Did Bush earn his discharge? (maybe you will answer this)

[DeSPURado]

Quick recap of my latest argument:

To find out what USnews was saying when they said Bush only had 12 days of inactive duty:

A review of the regulations governing Bush's Guard service during the Vietnam War shows that the White House used an inappropriate--and less stringent--Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty. Because Bush signed a six-year "military service obligation," he was required to attend at least 44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year beginning July 1. But Bush's own records show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period. The White House has said that Bush's service should be calculated using 12-month periods beginning on his induction date in May 1968. Using this time frame, however, Bush still fails the Air Force obligation standard.

Moreover, White House officials say, Bush should be judged on whether he attended enough drills to count toward retirement. They say he accumulated sufficient points under this grading system. Yet, even using their method, which some military experts say is incorrect, U.S. News 's analysis shows that Bush once again fell short. His military records reveal that he failed to attend enough active-duty training and weekend drills to gain the 50 points necessary to count his final year toward retirement.


I found this. It reports that there are two seperate requirements for a year. That spent in active duty training and that spent in inactive duty training:


Air Force Manual (“AFM”) 35-3, “Air Reserve Forces Personnel Administration,” dated June 25, 1969 (“AFM 35-3”), with its periodic amendments was the primary controlling authority available for this analysis.[2] “Satisfactory Participation” was defined as “the manner in which a member meets the training requirements of his reserve assignment.” Training consisted of Annual Active Duty for Training (“ANACDUTRA”) and Inactive Duty for Training (“INACDUTRA”).[3]

Members of the ANG were required to attend 48 INACDUTRA periods per year and complete not less than 15 days ANACDUTRA to achieve the “satisfactory participation” standard.[11] A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]

Link (http://www.glechliter.glcq.com/critical_analysis.htm#_Toc69716423)

If you go to Lloyd's analysis you can clearly see he tries to add the two to get above a magic number he sets as fifty:
Albert C Lloyd's analysis. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73lloydmem.html)


Editing this in:

You want to get more technical about it. Its not just in the manual. Its in his contract "Statement of Understanding" to serve 48 days of inactive duty:


<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."

Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush (http://www.awolbush.com/documents/statement_of_understanding.pdf)

[Yonivore]

DeSPURate, as we've said, Guard experts smarter than you or I have repeatedly stated that President Bush achieved the requisite "points" to be honorably discharged.

The argument, from your side -- today, seems to have shifted to whether or not Bush received favorable treatment (based on Ben Barne's unsubstantiated lies and forged documents supported by nebulous "proprietary" information) and whether he was suspended from flying for missing a medical exam (also based on those forgeries and 'other stuff CBS knows but can't show evidence of).

Stick with the program, you're straying from the Plantation boy! Nobody but you and Nbadanallah are suggesting, anymore, that the President didn't fulfill his obligation to the Guard.

[DeSPURado]

So apparently the manual didn't apply to Bush?

[Yonivore]

I'm not a Guard expert and neither are you, as we've both demonstrated in this thread and others. Why do you insist on pushing a point everyone else has abandoned?

[DeSPURado]

Becuase if you read the guy Bush used to validate the claim of release, he talks about inactive and active duty points. He just adds them together. I educated myself on the matter. Why can't you?

the guy who dd the fifty poitn criteria for Bush. (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73lloydmem.html)

[Yonivore]

Because actual Guardsmen, both for and against Bush, don't claim he didn't get the requisite points for an honorable discharge.

I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting you don't have all the facts and any good counselor would know there are a whole lot of regulations related to military service and to base a conclusion on one excerpt is folly.

Experts have already weighed in on the issue -- without dissenters. It's enough for me.

[DeSPURado]

You had one expert. Albert. He is being dissented against by experts right now. His own manual contradicts him.

[Yonivore]

Okay, enjoy your intellectual masturbation, DeSPURate, we're at an impasse.

[DeSPURado]

Facts starting to get in the way? I am curious why Travis hasn't shown up to discuss this. I would appreciate at least someone here who has served to adress this. I could ask my step father but yall wouldn't trust that its not me.

[travis2]

I'm not here because I've grown weary of your irrational arguments and your puerile claims of "seeking the truth". The only truth you seek is to smear non-socialists.

There is only one so-called "expert" disputing this. And this so-called Army colonel has no direct Guard experience. What he does have is a heavy relationship with a radical left-wing lunatic.

If this were so all-fired important, why wouldn't the entire world be spouting it, hmmm? Only the Boston Globe is pushing it...and their credibility is none too great right now anyway.

One "source", one newspaper. Meanwhile, the Guard has stated that nothing untoward happened.

Things that make you go "hmmmmmm....."



There, I've weighed in. Satisfied?

[Yonivore]

"There, I've weighed in. Satisfied?"
What'cha wanna bet the answer is no?

[DeSPURado]

No you didn't adress anything but to attack me as a socialist which is a freaking joke. You think I am a socialist?

Second you are attacking a:

By way of background, I am a retired (1999) Army colonel with active Marine enlisted service (1967-69). I have been a registered Independent my entire political life and truthfully can say I have voted for members of both the Republican and Democratic Parties at the local, state, and national levels.

And you didn't adress the relevant topics at all you went after a bunch of character attacks. Does the manual say you have to earn so many inactive duty and active duty training. I can look it up in the document you provided me but you guys tend to discredit anything that doesn't agree with you anyways.

[Yonivore]

Like he said, DeSPURate, the guy had no Guard experience. WTF?

[DeSPURado]

Niether have either of us. He is still in a far better position to understand what the hell the requlations require than any of us.

[Yonivore]

No, not really.

[travis2]

The work wasn't even his...it was his left-wing wacko buddy's.

Does the name Paul Lukasiak mean anything to you? Sure it does.


As for your complaints about character assassination...you've done nothing but perpetrate and encourage the same. Methinks thou dost complain too much.

Truth? What's truth to a lawyer? Only what he/she can twist it into.

I'm through debating with you because you aren't interested in the truth. I'm through with your digs, your lies, and your casual disregard for decency. I'm sure you lawyer wannabes think that's hot shit...but civilized people tire of it.

[Yonivore]

travis, if it makes you feel any better, I suspect that if DeSPURate is sharing this with his "lawyer-wanna-be" buddies, they're laughing their collective asses off at his lack of skill in defending an argument...unless, of course, they're as incompetent as he.

[DeSPURado]

As for your complaints about character assassination...you've done nothing but perpetrate and encourage the same. Methinks thou dost complain too much.

Truth? What's truth to a lawyer? Only what he/she can twist it into.

I guess you won't see the irony in these two statements yet but . :lol :lol :lol



You still haven't addressed a single issue in this thread. lets look at the documents you provided to me:

gee there seems to be two different of training there:


1.3.2. Active duty (AD). Full-time duty in the active military service of the United States (10 U.S.C. Sec. 101(d)(1)).
Active duty is always performed in a Title 10 (Federal) status. Active duty includes active duty for training (ADT)
and active duty other than for training (ADOT).

1.3.7. Inactive Duty for Training (IDT). Training or duty performed by members of the ANG in Title 32 (State status)
under Title 32 U.S.C. sections 502(a)(1) or 502(f) and 37 U.S.C. section 1002. It includes unit training assembly (UTA),
split unit training assembly (SUTA), rescheduled unit training assembly (RUTA), equivalent training (EQT),
additional flying training period (AFTP), proficiency training (PT), and training period preparation assembly (TPPA).
IDT may only be performed in the United States (to include Alaska and Hawaii) and U.S. territories. (See 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 101(d)(7)).

[Yonivore]

:spin :wacko You can't make me answer! :wacko :spin

[DeSPURado]

Here's my deal with you republicans. If you can come up with an answer to this thread, that legitimately argues, without anymore name calling, that Bush recieved the the discharge without any special favors. I won't say Bush was AWOL anymore and I won't start another thread about it. If you can't he was, and you can't rely on the "but he received an honourable discharge." Because it's crap if what I found was true. Any other liberals who want to agree to this are free to do so.

[Joe Chalupa]

I'm still surprised there are not better records of his service.
Just doesn't make sense to me.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v203/teamtcb/badnarikfreedom.jpg

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Who cares if travis is attacking a colonel?

In case you missed it, a general is responsible for the Abu Ghraib prison mess.

Just because they've got a star or a bird on their shoulder doesn't mean they are automatically right.

[Yonivore]

"I'm still surprised there are not better records of his service."

"Just doesn't make sense to me."
It's been 30 freakin' years, Joe. Stuff happens...and it doesn't even have to be sinister stuff.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Joe,

Why aren't you calling on Kerry to release all his service records? He's just put up the select few that make him look good.

In the name of fairness and honesty, you should be calling on him to release all his records as well.

[Tommy Duncan]

I don't care if there are fake but accurate documents confirming that George W. Bush liked to snort lines off the wings of his F-102 before flights, bang chicks in the hangar, and fly buck naked back in his national guard days.

If you have a problem with this then all I gotta say is that Clinton paved the way.

[DeSPURado]

So basically yall are admitting that his interpretation of the manual is correct?

[Tommy Duncan]

I am admitting that I haven't read it nor care. But that's just me.

[DeSPURado]

so you're sticking you're fingers in your ears saying "nah nah I can't hear you." And thats your argument that you are presenting here today?

[Tommy Duncan]

Read slowly:

I do not care.

[Yonivore]

Pretty much. And, do you know why?

Because, it doesn't fucking matter. A bigger problem is that there is a mainstream media giant, CBS, and their poster boy, Dan Rather, willing to lie in an effort to sway an election. That should be of more concern to you than anything that happened 30 years ago.

[DeSPURado]

You guys sure cared enough when you thought you could win the argument. You cared 30 pages enough.

[Yonivore]

DeSPURate, we've won the argument. Now, we're just taunting, mocking, and engaging in excessive celebration.

Throw a flag...

[DeSPURado]

:lol :lol You have? Really Yall stopped adressing this issue 5 pages ago in that thread. And still haven't adressed in in this one.

[Tommy Duncan]

I said I didn't care before and I certainly don't care now. The only issue that really matters is who tried to influence an election with "fake, but accurate" documents and why does Dan Rather look like he was more than an unwilling participant?

[Joe Chalupa]

Memo to Senator John Kerry: I Joe Chalupa, request that you release all you military records, even those that may have been conveniently lost. If they make you look bad?
Who cares? It was 32 years ago. Thanks bud.


I don't care about blow jobs (unless I'm receiving from a beautiful woman) and I don't care if Dubya was making road pizzas after a night of binge drinking.

[DeSPURado]

It was Burkett. You said yourself that doesn't lead back to the DNC.

Now who is going to challenge me on whether Bush earned his discharge.

[Tommy Duncan]

Uh oh, this newly discovered 'fake, but accurate' document might just spell the end of the Kerry campaign...

http://acepilots.com/images/ho.jpg

[Yonivore]

The issue was exhausted.

A better one came along...media bias and the lengths to which CBS and Dan Rather are willing to go to get John Kerry elected.

Guess what? It's a more contemporary and germain issue than something that happened 30 years ago which no one, outside the extreme base of each party, cares about.

John Q. Public is keenly interested in what Dan Rather did last Wednesday -- he could care less what George W. Bush did in 1972.

[DeSPURado]

Still can't do it? This is looking like my case is won.

Bush was AWOL. Didn't deserve his discharge. Was only given it becuase his commanding officers were unwilling to use the the real standards of the air national guard for their golden child.

Issue over.

[Tommy Duncan]

It doesn't seem to lead back to the DNC at the present time.

[Yonivore]

Fake but accurate, The new motto of CBS.

[DeSPURado]

I'm not posting in this thread again until you challenge me on the issues.

Unless you ever try to say Bush got an honorable discharge because he earned it.

[Tommy Duncan]

Well since you put it that way I feel quite inclined to not "challenge you on the issues" in this thread.

May I suggest you make that offer in as many other threads as you like on this ezboard?

[Joe Chalupa]

Fake but accurate, The new motto of CBS.

I thought that was Pamela Anderson's motto.

[Yonivore]

"Fake but doable," is hers.

[travis2]

President Bush earned his discharge. Paul Lukasiak is not qualified to render judgement on this issue.

Issue closed.

[Joe Chalupa]

Received is different than earned.

You know, the way conservatives talk about Kerry's medals.

[Yonivore]

Okay, Dan...I mean, Joe, unless you come up with proof that he didn't earn his honorable discharge, he earned it.

Basing a belief on some CBS theory and the edited (and some say coached) recollections of an 86 year old woman, is pretty thin.

[DeSPURado]

The proof is there black and white in Lloyds memorandum.

He clearly adds two the two seperate categories Active duty and inactive duty together, to get above the number fifty.
Lloyd's analysis (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/gwbush/gwb72-73lloydmem.html)

Problem is you can't do that according to his own manual.

[Yonivore]

Damn, TD, we must have "challenged him on the issue." Will we ever learn?

[DeSPURado]

You want to get more technical about it. Its not just in the manual. Its in his contract "Statement of Understanding" to serve 48 days of inactive duty:


<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."


Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush (http://www.awolbush.com/documents/statement_of_understanding.pdf)

[Yonivore]

"...unless excused therefrom by proper authority."
Kind of throws a wrench in it, don't'cha think?

I mean, I'd say an honorable discharge is proper authority unless you're going to contend the DD-214 is a forgery.

[DeSPURado]

There has to be a form for each day. To authorize him to miss.
It has to be filed in advance.
He can't miss more than four in one year.

[Yonivore]

Maybe there is, the record on President Bush seems to be fairly lacking in content.

Is the DD-214 fraudulent? Because, if it isn't the U.S. Government was satisfied, in October of 1973, that Lt. Colonel George W. Bush had fulfilled his obligation to the Texas Air National Guard.

And, I'm betting there were a whole lot more people and documents around then to support that finding.

[DeSPURado]

You're using what is called a circular argument. He was authorized to miss becuase he got the honorable discharge. The technincal term for it is "begging the question."

It means Assuming the truth of the conclusion of an argument as one of the premises .

Try again.

[Yonivore]

No, I'm saying he received an honorable discharge and, unless you're asserting it is fraudulent, it pretty much says he fulfilled his obligation to the Guard.

[DeSPURado]

:lol Thats the very defninition of a circular argument.

Premise: All honorable discharges are valid
Conclusion: His honorable discharge is therefore valid.

[Yonivore]

Well, all honorable discharge, not fraudulent, are valid...therefore, his honorable discharge is valid.

Why is that such a hard concept?

I don't understand why you think you can make a better judgement, than did those who were in a position to, on whether or not he fulfilled his Guard duty, 30 years later and with insufficient information.

[DeSPURado]

Well, all honorable discharge, not fraudulent, are valid...therefore, his honorable discharge is valid.

I think you see my point. You tried to reword it. But it doesn't make it any more valid of an argument.

You're conclusion is still assumed in your premise.

[Yonivore]

Burden's on you to disprove it and you're rowing up a waterfall. No one but you and the Boston Globe is disputing that he did not fulfill his obligation.

Neither of us have the necessary information to argue beyond speculation. I have the advantage in that we have a document that shows he was honorably discharged.

I see no reason to argue further, I'm not changing my vote...and neither is anyone else based on this thread. We're wasting our time.

[DeSPURado]

No I believe the burden is on you to find papers authorizing him to go AWOL.

[Tommy Duncan]

http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~jjones5/editedphotos/osamabinbondage.jpg

[Yonivore]

^^Ding Dong, the thread is dead!^^

Prove he was AWOL.

[DeSPURado]

First of all do I need to prove that he missed over five months of drills at one point?

[Yonivore]

Means nothing.

[DeSPURado]

Becuase that would technically all fall under the definition of AWOL. Are you going to argue that he was authorized?




Text. “Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

(4) Aggravated forms of unauthorized absence. There are variations of unauthorized absence under Article 86(3) which are more serious because of aggravating circumstances such as duration of the absence, a special type of duty from which the accused absents himself or herself, and a particular specific intent which accompanies the absence. These circumstances are not essential elements of a violation of Article 86. They simply constitute special matters in aggravation. The following are aggravated unauthorized absences:

(a) Unauthorized absence for more than 3 days (duration).
(b) Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days (duration).

(c) Unauthorized absence from a guard, watch, or duty (special type of duty).

(d) Unauthorized absence from guard, watch, or duty section with the intent to abandon it (special type of duty and specific intent).

(e) Unauthorized absence with the intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises (special type of duty and specific intent).

[Yonivore]

Okay, let's see the section on how one is authorized to be exempt from those provisions.

[DeSPURado]

Heres the link have for the one I just did:

Link (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl86.htm?once=true&)

But I think the more relevant answer to your question might be to point out that you can only have four authorized absenses a year.


A member in Bush’s category could not have more than four absences from INACDUTRA in a fiscal year; attendance alone, however, was not sufficient, and a member had to assume “responsibilities commensurate with his grade” and had to perform “his assigned duties in a satisfactory manner as determined by the unit commander.”[12] Retention requirements were strict: “A member who, without approval of competent authority, fails to meet the fiscal year training prescribed for his assignment must be reassigned.”[13]

link (http://www.glechliter.glcq.com/critical_analysis.htm#_Toc69716423)

[Yonivore]

Is that someone's analysis or is that out of the manual?

I'd like to see the section where it explains who, under what circumstance, and any other relevant information on how one is exempted from the provisions you just posted.

[DeSPURado]

The only Manual I have acess is to travis's PDF that he posted, and it says the same thing about four absences.

link (http://www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/pubfiles/36/362001.pdf)


6.6. Equivalent Training (EQT). A member may be allowed to make up a UTA that was missed even if the UTA was
missed without prior approval. EQTs can be performed in a pay status for excused absences and in a non pay status
(retirement points only) for unexcused absences.

6.6.1. Commanders may allow individuals to make up a maximum of four missed UTA periods in a paid EQT status per
fiscal year [U.S.C. Title 37, Section 206(e)]. An EQT in a pay status must be performed within 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period and within the same fiscal year.

6.6.2. An EQT period without pay (for retirement points only) may be performed outside of 30 calendar days of the
missed scheduled UTA period but within the member's anniversary year. UTAs performed in a non-pay status will
be documented on NGB Form 105m/s or a locally substituted form, held separately from attendance records for UTAs
in a pay status, and forwarded directly to MPF.

6.6.3. The training received during an EQT must be of similar nature and quality to that which was missed. EQT will
be appropriate to and enhance ability of the individual to accomplish the duties of the position to which he or she is
assigned. In the case of staff or support personnel, this may include actions to enhance the training, management, or
readiness of the unit.

[Yonivore]

So, you've based your conclusion on incomplete information?

Further, are these the regulations in place in 1972-73? Are there relevant addenda, appendecies, or errata sheets?

[Tommy Duncan]

You know one side effect of continuing this discussion and trust me I do not know where it is at is that the general public will find out that Bush actually was a fighter pilot and spent a couple of years in the Guard doing more than just weekend duty.

This issue is already a loser for Kerry. It's only a matter of how big of a gift the Demos want to present to the Bush campaign.

[DeSPURado]

No I am saying I don't think there is anything that could authorize an absense to the extent which Bush took. The millitary is pretty strict about everything. Even for Inactive training sessions that you are going to attend you have to fill out a form to become authorized to do that session. The first link and the last link all talk about even illness is not an excuse to miss. You are AWOL according to the first link even if you are sick or out of the country.

[Yonivore]

That's exactly what it did for my neighbor, Tommy. The story related in my signature is true.

[Yonivore]

"...I don't think there is anything..."
That's a pretty inconclusive position from which to accuse someone of being AWOL. Particularly when there is no supporting documentation.

[DeSPURado]

Has Bush even once claimed he was authorized to take a leave of 5 months?

[Yonivore]

The President has maintained he fulfilled his Texas Air National Guard duty. And, the existing records support that.

[DeSPURado]

Actually he doesn't have the documentation to prove it...You know when you asked "Is the DD-214 fraudulent?" His last one has either been lost or destroyed.

[Yonivore]

Well, that's the first I've heard that there's an argument over whether he was honorably discharged or not.

[DeSPURado]

John Kerry's DD-214 (http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/DD214.pdf)

This is supposedly whats missing from Bush's record:

•* * * * Bush's last DD-214
•* * * * Any pages from Bush's flight log (they look like this and have summary areas that look like this...real pilots usually keep a copy; so does the Air Force...)
•* * * * Records from the Flight Inquiry Board convened after Bush was suspended as a pilot
•* * * * Any evidence of Bush's reclassification into another AFSC after suspension as a pilot
•* * * * Air Force Form 142 (Aviation Service Audit Worksheet)
•* * * * Any photos of George Bush in a military uniform after 1972
•* * * * Anything at all from any Alabama unit with Bush's name on it
•* * * * Any copies of form 44a from the Alabama National Guard certifying attendance
•* * * * Anything proving service by Bush between May 1972 and May 1973



This is what they posted as the equivalent of the DD-214. But its missing key information. And most noticably its missing Bush's own signature.
Link (http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif)

[travis2]

President Bush earned his discharge. Paul Lukasiak is not qualified to render judgement on this issue.

Issue closed.

[DeSPURado]

Thats the thrid time you said that travis, you think its going to work this time?


Care to give me an actual reason who the hell Paul whatever his name is and how he is related to anything in this thread?

[DeSPURado]

bump

[Yonivore]

Apparently he's the guy behind this website: glcq.com/ (http://glcq.com/)

Really, have you ever tried Google?

[Tommy Duncan]

Staudt speaks.

abcnews.go.com/sections/P...917-1.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/staudt_bush_040917-1.html)

[SpursWoman]

So, how long will it take for him to be discredited....yet we should just trip over ourselves for a member of the typing pool?

[DeSPURado]

How is that relevant to this thread then Yonivore? I am trying to ascertain just what Travis was trying to imply by bringing him up.

Staudt is the guy who redid everyone of Bush's ceremonies advancing him in rank so that he could preside over it. Even though it had already been done. I am not sure he has the credibility given that information to deny anything.

[Tommy Duncan]

Yet Barnes is credible? Nice double standard.

[DeSPURado]

When have I ever even mentioned Barnes in anything I have ever written?

[Yonivore]

CBS shouldn't lie about people that are still breathing. Did they really think all knowledge of events died with Killian?

[Nbadan]

Trouble with that conclusion is that CBS has as many, if not more expert witnesses, as well as the secretaries backing up their side of the story about, at least, the authenticity of the contents of the memos. It will be next to impossible to prove that CBS knowingly passed forged documents without the issues being presented in the memos being resolved first.

Either way, the only logical conclusion is that someone, either Staudt and Killian or the secretaries and everyone who has popped up and verified the content of the letters since the CBS broadcast, has been politically (or otherwise $) motivated to change their side of the story regarding any preferential treatment W. may have received while in the TX air national guard.

The Right has unfairly attacked Dan Rather and CBS for protecting the source of the memos as being strictly politically motivated, but willingly looked the other way when Robert Novak declined to name a White House source who leaked the name of a active CIA covert agent to himself and 5 other Washington reporters.

You tell me which is more important, stopping the proliferation of WMD programs or trying to influence a federal election?

[Yonivore]

No, he just has an 86 year-old secretary. That's it.

And, her credibility is questionable because of her claim that she was Killian's personal secretary when we learn she was just a pool secretary.

Also, and I wish I could find the reference, she stated just a week before coming on to validate CBS's silly story, that she didn't recall much about Bush or what was going on then.

Don't worry, I'll find it when I have more time...

All the other CBS experts expressed doubts when CBS didn't reveal when they went to air. I think it'll be a slam dunk that they knowingly used questionable documents...I also think it's a slam dunk that the public isn't going to care about "beyond a reasonable doubt" Nbadan, this isn't a court of law, it's the court of public opinion and most people think CBS knew the documents were of questionable provenance and just slightly fewer believe they knew the documents were fake.

[SpursWoman]

A few things that weren't mentioned: Mrs. Knox's opinion that Bush is "unfit for office" and that he was "selected, not elected"; Killian's son's assertion that Mrs. Knox was a pool typist, not his father's personal secretary and thus not privy to the "facts" in this case; or the fact that Killian's son and wife were allegedly both interviewed by 60 Minutes before the original report aired last week and yet somehow their clips didn't make it into the segment. Rather did ask Knox what she thought of Killian's son saying that the memos don't reflect his father's opinion. Her response: "He has no way of knowing if it's true or not." Good enough for Document Dan!


Rathergate has more, and says Knox looked coached.
UPDATE: Several readers have e-mailed me an article from today's Houston Chronicle with a very interesting tidbit of information about Knox. This didn't come up either during the interview; think it might be relevant?

Last week, Knox said she had no firsthand knowledge of Bush's time with the Texas Air National Guard, although she did recall a culture of special treatment for the sons of prominent people, such as Bush and others.

Tonight she said she remembered Bush well and described him as "nice" and "gentlemanly", and prone to forgetting her name. A truly spectacular feat of memory recovery for an 86-year-old, don't you think? Kudos, Mrs. Knox.

In response to the question of whether Bush received preferential treatment in the TANG, Knox said she "feels" that he did. Much the way Allah "feels" that this CBS story is one big fucking set-up.

Hey, Dan's not the one on trial here! If Knox is right, Rather said, the public "won't hear about it from a spokesman. They'll learn it from me." But he also delivered a message to "our journalistic competitors," including The Washington Post and rival networks: "Instead of asking President Bush and his staff questions about what is true and not true about the president's military service, they ask me questions: 'How do you know this and that about the documents?'"

Because Bush is a draft dodger, the rest of the media should give Rather a pass on his shitty journalism. Unbelievable.

[SpursWoman]

I was looking for the Chronicle article, but you have to buy a subscription to access the archives, and I wasn't that interested.

:lol

[Yonivore]

Have I told you that I love you, lately?

[SpursWoman]

:kiss

[Brodels]

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/whocares6.jpg

If you actually care whether or not Bush fulfilled his duty decades ago, you must really believe that your candidate doesn't have a chance.

Who gives a ****? He's been president for almost four years. Base your opinions on that, not what he did decades ago.

Some of you look like idiots trying to make this important. Look at his record as president, then decide.

Grasp for straws all you want.

[Nbadan]

People keep posting that they don't care, yet everytime a thread gets started about W's past with the Texas Air National Guard, it goes to 3 pages overnight. I think it's important to know whether W. intentionally skirted his time with the guard because the * campaign has made such an issue about medals Kerry received in Vietnam that the Navy nows says were properly earned. It's important for people to know that while Kerry was protecting his country in Vietnam, W was protecting his bar tab at the local Air Guard drinking hole.

[travis2]

It's relevant because Lukasiak has no training/background/whatever to make the claims he did.

Your "colonel" probably doesn't even exist. It's all a production of Lukasiak. Lukasiak wrote the piece, put some fictitious colonel up as the author (a colonel, by the way, with no Guard and no apparent personnel experience) and tries to convince people that the President was AWOL.

Except that like everything you lefties do, it's a lie.

Quit trying to foist lies off on us.

[Yonivore]

It's important not for what it says about President Bush but, for what it is revealing about Demoncrats and their liberal buddies in the media and how they collude to try and drive elections.

I want this to run until election day. I want to see Dan Rather's head explode on National T.V. This is doing nothing but destroying -- yes, destroying -- the Kerry Campaign. And, I'm going to do my part to see that it's hung around his neck, where it should be.

He shoulda just left Vietnam out of the race...if only he'd of been able to. Unfortunately, he's done nothing with his life since then and now, all of a sudden, he's finding out that what he did with his life back then isn't as honorable as he'd been leading people to believe all these years.

Bring it on!

[DeSPURado]

"Your 'colonel' probably doesn't even exist.":lol :lol :lol :lol

Travis you obviously missed this part about Bush's signed service contract:

<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."


Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush (http://www.awolbush.com/documents/statement_of_understanding.pdf)

[Tommy Duncan]

I'd like to second Brodels' emotion. In a nutshell, this is how to **** up a presidential election: become so hateful of the opponent that you seek to prove he's a bad man personally.

[DeSPURado]

You'd like to show me how I am being hateful of someone by trying to get to the truth of this matter? No better yet why don't you show me how I am in anyway connected (reflective of or otherwise) to the Kerry campaign?

[Tommy Duncan]

Your act is tired.

[DeSPURado]

First you say I care to much about a non issue now you say its an act? Which is it? And why are you so interested in what I care about?

But believe it or not I wasn't doing any of this to convince anyone. I wanted to see you guys air your argument so I could decide the issue for myself. Which I have done. You guys lost and now you can't stop crying about it.

And Bush hasn't stopped lying about it.

[travis2]

Oh please...you don't give a **** about the truth. It's amazing you can type with Kerry's testicles slapping you in the chin.

I wonder how the judge would react if you submitted "fake but accurate" evidence in court?

You still haven't explained how the ravings of a caterer somehow "prove" your point.

You haven't shown anything other than your incompetence and your predilection for lying...but certainly not your skill at it.

[Yonivore]

Damn, DeSPURate, now your credibility is in question. Want to go down with the U.S.S. Ratherbiased?

[SpursWoman]

And Bush hasn't stopped lying about it.



Lying about what? (http://p090.ezboard.com/ffullsportpressfrm25.showMessage?topicID=1979.topi c)

[Yonivore]

Can we put .wav files in here? It'd be the perfect spot for the Jeopardy theme...don't'cha think?

[DeSPURado]

Spurs woman the Alabama stuff is old news. He has already been given credit for anything that was put on his statement of credits, and its still not enough.

Travis if you bothered to read anything. You would know I don't rely on one person to do an analysis. And I may not be qualified to analyze millitary code, but I am more than qualified, certainly more than you are, to analyze contract law. Bush's statement of service qualifies as a contract which he broke.

[DeSPURado]

The only reason I am still posting in this thread is to give you any chance you need to disprove my case. Like Spurs woman just attempted to do. If my opinion is wrong about this I want to know.

[xrayzebra]

Sheeeessssh! DeSpurado is another damn expert. Hey
Dan I'll bet he would come on your newscast and tell you
all about contracts.........oh, never mind he is full of himself,
you know like shit.:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant

[DeSPURado]

You might want to check my profile before you question my expertise on contract law.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, he's a counselor in training!

Not that you are, but, you do know there are stupid lawyers, right? I wouldn't be so quick to point to your training, it doesn't really amount to much.

[DeSPURado]

The vast majority of lawyers are stupid. I'm just saying I do know a little about contract law. Bush had a contract with the millitary that didn't eave alot of room for interpretation. In fact if you find a contract that leaves anything up to intepretation you've got a stupid lawyer behind it. In this case they didn't.

[Yonivore]

I know alot about contract law, and I ain't even a lawyer. Enough to know you have absolutely no where near the relevant facts to make a conclusion about his service in the late 60's and early 70's.

The first thing you keep forgetting is "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

[DeSPURado]

Bush has been quoted as saying when asked about a five month period of absense that he made it up, In those days in in the summer of 73. That confirms both the absence and it confirms that what we have available as proof is all that is there.

[Yonivore]

He said he made up the absences...they honorably discharged him. You have nothing to the contrary. Nothing.

[xrayzebra]

Mr. D. You know damn little about anything. You prove
that daily in these forums.

[DeSPURado]

You guys always like going back to that You've proven nothing tactic. Do you really like hearing me repeat everything that has already been stated over and over again?

[Yonivore]

Your argument always boils down to a demand that President Bush prove the baseless allegations are untrue.

Sorry, it's not up to him to disprove anything -- you guys brought it up, you guys prove it.

[DeSPURado]

I've tried to construct the argument in such a way that it is; How is this interpretation incorrect. The Manual and the contract read that he needed 48 (he could miss 4 so really 44) inactive duty sessions and 15 active. You all seem to have conceded that point.

I want to know why I should buy the fifty point method. Can you find any piece of evidence in the books that that was ever a legitimate method of counting attendance. Here's the tricky part, you can't keep using an appeal to authority. (IE- Lloyd says its right so it is becuase he is an authority on it.) Find it for me in the books. I have been trying to do that myself. Its been a wild goose chase that always leads back to LLoyd.

LLoyd himself has said something to the effect that the other method of counting is correct but no one could have ever lived up to that standard.

[Yonivore]

You're incorrect because everyone with any direct knowledge of the President's Air National Guard service say he comleted his obligation and was honorably discharged.

[DeSPURado]

I've seen Lloyd Hodges and Staudt say something like that, yes. But I have never seen them actually use anything other than their own authority to back that claim up. Have you?

[Yonivore]

So?

[DeSPURado]

You remember the circular argument thingie. An appeal to authority is another form of a logical fallacy. It doesn't on its own make an argument. If you want I can list the six main logical fallacies for you. They are kind of helpful to know. And fun to watch most newscasters completely favor the fallacy because its more interesting.

[Yonivore]

Sound's to me like you need to send your evidence to CBS, DeSPURate. No one here is buying it.

Everyone related to his services says he completed it and was honorably discharged. You're the only person in the country, that I'm aware of, who is disputing that.

[DeSPURado]

I swear you've got this automated responce. If I hit a nerve you switch into autopilot and switch back to partisan rhetoric. You're not very honest with yourself are you?

[Yonivore]

Honestly, you haven't hit a nerve. You're just talking about irrelevant bullshit.

I asked you the other night if the manual you were reading from were of '72 vintage. I asked if you could produce all the other relevant passages from the manual related to authorities and other leaves and early discharges and on and on and on.

You choose to keep your argument very narrow and focused on one cite, and that negates it. There is a body of law and regulations related to Air National Guard Service. I dare say it has evolved in 32 years. I also dare say you have no fucking idea what the terms of service were in 1972.

The bottom line is, you've come up with an out of context passage and expect everyone to buy is as some evidence when, in fact, you haven't even demonstrated it is a rule that was in effect in 1972.

[DeSPURado]

I could see your argument if I didn't also have the statement of understanding signed by Bush when he signed up. It not only is worded in exactly the same way as the analysis. It has the exact same requirements:



<5/27/68> : H. "Satisfactory participation during my membership in the Air National Guard of the United States will be attendance and satisfactory performance of assigned duties at 48 scheduled inactive duty training periods and 15 days' field training (active duty for training) annually, unless excused therefrom by proper authority. It also includes successful completion of on-the-job upgrade training."

Statement of Understanding Signed by Bush (http://www.awolbush.com/documents/statement_of_understanding.pdf)

[Yonivore]

Jeeze! Deja vu...


"...unless excused therefrom by proper authority."

Hello, are you not paying attention?

[DeSPURado]

I have a documet saying who has authority to excuse someone form the required attendence:

Turns out to be the secretary of the air force.
http://www.glcq.com/obligations_files/image014.gif

[DeSPURado]

(This message was left blank)

[Yonivore]

Are you saying that, with the connections Bush had, he couldn't have wrangled an excuse from the Secretary of the Air Force?

That's the angle I'd attack. Saying he didn't meet the requirements is a lost cause...go back to he's a privileged boy with a silver spoon in his mouth.

Oh yeah, the public doesn't care about that either.

[DeSPURado]

I'm saying he didn't deserve it. That is all. Connections don't make it justified, plus we then have to go find that exception which would be even worse for Bush politically.

[Yonivore]

No, you've been saying he didn't complete his obligation to the Guard and wrongly received an honorable discharge.

C'mon get your story straight.

And, by all means, go find the exception. Look, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision....face it.

[DeSPURado]

"Look, you don't have enough information to make an informed decision....face it."

If that argument holds true for me it does for you too.

[Yonivore]

But, I'm not trying to prove anything.

It's like you coming up to me and saying, "you're a liar now prove you're not!" It's silly.

[Nbadan]

For those of you interested, there's a nice overview of this issue available from the New York Times...

Portrait of George Bush in '72: Unanchored in Turbulent Time (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20bama.html?pagewanted=1)

[Tommy Duncan]

My overview:

WGAF?

[Yonivore]

:served

[xrayzebra]

"the New York Times". Now there is a nice un-biased news
source and they never have a problem with their reporting,
do they? I will stick with Fox News.

[Yonivore]

Maybe See-BS hired Jayson Blair? Ya think?