again in 1973 in which he pledged to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

The Globe said in July 1973, before Bush moved from Houston to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to attend Harvard Business School, he signed a document saying: “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... “



Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post in 1999 that the future president had served at a Boston-area Air Force Reserve unit after leaving Houston. But Bush never joined a Boston-area unit, the Globe said.

“I must have misspoke,” Bartlett, now White House communications director, was quoted as telling the Globe in a recent interview.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, responding to the Globe report Wednesday, said, “The president was honored to serve his country. He met his obligations, and was honorably discharged.”

The Globe also looked at a 1968 pledge by Bush in which he committed to “satisfactory participation” at Guard training, including 24 days of weekend duty each year and 15 days of active duty each year.

No service for six months
But the newspaper said he performed no service over a six-month period in 1972 and nearly a three-month stretch in 1973 — erratic attendance that could have prompted his superiors to discipline him or order him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974.

Instead, Bush’s unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been “satisfactory,” the Globe said.

The National Guard and reserves, rarely called up during the Vietnam War, came to be regarded as “draft havens for relatively affluent young white men,” the Air National Guard says in a history on its Internet site.

The Pentagon on Tuesday released 17 pages of what it called newly found records concerning Bush’s service that showed he flew 336 hours in a fighter jet, most recently in April 1972, and ranked 22nd out of 53 pilots when he finished flight training at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia in 1969.

The pages did not resolve the dispute over whether Bush completed the service as required.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said the details about Bush’s service undermined his credibility. ”These new documents show that the president did not serve honorably,” McAuliffe said, accusing Bush of either lying about his record or suffering “some kind of severe memory loss.”

A pro-Kerry group, Texans for Truth, plans to run television commercials this week questioning Bush’s Guard attendance. A group backing Bush, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has said in its own commercials that Kerry lied about his Vietnam war record.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5943420/

ELVIS
09-08-2004, 05:46 PM
Who cares ??

It's not about what he did yesterday, It's what he's doing today...


:elvis:

Keeyth
09-08-2004, 06:25 PM
It gives him no right to question Kerry's war record, and if you wanna talk about what he's doing today, well... ...he should be in jail for THAT!

ELVIS
09-08-2004, 06:42 PM
George Bush NEVER questioned Kerry's "war record" !!!

FORD
09-08-2004, 09:22 PM
No, he just hired his cousin John Ellis O'Neill and his Swift Boat Liars Against Truth to do it for him.

Big Train
09-08-2004, 09:32 PM
Will SOMEONE please pick a fucking path? When Kerry was getting his licks it was "It doesn't matter what happened then", now that it is bush it's drastically important. I'm fine either way, just tell me which it is.

If this is true, then they are still equal. I'm sure it will turn out that Kerry filled out and bullshitted the forms for his "Awards". The fucking US NAVY doesn't even believe his story. Just sign the form John and we can sort this all out. All this is still too little, to late....

BigBadBrian
09-08-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Keeyth
It gives him no right to question Kerry's war record

I don't believe he ever did, you nitwit. :gulp:

ELVIS
09-08-2004, 10:04 PM
That's what I said several threads ago...

BigBadBrian
09-08-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by FORD
No, he just hired his cousin John Ellis O'Neill and his Swift Boat Liars Against Truth to do it for him.

FORD, where in the blue hell do you get that this guy is Bush's cousin? Huh?

ELVIS
09-08-2004, 10:10 PM
He makes it up...

rustoffa
09-08-2004, 11:54 PM
Originally posted by Big Train
Will SOMEONE please pick a fucking path? When Kerry was getting his licks it was "It doesn't matter what happened then", now that it is bush it's drastically important. I'm fine either way, just tell me which it is.

If this is true, then they are still equal. I'm sure it will turn out that Kerry filled out and bullshitted the forms for his "Awards". The fucking US NAVY doesn't even believe his story. Just sign the form John and we can sort this all out. All this is still too little, to late....

All this talk about big old school dollars protecting fortunate sons is, quite frankly, nauseating.

So what if W ran sorties to the beer store?

Who the fuck cares if Kerry jumped around in briar bushes and got wounded?

Bill Clinton is sippin' fluids and clinging to life as we know it!

If questionable service records are of any relevance, think about the guy in the hospital.

Here's to baby food and IV's!

FORD
09-08-2004, 11:59 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
FORD, where in the blue hell do you get that this guy is Bush's cousin? Huh?

The FAUX News employee (and Bush cousin) who called Florida for Junior was named John Ellis.

Jeb's full name is John Ellis Bush.

The Bush family is notorious for "recycling" names

Ellis is not a common middle name.

O'Neill has numerous connections to the BCE political machine. (William Rehnquist, Bob Perry, etc)

ELVIS
09-09-2004, 12:05 AM
What a fucking paranoid conspiracy!

:rolleyes:

FORD
09-09-2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
What a fucking paranoid conspiracy!

:rolleyes:

Care to refute anything I just said?

Big Train
09-09-2004, 12:22 AM
Couldn't you (or one of your "sources") check the birth records, a public document? it's just a theory right now. If it checks out, why havent the liberal media jumped on it? Are they lazy?

BigBadBrian
09-09-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by FORD
The FAUX News employee (and Bush cousin) who called Florida for Junior was named John Ellis.

Jeb's full name is John Ellis Bush.

The Bush family is notorious for "recycling" names

Ellis is not a common middle name.

O'Neill has numerous connections to the BCE political machine. (William Rehnquist, Bob Perry, etc)

Ellis is a very common name in the South, both as last and middle names. You, sir, are touched in the head. :gulp:

Warham
09-09-2004, 01:54 PM
I have a great article for those who believe in vast right-wing conspiracy theories, or any conspiracies for that matter.

It's quite enlightening, and will hopefully clear your head of such delusional thinking.

FORD
09-09-2004, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Warham
I have a great article for those who believe in vast right-wing conspiracy theories, or any conspiracies for that matter.

It's quite enlightening, and will hopefully clear your head of such delusional thinking.

What conspiracy theory?

Junior did not fulfill his obligation to the National Guard. It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

Now here's an interesting twist...

It seems that Junior signed a document back then which states that if he fails to fulfill his obligatied duties, then the Guard has the option of assigning him to another post for up to 2 years time.

I vote for Iraq. Put the Chimp on the front lines in Fallujah and we'll see how tough he really is :)

Keeyth
09-09-2004, 02:41 PM
I second that vote...:D

John Ashcroft
09-09-2004, 08:54 PM
Well, since your desparation has brought us here, chew on Bush's real record of service fellas.

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.

A little interjection here if I may... Not only did President Bush not question Kerry's service, he actually stated it was more admirable than his during the period. He stated that you can't compare the two's service, Kerry put himself in harms way (in Vietnam, in case you haven't heard), while he himself did not.

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.

Link: here (http://www.hillnews.com/york/090904.aspx)

ELVIS
09-09-2004, 11:20 PM
Nice find JA!


:elvis:

Warham
09-10-2004, 06:33 AM
Kerry's camp is desperate. They can't run on their Senate record so they have to rehash what happened 35 years ago.