Bush blew off the National Guard

Further proof from The Boston Globe of the shenanigans a drunken George W. was up to while John Kerry risked his life in Vietnam. Tons of incredibly defensible personal responsibility displayed in his wartime actions, yeah boy......


Bush fell short on duty at Guard
Records show pledges unmet
September 8, 2004


In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a ''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.


Full story:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard/

I love it.

They both want to become President or stay President and they go "The Future is what we need to talk about", but both Kerry and Bush go at it about shit that no one cares about from 35 years ago.

^exactly.

like i said before, if you're voting, you should be voting for a person because of their stance on issues, not because of military record from several decades earlier.

And now there's more, courtesy of CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

Nice to know we have a draft-dodging war monger in the White House, willing to spill anyone's blood but his own. A real "common man" who used his family connections to keep himself out of harm's way, and then couldn't even live up to the most meager requirements of the National Guard.

Next time you Republicans want to crap on Kerry's war record, think about this: he went, and he didn't have a single string pulled to keep him out of the war. He's not the coward here -- Bush is. Bush specifically requested not to be sent to Vietnam in his National Guard paperwork. Bush could have asked to go. Bush could have rejected any help offered by his family and friends to get him into the National Guard. But he didn't want that. He wanted to enjoy the privilege of allowing other, less fortunate people to serve in his stead.

Some choice selections:

A few months before Mr. Bush would become eligible for the draft, Barnes says he had a meeting with the late oilman Sid Adger, a friend to both Barnes and then-Congressman George Bush.

"It's been a long time ago, but he said basically would I help young George Bush get in the Air National Guard," says Barnes, who then contacted his longtime friend Gen. James Rose, the head of Texas' Air National Guard.

"I was a young ambitious politician doing what I thought was acceptable," says Barnes. "It was important to make friends. And I recommended a lot of people for the National Guard during the Vietnam era - as speaker of the house and as lt. governor."

George W. Bush was among those he recommended for the National Guard. Was this a case of preferential treatment?

"I would describe it as preferential treatment. There were hundreds of names on the list of people wanting to get into the Air National Guard or the Army National Guard," says Barnes. "I think that would have been a preference to anybody that didn't want to go to Vietnam or didn’t want to leave. We had a lot of young men that left and went to Canada in the '60s and fled this country. But those that could get in the Reserves, or those that could get in the National Guard - chances are they would not have to go to Vietnam."


A little further down:


In a memo from Aug. 18, 1973, Col. Killian says Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting on pressure to "sugar coat" the evaluation of Lt. Bush. Staudt, a longtime supporter of the Bush family, would not do an interview for this broadcast.

The memo continues, with Killian saying, "I’m having trouble running interference and doing my job."

"He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, in dealing with the son of an ambassador and former congressman," says Strong. "He was trying to deal with at least one superior officer, Gen. Staudt, who was closely connected to the Houston political establishment. And I just see an impossible situation. I feel very, very sorry, because he was between a rock and a hard place."

One of the Killian memos is an official order to George W. Bush to report for a physical. The president never carried out the order.

On Aug. 1, 1972, Lt. Bush was suspended from flying status, due to "failure to accomplish his annual medical examination." That document was released years ago. But another document has not been seen until now. It’s a memo that Col. Jerry Killian put in his own file that same day. It says "on this date, I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended not just for failing to take a physical….but for failing to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards."

He goes on: "The officer [then-Lt. Bush] has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical."

Whoa, is this getting good. Now there's an AP story that makes it look an awful lot like Bush was covering up the reasons behind his flight suspension:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20040909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_national_guard

Didn't Chicken George swear up and down that he'd released all the documents they could find concerning his service? Now, hours after the 60 Minutes piece, his associates cough up two more documents.


----------------------------------------

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The White House released memos Wednesday night saying that George W. Bush was suspended from flying fighter jets for failing to meet standards of the Texas Air National Guard.

The Vietnam-era memos add new dimensions to the bare-bones explanation of Bush's aides over the years that he was suspended simply because he decided to skip his annual physical exam. The exam was scheduled during a year in which Bush left Texas, where he had been flying fighter jets, to work on a U.S. Senate campaign in Alabama.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CBS' "60 Minutes II," which first obtained the memos, that Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

"On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered," states an Aug. 1, 1972, memo by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

In a memo a year later that uses only last names, Killian points to turmoil among Bush's superiors over how to evaluate his performance because there was no "feedback" from Guard officials in Alabama in 1972 and 1973 where Bush had been largely inactive.

"Staudt has obviously pressured Hodges more about Bush," Killian wrote on Aug. 18, 1973. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job — Harris gave me a message today from Grp (Bush's unit) regarding Bush's OETR (officer evaluation) and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it. Bush wasn't here during rating period and I don't have any feedback from 187th in Alabama. I will not rate."

The memo concludes: "Harris took the call from Grp today. I'll backdate but won't rate. Harris agrees."

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).

On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years -- 5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & $5).

Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war. It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.

Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."

On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.

Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?

Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?

On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve - Inactive.
On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.

Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was activing as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:

1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.

3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.

4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.

5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.

Lt. Kerry by his own words and actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

All of John Kerry's military service records link to the official campaign web site http://wwww.johnkerry.com.

Exception being the official Armed Forces.mil link which is the web publication of the Universal Code of Military Justice.

I don't think anyone is biting on your argument, PAD. You are the only one I have ever seen bring up this info and I'm a political junkie. But then again, Bush was hardly questioned about his Guard service in 2000. So maybe you'll have better luck when Kerry is up for re-election in 2008.

Here's a very comprehensive story regarding Bush's avoidance of Gurad Duty.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/09/bush_guard_duty/index.html

Two questions, PAD:

(1) Did Kerry serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?
(2) Did Bush serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?

Everything else is Republican noise and slime. Even Bush has admitted that Kerry showed more courage than himself during those years.

Kerry served honorably and meritoriously. Bush had a silver spoon thrust in his mouth, sat out the war in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas ANG, and couldn't even meet the minimum standards there. He disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and missed an important drill.

Rather than try to attack Kerry again, how's about you explain your man's actions and defend them? Or are they indefensible, PAD?

Here's an interesting take on the Chicken George records cover-up, from a blogger at http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/the_bush_awol_issue_/2004/09/1lt_bush_and_his_documents.php

In his autobiography and subsequent political campaigns, George W. Bush made a number of assertions about his National Guard service that were contrary to the facts as documented by contemporary military records.

During the 2000 election season, the Bush campaign claimed that George W. Bush had released all of his military records. That was false. Early this year, under pressure, the White House released another batch of records, claiming that it had now released all of Mr. Bush's military records. That, too, was false. Two days ago, under lawsuit from the AP, the White House released another batch of documents, claiming once again that all documents had now been released.

Yesterday, for reasons not publicly explained, the White House centralized authority over all responses to requests for Mr. Bush's military records. This seemed strange if all the records had already been released.

Tonight, after the 60 Minutes report, the White House released two of the documents 60 Minutes had just presented. Were they just copying CBS, or did they have those documents already? And what other documents do they have, or know about, that they're trying to prevent other parts of the government from releasing by centralizing authority to respond to FOIA requests?

There's no way to sugarcoat that record. The President, before becoming confused about whether or not America can win the war on terror, committed a serious crime under military law, and got away with it. He has been covering it up ever since.

The coverage in tomorrow's papers is pretty extensive, but the Post, the NY Times, and the AP stories all have one thing in common: they don't mention that disobeying a direct order is crime, and they don't recite the history of the cover-up.

[quote name='dennis_t']Two questions, PAD:

(1) Did Kerry serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?
(2) Did Bush serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?

Everything else is Republican noise and slime. Even Bush has admitted that Kerry showed more courage than himself during those years.

Kerry served honorably and meritoriously. Bush had a silver spoon thrust in his mouth, sat out the war in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas ANG, and couldn't even meet the minimum standards there. He disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and missed an important drill.

Rather than try to attack Kerry again, how's about you explain your man's actions and defend them? Or are they indefensible, PAD?[/quote]

You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='dennis_t']Two questions, PAD:

(1) Did Kerry serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?
(2) Did Bush serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?

Everything else is Republican noise and slime. Even Bush has admitted that Kerry showed more courage than himself during those years.

Kerry served honorably and meritoriously. Bush had a silver spoon thrust in his mouth, sat out the war in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas ANG, and couldn't even meet the minimum standards there. He disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and missed an important drill.

Rather than try to attack Kerry again, how's about you explain your man's actions and defend them? Or are they indefensible, PAD?[/quote]

You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.[/quote]

Does that hold true in Iraq as well, were the country to go to a draft? Would you be cheering people who got out of an Iraq draft, because they were too smart to go to war? Or would you be deriding them as anti-American cowards?

Put another way: should rich or powerful people get to pick and choose which wars they'll fight in, or should they bear the same burden as all of us?

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='dennis_t']Two questions, PAD:

(1) Did Kerry serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?
(2) Did Bush serve in Vietnam, or did someone with connections get him out of it?

Everything else is Republican noise and slime. Even Bush has admitted that Kerry showed more courage than himself during those years.

Kerry served honorably and meritoriously. Bush had a silver spoon thrust in his mouth, sat out the war in the "Champagne Unit" of the Texas ANG, and couldn't even meet the minimum standards there. He disobeyed a direct order to get a physical, and missed an important drill.

Rather than try to attack Kerry again, how's about you explain your man's actions and defend them? Or are they indefensible, PAD?[/quote]

You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.[/quote]

Does that hold true in Iraq as well, were the country to go to a draft? Would you be cheering people who got out of an Iraq draft, because they were too smart to go to war? Or would you be deriding them as anti-American cowards?

Put another way: should rich or powerful people get to pick and choose which wars they'll fight in, or should they bear the same burden as all of us?[/quote]

Can't it be both? They decide for everyone ... I think that's how it works now.

All I'm saying is that I have more respect for someone who knows what they want (or don't want) from the begining.

You do realize that war can change a person right?

I give more respect to the guy who actually went into war when his country needed him than the guy who got daddy to get him out of it.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.[/quote]

So I guess you think Clinton is a genius.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.[/quote]

So I guess you think Clinton is a genius.[/quote]

He very well may be, but not for that reason.

[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.[/quote]

So I guess you think Clinton is a genius.[/quote]

He very well may be, but not for that reason.[/quote]

But Clinton knew he didn't want to go to Vietnam and he was clever enough to avoid the military altogether. By your rationale, he's another Einstein.

You are saying Bush knew what he wanted, but face the reality.

1. Bush dodged the draft
2. Bush is a war hawk
=
3. Bush is a chicken hawk

This column puts it all in perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10herbert.html?hp

Excerpt:

How Many Deaths Will It Take?
By BOB HERBERT

t was Vietnam all over again - the heartbreaking head shots captioned with good old American names:

Jose Casanova, Donald J. Cline Jr., Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, Alyssa R. Peterson.

Eventually there'll be a fine memorial to honor the young Americans whose lives were sacrificed for no good reason in Iraq. Yesterday, under the headline "The Roster of the Dead," The New York Times ran photos of the first thousand or so who were killed.

They were sent off by a president who ran and hid when he was a young man and his country was at war. They fought bravely and died honorably. But as in Vietnam, no amount of valor or heroism can conceal the fact that they were sent off under false pretenses to fight a war that is unwinnable.

How many thousands more will have to die before we acknowledge that President Bush's obsession with Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for the United States?

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']You know what I get out of all this? Obviously the man who knew he didn't want to go to 'nam in the first place is smarter than the one who had to go there to figure it out.[/quote]

So I guess you think Clinton is a genius.[/quote]

He very well may be, but not for that reason.[/quote]

But Clinton knew he didn't want to go to Vietnam and he was clever enough to avoid the military altogether. By your rationale, he's another Einstein.[/quote]

I never said "genius". I did say that someone who knew they didn't want to go in the first place must be smarter than someone who had to go there to figure that out.

Of course, outside of the whole 'Nam thing I do think that Clinton is at the least a very intellegent man. I don't know if I would throw around the genius tag though.

Well our current president has certainly lowered the IQ bar at the White House so forgive me if I over-reached.

[quote name='David85']I love it.

They both want to become President or stay President and they go "The Future is what we need to talk about", but both Kerry and Bush go at it about shit that no one cares about from 35 years ago.[/quote]

Hilarious and sad at the same time, no?