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 ac ulated 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

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.


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

[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 do ents 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.

[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 do ent 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 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 ...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 .



You still haven't addressed a single issue in this thread. lets look at the do ents 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 le 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 le 32 (State status)
under le 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]

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

[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.

[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 do ents 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.