Reply With QuoteA newly released do ent clears up everything...
19 pages and the nutjobs continue to prove my point. Keep up the excellent work!
L8rs.
-TD
www.nationalreview.com/yo...180840.asp
I think I'll accept the judgement of a Guard personnel officer in this matter...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.
A newly released do ent clears up everything...
19 pages and the nutjobs continue to prove my point. Keep up the excellent work!
L8rs.
-TD
The guy doing the report for the USnews was a member of the national guard. Is he right in saying there are two point requirements to get out?
I did the dishes AND posted."However, it still beat out the disaster area I made of my kitchen for my attention."
How's that for a multi-tasker?
I don't see where he's getting his numbers from.
As far as I know, the requirement for a satisfactory year is based on points. Nothing I've heard of from Reserve friends or seen in the regs says anything different to me.
Very nice.......although mine's still a mess. It's amazing how easily I get distracted when I don't want to do something.
Does this remind anyone else of a Whottt Thread?
Those Were The Days
by Archie And Edith Bunker
Boy the way that Glenn Miller Played
Songs that made the Hit Parade
Guys like us we had it made
Those were the days.
And you knew who you were THEN!
Girls were girl and men were men
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again
Didn't need no Welfare state
Everybody pulled his weight
gee that old LaSalle Ran great
THOSE WERE THE DAYS!
Bush was not eligable for the gratuitous points according to this :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]
LinkThe largest difference is attributable to the number of gratuitous points awarded to Bush, Lloyd’s “15” and the F526RCS “5” points, and a lesser two-point difference between total and retirement points earned: The latter are “38” instead of “40” points. Presumably, the difference between the F526’s “5” and Lloyd’s “15” gratuitous points is the result of calculating them on the duration of creditable service. The former is for four months, while the latter is for the full year. On October 2, 1973, Bush was transferred to the ARPC (ORS) and was not eligible to receive any gratuitous membership points.[66] Lloyd erroneously added the “10” remaining gratuitous points for the anniversary year through May 26, 1974. Lloyd’s conclusion that Bush “did in fact have a satisfactory year for retirement/retention” is, therefore, wrong even if the “10” gratuitous points were authorized because they still leave Bush at “48” points, two short for a satisfactory retention/retirement year.
linkBased upon my extensive research, observation, and perusal of various refereed academic journals I have reached the conclusion that none of the leftists who have participated in this thread are clinically sane.
Hey, DeSPURate, heed your own signature guy!
"If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news?"
Well this proves that Bush missed a meeting 30 years ago. But they could be true. Well you haven't proven they are not true. Well even if they aren't true you know it's true.
www.latimes.com/news/opin...-headlines
A Black Eye for CBS News
CBS News has been had. It's hard to reach any other conclusion about newly discovered do ents that CBS and anchor Dan Rather are defending as revealing the truth about George W. Bush's military service.
Despite Rather's statement Monday that the network "believes the do ents are authentic," the evidence keeps mounting that they are not. As The Times reported, conservative bloggers detected glaring inconsistencies, such as a Microsoft Word type style. So many other discrepancies have since emerged that it would require a willful suspension of disbelief to take them as merely coincidental.
For example, the alleged memos from Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, who was Bush's squadron commander, contain stylistic problems, such as the fact that Killian signs his rank not in accordance with National Guard procedure. In addition, Killian's signature on a memo dated May 4, 1972, is different from one on file in the Pentagon. The part of a memo supposedly written by Killian that refers to pressure from an earlier Bush commander to help out the young fighter pilot is highly dubious. The 1973 memo is dated almost a year and a half after the commander had resigned from active duty. The best CBS can do is to declare that he remained a powerful behind-the-scenes figure. Well, maybe. But how does CBS know that? CBS could tell us more about where these do ents came from without having to reveal the names of its sources.
As CBS flounders, conservatives are citing this episode as an egregious case of liberal media bias, while some liberals are indulging in the comforting notion that Karl Rove, who is responsible for everything bad that happens everywhere, must be behind the do ents.
Whatever the truth, CBS' real error was trying to prove a point that didn't really need to be proved. It doesn't take do ents for anyone to realize that . Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard. And, during the Vietnam draft, nobody went into the National Guard out of passion to defend his country. It also doesn't take new do ents to establish that Bush shirked even his National Guard duties when he moved to Alabama and then to Harvard Business School.
CBS may have managed to place Bush's Vietnam-era service off-limits as a campaign issue, after weeks when John F. Kerry's impressive record has been under savage attack. Bush gave a smirky speech Monday to the National Guard Assn., waxing on about the patriotic sacrifices of the Guard's men and women over the years.
You see Yoniovore apparently those TD credits presumably mean something after all. You are suppposed to acquire 44 (or is it 48?) of those in a given year in addition to the 50 active duty points acrued by Bush. (Also Bush had to serve the full year to be eligable for the full +15 gratuity credit.) The only reason I am dragging this thread out (And I apologize to all of your sensibilities everyone) is because there are very few of us who understand this . We are given a magic number (50 in this case) and we don't know what it means, least of all me. I am highly skeptical of a guard system where you can attend roughly 12 days of drills to accrue enough points for a whole year. In a rational world that makes no sense.
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]
I want proof that Kerry did not get into the Naval Reserves in order to avoid combat and that he did not receive any special treatment when he did so.
He saw combat.
By accident. :wink
Try again.
The second tour or the first tour SW?
He didn't join the Naval Reserves for the "2nd tour."
Create your own thread this is my Whott thread:wacko
Awww man, don't make me go have to look for the link. I'm sleepy.
What do you think of Senator Byrd, Desperado?
Look closely:
Nip.
Not enough info to form an opinion.
Are you admitting I am right by trying to distract from the content of what I just posted Tommyboy?
Oh of course I want to set off another 20 page cluster . Look, nip.
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:
LinkAir 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]
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
