Printable View
And, again, it is quite interesting that CBS has yet to reveal its source for the documents. It is interesting that Rather chose to interview Ben Barnes (whose cred is highly suspect) as well as Jim Moore.
So who will be the fall guy? Who will take the bullet to protect DRather?
He accumulated an enormous amount of *extra* points needed to fulfill his obligation. WTH do you get "just slides by" ?Quote:
How do you feel about the guy that just slides by, only attends enough drills to get credit.
Where is that thread that actually breaks down his service by year? I think DeSpurado was MIA when that was posted. It might clear a few things up--although I'm sure it'd just start a whole 'nother round of :spin .
Oh my, this is all you have left.Quote:
Wait you're a millitary guy. How do you feel about the guy that just slides by, only attends enough drills to get credit. Being in the millitary is not about doing the bare minimum its about serving this great country of ours.
Again, the man served full time for two years. He accumulated about six times the points he needed in those years. After that he continued to surpass the minimums.
According to Killian's son, Bush volunteered to be considered to go to Vietnam twice.
Your characterization is a tad bit off, to say the least. At this point you are running on fumes (or inhaling some rather strong ones).
Seriously how else do you explain the transfer. He was not qualified to serve in Alabama under his service contract. How did he get that tranfer to go through? That was special treatment, what other evidence do you need?
Tranfer Request Doc
Request denied...its not allowed under his current millitary obligation.
The points in the millitary system have to be made up within 30 days of the missed days. That was another bit of special treatment.
www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp
February 18, 2004, 8:40 a.m.
Bush and the National Guard: Case Closed
Byron York
[email protected]
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article appears in the March 8, 2004, issue of National Review.
Ask retired Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed whether the press has accurately reported what he said about George W. Bush, and you'll get an earful. "No, I don't think they have," he begins. Turnipseed, the former head of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group of the Alabama Air National Guard, was widely quoted as saying he never saw Bush in Alabama in 1972, and if the future president had been there, he would remember. In fact, Turnipseed says, he doesn't recall whether Bush was there or not; the young flier, then a complete unknown in Alabama, was never part of the 900-man 187th, so Turnipseed wouldn't have had much reason to notice him. But most reporters haven't been interested in Turnipseed's best recollection. "They don't understand the Guard, they don't want to understand the Guard, and they hate Bush," he says. "So when I say, ‘There's a good possibility that Bush showed up,' why would they put that in their articles?"
In recent weeks, Turnipseed has found himself in the middle of a battle in which Democrats have called the president a "deserter" who went "AWOL" for an entire year during his time in the Air National Guard. When Democrats made those accusations — amplified by extensive press coverage — the White House was slow to fight back, insisting that the issue, which came up in the 2000 campaign, was closed and did not merit a response. It was only after NBC's Tim Russert brought the story up during a one-hour interview with the president on February 8 that the White House changed course and released records of the president's Guard service.
Those records have not quieted the most determined of the president's enemies — no one who watches the Democratic opposition really believed they would — but they do make a strong case that Bush fulfilled his duties and met the requirements for Air National Guard officers during his service from 1968 to 1973. A look at those records, along with interviews with people who knew Bush at the time, suggests that after all the shouting is over, and some of the basic facts become known, this latest line of attack on the president will come to nothing.
FOUR YEARS OF FLYING
The controversy over Bush's service centers on what his critics call "the period in question," that is, the time from May 1972 until May 1973. What is not mentioned as often is that that period was in fact Bush's fifth year in the Guard, one that followed four years of often intense service.
Bush joined in May 1968. He went through six weeks of basic training — a full-time job — at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Then he underwent 53 weeks of flight training — again, full time — at Moody Air Force Base in Valdosta, Ga. Then he underwent 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training — full time — at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. Counting other, shorter, postings in between, by the end of his training period Bush had served two years on active duty.
Certified to fly the F-102 fighter plane, Bush then began a period of frequent — usually weekly — flying. The F-102 was designed to shoot down other fighter planes, and the missions Bush flew were training flights, mostly over the Gulf of Mexico and often at night, in which pilots took turns being the predator and the prey."If you're going to practice how to shoot down another airplane, then you have to have another airplane up there to work on," recalls retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "He'd be the target for the first half of the mission, and then we'd switch."
During that period Bush's superiors gave him consistently high ratings as a pilot. "Lt. Bush is an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer," wrote one in a 1972 evaluation. Another evaluation, in 1971, 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 third rating, in 1970, said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was also "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."
All that flying involved quite a bit of work. "Being a pilot is more than just a monthly appearance," says Bob Harmon, a former Guard pilot who was a member of Bush's group in 1971 and 1972. "You cannot maintain your currency by doing just one drill a month. He was flying once or twice a week during that time, from May of 1971 until May of 1972." While the work was certainly not as dangerous as fighting in the jungles of Vietnam, it wasn't exactly safe, either. Harmon remembers a half-dozen Texas Air National Guard fliers who died in accidents over the years, in cluding one during the time Bush was flying. "This was not an endeavor without risk," Harmon notes.
THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.
The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."
The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.
What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."
On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968) .
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."
Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "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."
THE UNENDING ATTACK
Despite the evidence, Democrats have continued to accuse the president of shirking his duty during his Guard career. "He went to Alabama for one year," Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said on ABC on February 1. "He didn't show up. Call it whatever you want, AWOL, it doesn't matter." After Bush made his Guard records public, McAuliffe released a statement saying the documents "create more questions than answers." Other Democrats, as well as an energetic team of liberal columnists and bloggers, echoed McAuliffe's comments.
Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of Bush's detractors is that they managed to sell the idea — mostly unchallenged in the press — that Bush's Air National Guard service consisted of one year during which he didn't show up for duty. Far fewer people asked the question: Just how did Bush become a fighter pilot in the first place? Didn't that involve, say, years of work? Bush's four years of service prior to May 1972 were simply airbrushed out of the picture because many reporters did not believe they were part of the story.
It also seems likely that some of Bush's adversaries used the Guard issue as a way to get at other questions about the president. The Guard record was said to have a bearing on Bush's credibility, on the war in Iraq, on his fitness to lead. In addition, some journalists were nearly obsessed with forcing the president to release medical records from his time in the Guard because they hoped those records might reveal some evidence of drug use. The White House did not release the full set of medical records but did allow reporters to view them; the documents were entirely unexcep tional and contained nothing about drug use.
While all that was going on, both the White House and the Bush reelection campaign seemed consistently to underestimate the ferocity and resolve of the president's adversaries. For weeks, as the controversy grew, the president did nothing to defend himself. Those who wanted to speak up in his defense, like William Campenni and Bob Harmon, were not contacted by the White House; instead, they decided to go public on their own. Even when John Calhoun, the man who remembers Bush in Alabama, sent the White House an e-mail saying he had useful information, he received a stock response, without any indication the White House was interested in what he had to say.
Now the evidence is public; anyone who is interested in learning about Bush's service can do so. In the end, the president had the facts on his side. But he also had the good fortune to have the allegiance of men who feel so intensely about the Guard and their service that they wanted to speak out even if the White House didn't seem to care. Men like Campenni and Harmon were deeply offended when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry equated Guard service during the Vietnam War with fleeing the country or going to jail. That was simply too much. "I'm not a Bushie," says Harmon. "The thing that got a few of us crawling out from under a rock, at no instigation from the White House, was that Guard service was being portrayed as being like a draft dodger."
Still waiting for the link to the source that those memos came from the Pentagon...
Credits have to be made up within 30 days of a missed drill. Not to hard for you to understand is it Tommy?
Oh it's not hard for me to understand, like a lot of things.
What I, and I am sure many others here do not understand is why you continue to make a fool out of yourself.
You need the memos to be true, just like CBS needed them to be true.
And again, as I have said before, if true they prove very little except to extreme partisans such as yourself.
The real issue in the here and now is who created those documents which most sane people regard as extremely likely to be fakes. That matters because then we would know that CBS participated in a hoax, and that matters a fell of a lot more here in 2004 than if Bush missed a physical back in the early 1970s.
Pretty fucking clear, at least to those of us who don't have to backtrack on what we said yesterday.
For waht do I need those memos they are already spelled out for everyone, just not so explicitly for the reading impaired like yourself.
Tranfer Request Doc
Request denied...its not allowed under his current millitary obligation.
The proof against you is in the article. Obviously he was credited for time served.
In the Spurs forum, I believe the applicable term would be "scoreboard"...
Incorrectly credited ergo special treatment. Am I making the 30 day credit thing up?
I think I'll take the word of those in charge at the Guard over yours, thank you...
BTW...at least one of the links you posted proves my point about the letter format of the time...
What is it called when a stated official policy is not applied selcetively to one of its members? I'm sure they had that policy just for fun becuase they are more of guidelines than rules really.
Actually I've never heard of the 30 day rule. And even if it is in effect now, that doesn't mean it was in effect 30+ years ago. If you think personnel rules have remained static over that time, you're in for a big surprise...
This is rather entertaining.
DSO is an internet hero.
You can not miss more than ten percent of drills which Bush did in his last year
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1_files/image012.gif
missing a medical exam requires orders to report for a medical exam. Or a tour of active duty.
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1_files/image031.gif
more to be edited in:
http://www.jordansplace.net/politics...r_bush_nam.gif
You know, I can make that exact watermark in MS Word. :wink
That bottom one for Bush is probably from when he was discharged whereas the one above is while Kerry was on duty and of course he ended up on duty because he was activated from the Naval Reserves. When he volunteered for the swift boats they were only patrolling offshore Vietnam.
(a) In your first picture you've cut out a lot of context. I can't evaluate exactly what is being discussed. Why don't you post the rest of it?
(b) In your second picture, the situation discussed is being involuntarily called to active duty. Not relevant to this discussion.
(c) In your third picture, all you are showing is a portion of Bush's "dream sheet". Volunteer/non-volunteer status for overseas duty was and is a standard block on those forms. It has no relevance to the discussion at hand.
You are definitely showing your lack of direct knowledge of the military personnel and assignments systems.
Hey I am purporting them to be anything. Actually I am hoping you will tell me what they mean. To me it looks like Bush missed some shit.
This next doc shows Bush only had 9 days for something and he is being ordered to report. Thats not an everyday occurance is it?
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc17.gif
Your letter has nothing whatsoever to do with being involuntarily called to active duty. It is an order to report for the standard 2-week drill time.
That just looks like when & where to report.
:wtf
But it proves that the Guard wanted him to report somewhere SW! This is major.
:baby
Travis I know its not a call to active duty....Its an order to report for drills. Why would they have to order him to report? That isn't something they send out everyday is it?
:lol @ TD
Then you have the famous not observed comment:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif
BTW...here is the current "30-day" rule. As expected, it is not as you have stated.
From ANGI 36-2001 (15 Jan 97)
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.
The point being...even now, being outside of 30 days doesn't mean you can't get credit. It means you won't get paid for it.
What about the 10% rule then?
http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1_files/image012.gif
Don't know, Despurado. However, the military writes orders for lots of things. I don't see any "smoking gun" there.
Hell, when I entered OTS, I had one of those with my name on it. And no I wasn't late or in trouble. It's just the way they do things.
I already told you about that picture. Try reading my response.
And as far as the OER goes...where's the back side?
I did its a picture. I can't look up the original as I don't have it, but from the part shown it seems very clear. You can not miss more than ten percent of your drills.
In what context? Again, you show your utter ignorance of anything military. It is most certainly not very clear.
"Not been observed", as in no one saw the whites of his eyes, or "not been observed"...flying a plane?
"has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
WTF do the "AWOL" accusations come from? Looks like he was there to me.
:wtf
www.nationalreview.com/ke...ryspot.asp
60 MINUTES TO INVESTIGATE 60 MINUTES II (PARODY*)
[09/13 06:13 PM]
NEW YORK — In a stunning development, the flagship news program of CBS, 60 Minutes, has decided to investigate its Wednesday night counterpart, ‘60 Minutes II.’
60 Minutes producer Don Hewitt came out of retirement in order to investigate the spinoff program, which, he pointed out, was an idea he had always hated and opposed anyway.
“This story has all the classic ingredients parts of a archetypal 60 Minutes story,” Hewitt said. “Forgeries and lies. A brazen attempt to influence a presidential election. Shadowy political operatives. A powerful institution that is hiding behind short, defiant statements. The whole situation just screamed a need for a hard-hitting reporter to hold the powerful guys in suits accountable. It just happens that in this case, we’re interviewing the powerful guys in suits down the hall.”
The media world is abuzz with excitement about the shocking interview of CBS Evening News host Dan Rather by Mike Wallace. CBS has released one particularly tense exchange:
(Wallace and Rather sit opposite each other, eye to eye, almost mirror images.)
Wallace: Expert… after expert… after expert has declared these documents (dramatically holding up four sheets of paper) to be forgeries. What is your response to them?
Rather: We have solid sources.
Wallace: Who are they?
Rather: I’m not going to say.
Wallace: Why should people trust you?
Rather: Do you know who I am? I’ve been in the news business for 42 years!
Wallace: Do you know who I am? I’ve been in the news business for 53 years! And Christopher Plummer played me in the movie!
Rather: I am 100 percent certain that the chances of this document being real are almost 51 percent.
Wallace: You’re being evasive.
Rather: I’m not being evasive, I’m just being more nimble than a one-legged Texas bullfrog before a prairie thunderstorm!
Wallace: That doesn’t even make sense.
Rather: I’m tired of this criticism coming up with regular frequency, Kenneth.
Wallace: What frequency? And who’s Kenneth?
60 Minutes will present its report, “The Great CBS News Civil War of 2004” on Sunday.
WARNING: The above statement is a parody. So far.
*So indicated for the resident leftwingnuts who can't take a joke.
Except no one saw him in Alabama. No one remembers seeing him there his pay roll records don't show he was there. Oh except for a dental exam.
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.
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never made up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
USNEWS
1. He received an honorable discharge. Again, he just needed to accumulate a certain level of service per year, which he did.
2. No one cares. The only reason I bothered to participate in this discussion was because someone tried to create a 30 year old memo using MS Word and CBS told us it was true.
missed this line didn't you?
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an honorable discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush "had not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active duty."
Quote:
"has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
That was signed by 2 officers, in case you missed that part.
There is some dispute to that and again, WGAF?
They were in alabama too?
Your party is running against an incumbent president and all you have to offer are some unproven allegations about what happened 30 years ago. Pretty fucking dumb. The GOP tried some of that in 1996. Didn't work.
The back side of the OER gives the answer. Again, no problems there.
As for his service in Alabama, once again you are incorrect. There are reports of people "seeing" him.
Even so...given that he was just one airman in a 900-member unit...and not in the command structure...and not from the area originally...I put no weight whatsoever on the "I didn't see him there" stories.
Clinton wasn't lying about it at the time Bush is. Big difference, especially if you think lying about sex is a major offense.
Clinton certainly lied about that part of his life. But again, most people did not care. Well, except for right wing nutjobs.
Now it's 2004 and left wing nutjobs such as yourself are falling in the same trap.
His payroll records also show no attendance for about six months in Alabama. You can't discard that either.
And your point with this one is.......?
Not rated for administrative reasons?
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc28.gif
That reads like a admin problem. OMFG.
(This message was left blank)
Quote:
Even so...given that he was just one airman in a 900-member unit...and not in the command structure...and not from the area originally...I put no weight whatsoever on the "I didn't see him there" stories.
What, you mean he didn't go around commanding everyone to salute him...for he would be their Commander-In-Chief in 32 years? That'd have gotten him remembered a little better, I'm sure.
:lol
I'm still waiting, Despurado...
SW...gee, ya think? :rollin
www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp
Quote:
THE MOVE TO ALABAMA
The records show that Bush kept up his rigorous schedule of flying through the spring of 1972: He was credited for duty on ten days in March of that year, and seven days in April. Then, as Bush began his fifth year of service in the Guard, he appears to have stepped back dramatically. The records indicate that he received no credit in May, June, July, August, and September 1972. In October, he was credited with two days, and in November he was credited with four. There were no days in December, and then six in January 1973. Then there were no days in February and March.
The change was the result of Bush's decision to go to Alabama to work on the Senate campaign of Republican Winton Blount. With an obligation to the Guard, Bush asked to perform equivalent service in Alabama. That was not an unusual request, given that members of the Guard, like everyone else, often moved around the country. "It was a common thing," recalls Brigadier General Turnipseed. "If we had had a guy in Houston, he could have made equivalent training with Bush's unit. It was so common that the guy who wrote the letter telling Bush to come didn't even tell me about it."
The president's critics have charged that he did not show up for service — was "AWOL" — in Alabama. Bush says he did serve, and his case is supported by records showing that he was paid and given retirement credit for days of service while he was known to be in Alabama. The records also show that Bush received a dental examination on January 6, 1973, at Dannelly Air National Guard base, home of the 187th (January 6 was one of the days that pay records show Bush receiving credit for service). And while a number of Guard members at the base say they do not remember seeing Bush among the roughly 900 men who served there during that time, another member, a retired lieutenant named John Calhoun, says he remembers seeing Bush at the base several times.
What seems most likely is that Bush was indeed at Dannelly, but there was not very much for a non-flying pilot to do. Flying fighter jets involves constant practice and training; Bush had to know when he left Texas that he would no longer be able to engage in either one very often, which meant that he would essentially leave flying, at least for some substantial period of time. In addition, the 187th could not accommodate another pilot, at least regularly. "He was not going to fly," says Turnipseed. "We didn't have enough airplanes or sorties to handle our own pilots, so we wouldn't have done it for some guy passing through."
On the other hand, showing up for drills was still meeting one's responsibility to the Guard. And, as 1973 went along, the evidence suggests that Bush stepped up his work to make up for the time he had missed earlier. In April of that year, he received credit for two days; in May, he received credit for 14 days; in June, five days; and in July, 19 days. That was the last service Bush performed in the Guard. Later that year, he asked for and received permission to leave the Guard early so he could attend Harvard Business School. He was given an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months, and five days of his original six-year commitment.
The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968) .
Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.
All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."
Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "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."
Oh, yeah, well this changes everything!
http://www.imao.us/img/bush_awol_memo.jpg
Get a fucking life already.
John Calhoun said he saw Bush on days Bush was still in Texas. :next3
link?
WGAF?
Yesterday, though, there was a new development
Advertisement
when one of the president's fellow Guardsmen, John B. Calhoun, came forward to say that he clearly remembered him showing up for his required drills in Alabama through the summer and fall of 1972.
"We didn't have the planes that he could fly," Calhoun told the Associated Press. "But he studied his manuals, he read flying safety regulations, accident reports -- things pilots do quite often when they are not getting ready to fly or if they don't have other duties."
Interestingly, though, as the Houston Chronicle notes this morning, the documents released Friday night show "Bush's transfer to the Alabama squadron wasn't approved until September 1972, months after Bush's presence as recalled by Calhoun."
link
So the transfer was approved afterwards. Bureaucratic efficiency.
:lol Calhoun was caught lying...Get over it.
Oh, I was never on it to begin with. But thanks for the humor your kool aid drinking self has provided.
The one guy who supposedly saw him lied about seeing him. Gee now I'm sure he showed up in 'Bama.
Turnipseed remembers him as well.
So, Killian signed a report that states that Bush performed equivalent non-flying training in Alabama and that doesn't mean shit, basically.
But some forged documents signed by Killian can't POSSIBLY be wrong.
Damn, did Jerry know his signature is getting put on this bullshit all over the ANG?
:lol :lol
Poor Jerry is probably :spin ing in his grave wondering WTF-else he signed.
Turnipseed never says he actually remembers a specific instance he saw him, he said something to the effect "but I am sure I saw him."
Damn, you're the best lawyer in this thread SW.
:lol
That's good enough. There were 900 men.
I'm sure thats good enough for you.
The questions CBS asked bush but he refused to answer:
1. Did Lt. Bush refuse a direct order from his commanding officer?
2. Was Lt. Bush suspended for failure to perform up to Texas Air National Guard standards?
3. Did Lt. Bush ever take the physical he was required and ordered to take, and if not, why not?
4. Did Lt. Bush complete his Guard commitments?
The questions Tommy Duncan has asked and wants answered:
1. Where is the source that the memos CBS recently unearthed came straight from the Pentagon?
2. Who gives a **** (popularly abbreviated as WGAF) what Bush did 30 years ago?
3. Who thought they could create a forgery by using MS Word?
SFGateQuote:
Late Wednesday night the White House released copies of the new memos to the Associated Press. Although the controversy over Bush's service has gone on for at least a decade, Pentagon officials said they found the memos only after performing an exhaustive search "out of an abundance of caution" in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the AP.
The author is mistaken for CBS relied on the memos it had in its possession when it ran its story last Wednesday, implying that it had them in its posession prior to "late Wednesday night."
Not from the Pentagon.
As for Calhoun and why he recalls Bush in May '72...
flyunderthebridge.blogspo...or-us.html
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc6.gifQuote:
Lt Bush first got permission, in May '72, to drill with the 9921st in Montgomery. Alabama, in a "Training Category G" status. With no pay. Service that wasn't disallowed by Denver until July 31st. Air Force Headquarters sent a copy of that rejection to Lt Bush c/o of the 9921st in Montgomery Alabama. Which would indicate he spent some time with that unit.
And that could explain John "Bill" Calhoun's persistent memories of seeing Bush on Dannelly AFB as early as May '72. I'm attempting to contact Mr. Calhoun to verify that, but a former pilot colleague of Geo. W. Bush's, with whom I am in regular contact, believes my theory is plausible.
After serving at Ellington in April, Lt Bush "cleared the base" in Houston in May 1972. There are no pay records for any service by Bush until that October, but there wouldn't be, because he wasn't drawing any pay.
Since the transfer was disallowed, he might not have been eligible to use any drills with the 9921st to accumulate points toward retirement, either. Hence, according to the records, it looks like he's simply missing. But that doesn't make sense, since several people he worked with on the Blount campaign remember talking about his ANG duty then with him.
Occam's Razor: Bush did pull duty in June and July with the 9921st, but didn't get credit for it because of AF regulations. When he found out, sometime in August, that he'd been wasting his time "drilling" with the 9921st, he first found a home with John Calhoun's 187th. Mailed the information to his Houston COs, September 5th, and they, in turn, authorized his service in Alabama anew in time for him to drill in October.
And that is a perfect fit with the official records. Keep in mind while studying those records that, U.S. NEWS is a "news magazine", in the same sense that Dan Rather is a reporter. A "drill" with the ANG Reserve is four hours not a full day. Thus, most week-ends earn the person 4 points toward a "good year". The records have Bush earning:
On Oct 28 and 29, 197............................ 4 points
On Nov 11, 12, 13, and 14, 1972............ 8 ppoints
On Jan 4,5, and 6, 1973.......................... 6 points
On Jan 8,9 and 10, ................................. 6 points
That's how Lt. Bush made up for the disallowed drills with the 9921st. By doing extra service with the 187th on Dannelly AFB. He needed 50 points by May 26, 1973, and he got 56 (with additional service in April and May, when his year ends).
Oops.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep13.html
Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers
By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."
A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.
The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.
"I am personally 100 percent sure that they are fake," said Joseph M. Newcomer, author of several books on Windows programming, who worked on electronic typesetting techniques in the early 1970s. Newcomer said he had produced virtually exact replicas of the CBS documents using Microsoft Word formatting and the Times New Roman font.
Newcomer drew an analogy with an art expert trying to determine whether a painting of unknown provenance was painted by Leonardo Da Vinci. "If I was looking for a Da Vinci, I would look for characteristic brush strokes," he said. "If I found something that was painted with a modern synthetic brush, I would know that I have a forgery."
Meanwhile, Laura Bush became the first person from the White House to say the documents are likely forgeries. "You know they are probably altered," she told Radio Iowa in Des Moines yesterday. "And they probably are forgeries, and I think that's terrible, really."
Citing confidentiality issues, CBS News has declined to reveal the source of the disputed documents -- which have been in the network's possession for more than a month -- or to explain how they came to light after more than three decades. Yesterday, USA Today said that it had independently obtained copies of the documents "from a person with knowledge of Texas Air National Guard operations" who declined to be named "for fear of retaliation."
It was unclear whether the same person supplied the documents to both media outlets. USA Today said it had obtained its copies of the CBS documents Wednesday night "soon after" the "60 Minutes" broadcast, as well as another two purported Killian memos that had not been made public.
A detailed examination of the CBS documents beside authenticated Killian memos and other documents generated by Bush's 147th Fighter Interceptor Group suggests at least three areas of difference that are difficult to reconcile:
• Word-processing techniques. Of more than 100 records made available by the 147th Group and the Texas Air National Guard, none used the proportional spacing techniques characteristic of the CBS documents. Nor did they use a superscripted "th" in expressions such as "147th Group" and or "111th Fighter Intercept Squadron."
In a CBS News broadcast Friday night rebutting allegations that the documents had been forged, Rather displayed an authenticated Bush document from 1968 that included a small "th" next to the numbers "111" as proof that Guard typewriters were capable of producing superscripts. In fact, say Newcomer and other experts, the document aired by CBS News does not contain a superscript, because the top of the "th" character is at the same level as the rest of the type. Superscripts rise above the level of the type.
• Factual problems. A CBS document purportedly from Killian ordering Bush to report for his annual physical, dated May 4, 1972, gives Bush's address as "5000 Longmont #8, Houston." This address was used for many years by Bush's father, George H.W. Bush. National Guard documents suggest that the younger Bush stopped using that address in 1970 when he moved into an apartment, and did not use it again until late 1973 or 1974, when he moved to Cambridge, Mass., to attend Harvard Business School.
One CBS memo cites pressure allegedly being put on Killian by "Staudt," a reference to Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, one of Bush's early commanders. But the memo is dated Aug. 18, 1973, nearly a year and a half after Staudt retired from the Guard. Questioned about the discrepancy over the weekend, CBS officials said that Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard who exercised influence from behind the scenes even after his retirement.
• Stylistic differences. To outsiders, how an officer wrote his name and rank or referred to his military unit may seem arcane and unimportant. Within the military, however, such details are regulated by rules and tradition, and can be of great significance. The CBS memos contain several stylistic examples at odds with standard Guard procedures, as reflected in authenticated documents.
In memos previously released by the Pentagon or the White House, Killian signed his rank "Lt Col" or "Lt Colonel, TexANG," in a single line after his name without periods. In the CBS memos, the "Lt Colonel" is on the next line, sometimes with a period but without the customary reference to TexANG, for Texas Air National Guard.
An ex-Guard commander, retired Col. Bobby W. Hodges, who CBS originally cited as a key source in authenticating its documents, pointed to discrepancies in military abbreviations as evidence that the CBS memos are forgeries. The Guard, he said, never used the abbreviation "grp" for "group" or "OETR" for an officer evaluation review, as in the CBS documents. The correct terminology, he said, is "gp" and "OER."
In its broadcast last night, CBS News produced a new expert, Bill Glennon, an information technology consultant. He said that IBM electric typewriters in use in 1972 could produce superscripts and proportional spacing similar to those used in the disputed documents.
Any argument to the contrary is "an out-and-out lie," Glennon said in a telephone interview. But Glennon said he is not a document expert, could not vouch for the memos' authenticity and only examined them online because CBS did not give him copies when asked to visit the network's offices.
Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon's statement to CBS. He said "fairly extensive testing" had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.
On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said "60 Minutes" had done a "content analysis" of the memos and found, for example, that the date that Bush was suspended from flying -- Aug. 1, 1972 -- matched information in the documents. He also noted that USA Today had separately obtained another memo from 1972 in which Killian asked to be updated on Bush's flight certification status.
CBS executives have pointed to Matley as their lead expert on whether the memos are genuine, and included him in a "CBS Evening News" defense of the story Friday. Matley said he spent five to eight hours examining the memos. "I knew I could not prove them authentic just from my expertise," he said. "I can't say either way from my expertise, the narrow, narrow little field of my expertise."
In looking at the photocopies, he said, "I really felt we could not definitively say which font this is." But, he said, "I didn't see anything that would definitively tell me these are not authentic."
Asked about Matley's comments, CBS spokeswoman Sandy Genelius said: "In the end, the gist is that it's inconclusive. People are coming down on both sides, which is to be expected when you're dealing with copies of documents."
Questions about the CBS documents have grown to the point that they overshadow the allegations of favorable treatment toward Bush.
Prominent conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh are insisting the documents are forged. New York Times columnist William Safire said yesterday that CBS should agree to an independent investigation. Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, called on the network to apologize, saying: "The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it."
Staff reporters James V. Grimaldi and Mike Allen and researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.
And I will close this evening with..........
WGAF?
Why because it doesn't fit your beliefs? I'm sure they just made the "out of an abundance of caution" quote up too.Quote:
The author is mistaken for CBS relied on the memos it had in its possession when it ran its story last Wednesday, implying that it had them in its posession prior to "late Wednesday night."
Not from the Pentagon.
You missed this:
Try again.Quote:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp...Sep13.html
Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers
By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
Matley's comments came amid growing evidence challenging the authenticity of the documents aired Wednesday on CBS's "60 Minutes." The program was part of an investigation asserting that Bush benefited from political favoritism in getting out of commitments to the Texas Air National Guard. On last night's "CBS Evening News," Rather said again that the network "believes the documents are authentic."
A detailed comparison by The Washington Post of memos obtained by CBS News with authenticated documents on Bush's National Guard service reveals dozens of inconsistencies, ranging from conflicting military terminology to different word-processing techniques.
The analysis shows that half a dozen Killian memos released earlier by the military were written with a standard typewriter using different formatting techniques from those characteristic of computer-generated documents. CBS's Killian memos bear numerous signs that are more consistent with modern-day word-processing programs, particularly Microsoft Word.
L8rs.
I don't see the contradiction with the original story. He authenticated it based upon the signature. A guy named strong authenticated the rest of it based upon the TANG equipment, what he knew about Killian (he knew the guy), and the policies at the time.
Quote:
Document and handwriting examiner Marcel Matley analyzed the documents for CBS News. He says he believes they are real. But he is concerned about exactly what is being examined by some of the people questioning the documents, because deterioration occurs each time a document is reproduced. And the documents being analyzed outside of CBS have been photocopied, faxed, scanned and downloaded, and are far removed from the documents CBS started with.
Matley did this interview with us prior to Wednesday's "60 Minutes" broadcast. He looked at the documents and the signatures of Col. Killian, comparing known documents with the colonel's signature on the newly discovered ones.
"We look basically at what's called significant or insignificant features to determine whether it's the same person or not," Matley said. "I have no problem identifying them. I would say based on our available handwriting evidence, yes, this is the same person."
Matley finds the signatures to be some of the most compelling evidence.
Reached Friday by satellite, Matley said, "Since it is represented that some of them are definitely his, then we can conclude they are his signatures."
Matley said he's not surprised that questions about the documents have come up.
"I knew going in that this was dynamite one way or the other. And I knew that potentially it could do far more potential damage to me professionally than benefit me," he said. "But we seek the truth. That's what we do. You're supposed to put yourself out, to seek the truth and take what comes from it."
Robert Strong was an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam years. He knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents. And paper work, like these documents, was Strong's specialty. He is standing by his judgment that the documents are real.
"They are compatible with the way business was done at that time," Strong said. "They are compatible with the man I remember Jerry Killian being. I don't see anything in the documents that's discordant with what were the times, the situation or the people involved."
Still don't have a responce for the pentagon releasing the document?
Quote:
Late Wednesday night the White House released copies of the new memos to the Associated Press. Although the controversy over Bush's service has gone on for at least a decade, Pentagon officials said they found the memos only after performing an exhaustive search "out of an abundance of caution" in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the AP.
who is this guy? He can't even offer Calhoun to prove a theory?Quote:
And that could explain John "Bill" Calhoun's persistent memories of seeing Bush on Dannelly AFB as early as May '72. I'm attempting to contact Mr. Calhoun to verify that, but a former pilot colleague of Geo. W. Bush's, with whom I am in regular contact, believes my theory is plausible.
Fucker, go back and read the Kurtz article. Then shoot yourself in the head. You need it.
Getting a littel mad are you?
CBS used him only to authenticate the signature in the original article. Go look at it yourself. They say the same thing. A guy named Strong did the rest who actually knew Killian.
Quote:
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
Let me get this straight...well, because I'm not going to read back.
DeSPURate, do you still believe the memos Dan Blather "revealed" last week are authentic? Just a yes or no will be sufficient.
You missed the point. Again.
The Kurtz article explains that the CBS documents were not the ones which were released by the Pentagon this week through the FOIA request. Instead it says that CBS had the docs for a month and obtained them from an "individual." Probably Moore or Burkett, though Kurtz doesn't name them. If CBS obtained them through a Pentagon release then they would have stated that. Doing so would have lent a greater credibility to the story. Instead CBS continues to refuse to name the source for the docs. If they were really obtained through a FOIA request then there is really nothing to hide. If you believe in fucked up conspiracy theories well then the Bush administration can find out who obtained them regardless if CBS actually says they "came from the Pentagon" or not. More than likely it is Burkett. He is the one with an axe to grind and he is certainly one who 'is familiar with TANG operations' or whatever.
So there you have it. You were wrong.
As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.
Mad? Nah. Just tired of your lame arguments. I'm sure I am not the only one with that sentiment in this forum.
I can't figure out what's funnier...
That CBS continues to insist the docs are real.
OR
That Despurado spent ten fucking pages saying the same stupid shit over and over, and still came out looking like a chump in the end.
Quote:
As for your quote thanks for providing no link. The problem you have is that virtually every other expert who has examined those docs believes they are fakes and now you even have the CBS expert changing their story and saying he can't authenticate them.
Thats funny its an excerpt from the Kurtz article that you posted and keep claiming I don't understand. Its the first two freaking paragraphs. The horror the horror.Quote:
Expert Cited by CBS Says He Didn't Authenticate Papers
By Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A08
The lead expert retained by CBS News to examine disputed memos from President Bush's former squadron commander in the National Guard said yesterday that he examined only the late officer's signature and made no attempt to authenticate the documents themselves.
"There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," Marcel Matley said in a telephone interview from San Francisco. The main reason, he said, is that they are "copies" that are "far removed" from the originals.
I don't know whether they are authentic or not. No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s. If the order to report for a medical exam didn't exist, Why not? He missed it?
Excuse me, but this entire thread has conclusively shown just that.Quote:
No one has shown me any evidence to think they couldn't have been written in the 70s.
If you wish to believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, that's your right. It doesn't make them true.
But you'd be closer to the truth believing in them.
Face facts. CBS lied. CBS continues to lie. Your case is over.
The technology clearly existed. Saying something can be made today on a word processor even easily is purely coincidental. It offers no proof to the matter, one would expect thirty years of technology to build on its history. Again, nothing has been shown to say that this is a fraud or isn't.
The technology only existed in an expensive piece of hardware the TxANG had NO chance of owning. Period.
Give it up.
Or is this just another lie from you?
" The technology only existed" Thats all you have to say for it to be impossible for you to say conclusively that this is a fraud based upon a claim of technology. End of story. If you could even prove that the technology didn't exist on a single device that would be enough, but the truth is one device that cost 2-3k at the time (minus a few for the millitary bulk order.) was available for use. And could produce this document with relative ease.
Oh and I think you were lying about the 30 day make up credit thing. That applies to retirement, not to dischargees. There is a difference.
Look it up yourself, asshole. I gave you the citation. :flipoff
Your technological wonder existed NOWHERE in the military. Conclusively shown.
You're either lying or you really are this stupid.
The citation you gave me applied to people applying for retirement, which has less stringent rules than someone applying for a discharge.
"Your technological wonder existed NOWHERE in the military. Conclusively shown."
- You're pulling that out of your ass. You can only say it was too expensive which means nothing.
There are no differences in the accounting methods. Now who's making things up?
I have this from a close friend in the guard that there is a difference between how time is counted when you are retiring because of the period of time which it was intended to cover. Over a thirty year career its expected you might have lulls in service. But when it comes to a request for an honorble early discharge they apply a more strict accounting method.