|
 |
February 08, 2004 ARF!....No, this is not the sound that Barney makes when the White House staff is late with dinner. Rather, it's the beginning of yet another intriguing mystery regarding George Bush's service in the Air National Guard. Read on for more. To begin, you need to recall the original mystery of the "torn document" that purports to show Bush's guard activity in 1972 and 1973 (details here and here if your memory is fuzzy). Question: is the document genuine? Or some kind of clever forgery? Answer: it's real. Here's the untorn version, as delivered to Bob Fertik in response to a FOIA request in late 2000:
The answer, as you can see from the top line, is that it is an ARF document, as is this record from 1973-74. So what is ARF? I asked Bob Rogers, a retired Air National Guard pilot who's been following this for some time, and what follows is his interpretation of what happened. ARF is the reserves, and among other things it's where members of the guard are sent for disciplinary reasons. As we all know, Bush failed to show up for his annual physical in July 1972, he was suspended in August, and the suspension was recorded on September 29. He was apparently transferred to ARF at that time and began accumulating ARF points in October. ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush. To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning
in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded
and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure. He didn't return to his original Texas Guard unit and cram in 36 days of active duty in 1973 — as Time magazine and others continue to assert based on a mistaken interpretation of Bush's 1973-74 ARF record —
but rather accumulated only ARF points during that period. In fact,
it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, but what is clear is that Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972, as his Form 712 Master Personnel Record from the Texas Air National Guard clearly indicates: So Bush may indeed have "fulfilled his obligation," as he says, but only because he had essentially been relieved of any further obligation after his transfer to ARF. It's pretty clear that no one in the Texas Air National Guard had much interest in pursuing anything more serious in the way of disciplinary action. Can we confirm all this? Only if Bush is genuinely willing to release his entire service record, including the disciplinary action that presumably led to his transfer to ARF. How about it, Mr. Commander-in-Chief? Will you release your full and complete service record, as you promised today on Meet the Press? Or were you just bluffing? POSTSCRIPT: As always, any corrections, updates, or amplifications are welcome, especially from those with National Guard experience. UPDATE: I see that I accidentally set off a storm by writing that ARF stands for "Army Reserve Force." This is almost certainly supposed to be "Air Reserve Force" and I've changed the text to remove the army reference. The overall point is to propose the theory that after missing drills and blowing off his physical, Bush was warned that he could be transferred to the reserves for 24 months as a disciplinary measure, the transfer probably happened around October 1972 when he began accumulating ARF points, and ended in November 1974. The untorn version of the "torn document" is obviously a different copy and was obtained from the ARPC archives in Denver. The original torn document was found in Texas. There's nothing necessarily unusual about this, aside from the fact that the torn document designates Bush's unit as L9CHPY and the Denver version designates it as L9CMPY. I don't know if there's any significance to this. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 8, 2004 06:59 PM | TrackBackComments
Wow. This aWol story is really getting legs. And as usual, the bloggers are about two weeks ahead of the mainstream media. Posted by: grytpype at February 8, 2004 07:07 PM | PERMALINKThis is great work Kevin. Now tell us about your investigation. Where and how did you find all the documents -- documents I might add, that the mighty national press was either unwilling or unable to find and analyze. Somebody ought to pay you for this. Posted by: Ares Akritas at February 8, 2004 07:07 PM | PERMALINKSo is ARF like being sent to detention? Why would the Guard give a guy points toward his duty when he's in a "paper unit" dedicated to discipline? Posted by: Matt Davis at February 8, 2004 07:12 PM | PERMALINKDamn fine work Kevin. But hold on just one minute. If Bush got sent to ARF, it was, as you point out, because he very much did NOT fulfill his obligations. People that fulfill their obligations don't have this happen to them. So at the very least Bush did not meet the standards he signed up for. The "character attack" commerical writes itself. Fairly? Yes, I think so. Does it matter? That's for the voters to decide. Posted by: SamAm at February 8, 2004 07:13 PM | PERMALINKAmazing to me that not showing up for Guard duty carried such light repurcussions, though I suppose being culled for active duty would've been serious. (Though, if he's skipping out on the Nat'l Guard in the 70s, how seriously would he take the draft?) Great work, Kevin—I see a Koufax in your future! Posted by: Kriston Capps at February 8, 2004 07:15 PM | PERMALINKBoom! The stained dress moment strikes the Bush administration. The guy stood before the American people this morning and flat out LIED! Posted by: pj at February 8, 2004 07:16 PM | PERMALINKThis is kind of a bombshell, thus I am skeptical. ARF? You say Army Reserve Force, but the second document you post also refers to "Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary." Are they the same? Do you have some background info on "Army Reserve Force" being the detention unit for wayward TANG pilots? Posted by: 537 votes at February 8, 2004 07:20 PM | PERMALINKGreat job, Kevin. Please keep this one firmly between your teeth until it breaks wide open, ok? Any regular person whose daddy wasn't George HW Bush would have
either been shipped to the front lines, imprisoned, or given a
dishonorable discharge. These documents were obtained by Bob Fertik via a FOIA request, but he didn't get them until after the election in 2000, at which point no one cared anymore. Maybe now they will. Basically, we now have two documents showing that Bush performed no actual drills in Texas after May 1972, two years before his enlistment was up. This might be chalked up to youthful indiscretion, which would be fine with me, except that Bush has clearly stated otherwise. The interpretation of what the ARF records really mean came from a phone conversation with Bob Rogers, who has been following this stuff for a while. I'm hoping that there are other National Guard alumni who can confirm that this is the best explanation of the ARF records. FWIW, Bob says that although harsher punishment is sometimes meted out, being "ARF'd" is fairly common for people who don't show up for drill. Apparently the guard isn't really excited about tossing people in jail for stuff like this. Posted by: Kevin Drum at February 8, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINKDoes this doc23.gif have anything to do with his being put on reserve? Posted by: Alma Evans at February 8, 2004 07:25 PM | PERMALINKWhy does this matter now and not in 2000? Because in 2000 we were a prosperous nation at peace. In 2004, Bush has led us into an unnecessary war, where many are dying, including many of our own 18 year olds (see CommonDreams.com). Posted by: JC at February 8, 2004 07:25 PM | PERMALINK Damn... Impressive. Tomorrow at the White House: Scott, Could you please tell us if the President was transfered to the Army Reserve Force for disciplinary reasons? Posted by: def rimjob at February 8, 2004 07:25 PM | PERMALINK
Posted by: Alma Evans at February 8, 2004 07:25 PM | PERMALINK
Here is the link to the document -- link Posted by: Alma Evans at February 8, 2004 07:28 PM | PERMALINKdisclaimer: I know nothing first hand, but, I can tell Matt Davis that the all the services discipline people by sending them off to serve in less-prestigious/more onerous units. You can get shipped out of the Marines, for example, by being sent to serve at the lowest level of the navy. Way to go Kevin. This is better than anything in the news. Posted by: Diana at February 8, 2004 07:30 PM | PERMALINKOf course, the ultimate question is why W nelgected to show up for the physical in the first place, thus leading to the "ARF" treatment. On supposition I've seen was that the Guard had begun performing random drug at these physicals at about that time. . . BTW -- great post Kevin. I hope I remember it a year from now for next year's Koufax awards! Posted by: pontificator at February 8, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINKWow. Let's hope this is the start of something big. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 8, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINK537: There are several things that are still a mystery to me. Part of it is simply because the documentation is incomplete, and part of it is because I don't know how the Guard works. Anyone with more insight is welcome to contribute. In fact, part of the point of posting this stuff is to see if anyone has additional information they can provide. Posted by: Kevin Drum at February 8, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINKSounds like Drum and Fertik have a big scoop. This BETTER have legs. It really may explain everything. It fits with my theory that after 1970 or 1971 there was so much non-registration, AWOL, and draft refusal going on that the punitive authorities often took a hands-off approach. Bush was not trying to make a political statement, he was not making waves publicly, and he had pull. All put together he was unlikely to be punished, and he probably figured that out. Posted by: zizka / John Emerson at February 8, 2004 07:32 PM | PERMALINKThis is fantastic. Two questions: is it clear from teh documents that Bush did not report in Alabama? Because I think I heard him say he did today. The lie is what matters here. Two: any sense of what percentage of people in ARF were shipped off to Vietnam for failing to fulfill their responsibilities? Did nepotism help him here too? Congratulations Kevin on what appears to be a fantastic scoop. Posted by: Robert Muller at February 8, 2004 07:37 PM | PERMALINKI haven't followed the "torn document" story closely, but in
comparing the "torn" document and this "original" (both examples shown
here on your webbie) both the strike-through of the SS number and the
spacing of the letters/numbers on the top right of the document seem to
vary slightly. If the SS number is blacked out on the original, then the
inconsistency seems hard to explain. Whether or not the SS number
strike-through should match on both, the spacing of the wording should,
shouldn't it? (Perhaps this is just a resolution problem...) According to my notes the Army Reserve Force and the ANG wouldn't exactly be working with each other. It would make more sense if Bush had been transfered to the Air Reserve Force and not to the Army Reserve Force. Need more information on this. Posted by: Les Dabney at February 8, 2004 07:38 PM | PERMALINK"Army Reserve Force" Denver Vietnam
um, doesn't ARF stand for "Air Reserve Forces," as it says on the second document? Posted by: praktike at February 8, 2004 07:38 PM | PERMALINKWow. Very nice work, Kevin. Who is Bob Fertik, and how did he FOIA this document? Did he know what he was looking for, as in "I request George W. Bush's ARF record under the FOIA"? Or did he just go on a fishing expedition? And why hasn't this turned up before -- how did you get it from Fertik? Posted by: Luke Francl at February 8, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINKProblem: another of the Marty Heldt documents appears to show that GWB was transferred to the Denver "paper unit" in October 1973, not in '72. Posted by: penalcolony at February 8, 2004 07:41 PM | PERMALINKThis reminds me of the very first WEB Griffin book, "Lieutenants", where then-sergeant Macmillan takes off for New York for some well-earned nookie with his wife. He's supposed to be cooling his heels prior to meeting the President for a MOH award. He get's marked down AWOL, but the Pres thinks that's unfair. And has him marked travel, personal, VOP. (verbal orders, President) Much later, when discussing an undesirable posting, Macmillan says, "I wasn't AWOL, I was VOP." So now here's George Bush saying, 30 years after the fact: I wasn't
AWOL; I was ARF. Of course, his excuse is rather more lame than getting
some unauthorized nookie en route to a MOH award... Holy shit. Kevin, do you realized you just broke a BIG story. You could do to Bush what Drudge did to Clinton. I'm sure you hate the comparison and I mean no offense by it. This could snowball! Posted by: Sullivan at February 8, 2004 07:44 PM | PERMALINKGoogling "Air Reserve Forces" Denver Vietnam returns 36 hits Posted by: jeff Boatright at February 8, 2004 07:46 PM | PERMALINKMark Levine has a similar annotated analysis at http://www.radioinsidescoop.com/wst_page12.html . He is interviewing Bob Rogers (also Kevin's source) tonight on his radio show "The Inside Scoop." You can hear the interview via a link at the above URL.
ARF! GRR! YOW!! BARK!! Go get 'em, Kevin. Posted by: EssJay at February 8, 2004 07:48 PM | PERMALINKOK, I'd love for this story to be as sordid as it appears, but when I do a google search for ARF I also get "air force reserve" Bush said this am that he served in the reserves. I didn't get a response last time I raised this, but I'll try again.
Notice how the dates are consistently written on the second document?
That is the accepted military protocol for writing dates, which as far
as I know, is SOP for all branches of the service. As for missing drills in regular National Guard (one drill=4 hours of weekend service, so a weekend=4 drills), once you'd missed 12 drills, you were handed over to your local draft board for two years of regular army. Unless your father had lots of clout, obviously. Posted by: felix at February 8, 2004 07:49 PM | PERMALINKWhy, exactly, would someone in the Texas Air National Guard be transfered to the "Army Reserve Force"? That doesn't make any sense at all, the forces don't trade personnel between eachother. That's like someone in the Navy being transfered to the Army as a punishment. This is more treasonous nonsense from a pack of liars and scumbags. Posted by: Adam Yoshida at February 8, 2004 07:49 PM | PERMALINKARF appears to stand for Air Reserve Forces as was previously pointed out: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/cwpc/ACRYMS.htm It appears the ARF is made up of the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserves. So, that makes the statement that he was sent to the "Army" Reserves
Force very weird. If he was punished it would seem that it would have
been done through the Air Force Reserve. This site seems to have this "ARF" argument going on already as of last fall. And see links to people pursuing this line of inquiry in November 2000. http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_elemming2_archive.html Posted by: Ottoe at February 8, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKGet ready for this story to be drowned out by the Qaeda/Iraq and Qaeda/nuke stories currently rolling out... (btw, the nuke story is a regurgitation of an earlier story, some 8 years ago.. Lebed was thoroughly discredited.. by our own gov't even.) Posted by: bubba at February 8, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKI should have been paying attention re: Army vs. Air. Sorry all. Posted by: SamAm at February 8, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKARF is more likely Air Reserve Force than Army Reserve Force. There's a post from March 2003 about this in alt.politics.republicans which references http://www.talion.com/georgebush.html for more details. Air Reserve Force is not necessarily punitive. It could just be a list. When I left the Army in 1981 after 4 years service I spent another 2 years (rounding out a 6 year obligation) in the Individual Ready Reserve. All this meant was that my name was on a list and I had to keep the Army apprised of my current address. I could get called up if a war started, but otherwise had no active connection. Could be that someone saw that W was missing drills and pulled some strings to have him transferred to an 'inactive' reserve status to keep him out of trouble. Posted by: Henry at February 8, 2004 07:51 PM | PERMALINKPenalcolony: That line that shows a transfer to Denver in October of 1973 that's per ANG-36-05: ANGR 36-05, Administrative Separation/Discharge of Commissioned Officers of the Air National Guard In other words that's when GWB separated from the ANG and his files were sent to Denver. It's a different unit then what Kevin is referring to. Posted by: ChrisS at February 8, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINKGoogling around I found this: "According to the Atlanta Constitution (November 1, 2000), Bush failed to take his annual flight physical in July 1972, a requirement before he reached his 26th birthday, Consequently, the Air National Guard Headquarters suspended him from flying status. As an automatic disciplinary action for defying orders to appear for the physical, he was reassigned to the Obligated Reserve Section in Denver. Bush never fulfilled the last two years of his six-year obligation with the Air National Guard." What the hell is the "Obligated Reserve Section"? Posted by: pontificator at February 8, 2004 07:52 PM | PERMALINKCould he have been busted for drunk & disorderly? Posted by: El Payo at February 8, 2004 07:53 PM | PERMALINKWow. Nice work, Kevin and Bob. This could get big. Very big. Who can we get this to that would be able to blindside McClellan with it tomorrow? Posted by: stranger at February 8, 2004 07:54 PM | PERMALINKOkay. The document penalcolony links to say he was transferred to ARPC (ORS), in Denver. http://arpc.afrc.af.mil/ Air Force, not Army. However, ORS stands for Obligated Reserve Service. This is a unit for those who don't to fulfill their obligations. So, it's pretty obvious that they were none too happy about his performance. So, I'll say it again, what's the difference? The picture is getting a little bit clearer. Something tells me Kev's on to something good... Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 8, 2004 07:58 PM | PERMALINKbtw, it looks like the code in the right-hand corner has an "M" in this version that seems like an "H" in the ripped one. Posted by: praktike at February 8, 2004 07:58 PM | PERMALINKAlso, here is a nice key graf of tomorrow's front page story in the Post, from Dana Milbank: Reacting for the first time since the old controversy was revived by Democratic charges that he was "AWOL" during Vietnam, Bush said he would "absolutely" release records such as pay stubs that would, if found, indicate more precisely how often he reported for duty. Nothing like reitering Bush's promise on the front page. Posted by: ChrisS at February 8, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINKChrisS: Thanks. Damned confusing, this. Posted by: penalcolony at February 8, 2004 08:01 PM | PERMALINKYeah, I see now that I was a little off in my assessment. That third document shows some nepotism, since he just got to leave early and go to Harvard Business School, but that's nothing new. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 8, 2004 08:03 PM | PERMALINKHere's a prior version of the story, from 12/30/03 ( http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:ic_gxM9w9T0J:www.forclark.com/comments/2003/12/29/23161/185+%22Air+reserve+force%22+denver+vietnam&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8 4) The tattered piece of attendance record (which lists no months, years, or last name) which the Bush campaign presented as evidence of attending Air National Guard training is not even from the Air National Guard. This incomplete scrap of paper is from the Air Force Reserve punishment unit, not the Air National Guard. (13) Note the ARF (Air Reserve Force) listing at the top, rather than the ANG designator, which would indicate it was from the Air National Guard. Posted by: grytpype at February 8, 2004 08:03 PM | PERMALINKThe following document may also be of some interest. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif When Bush did finally get a temporary transfer to Alabama, he was ordered to appear on two specific weekends, Oct. 7-8, 1972 and Nov. 4-5, 1972. Kevin's document shows Bush getting credit for Oct. 28th & 29th, 1972 and Nov 11-14, 1972. curiouser and curiouser.... Posted by: paul lukasiak at February 8, 2004 08:03 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W. Bush: American Psycho Patrick Bateman: He was into that whole Yale thing. Donald Kimball: Yale thing? Patrick Bateman: Yeah, Yale thing. Donald Kimball: What whole Yale thing? Patrick Bateman: Well, he was probably a closet homosexual who did a lot of cocaine. That whole Yale thing. Posted by: GFW at February 8, 2004 08:04 PM | PERMALINKscarshapedstar writes: "However, ORS stands for Obligated Reserve Service. This is a unit for those who don't to fulfill their obligations. " I'm not so sure about that. It also appears to cover ROTC people, who have an obligation, but there's no punitive aspect. For instance, an airman on active duty can be selected to enter a ROTC scholarship program wherein they get paid while attending school fulltime; they also get up to $15k per year for tuition and fees. "Airmen selected for the Airman Scholarship and Commissioning Program are released from active duty and enlisted into the Air Force Reserve (Obligated Reserve Section)." http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil/pa/AETCNS/Sep2002/02-284.htm In fact this would probably be for exceptional candidates, not slackers. Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 08:04 PM | PERMALINKWhy doesn't someone ask the two people whose name appear on those documents: Roger W Bivens, 1st Lt. and Willie J Hooper,Jr. Captain. They should be able to shed some light. Adam Yoshida: This is more treasonous nonsense from a pack of liars and scumbags. I can never tell if these are real posts by Adam or just sombody parodying him. I guess they're worth a chuckle regardless of who the author is. There comes a point where a story gets too complicated for the public. Unfortunately, I think this story is an example of that. Posted by: patriotboy at February 8, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINKWhat the hell is the "Obligated Reserve Section"? Googled it. It's a part of the Air Force Reserve. Kevin's theory looks less and less probable. http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Obligated+Reserve+Section%22+%22air+force+reserve%22&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta= Posted by: David Weman at February 8, 2004 08:09 PM | PERMALINKDetective praktike is right. The torn doc clearly has an H in the upper right code while this one shows an M. Posted by: poputonian at February 8, 2004 08:11 PM | PERMALINKSearch string should be: http://www.google.se/search?q=%22Obligated+Reserve+Section%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=sv&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta= This search confirms that there it doesn't appear to be any other "Obligated Reserve Section" Have folks seen this story on an investigation Greg Palst did? http://www.disinfo.com/site/printarticle126.html From the article: "Palast interviews retired Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett of the Texas Air National Guard (TANG), who states on camera that shortly after George W. became Texas' governor in the 1990s, he witnessed a speakerphone call from the Texas governor's office to TANG, and overheard the caller tell Guard officers to "clean [Bush's] records from his files." Palast says that after the call, Burkett "asked the officers if they'd carried out the questionable orders, and they said 'absolutely.' They pointed, and Burkett saw in the [shredding designated] trashcan George W. Bush's ... pay [and retirement points] records." Controversy has simmered for decades over George W.'s Vietnam
era service record; critics have long charged he went AWOL from the
Guard for long periods of time. The allegedly trashed documents, which
had been undisclosed for years, that could have proven whether or not
G.W. had been absent without leave while he was in TANG." I don't think ARF can be that important. After all, its on the torn document. I would reason the important part is what was torn off, which is the dates. There's something very significant about the dates or it would never have been torn off. Posted by: Kevin at February 8, 2004 08:12 PM | PERMALINKWE ARE NOT WORTHY ! WE ARE NOT WORTHY! (making a low bow) Fabulous work Kevin & Co. Does Bob Somerby at "The Daily Howler" know about this? Posted by: David Ehrenstein at February 8, 2004 08:13 PM | PERMALINKUhhhh... I hate to be the one that says it- but the second document also says "Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary"- I think that the "ARF" thing simply refers to the Air National Guard, and nothing more. Perhaps a collective term for the Air Guard and Air Force Reserve. Second, it makes no sense at all that such a doucment would credit specific days if he was merely being awarded points for being in such a pool. In fact, the dates there seem to jibe with what a woman he dated in Alabama says: that he came back about a week after the election to do more service. And the dates also all make sense for the timing- if the ARF merely gave time for serving on paper, it would do it on a set basis- not at random. Basically- from what I understand, the National Guard "year" ran from May through May for Bush, since that's when he enlisted. Basically, he was transfered from Texas to Alabama- managed to put in one day right before the election (which makes sense, because others from that time have made it clear that, by the end, he knew their guy was going to lose) then, after the election, he came back for two more days. Went to Texas, served a few days in January- then put in a whole bunch of days in May in order to ensure he had the full number for the years. If he was transfered on paper- which I don't know- that doesn't mean he didn't do something. It just means that he wasn't flying. Posted by: John Simpson at February 8, 2004 08:13 PM | PERMALINKOne thing about Vietnam . . . In the 70's we were scaling back ground operations. I don't think anyone was sent to Vietnam in '72 except active service pilots (ahem). Posted by: Troy at February 8, 2004 08:13 PM | PERMALINKOh. Yeah. Stop the presses! Get me Marshall, Krugman, Millbank, and that Tomorrow guy. You know! The one with the penguin. How should I know? How many Tomorrow guys have got a penguin? You're an investigative reporter -- investigate! LANE! KENT! OLSEN! Front and center! (/perry white) Go get 'em, Kev! Posted by: filkertom at February 8, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINKI can't find a source for the talion.com story. Posted by: grytpype at February 8, 2004 08:15 PM | PERMALINKUnfortunately I don't see this going too far. I distinctly remember Bush saying this morning on MTP "I served in the reserves too.." So he's already covering his backside for this revelation that he was assigned to an Air Reserve Force. Posted by: Sue in NH at February 8, 2004 08:16 PM | PERMALINKkeep talking about awol, and when you stop that, start talking about wmds that never existed. you're doing the Bushitters a big favor because you're not talking about coveting, lying, murdering, and stealing oil from Iraq and Afghanistan. there are two stories: (1) oil theft, and (2) Bush is a moron. anything which distracts from those essentials is going to be good for the Bushitters. Posted by: Sam at February 8, 2004 08:16 PM | PERMALINKPatriotboy: It's not too complicated for the public to understand that Commander Flightsuit sat on television this morning and lied to them. That's what it will all come down to -- what the records show versus what he said. And if the records show conclusively that he lied to Tim Russert this morning, please be assured that this will be a very big deal indeed. Posted by: greg VA at February 8, 2004 08:16 PM | PERMALINKIt may be impossible to prove whether Bush was transferred to ARF as a punitive measure or whether it was done as a pre-emptive protective measure (does it mattter?). Regardless, Bush apears to have lied today on MTP and he appears to have lied in his book, when he claimed that he continued flying. For me, Clinton's low point was neither his ambushed Paula Jones deposition nor his evasive (but thoroughly understandable) grand jury testimony. It was the moment he looked America in the eye, wagged his finger, and tried to bullshit us all. Bush may have just out-Clintoned Clinton. Posted by: space at February 8, 2004 08:18 PM | PERMALINKBut what the heck, Bush’s supporters respond that the man did at least he ‘serve his country’ in the Air Guard. Or did he? Questions have been raised over the years about whether the younger George, having nailed the cushy pilot seat, failed to report for duty. On camera, I spoke with Texas cattle rancher Bill Burkett, formerly a Lieutenant Colonel in the air guard. Seems that Burkett was in the office of the Guard’s Adjutant General when a call came in from then-Governor George W. Bush’s office. As is normal procedure, the call was put on the speaker box, but the request was not so normal. The Governor’s office was sending over an official biographer … and the Governor’s minions wanted to make sure the files did not contain not-so-heroic info. Burkett told me: “I was in the General’s office, General Daniel James …. He gets a telephone call from Joe Albaugh, who was the Governor’s chief of staff, and Dan Bartlett … on the voice box … and they wanted General James to assemble all of the Governor’s files, that [Karen Hughes, Bush’s aide] was going to write a book…. But Joe told General James, ‘Make sure there’s not anything in there that’ll embarrass the Governor.’” And there wouldn’t be. Burkett asked if the general’s staff really intended to purge the files; and sure enough, as evidence of the affirmative reply, he was shown the piles of pay and pension records in the garbage pails destined for the shredders. Colonel Burkett did not run off with those files so we can only conclude this: the only evidence that Bush showed up for duty during the war is now missing. Military pay records are public records – and now they are conveniently unavailable. By the way, the White House, where Messrs. Albaugh, Bartlett and, of course, Mr. Bush, work, turned down BBC’s offer to deny the charges of the draft-dodge fix and the purging of Dubya’s files. That’s far from the end of the story. There are only two men alive
today (outside the Bush family) who knew exactly how George Bush ducked
the draft. Both men became high-powered Texas lobbyists. To an
influence peddler, having damning information on a sitting governor is
worth it’s weight in gold – or, more precisely, there’s a value in
keeping the info secret. One of the lobbyists, former Texas Lt.
Governor Ben Barnes, appears to have made lucrative use of his knowledge
of our President’s slithering out of the draft as a lever to obtain a
multi-billion dollar contract for a client. The happy client paid
Barnes, the keeper of Governor Bush’s secret, a fee of over $23 million.
Barnes, not surprisingly, denies that Bush took care of his client in
return for Barnes’ silence. However, confronted with the evidence, the
former Lt. Governor now admits to helping the young George stay out of
Vietnam. I served in the Regular Air Force from 1966 to 1974. When I enlisted I was obligated by law to a six-year commitment to the Reserves. The same was true for the other services. If you were drafted, you had a two-year active commitment, but you were in the Reserves for a total of six years. If you didn't move after you left the service, at the end of six years you received a discharge from the Reserves and wondered why. If you were in the Guard you received points for service that counted towards retirement and other benefits, and you were paid. If you were transferred to the inactive Reserve you received no points or pay but were still subject to being called up for duty. It would appear that the Guard shipped Bush to the inactive Reserve to get him out of their lives and their paperwork. The Guard is very sensitive to state-level political pressure, and Bush's discharge was probably issued for political reasons. Posted by: Bryan at February 8, 2004 08:20 PM | PERMALINKBush very obviously got points during said period- hardly consistent with being in the inactive reserves. Posted by: Adam Yoshida at February 8, 2004 08:23 PM | PERMALINKsue in nh, i just hit the transcript, and he never said the word "reserves" but seriously, folks, how about that H/M discrepancy? Posted by: praktike at February 8, 2004 08:23 PM | PERMALINKDavid Weman writes: "What the hell is the "Obligated Reserve Section"? Googled it. It's a part of the Air Force Reserve. Kevin's theory looks less and less probable." If you look at Document 23, "penalty for bad attendance", it specifically states that if Bush can't satisfactorily participate in the ANG he "may be discharged from the state ANG and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver, Colorado, and subject to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months..." http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif So by this specific document, signed by George W. Bush, the penalty for unsatisfactory performance may include transfer to ORS. Which doesn't mean *all* people in ORS are there as a result of poor performance. But it's something W was warned about. Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 08:24 PM | PERMALINKWow! What the hell is up with that. A NEW version of the "torn" document? I've got something new, too. It just came in the mail yesterday from the National Personnel Records Center. It says there shouldn't have been any "new" documents in Bush's records. http://www.alexandersarrow.com/slpcreply.jpg I know of several additions in 1999 and two in 2000. Read the second from the last paragraph.
Bob Fertik of http://www.democrats.com Posted by: Stirling Newberry at February 8, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINK"This is more treasonous nonsense from a pack of liars and scumbags." Laff... hey, what's that over there... In a George Magazine article of October 19, 2000, Peter Keating and Karthik Thyagarajan identified the "torn document" as a "an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to" "an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following month." www2.georgemag.com/bush.html Posted by: grytpype at February 8, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINK
I suspect being in the Air Force Reserve means "eligible to be sent overseas", while being in a state National Guard made that unlikely. Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 08:27 PM | PERMALINKhttp://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif That's it. The Holy Grail. Posted by: grytpype at February 8, 2004 08:28 PM | PERMALINKCongratulations- most excellent work you guys!! this is going to be very hard to spin. Let me just add that missing a flight physical and just quitting flying is and was a really big deal. The man's a big fat liar. Posted by: four legs good at February 8, 2004 08:28 PM | PERMALINKIf I'm not mistaken, this is the first emergence of an "untorn" version of the torn document. Very curious, all of it. And if you're looking for some way to help get this story out by contributing small amounts of $$, PLEASE go to http://www.awolbush.com and use the "donate" link (below the fold on the left hand side of the page) as we could really use the help. AS you can imagine, traffic (and bandwidth charges) are going through the roof this month. Posted by: Willy at February 8, 2004 08:29 PM | PERMALINKHow do you earn variable numbers of points if you're not doing anything? Posted by: rd at February 8, 2004 08:29 PM | PERMALINKIf true, this is very damning, but I'm concerned about one thing: Presumably, the Texas Air National Guard is an adjunct or auxiliary to the United States Air Force, so why would guardsmen being disciplined be detailed to the Army Reserve Force, when the Army is an entirely different service from the Air Foce, ever since the Air Force was split off the Army in 1947? Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at February 8, 2004 08:29 PM | PERMALINKpraktike... coulda sworn he said reserves today. It struck me as weird when Bush mentioned Colorado during the MTP interview. Now it makes sense: Russert: But would you allow pay stubs, tax records, anything to show that you were serving during that period?Posted by: Sven at February 8, 2004 08:30 PM | PERMALINK "Presumably, the Texas Air National Guard is an adjunct or auxiliary to the United States Air Force, so why would guardsmen being disciplined be detailed to the Army Reserve Force, when the Army is an entirely different service from the Air Foce, ever since the Air Force was split off the Army in 1947?" That's a typo. Or maybe a thinko. There is no Army Reserve Force. Willy, Don't miss that new letter I just received.
Re: Torn versus untorn ... maybe the M & H codes of the two documents signify different copies of the same original. Posted by: poputonian at February 8, 2004 08:32 PM | PERMALINKso is the idea that Bush was put on active duty but might not have gone? Posted by: praktike at February 8, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINKgrytpype - Great job on the George catch. I was just about to toss that one out to the audience. Does anyone recall the other whitewash by the NYT? Does the untorn version sick that story too? Posted by: Pacific John at February 8, 2004 08:34 PM | PERMALINKWow. This is really big. The good news: Georgie spent a significant part of the war in a disciplinary unit for failing to show up. The bad news: He wasn't really AWOL or deserted, because his disciplinary unit does not have active drill requirements. That is, he was "present" at his disciplinary unit on paper. Posted by: grytpype at February 8, 2004 08:36 PM | PERMALINKSven, I get the impression that all Air Force Reserve records are in Colorado. That in and of itself isn't important. Hell, the Air Force Academy is in Colorado too. It's not surprising that there'd be administrative stuff as well. What's important is that Bush was warned that his performance could result in his being transferred to ARF/ORS (the paper unit from Colorado) as punishment, leaving him at risk of active duty Air Force service - not Texas Guard service. What's also important is to find out when he was transferred. If at
the end of his commitment, this may not mean anything. If before then,
it could signify a transfer for disciplinary reasons. GREAT work, Martin. http://www.alexandersarrow.com/slpcreply.jpg No big deal on Colorado; I forget the name, but there's a big center
there that handles all sorts of personnel matters for the military. Have
to call them occasionally about my mother's widow's benefits. Hi, everyone. Read the READER'S COMMENTS about the George Magazine article. Note that the reporters talk about Marty and myself (misnaming me, naturally!). The "torn document" documents a CRIME: when Bartlett went with Bush to the records room in Texas and "scrubbed" the reports. In the WH, Bush blubbers that "people SCRUBBED my records" as if this meant "Handed over to people like Marty, Rogers and (Elaine)" when his subconsious self was screaming "we destroyed the reports about my drug abuse!" Posted by: Elaine Supkis at February 8, 2004 08:38 PM | PERMALINKSo, is this the document that in its torn version had new handwriting on it? If so, what is your speculation on where THAT came from? Posted by: Sir Realist at February 8, 2004 08:38 PM | PERMALINKThis document is not what you are claiming it is. It is not Army related. It is Air Reserve Forces (ANG and AFR). Posted by: anon at February 8, 2004 08:43 PM | PERMALINKYou mean to tell me dumbya was officially disciplined for going aWol! I can't believe it! Posted by: Iam at February 8, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINKYou people are soo stupid!!!. What about Kerry??? He wrote an awful book (with an upside down flag on the front)about the Vietnam War. He is so crooked yet all you people care about are things that you can not prove!!!!This document is not valid and doesn't prove a thing!!!! Posted by: Jean at February 8, 2004 08:44 PM | PERMALINKwhat a load of liberal crap. Bush won. get over it. Posted by: raf hound at February 8, 2004 08:47 PM | PERMALINKI botched an earlier entry: Now that the George column has been discredited, does this untorn version also kill the original NYT whitewash? I sort of recall that the author of that piece was the Nedra Pickler of that election cycle. Posted by: Pacific John at February 8, 2004 08:49 PM | PERMALINKKa-Boom. Bombshell. Fantastic work Kevin. Now, will the media actually pursue it -- or not? Posted by: Tom Spencer at February 8, 2004 08:51 PM | PERMALINKHere's the relevant part of the ARF Rosetta Stone at http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorally participate in the ANG, and I have an unfulfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG, and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver, Colorado, and subject to active duty . . . And that is just what happened to young 1st Lieutennant George W. Bush. OK Bush aplogists, chew on that for awhile. another document of interest.... http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc14.gif is the "Military Biography of George W. Bush." It claims that Bush served the entire period from Nov 30, 1969 to Oct 1 1973 at Ellington AFB as part of the 111th Flight Intercept Squadron. From 2 Oct 1973 - 21 Nov 1974 HQ ARPC (ORS) Denver Colorado. elaine, bush said "scoured," not "scrubbed" Posted by: praktike at February 8, 2004 08:55 PM | PERMALINKI'm nobody's Bush apologist, but asking for an early discharge would fulfill the "unable to satisfactorally (sic) participate in the ANG" requirement. Posted by: jesse at February 8, 2004 08:58 PM | PERMALINKAnd I have to say that many of the conservative trolls here are complete and utter idiots. Posted by: jesse at February 8, 2004 08:59 PM | PERMALINKI obtained the torn document in a FOIA release in 200. According to Walter Robinson this document was not available before 1999. Albert Lloyd admits to having found it in a box at Camp Mabry Texas: Torn document: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc99.gif
The annotated version was shopped around by Bush's aide Dan Bartlett to journalists like Jo Thomas of the New York Times and Peter Keating of George Magazine. Peter Keating added the year date at the bottom of the copy George Magazine used.
So could fitness assessments factor into this? link http://arpc.afrc.af.mil/dpstq/ERGOGuide.doc Section H: 2. Member's who fail annual assessment will follow the same procedures as active duty members. a. SFIP/MFIP will be monitored by the members unit of assignment or attachment. b. Member's are authorized 4 hours of IDT every 90 days for re-assessment. Members may submit AF Form 40a for points only. c. Member's who fail assessment after one year are referred to
the commander of the unit of assignment or attachment for appropriate
action. The commander may request reassignment of the member to the
Obligated Reserve Section or the Non-obligated, Non-participating Ready
Personnel Section. Thanks, Martin. How does this impact the Jo Thomas whitewash? Posted by: Pacific John at February 8, 2004 09:05 PM | PERMALINKAlso, Martin, do you, Fertik or Rogers know how the untorn version was found? Posted by: Pacific John at February 8, 2004 09:07 PM | PERMALINKWho is redacting the SS# on the documents? http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc99.gif http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003189.html If these are copies of the same document, why are the markings over the SS# different? Can we now give a shout out to Michael Moore? After all if he hadn't made the reference none of this would have started to surface at this time. Posted by: BOHICA at February 8, 2004 09:09 PM | PERMALINKJon H, It's quite clear that he was transferred to the the Obligated Reserve Service because he screwed up, not because he is an "exceptional candidate." If you didn't read doc23.gif, here's my translation... it's pretty unreadable. j. I have been advised this late regarding the provisions of DOD Directive 1215.15, 23 February 1967. I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation as presently defined in Chapter 41, AFM 35-3. Further, I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, and have an unfilfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver, Colorado, and subject to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months considering all previous active duty and active duty for (training?) tours. k. "However, I also understand that the provisions for invoking the 4 day tour for a member who has a satisfactory attendance record but has failed to progress in specialty training will remain in effect. (Paragraph 42.7a, AFM 35-3.J" It's signed by Dubya himself, and his Unit Commander. In short: "I understand that if I go AWOL, I will be assigned to a paper unit in Denver for two years." I get the impression this is not a standard thing everybody has to sign. Rather, I imagine they handed this to him with a note saying to get his act together -- probably after he missed the drug test. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 8, 2004 09:10 PM | PERMALINKRB writes: "If these are copies of the same document, why are the markings over the SS# different?" Because the original wouldn't have a redacted SS#? Each copy probably was blacked out by a different person, with a different approach to doing it. Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 09:11 PM | PERMALINKJust spent a little time studying the document where W was grounded. It seems to state something that W will do in response to his suspended status: Off [officer?] will comply with para 2-10, AFM [Air Force Manual] 35-13. Authority para 2-29[m?], AFM 35-13 Any Air Force veterans out there still have a copy of a circa 1973 Air Force manual? It might be interesting to find out what AFM 35-13 pp2-29 says... Has anyone looked at the AF manual scarshapedstar writes: "It's quite clear that he was transferred to the the Obligated Reserve Service because he screwed up, not because he is an "exceptional candidate.""
But that's not what it's for, as evidenced by the fact that you can end up in ORS as part of the program I mentioned for exceptional candidates. It's not *just* for slackers, is my point. Slackers are transferred to ORS, but they aren't the reason ORS exists. You have to get the details right, or the wingers will jump on you. Saying ORS is for slackers, you're just leaving yourself open to being dismissed. Someone's bound to pop up and say "I was ORS, and I wasn't a slacker, you don't know what you're talking about." Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 09:17 PM | PERMALINKAnd as usual, the bloggers are about two weeks ahead of the mainstream media. Now that you mention it, it's surprising that more news types don't check the 'blogs. Bloggers don't often come up with original information (Josh Marshall is a big exception), but if it's on the Internet--and most news is--it gets thoroughly cross-referenced and analysed with scalpel-like discernment for facts and nuances. For example: I think faithful 'blog readers were considerably less surprised at the lack of WMDs in Iraq than the rest of the country. Also, some of the people here write brilliantly. So wait. Someone doesn't show up for Guard duty, and they "discipline" him by assigning him to a unit where he doesn't have to show up for Guard duty anymore? Isn't that... kind of odd? Posted by: Evan at February 8, 2004 09:19 PM | PERMALINKInteresting to note that this investigation into Shrub's dubious military record is being conducted by some intrepid citizen bloggers, at their own time and expense. When the GOP was sniffing around Monica's blue dress they managed to spend $60 million of our tax dollars and damn near paralyze the government in the process. Posted by: peter jung at February 8, 2004 09:21 PM | PERMALINKscarshapedstar, I think "date" not "late" - and is there a date attached? It says "enlistee", which would I think indicate he had just joined, not that Lt Bush had been screwing up and needed to fly right - there's no rank for W. So I'm guessing this document doesn't mean anything. Posted by: rilkefan at February 8, 2004 09:22 PM | PERMALINKscarshapedstar - he wasn't transferred to the "paper unit in Denver" until October of 1973, when he asked for a discharge - and was unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, what with the not being there due to the discharge. There's still the issue of whether or not he was performing his military duty during the given period, how often he showed up, what, if anything he did to satisfy his requirements - all of these are still at issue. But this line of attack on the "Army Reserve Force", a mysterious, unreferenced transfer, and the responding correlations is looking less and less likely by the second. Posted by: jesse at February 8, 2004 09:22 PM | PERMALINK"Now that you mention it, it's surprising that more news types don't check the 'blogs." Dan Froomkin, of the Washington Post's "White House Briefing" column, mentions blogs along with mainstream media: "Out in blog land, Tacitus thinks this is all irrelevant -- but we may as well get to the bottom of it. The Daily Howler won't let up on the "torn document" question." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/administration/whbriefing/ Evan, "For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush." Anyone know if the same applies to the OSR? Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 8, 2004 09:25 PM | PERMALINKEvan writes: "So wait. Someone doesn't show up for Guard duty, and they "discipline" him by assigning him to a unit where he doesn't have to show up for Guard duty anymore? Isn't that... kind of odd?" I think the "discipline" is that you're not state national guard anymore, you're Air Force Reserve, and thus if you go into active duty you go to war. Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 09:26 PM | PERMALINK>Pacific John: Also, Martin, do you, Fertik or Rogers know how the untorn version was found? Yes. The torn document was found in early 1999 by Albert Lloyd in a box at Camp Mabry in Texas. Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 8, 2004 09:29 PM | PERMALINKI repeat: if you've been disciplined by transfer to a "paper" unit that doesn't do anything, how do you earn different numbers of points from month to month? That'll need to be answered before we could say he did nothing after May 1972. Posted by: rd at February 8, 2004 09:30 PM | PERMALINKReferring back to the statement which Bush made about the records being in Colorado, there are two transparent reasons he would say that. First, because the ORS/AFR section was located in Denver, but more importantly, because then he can skirt the fact that likely, he himself ordered the documents in Texas to be purged after being elected Governor. If the "records" are in Colorado it would not appear that he actually had control over the records when he was governor in Texas and "Commander in Chief" so to speak of the Texas Air National Guard. This is getting to look like a pattern........ Posted by: cindyoh at February 8, 2004 09:31 PM | PERMALINKI haven't followed this entire controversy -- it's really dumber than the whole Bill Clinton "draft dodger" controversy, but you left wing extremists get to have your fun just like the rightwing extremists had their fun with Clinton -- but just reading Kevin's posts, I thought a large part of the controversy was whether Bush had showed up at all in Alabama. Right? Now, doesn't the document Kevin posted confirm that Bush did show up in Alabama? Or, at least, he got "points" for something while he was in Alabama, which seems to be pretty strong evidence that he actually show up in Alabama. Looks to me like this document shoots a big hole in the leftwing extremists' theory, no? Posted by: Al at February 8, 2004 09:34 PM | PERMALINKI think it looks like an "M" on both docs. Also, reading on a link up thread here there is a fact sheet for the ARPC or the ARF and there is voluntary service and involuntary -- involuntary servers can be called up within 24 hours to go serve. I think this is it. Maybe the straw that breaks the camel's back so to speak. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 8, 2004 09:35 PM | PERMALINKAlso, it would make more sense to analyze the "torn document" by looking at other records of the same nature and from the same unit at the same time period to see how Bush's differed. For example, why were there those handwritten notations, esp after typed ones? Is that normal? What else looks different from their usual recordation methods on this particular document? Does it appear that this one record remained because it was tampered with? Posted by: cindyoh at February 8, 2004 09:36 PM | PERMALINKCindy, I screwed up, as JonH pointed out. Denver is home to the federal records warehouses (which I now remember seeing - the complex is huge). That's entirely unrelated to the Denver reserve unit. Posted by: Sven at February 8, 2004 09:39 PM | PERMALINKAl, it seems to me that this shoots a hole in the theories on both sides of the aisle. Also - one possibility I wonder about is that Bob Rogers was right, and this is a document from the Army Reserve Force. It seems strange to transfer him from the Air National Guard to the Army Reserve, but I guess it's possible, and he wasn't much of a pilot, was he? Anyway, since Bob is a retired Guard pilot, I assume he knows what he's talking about - I certainly don't. Does anyone here have any Guard experience? Google only goes so far when you're trying to puzzle your way through the world's largest bureaucracy. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 8, 2004 09:42 PM | PERMALINKwhy were there those handwritten notations, esp after typed ones? Is that normal? Martin Heldt answered this above. The short version is that they are modern annotations, not part of the actual record. Posted by: dak at February 8, 2004 09:44 PM | PERMALINKscarshapedstar writes: "Also - one possibility I wonder about is that Bob Rogers was right, and this is a document from the Army Reserve Force." There doesn't seem to be an "Army Reserve Force". Your search - "Army Reserve Force" +ARF - did not match any documents. On the other hand "Air Reserve Force" + ARF does match. For example: "The Air Force will depend on currently employed engineering personnel (military, US civilian, and host nation local hire) in the forward-deployed theater of operations until active duty and Air Reserve Force (ARF) Prime BEEF and RED HORSE personnel arrive in theater. " http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/tc/5-340/Ch3.htm The "Army Reserve Force" is a typo or a thinko on someone's part. Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 09:49 PM | PERMALINKAlso there's a us military glossary at including "ARF Air Reserve Force" So either Kevin or Bob booboo'd and wrote "Army" where it should have been "Air" Posted by: Jon H at February 8, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKThe uncontested facts are these: After that we only really have the ARF document, which shows him earning points somehow in October and November of 1972. How? Did he go back to Texas for a weekend or two? Posted by: rd at February 8, 2004 09:53 PM | PERMALINKThe smirker enlisted on 1968-05-27, so his 6-year commitment would end on 1974-05-26, yes? His "Honorable" discharge from TANG, effective 1973-10-01, includes the order "transferring" him to "ARPC(ORS)" in Denver, effective 1973-10-02. However, Martin's response letter from the National Personnel Records Center states that the last record in Dubya's file is his discharge from AFR on 1974-11-21. Why 6 months after the end of his 6-year commitment? Or is it actually 24 months after a (disciplinary?) transfer to AFR?/ARF? If so, the triggering event would have occurred 1972-11-22, yes? Posted by: color me confused at February 8, 2004 09:53 PM | PERMALINK6 years after getting thru flight training. Posted by: Troy at February 8, 2004 09:58 PM | PERMALINK
Excellent points. Bush couldn't have been drilling at his unit in Texas at this time, as his OER makes clear that he was not observed for the period of the report (May 1 72 till April 30, 1973) The Harkness document must come into play here as well. Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 8, 2004 10:04 PM | PERMALINKSo, the bottom line is that he spend the last 2 years of his service in the Guard's equivalent of homeroom detention? Posted by: In LA at February 8, 2004 10:04 PM | PERMALINKMr. Heldt, good to hear from you on these comments, you have done great work sir. And from my home town to boot! Posted by: Another Bruce at February 8, 2004 10:08 PM | PERMALINK"6 years after getting thru flight training." Well, no....... The TANG discharge states, on 1973-10-01, that he had served "5 years, 4 months, 5 days". Obviously, they were counting from 1968-05-27, not from the end of his training. Posted by: color me confused at February 8, 2004 10:08 PM | PERMALINKyes but his commitment was 6 years from flight school. I read that somewhere. Posted by: Troy at February 8, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKBut that still raises the problem that he's earning points *somewhere.* Which leaves somewhere in Alabama, despite Turnipseed's recollection? Or where else? Posted by: rd at February 8, 2004 10:17 PM | PERMALINKThis strikes me as very technical and very weak. Bush and Rove could shrug this off without a thought. Posted by: a lesser mongbat at February 8, 2004 10:23 PM | PERMALINKOk, I have some questions about Kevin's conclusion. First of all, the code on the (formerly) torn document says "L9CMPY", as does the equivalent document for the following year. This is the code for Ellington AFB. So whatever this ARF stuff means, he was somehow affiliated with Ellington. Clearly he wasn't flying F102s, having been grounded due to the previously missed physical. But he was racking up points, probably through some sort of service at Ellington ("sitting behind a desk", as he says.) Furthermore, in this letter he was ordered to show up at Ellington for training on May 22-24/29-31 and Jun 5-7th, 1973. All of these dates match with the newly-untorn document and with the next year's document. So while I don't know what the heck he was doing during that time (or where he was assigned), there is reasonable evidence that he was physically showing up at Ellington to do whatever it was. Of course, this doesn't explain why the untorn document shows appearances in throughout the fall and winter of 72-73, while his evaluation claims he wasn't observed. Perhaps this is an honest mistake, and his officer was too busy with active airmen to notice Bush popping in to do whatever it was he was calling "duty" at this point in time. His chronological listing of service shows no more info from May '72 to Oct '73-- or, specifically, no more active duty points. This makes sense for a guy who was grounded. In any case, I don't see how this really hurts Bush. There's still no evidence he ever served in Alabama, but the release of this document certainly helps his position with regard to the Texas time. And though the earliest date on the document is prior to the Alabama election, it's not impossible that Bush came home and did a couple of days in October. So what next, folks? Posted by: Matt G at February 8, 2004 10:23 PM | PERMALINKGreat post: I am amazed that Heldt and others did not get the untorn version in 2000, but Fertik did. They were all making FOIA requests, but only Fertik gets it, and it does not get to Heldt or AWOL Bush.com? The document blows holes in a number of theories -- not least Bush apologist theories. Note below how the dates do not match up with the prior position. Here is the key Bush defense as repeated by JoThomas in the 11/03/00 NY Times article (sorry, cannot link it, but you can link to the documents referred to by going here): "Mr. Bartlett [Bush spokesman] said Mr. Bush had been too busy with the campaign to report in those [May to Nov.] months
but made up the time later. On Sept. 5, 1972, Mr. Bush asked his Texas
Air National Guard superiors for assignment to the 187th Tactical Recon
Group in Montgomery ''for the months of September, October and
November.'' Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the
187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in
September had already occurred but that more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5.
But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he
was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later. Bush's spokesman in 2000 says he served on Nov. 29 and Dec. 14, and missed all of the dates before that, yet your document shows Oct. 29 and Nov. 14. Also, Bush's orders were to appear with the in Alabama unit on Oct. 7-8 (not the 29th) and Nov. 4-5 (not the 14th). None of the dates match up with the odd dates on the ARF. We need more on exactly what is ARF, and why was this document created. If you go to Heldt's site and look at the FOIA documents, there only appear to be ARF documnents for 72-73 and 73-74, but no other years. If it represents something associated with discipline for not showing up, it makes sense that they are only for those two years. But what is the source of the dates on the untorn ARF? It does NOT seem to document time with the Alabama unit. Where then? Why were Lloyd and Bartlett using the torn document in 2000 if an untorn version existed? Its only going to get more interesting. The letter I received from the National Mr. Heldt, good to hear from you on these comments, you have done great work sir. And from my home town to boot!Personnel Records Center confirms that Bush had an extra six months tacked on to his discharge date. From my recent request: "Discharge from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974
"...they scoured the records." Main Entry: 1 scour There are alot of mysteries. How and when did the document get torn, if the untorn version was available in 2000? How come this document wasn't available to the Boston Globe reporter? When did the torn document get added to Bush's files? How come we have never seen the Retirement Credit Summary before? Why was the torn document represented to a NY Times reporter as showing that Bush attended drills in Texas? Posted by: david1234 at February 8, 2004 10:25 PM | PERMALINKNope, Seattle, but I still have family there, I'll try to look you up next time I'm there. Posted by: Another Bruce at February 8, 2004 10:29 PM | PERMALINKSee the document: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif "Officer has a six year service obligation under the provisions of the 10 USC 651, as [amended?], and has completed 5 years, 4 months, and 5 days toward this obligation." Completely unambiguous language -- astonishing in a military doc. Posted by: color me confused at February 8, 2004 10:33 PM | PERMALINK>Pacific John: Also, Martin, do you, Fertik or Rogers know how the untorn version was found? Yes. The torn document was found in early 1999 by Albert Lloyd in a box at Camp Mabry in Texas. Does anybody else notice a disconnect here? We appreciate the work you do, Martin, but this didn't even come close to answering the question. It would appear that sometime after the torn document was found, another, untorn version of it was found that has now surfaced. Where did that one (the UNtorn document) come from? Posted by: exgop at February 8, 2004 10:35 PM | PERMALINKGentleman's Cs at Yale and ANG Yale was going through a transition of accepting mainly rich dumb prep school students to a more merit based system. Before this transition at Yale there was a tradition of "Gentlemen's Cs" - it was unseemly for a gentleman to receive a grade of less than a C so that was the lowest grade awarded to important people. Bush has admitted he was a C student at Yale. It seems that this tradition also held in the elite units of the ANG such as the "champaign unit" that Bush served in in Texas. Posted by: MonkeyBoy at February 8, 2004 10:37 PM | PERMALINKWhat seems clear is that after getting the May 31 1972 rejection of his transfer, Bush basically blew off June, July and August. But after September, everything is murk. Posted by: rd at February 8, 2004 10:44 PM | PERMALINKI'm sorry, I confused the two documents --- I have no idea how the "untorn" document was found. All I know is that it was not included in my release or in the releases I am familiar with through talking with journalists.
None of the documents I received were anywhere near this clear or well copied. It just looks "fresh" Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 8, 2004 10:46 PM | PERMALINKLooks like Easter Lemming was on to this before Calpundit: http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_elemming2_archive.html (I found this by Googling ["Air Reserve Force" Colorado].) But it's not always who's the first to uncover something, but who finds it at the *right time*. Congratulations and thanks! Posted by: Bill Brock at February 8, 2004 10:56 PM | PERMALINKI wouldn't say anything's clear about what happened, but it seems to me that the most likely possibility is: --Bush is a screw up. --In accordance with: "j. I have been advised this date regarding the provisions of DOD Directive 1215.15, 23 February 1967. I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation as presently defined in Chapter 41, AFM 35-3. Further, I understand that if I am unable to satisfactorily participate in the ANG, and have an unfilfilled military service obligation, that I may be discharged from the State ANG and assigned to the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS), AF Reserve, Denver, Colorado, and subject to active duty for a period not to exceed a total of 24 months considering all previous active duty and active duty for (training?) tours." As soon as he misses his physical, they transfer him out of the ANG into the Air Reserve Force. --However, he then starts showing up at ANG bases to do duty for some kind of ARF credit. He does show up for duty in Alabama on one weekend before the election (God knows what he does, however). --He does show up for duty in Alabama for one four-day period (Saturday-Tuesday) after the election. --He moves back to Houston. And then it becomes total murk. How can he be showing up for duty at Ellington AFB and be attached to the 111th without his immediate superior officers noticing? It's a mystery. --But this theory makes it clear what he's been hiding. And it's a little thing: he was kicked out of the Texas Air National Guard for unsatisfactory performance. Posted by: Brad DeLong at February 8, 2004 10:56 PM | PERMALINKGeorge lies and good men & women die! Posted by: The Truth Behind The Matter at February 8, 2004 11:08 PM | PERMALINKKevin, Would you please post the bottom of this new "untorn" document? Is there a points breakdown given? I have another document I just received from Fertik which shows NO POINTS awarded for the period 1972-1973 http://www.alexandersarrow.com/5.gif The "torn" document did not award any points to Bush. It looks like Bush was not credited for ANY points in the "missing year." Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 8, 2004 11:08 PM | PERMALINKHere's the problem: If he's been kicked out, how did he get approval for his Sept. 5th request to transfer to a Tac-Recon unit in Alabama, no questions asked? I think what we have is a classic instance of slipping between the bureaucratic cracks. His Texas unit was informed that his May transfer was denied, and that he had missed his physical. They were supposed to take action, but they didn't seem to bother, or even realize they were supposed to. In May 1973 they had some vague idea he had been "serving in Alabama" for a year. Bush realized he was in limbo, and was incredibly slack on doing anything about it, blowing off the summer of 1972 before applying for another transfer in September. After that, God only knows what happened. The media should probably scour the memories of Alabama guardmen from the time and ask if they ever remember this smirking guy nobody knew strolling in for a couple of weekends to talk baseball. Posted by: rd at February 8, 2004 11:10 PM | PERMALINKLiberal Oasis reports that WaPo article and Russert (on Dateline NBC) confirm committment of W to release all documentation related to TANG service. If he tries to weasel out it will be an even bigger problem for them !! I predict someone -- perhaps Poppy -- will convince them a continued cover-up will be worse than getting out the facts and taking the lumps now. http://www.liberaloasis.com/ Posted by: longshot at February 8, 2004 11:19 PM | PERMALINKWashington Post, Nov. 3, 2000: The military story is more serious than the DUI story, since it relates to the recent mobilization of National Guard and reserve units during the Gulf War. Many citizens ordered to report for duty during the Gulf War take issue with George Bush's refusal to report for duty during the Viet Nam War. Unlike Clinton, who dodged the draft, Bush signed up for a six year stint but, four years in, after the government invested $200,00 teaching him to fly, refused to obey an order to take a physical, resulting in suspension from flying. Instead of being arrested for failure to appear when ordered, Bush disappeared from duty until the Viet Nam war ended, apparently using political influence to duck into civilian duties. At that time, documents show that he reappeared and was assigned to punishment duty in Denver. Clinton also seems to have used political pull to avoid military duty, but he ducked out of the draft, whereas Bush ducked out in the middle of his enlistment, even more abhorrent to veterans. Posted by: Nobody at February 8, 2004 11:19 PM | PERMALINKThe real issue is the "missing" or "purged" documents @ this stage as we all know he's lied. Now, is the purging of documents a "high crime or misdemeanor?" According to the request for documents I saw earlier in this thread, it states it is a Federal crime punishable by law. Is it Impeachment material? It could very well be if in fact the facts are uncovered based on what was said to have occurred while he was Gov. of Texas was uncovered now as fact in testimony before Congress in the possible near future. He's lied before to us, and he'll lie again to save the election I believe. Now to get that testimony.... Posted by: The Truth Behind The Matter at February 8, 2004 11:21 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040216/nservice.html# It says "he did well on an officer-qualification test". What is up with that? CalPundit, you've actually given what's needed to clear Bush. God bless you. http://www.adamyoshida.com/2004_02_01_archive.html#107631193743126442 Posted by: Adam Yoshida at February 8, 2004 11:34 PM | PERMALINKhe was kicked out of the Texas Air National Guard for unsatisfactory performance hey man, I'd be careful not to denigrate the Guard there, pal. There's a lot of really fine people who've served in the National Guard and are serving in the National Guared today in Iraq, you traitorous scumbag. Posted by: Troy at February 8, 2004 11:36 PM | PERMALINKoh jeezus, Adam Y was really posting that crap here. I had assumed it was an ill-mannered imposter. Posted by: Troy at February 8, 2004 11:38 PM | PERMALINKIs it possible to get a copy of Bush's SAT test? I doubt he took it, and a fake signature could prove it. Posted by: BTW at February 8, 2004 11:40 PM | PERMALINKIf it clears him, then why hasn't the White House brought it up themselves? Posted by: alias at February 8, 2004 11:42 PM | PERMALINKhe was kicked out of the Texas Air National Guard for unsatisfactory performance hey man, I'd be careful not to denigrate the Guard there, pal. There's a lot of really fine people who've served in the National Guard and are serving in the National Guared today in Iraq, you traitorous scumbag. Unbelievable. Do you have to fail a reading comprehension exam to become a chickenhawk wingnut? Tho'...come to think of it...worked for Dubya, eh? Posted by: Unbelievable at February 8, 2004 11:45 PM | PERMALINKCalPundit, you've actually given what's needed to clear Bush. God bless you. I don't know he had to be "cleared" Adam. Maybe, when he was talking about the service he did, he was actually including the service his father had done in World War II. You know, like the way you used to claim your parents' income in the money you claimed "you" earned. So I can understand you liking Bush. Lying about yourself is something you have in common. Posted by: Keith Morrison at February 8, 2004 11:56 PM | PERMALINK(my 11:36 post was a riff on W's MTP response & Yoshida's blabble above, btw) Posted by: Troy at February 9, 2004 12:00 AM | PERMALINKI am so very, very impressed by everyone here. The thinking, the theorizing, the googling, the cross-referencing, the defining and refining, even the de-anagramming of government acronyms! And the fact that you "mere bloggers" are putting such effort into this proves two things: First, the media has totally abdicated its responsibilities; and second, Bush and his handlers are never, never going to produce the few pieces of paper that would actually resolve all these questions. And we all know why. Posted by: Miss Authoritiva at February 9, 2004 12:02 AM | PERMALINKI don't believe I ever claimed that to be my income. I merely reported an estimate of my household income, without mentioning that I didn't earn it at the time- and no one happened to ask- seeing as this was an arguement about tax rates. In any case, that was in what: 1996? Maybe 1997? Somewhere between six and eight years ago when I was between twelve and fourteen? Give me a break. You're simply resorting to the ad hominem rather than addressing the question. I've long ago admitted to having said any number of stupid things in the past. Obviously the ARF thing is meaningless when, one of the documents presented here are proving that he was transfered to such as punishment, was obviously created in 1968 or 1969, several years before this went on. Or, for that matter, the fact that the documents provided show that he showed up in Alabama. Let's talk about that, hmmm? Posted by: Adam Yoshida at February 9, 2004 12:08 AM | PERMALINK>>So wait. Someone doesn't show up for Guard duty, and they "discipline" him by assigning him to a unit where he doesn't have to show up for Guard duty anymore? Isn't that... kind of odd? Posted by: Evan It does remind me of the practice of suspending students from school if they skip school. And "traitorous scum" (or was it "treasonous scum") is not ad-hom? Go back to your own oh-so-popular blog, is what I'd say. Posted by: Troy at February 9, 2004 12:13 AM | PERMALINKAs a few other posters have suggested, it seems that the worst you can say about W on the basis of all these documents is: his participation in the ANG was "unsatisfactory" and he was, as a result, assigned to the AFR. According to this doc23.gif, this is how he could end up in the AFR. So the question should directly be asked of Bush: is this how he came to the AFR? And, if so, what did the "unsatisfactory" performance consist of? A simple, direct question which should have a simple, direct answer. Posted by: JS at February 9, 2004 12:35 AM | PERMALINKBut here's the thing: After he's supposedly moved to Air Force Reserve, he continues to train with ANG units, possibly in Alabama in late 1972, certainly in Texas after May 1973. Its not clear the distinction really meant anything on the ground, unless its that he was in "non-flying status." Posted by: rd at February 9, 2004 12:46 AM | PERMALINKLet's see the bottom of this document. If it matches up with the torn document, then Bush is not credited with any days in 1972-1973. If that's the case, then this matches up with the "not observed" comment and the lack of any other account for that period leading up to Bush's transfer to ORS on the other documentation. In other words, this may be—despite the dates listed at the top of the document—a record that Bush did not serve during that time. That would leave only the question of what the hell those listed dates actually are meant to represent. Posted by: dak at February 9, 2004 12:54 AM | PERMALINKIt's worth pursuing a number of threads here, but my point was: Since we have one document that states a transfer to the ARF (which I misspelled as AFR above) would follow "unsatisfactory" ANG participation, and a later document that suggests W was indeed transferred to the ARF, Bush should be asked directly if such a transfer was made and, if it was, for what reasons. If this blog were to ask this question succinctly, it would quickly percolate to places where it could not be ignored. Posted by: JS at February 9, 2004 01:10 AM | PERMALINKI have believed since last year that Bush obviously screwed up in the Texas Air National Guard, they called him on the carpet and gave him some sort of administrative punishment. This may have been missing several meetings and not making them up in a timely fashion, failing to take a required physical, substance abuse, whatever. The problem is the scrubbing of the records, or as Bush prefers scouring, created an even larger gap in the records. Normally, something that happened 30 years ago isn't important. The problems are Bush lied about it, his party campaigned on getting rid of the last remnants of that lying Clinton, Bush committed us to an aggressive war based on lies, and Bush likes to act as the patriot hero dressing up in a flight suit. Perception and timing is everything. Clinton wags his finger at America and says he did not have sex with that woman, Bush says on national TV the evidence might come in the form of a mushroom cloud, Howard Dean yells during a 3,000 person campaign rally and they can't hear him but a microphone blocking crowd noise can. The majority of the American public gets its news from ten-second TV bytes. With the American public starting to doubt Bush on tax breaks for the rich, the budget, the war, his ties to special interests, this will be important and will not die and go away with explanations that don't add up like before. Gary Denton To National Guard/Air National Guard people: Is there a requirement
that enlistees serve a certain amount of time each month, or just
accumulate enough points within a year timeframe? One thing to remember is that in late 1972 and in 1973, the war in Vietnam was winding down (at least for the United States). The chances of George W. Bush being called up for active duty even in the Air Force Reserves was slim unless a shooting war broke out elsewhere (which, thankfully, did not happen). So it's very possible that George could be ARF'ed as a disciplinary measure and spend two years basically twiddling his thumbs. In any event, discipline worse than being ARF'ed wasn't going to happen no matter what George did. Let's face it, any commander who admitted that one of his men was AWOL for close to a year without him noticing it would be the laughingstock of the Air Force and never get a promotion again in his entire career. That said, I agree with those who point out that this isn't a major story, except insofar as it points out that George's lack of character is long-standing. "George got breaks without asking 'cause he was rich and his daddy was powerful" is one of those "well duh!" deals. I'm still absolutely flabbergasted that Bush continues to stonewall on his military "career"... it's not as if anybody thinks he was pure as the driven snow as a callow youth (well, maybe as pure as the snow he was shoving up his nose, but ... :-). What could be so bad that it'd be worth lying about? Posted by: BadTux at February 9, 2004 01:47 AM | PERMALINKIf W says..."I was honorably discharged, I fulfilled my obligations. They don't honorably discharge deserters." He's not exactly lying. "Fulfilled my obligations" is one of those weasel statements like Saddam's "complying" or "WMD's"... If you're not showing up at a job, and part of the process is that no-shows get demoted or transferred to another unit, and then you basically fulfill the (non-existent) requirements of this disciplinary assignment, you could say that you "fulfilled" your duties. It would contradict the spirit of the phrase "fulfilled my duties" but probably not the letter, and there you go... Might stick to 'em though. Strange how technicalities might stick (Niger documents or this) but killing tens of thousands of foreigners in a war that was dishonestly justified, don't. Posted by: andrew at February 9, 2004 02:08 AM | PERMALINKDon't know if it really matters, but that top/first date listing isn't Oct 29th, it's Oct 25th. It's backwards compared to the rest of the dates. It is 72 Oct. 28 - 72 Oct. 25. Posted by: sac666 at February 9, 2004 02:57 AM | PERMALINKDefinition of 'scour' as Bush used it in his MTP interview, to 'correct' a previous comment: "...they scoured the records." scour2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skour)
v. intr.
[Middle English scouren, to move swiftly, probably of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse skr, shower.]scourer n. Posted by: Peter at February 9, 2004 03:11 AM | PERMALINK The documents look convincing to me. Posted by: John Isbell at February 9, 2004 03:14 AM | PERMALINKKevin, I just got off the telephone with my cousin's brother's nephew's uncle's domestic partner's best friend who served in Special Ops. He tells me that ARF stands for "Allied Recon Fighters"... they were an elite super secret fighting force that led daring rescue missions of POWs in Nam. The missions were secret, and remain classified to this day due to provisions in relevant peace treaties. I hope that clears up the mystery. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 9, 2004 03:32 AM | PERMALINKOh, Adam. You're such a funny little neo-fascist. "I've long ago admitted to having said any number of stupid things in the past." You know what you really need to admit to and apologize for? You know, besides the ordinary babbling/trolling you do on sites like these? That hideous Heinlein-influenced futurist bullshit from a month or two ago. You know, the whole "Heinlein Naval Base, Tycho City, Luna" (or whatever) fascist wet dream? For fucks sake, man. I've read just about everything Mr. Robert A. Heinlein wrote, and I'm a little sick of twerps like you giving the man a bad reputation. Far from being the Social Darwinian, militaristic ass that you and your ilk attempt to mold him into, a deep and full reading of Heinlein's work exposes him as a humanist and social progressive ahead of his time. Sure, certain views of his regarding women and race may be backwards by today's standards, but considering when he lived, this is inevitable. Unfortunately Adam, neo-fascist dupes like yourself misread the intent of Starship Troopers in much the same way that many misread the intent of Orwell's 1984. You interpret it as a manual for your own twisted vision of utopia rather than as a warning of dystopia. Hopefully this will help you to understand, at least in part, why you suck so hard, why people don't repect you, and why, in most cases involving you, ad hominem attacks are completely legitimate. Posted by: Anon at February 9, 2004 03:38 AM | PERMALINK
National guard units were hastily pulled together to go in response to demonstrations which took place with little forewarning to authorities, as demonstrators intended. Posted by: alcaeus at February 9, 2004 03:45 AM | PERMALINKalcaeus. so Bush was the guardsmen who offed the Kent State protesters? Wow, I guess there really is no depths to which you whacked out leftist kooks won't sink to. I searched for Bush AWOL ARF and got this http://www.americanpolitics.com/20001104BushCoverupBombshell.html What is it about Bush that makes otherwise intelligent people turn into kooks? Posted by: Gorman at February 9, 2004 04:13 AM | PERMALINKWonder if there is any connection between outing Dubya's Guard history and the recent firing of Minnesota Guard General Andreotti by our right-wing Gov. Pawlenty. Posted by: Dave Porter at February 9, 2004 04:31 AM | PERMALINK"traitorous scum" was tongue in cheek; playing off the incessant attacks by the right wing upon us. Pretty sure no offense was meant. Posted by: Norman at February 9, 2004 04:38 AM | PERMALINKRight-Wing Veg -- That's pretty funny. I thought you right wingers had no sense of humor. Posted by: 537 votes at February 9, 2004 04:43 AM | PERMALINKAm I wrong, but does the torn version of this document have "L9CHPY" in the top right while this has "L7CMPY"? Posted by: anon at February 9, 2004 04:56 AM | PERMALINKRight wing-veg, Bush was being trained to fly in the Spring of '70. Note his timeline. So if anyone suggests he was at Kent State refer them to his timeline. There were a lot of demonstrations in that time period where the National Guard was sent. There were even anti-war demonstrations in Texas, one, for example, at the University of Texas. I don't recall a date on that one. The bigger issue is that Bush in becoming a National Guardsmen at that time was trained to put down demonstrations. His training is the relevant thing, because his training then influences his decisions now; particularly on the Patriot Act. It's about how he was trained to think and approach crisis situations.
Posted by: alcaeus at February 9, 2004 05:00 AM | PERMALINK Norman, Spend some time at Yoshita's site. Jeff Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 9, 2004 05:13 AM | PERMALINKI love America Kerry / Kucinich in '04 Posted by: wal at February 9, 2004 05:19 AM | PERMALINKCal, if I am understanding this data correctly, it is likely there were no 36 makeup sessions, which means that for Bush to be discharged honorably and meet his committments these sessions must have been FALSIFIED. That would be a crime. This seems much more serious that I ever imagined. Posted by: Michael Castellano at February 9, 2004 05:27 AM | PERMALINKI'm curious. How does this paperwork timeline line up with his application to Harvard? That is, did he apply to Harvard the normal way? Or was he admitted into Harvard at the last minute, at a time when it because more urgent to get him out of the military? Because I'm wondering if the academic "deferment" (not what it was, but anyway) was a solution that the powers that be came up with to save George the trouble of heading to Vietnam. Or did he apply as soon as he got kicked out of the ANG and they just kept him in limbo in the intervening months, until he got accepted? Posted by: emptywheel at February 9, 2004 05:46 AM | PERMALINKThis is an idiotic issue. John Kerry '92: "We do not need to divide America over who served and how." Really, the man has no principles whatsoever. I wouldn't think a 30 year old DISHONORABLE discharge disqualified a person from being President. You could be dishonorably discharged for smoking marijuana, as at least 3 of the Democratic candidates admitted doing, including Kerry. Getting out early was routine; my own brother got his honorable discharge a year early. As posters above have noted, Vietnam was winding down and they didn't need to keep everyone and they saved money by discharging them. Posted by: Lois at February 9, 2004 05:56 AM | PERMALINKThanks for pushing this story. There has GOT to be a lot more to this than meets the eye, but you desperately need to find people who were in the Air National Guard. I was in the Army Reserves, 1970-76, as an enlisted man. A normal year included two days monthly (24 days) plus two weeks summer camp (12 days, I think, were counted, although it could be 10), total, 36 days. Now in the reserves, when you changed units, as I did once, you informed unit A you were leaving, and you had 60 days, I believe--maybe 90--to find a new home. When you found it, unit B reported to Unit A that you had joined. Bush apparently never went through a procedure like that. The only cases I knew of of someone doing drills at another unit were when their unit commanded the other unit. That was not the case here. MOST IMPORTANT, the penalty for missing drills was being called up! In the reserves you got a registered letter every time you had an unexcused absence. If you had five in a year, you were called up. I repeat; the Guard was different, and Bush was an officer, not an EM. We need data from people like him. But this business of being transferred to the army reserves seems quite bizarre. I look forward to seeing more data here. Incidentally, in reply to the last poster, there's no way George would have been excused to go to Harvard Business School. In his defense, there probably was a surplus of pilots at that point, and a lot of officers were being let out of the reserves early, I beileve. Posted by: David Kaiser at February 9, 2004 05:59 AM | PERMALINKImpressive, Kevin. Impressive. I wrote about this Last January. I also cite a specific disciplinary document. Under the U.C.M.J. there is a provision for non-judicial punishment
by a commander for essentially unimportant misbehavior, speeding on
post, late to formation, absent duty station,having a 'candy-nose',
intoxicated on the flight-line, etc. Many times these punishments,
called Article 15's, are rescinded after 30 days or so of effective
remedial attention by the punished offender. There are so many tableaus that explain this dismal record that it's
impossible to determine his misbehavior without the witnesses. Lois, I have just read all the posts and came to the conclusion that American politics have finally overtaken the British in gullibility. (I'm British). If you want this to come to light ALL Americans need to know about this. Bush is taking America down a dangerous path. But more than that I think that he is causing the hatred towards America....a once loved and great Country. People used to come out into the street to wave flags and cheer when American Presidents visited their countries...I did when Ike came to London. Now they jeer and shout hateful slogans. I love this country and want it the way it was when I first came...respected and honest. It is still a great place to be and will be even greater when Bush leaves the highest office in this land. Americans are basically honest and caring. Bush cares not for the ordinary people but only for the rich and powerful. Perhaps this way he can bask in their reflected glory because he has none of his own. Let us get the TRUTH out and quit being so childish with all the inuendos. America needs to move on and try to undo all the damage that this current Administration has done. Thank you reading this post. Posted by: Maureen at February 9, 2004 06:09 AM | PERMALINKIt looks like another TANG pilot from the same unit Wouldn't his story help clarify GWB's? Not the reason for the suspension, but what happens to your career and your records following suspension. Posted by: 537 votes at February 9, 2004 06:13 AM | PERMALINKDo a Google search on "James R Bath," 537 votes. Or try, "James R Bath texas national guard." The hits just keep on coming. Love what you're doing here, Kevin. This is great stuff. Posted by: G C at February 9, 2004 06:17 AM | PERMALINKJust to add a couple of questions of my own: 1. Kevin: is the "Air Reserve" vs. "Army Reserve" issue correct? [not to tell you how to run your own blog, of course, but on a BIG issue like this, bloggers have to be accurate: if only to keep the wingnuts at bay]. 2.Of the 9 sets of dates on the first document you reproduce (the "untorn document") - and NB: Unless I need glasses VERY badly, the first pair of dates are Oct 28 and Oct 29, which makes sense - are, with just two exceptions (Jan 73), either Saturday-and-Sunday weekends (3 occurences) or Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday days (4 occurences). Is there any significance to this? 3: Finally, a comment to Lois: The "issue" involved in combing over George W. Bush's military records is, IMO, not so much a matter of "who served and how", but (just like the stick that right-wingers used to bash Bill Clinton with) an matter of honesty and transparency in the personal history of our nations' Commander-in-Chief. Especially as the current incumbent ran for the office on a platform of "restoring honor" to the White House, etc., etc. Bill Clinton was excoriated (and not just by his rabid "enemies" in the "VRWC") for not being straightforward about a lot of things: that Preznit Dubya looks to have connived in having his own military records shredded to avoid embarrassment (about what, we wonder???) kinda tarnishes the whole "honor & dignity" rap the GOP has been parading for the last 3 years. Of course, this will NEVER sway the ideologues and partisans (Kerry-bashing is too easy and fun!) - but kudos to Kevin nonetheless. Posted by: Jay C. at February 9, 2004 06:22 AM | PERMALINKNo. The real issue, as a contributor at daily Kos eloquently put it, is that while Bush, through privilege and connections, was able to get his guard duties truncated so he could go to Harvard Business School...young guard and reserve service members in today's armed forces are PREVENTED from leaving the service by stop loss orders, even though they've more than put in their time in a comobat zone.
He is the first person in his family to go to college. This is what it's all about, folks. And THIS is why this story is relevant in this election. Posted by: Hesiod at February 9, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINKAnyway, 537 votes, to answer your question directly, Bath's story probably won't help us much, given that this guy's a shady Texas billionaire too. Posted by: G C at February 9, 2004 06:24 AM | PERMALINK>>Democratic candidates admitted doing, Yes *admitted*; what is W hiding? This is 10% what he did (or didn't), 90% about the cover-up. He lied in his book, he's still manipulating the facts on national TV (yet another instance of THAT). This man, and his sycophants twist and manipulate facts at every turn. Posted by: lutton at February 9, 2004 06:26 AM | PERMALINKWait, James Bath was getting busted from the TANG at the same time as BUsh??? That's priceless. He is the guy who represented bin Laden's brother and brother-in-law when they were investing in Bush's Arbusto. The brother-in-law, Khalid bin Mahfouz, has even been put under house arrest in Saudi Arabia for funding terrorism. And Bath is supposed to be a CIA operative, as well, recruited in 1976 when his a friends of his Daddy was in charge of the CIA. Not that there is necessarily a connectiong between his getting busted and going onto serve as a liaison between the Bush and the bin Laden family, but it's worth noting. Posted by: emptywheel at February 9, 2004 06:39 AM | PERMALINKKevin can you please post the whole document? I suspect that this was a printout from the electronic copy of the file which is why it seems much more "fresh". On another note, this is a much better fit to the puzzle then just being AWOL for a year (I found it hard to believe he could get away with that much). It shows for a fact that there was disciplinary action taken. He either got punished for: Not taking his physical, Taking it and failing it (newly implemented drug tests), or for going AWOL (he definitely did not show any activity for at least 5 months). Bush's 4th year is also quite unusual. If I read my tea leaves I get a sense that it seems like he got progressively more involved with drugs and alcohol which culminated in the punitive action and the famous drunken confrontation with pop in Dec '72. I almost feel sorry for the guy. It's really so silly for so many people to go to such lengths to cover something up that would of been much easier to be honest about at the beginning. He would of been forgiven and people would have let it drop. Now he's committed to the lie so deeply that it's political poison. The crime isn't what he did 30 years ago, it's the coverup. Posted by: Gryn at February 9, 2004 06:42 AM | PERMALINKGood observations, Heidt, Fertik, and Drum. Things are falling into place. Bush enters the Guard to avoid being called up under revised Selective Service rules that ended college deferment for graduate school. He serves until he understands with a fair certainty that he won't be sent overseas: remember, Vietnam is winding down. America is tired of it. Forces are being withdrawn. Reserves are being demobilized, so being sent to the Reserves isn't much of a threat, hence, who cares if you're sent to the ARF? Bush gets some ambition, realizes he has a minimum committment to be met before he can get an "honorable" discharge (which is no commendation, by the way). So he does it, all the while under the bureaucratic auspices of the ARF, not the TANG or the AANG. This isn't an exceptional course of action for men of his age and time, except for the favoritism that got him a Guard slot and the remarkable ease with which he dismissed his committment to service. There's also the continuing Bush-Rove-Hughes refusal to admit to this episode as even a youthful indescretion, perhaps because it's a hard sell to his base, which viewed him as "the anti-Clinton," and to whom it might appear that Bush was even more dismissive of military service than was America's last democratically-elected president. And, the White House is stuck with the story Bush ginned up at the time of his run for the Texas governorship. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 9, 2004 06:44 AM | PERMALINKA prediction: This line of attack will work about as well for Democrats as Whitewater did for Republicans. Posted by: Ben at February 9, 2004 06:48 AM | PERMALINKA prediction: Someday Ben will lie and tell his grandchildren that he didn't vote for W and didn't know anyone who did. Posted by: G C at February 9, 2004 06:53 AM | PERMALINKThis has been discussed a lot above, but it is clear that the torn and untorn documents are not the same piece of paper. To me the key think is not L9CHPY (torn) vs unclear L9CMPY or L9CHPY (untorn). I think this has been mentioned but the There is no reason why there should be only one such piece of paper so this doesn't mean either is inauthentic. Posted by: Robert Waldmann at February 9, 2004 06:56 AM | PERMALINKHoly crud! I think we've got a record for trackbacks coming through to this post.. now let's see if any hardcopies will give a trackback :D Posted by: bubba at February 9, 2004 07:05 AM | PERMALINKThough I usually get up for Meet The Press, I set my alarm to make sure that i watched yesterday. This will turn out to be really meaningful news, especially since this was the one question he answered as if it were a challenge. As if this would never come out. I can't wait to see how this one is explained. Because as you all well know, Bush's people are spin doctors extraordinarie (sp), which is actually what I admire about them - their ability to slip out of anything. Posted by: The Mad Dater at February 9, 2004 07:05 AM | PERMALINKYes Kevin, this is how must confront these evil-doers. Keep on blogging brother! We all know this guy is a slacker from fucking day one! Posted by: Jerry Crenshaw at February 9, 2004 07:07 AM | PERMALINKThis cartoon pretty much says it all: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/020604benson.html Looks like people are getting wise to Bush's act! Posted by: cryofan at February 9, 2004 07:12 AM | PERMALINKjust got here via a link from Slate, very impressive work...I'm sending it to all I know..
First, Kudos to Kevin for the research. It certainly seems to fit the key known facts : a) that Bush did get an honorable discharge, so it's unlikely that there was a true, criminal-level AWOL-type occurance, and b) there is something he has been reluctant to disclose, which he must not be proud of. However, I don't think this will have much effect. Unless there was something worse than just missing a physical which caused him to be sent to ARF, this just seems to be more details on the key image people have of Bush's militar service. He pulled strings to get a reserve position which legally fufilled all of his requirements, but made it unlikely that he would be sent to Vietnam. We already knew that. So if what you have now discovered is that he pulled a few more strings, or otherwise manipulated the system, to legally get himself out of some of that duty, its doens't look particularly good, but it doesn't change the big picture. Especially comeing out now, well before the election, it will take something qualitatively different than playing the system to materiallyt change people's impression of Bush's military career. Posted by: marc at February 9, 2004 07:20 AM | PERMALINKHave we definitively determined what ARF stands for yet -- Army Reserve Force or Air Reserve Force -- and what the difference between the two may mean in determining exactly what this document says? Posted by: Nessmen at February 9, 2004 07:21 AM | PERMALINKNot that it would matter to the true believers, but as a taxpayer (and paying taxes at the time), I resent funding some privileged rich kid throwing that $200K pilots training down the tubes....for whatever reason. I want my money back! Posted by: andante at February 9, 2004 07:29 AM | PERMALINKThis has been discussed a lot above, but it is clear that the torn and untorn documents are not the same piece of paper. I would agree. Apart from the L9CMPY or L9CHPY discrepancy, the typeface/font is slightly different. Look at the numeral 9 in both. I would also agree that it may not make a difference since they could have been generated at separate times but still report the same information. How about that James R Bath? Certainly a buddy of GWB's--lots of stories about his financial support for GWB. But why would he also fail to take a physical exam? The Bush excuse--he was on duty in Alabama and his physician was back in Houston--probably doesn't apply to Maj. Bath. Did they get busted for something together? Posted by: 537 votes at February 9, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKAs I recall from the 1950's when I joined the ANG at age 16, one could legally be activated for skipping some number of weekend drills and/or an active duty for training (ACTDUTRA) two week summer camp. I spent the summer of my Jr/Sr high school years in Air Force Basic Training at Lackland AFB in 1956, before returning home, a more wise youth, to finish high school before enlisting in the USN. I wonder if anyone has looked at Bush's DD214 which is the document that indicates several aspects of a person's military service including the type of discharge received. To date, I've served approximately 35 years in the VTANG, the USN (10+ active years), the USNR, and the USAR, and am retired. I am aware that the NG/ANG has not been prone to prosecution of slackers - folks who miss drills to the extent they are eventually dropped from the rolls and may or may not have been reported to the U.S. Selective Service as having failed in their six year obligation to serve. A search of GOOGLE citing "George W. Bush Military Record" will turn up a lot of info for anyone interested in doing the paperwork archeology for the truth about this fellow who wants to be viewed as the commander-in-chief in more than just title. Posted by: Sam at February 9, 2004 07:31 AM | PERMALINKre: "it is clear that the torn and untorn documents are not the same piece of paper." But we do presume that they are printouts of the same computer program... Posted by: Brad DeLong at February 9, 2004 07:32 AM | PERMALINKI also found this via a link from Slate. Absolutely brilliant work! Keep up the hard work and research. Hopefully it will pay off for those of us that are ashamed of what has happened in this country for the last few years. Posted by: ruaseeker2 at February 9, 2004 07:37 AM | PERMALINKWhy is CalPundit so Un-American?
I think you guys have reignited this story, but until you prove something I'm not going to draw any conclusions because we've seen this before. In the past, you guys throw allegations of scandals and then get nothing. However, Bush certainly has to release all records at this point. Posted by: Chad Peterson at February 9, 2004 07:44 AM | PERMALINKInteresting. I haven't read the blog rolls here (not terribly
interested). But I do have a question for Calpundit et al. When you
say you want Bush to 'release your entire military record.' What exactly
do you mean? Do you presume that Bush has documents proving what he
did and didn't do in 1972 in his possession, but won't let the press see
them? If so, that's likely a silly assumption. Steve Posted by: Steve at February 9, 2004 07:45 AM | PERMALINKPresumably, his campaign folks would have rounded up the documents before the Bush gubernatorial effort. In which case, yes - he would have them "in his possession", theoretically. But there should also be originals (or copies)held by the military. Posted by: andante at February 9, 2004 07:54 AM | PERMALINKAndante- steve Posted by: Steve at February 9, 2004 07:59 AM | PERMALINK
The military ordinarily does not disclose a servicemember's full record to the public, without a release from that servicemember authorizing the disclosure. That's the "release" at issue here, afaik. Posted by: Californian at February 9, 2004 08:02 AM | PERMALINKThis is a wonderful discovery. It seems to me, the only way we will ever, as a nation, stop politicians and their profiteering buddies from sending our kids to fight in these so-called wars, is to require that their own children and grandchildren be the first ones drafted and sent into action. No deferals, no way out, but to serve, and take the same chances our kids do. Maybe then we will get a new batch of politicians who really know what it is all about, able to temper judgement with a strong sense of reality. Posted by: Tony L. at February 9, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKAn air force officer being transfered to an army command i can find no record of? i don't know. the sheet looks like a retirement point worksheet to me. how would an officer under some sort of disapline who was not required to show up anywhere get retirement points? it think the author totaly misread this paper. Posted by: andrew at February 9, 2004 08:09 AM | PERMALINKWhatever happened, I don't think transfer to a disciplinary unit in Denver was it. Bush was still requesting transfers and discharges from Col. Killian in Houston. That would make no sens eif he had been re-assigned to a different unit. Posted by: Erik at February 9, 2004 08:14 AM | PERMALINKI just want to add that I now have the letter up confirming that Bush had approximately six months of time tacked onto his military obligation: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/slpcreply.jpg Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 9, 2004 08:19 AM | PERMALINK"ARF!" is mentioned today in Dan Froomkin's Washington Post column. It is already apparent that the administration is planning to claim that the requisite military service documents are missing. I wonder if anyone has done research into whether there are other reservists from Bush's stints in the Texas and Alabama Guards whose records cannot be found. If Bush's are the only records to have gone missing, it may be revealing. Posted by: Boerwors at February 9, 2004 08:24 AM | PERMALINK>An air force officer being transfered to an army command i can find no record of? i don't know. the sheet looks like a retirement point worksheet to me. how would an officer under some sort of disapline who was not required to show up anywhere get retirement points? Why aren't points awarded or broken down on the bottom of the document? Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 9, 2004 08:25 AM | PERMALINKWay to go, Kevin! Get this stuff to Krugman or Matthews or both. "True Lies" from George, that's great. 'bout time the Carrot Prince has a bit o' stick! Posted by: tiernal at February 9, 2004 08:30 AM | PERMALINKAnybody notice the following : Promoted to 1st Lieutenant in November 1970. Never made it to Captain. Left the service in November 1974. He must have been ate the f* up (horrible, inefficient officer) to not make the next higher grade within that amount of time. Posted by: setzman at February 9, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINKJust to cross-pollinate a bit more, this is from the Washington Post Froomkin article: In the "Meet the Press" interview, Bush responded to the question of whether he was AWOL from his National Guard post during the Vietnam War by calling the issue a product of "political season" and reasserting that he was honorably discharged. Bush said he would authorize the release of any existing documents regarding his National Guard service. "If we still have them, but I -- you know, the records are kept in Colorado, as I understand, and they scoured the records." Richard A. Serrano reports in the Los Angeles Times: "He was referring to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Colorado, which maintains pay records of service members and presumably would have documentation on whether Bush had showed up for all of his military duty. "But officials at the agency, in Denver and at the headquarters in Washington, told The Times last week that before any records could be released, a Freedom of Information Act request must be filed and that the agency would then show the records to the White House communications office before proceeding." Anybody in Denver available to walk over a FOIA request?
I just looked at the other document (at http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif) and was struck by the last two lines, "...State of Texas AG Department, Austin, Texas, and transferred to ARPC (ORS), 3800 York St, Denver, CO effective 2 October 1973..." Does State of Texas AG Department mean the Agriculture Department, or the Attorney General's Department?
That's a good point, setzman. A first lieutenant in the Air Force makes captain in two years -- and it's pretty much an automatic promotion. It takes a sustained record of incompetence to be passed over for promotion, or noteworthy act of misconduct to be "redlined" (i.e., to have the promotion withheld). Wonder which one applies in Bush's case? Posted by: Californian at February 9, 2004 08:38 AM | PERMALINKHE DOESNT HAVE TO RELEASE RECORDS...ALL HE HAS TO DO IS TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHAT HE WAS DOING, WHERE HE WAS STATIONED, WHAT DUTY HE PERFORMED. WHY IS HE BEING SO COY? Posted by: TONY at February 9, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINK"AG" probably would refer to the Adjutant General Corps (soldiers/units in this branch perform mostly administrative/personell function), or to the state Adjutant General, the highest military commander of the state's National Guard. Posted by: setzman at February 9, 2004 08:43 AM | PERMALINK"...State of Texas AG Department, Austin, Texas, ..." Must be Attorney General. Why would the state's AG be involved? Customary generality or criminal specificity? Daily Brew has a pre-formatted FOIA request at http://www.thedailybrew.com/ or click my name. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 9, 2004 08:44 AM | PERMALINKSteve, I beg to differ. I was in the Navy for 5 years. They constantly drummed into you that you copied EVERYTHING given to you. Hell, they GIVE you your records each time you transfer to give to your personnel command upon arriving. You use that time to PHOTOCOPY EVERYTHING. (photostat for you stuck in the 1970's) Sorry, but to NOT have copies of this stuff is quite DIS-honorable. Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINKGood work, Kevin. You got everything exactly right except what ARF stands for -- but, that one small slip aside, it's all perfect. I don't deny there's info here, but have some perspective: the blogs are more and more like the big media -- hey, I've got it right here, it's from a friend of a friend who got it from the government and although I have the NAME of the document wrong, I've of course got all the specifics RIGHT. All I need is some anonymous former Natl Guard members cruising my site to send in explanations of this or that and then, I mean, we've got it! Nailed! If we did science this way (or car repair or baking dinner), it would be viewed a little differently (I've got the secret recipe, right here, from a friend of a friend who got it straight from the secret files of Mrs. Field -- I got the name of the dish wrong (it might be cookies instead of crawfish) but the specifics are right if some cooks would tell me what tsp stands for ...). Rightly, these are put under 'urban legend." Posted by: C Bennett at February 9, 2004 08:46 AM | PERMALINKTo add some clarity to my previous post about the AG, the Adjutant General and his/her office is often mentioned in Guard personell orders. Posted by: setzman at February 9, 2004 08:48 AM | PERMALINKKevin, After reading the treasonus remarks from a bunch Instead of George W Bush, “Mission Accomplished” Hotshot Fighter Pilot, the real George W Bush is a Slacker with an obligation to fly F-102's for 2+ more years who is grounded for failure to take his flight physical. The same year that drug testing is required by the military. Posted by: Jim S at February 9, 2004 08:58 AM | PERMALINKWas Bush AWOL or not, given the new ARF info? Posted by: grammar at February 9, 2004 08:58 AM | PERMALINKJoels comments are worth repeating: >We already know that his commanding officers in Texas did not observe him during precisely the time period covered in this document. If his commanding officers say he wasn't there and ARF gives him service credit from Denver anyway it would appear that the fix was in, and we now have documentary proof. Thus, far from proving that Bush fulfilled his service obligations, this document -- in combination with others from the Texas Air National Guard -- proves that he DID NOT, but that he was fraudulently given credit for doing so. Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 9, 2004 08:59 AM | PERMALINKARF, see CONAC The point to make about the differences in the two documents is that they are not just in the typed-in part (the "H" -> "M", the base of the "1"s) but in the printed form itself. Look at the kerning on "FROM DATE" and "TO DATE" on the torn copy - it's elegant and even, as expected in a printed form that predates desktop publishing. Now look at the new copy. The D-A and especially the A-T letter pairs are unkerned, as if each letter were stuck in its own little inviolable rectangle of white space. Look similarly at the P-A and A-G pairs in "PAGE" at the upper right. Again, the torn copy is well-kerned but the new copy is clumsily open-spaced. So, these aren't even two copies of the form printed out contemporaneously in one office. Either the new one was printed out elsewhere or later, after forms had for some reason been recreated and reprinted - or it's a crude forgery. Posted by: Nic at February 9, 2004 09:14 AM | PERMALINKTwo words for all of you conspiracy theorists: HONORABLE DISCHARGE No matter what insidious inferences your little minds are able to draw from various 30+ year old documents, Bush was honorably discharged and was never accused (by anyone who matters, anyway) of being AWOL or a "deserter." Moreover, to highlight the ignorance of those making the AWOL charge, you might be interested to know that the National Guard does not recognize the concept of AWOL at all. Accordingly, even if he never showed up for any of his service obligations in Alabama, Bush could not -- as a matter of law -- have been AWOL. No story. No legs. No point. Posted by: Ellis Wyatt at February 9, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKEllis you are completely wrong. I was once in the Guard, and AWOL is a term that is used for failure to report to drill without excuse. Posted by: setzman at February 9, 2004 09:22 AM | PERMALINKEllis Wyatt: Ellis, isn't the Two Minute Hate about to start? Aren't you late? Posted by: G C at February 9, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINKHow about that James R Bath? Certainly a buddy of GWB's--lots of stories about his financial support for GWB. [...] Did they get busted for something together? Don't ask, don't tell. Posted by: FlipYrWhig at February 9, 2004 09:27 AM | PERMALINKNow, doesn't the document Kevin posted confirm that Bush did show up in Alabama? Oh, is this one of those situations where you can just 'show up'? I thought you had to do some things -- and isn't it strange that no one else remembers that he 'showed up'? It seems that it's a little more important than you're giving it credit to be. Posted by: Streaker at February 9, 2004 09:28 AM | PERMALINKI still don't see how any of this is going to make much of a difference. The typical voter's view of GWB biography has two distinct sections: Phase I: Rich Frat-boy Born into rich, political family. His family helped pull strings to get him an easy life (Yale, ANG, HBS, Texas Rangers) despite being an undistinguished student and boarderline alcoholic. Phase II: Grown-up Leader At age 40, stops drinking, 'grows up,' and gets serious. Wins tough election and is (at least moderately) sucessful as Texas Govenor. Comes off as 'real', 'likeable', and 'not-as-stupid-as-parodied' in 2000 campaign. Surprises with bold leadership and inspired rhetoric after 9/11. Most of the people here may not agree with this, but the above is what the 60-80% of the public who are not Bush-haters think, even if they don't like his domestic policies, and think he misled us into the war in Iraq. Kevin's 'bombshell' doesn't change this thumbnail biography, it just confirms it. So he was a poor officer in 1973. We already knew he was a coaster and a drunk until he was 40. Posted by: marc at February 9, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKsetzman, don't let facts get in Ellis' way... let him try to warp reality to fit his preconceived ideas. (How much you wanna bet he's a Creationist?) Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 9, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKJack- Steve Posted by: Steve at February 9, 2004 09:30 AM | PERMALINKFolks - as Democratic Veteran pointed out in April 2003, (http://tinyurl.com/2p39d) the information which -follows- notice that Shrub did not accomplish his physical, describes the applicable charge. "Which act also qualifies as disobedience of a direct order to get a PHYSICAL. It's right there, "Reason of for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Officer will comply with paragraph 2-10, Air Force Manual 35-13. Authority (governing): Paragraph 2-29m, Air Force Manual 35-13." Disobedience of a Direct Order...." Disobeying a legal Direct Order is not something overlooked, not even in the slackest of organisations. And this vitiates Shrub's bizarre argument, reported by his minions, that he just kinda decided that since he wasn't flying he didnt need to take that old physical..... Posted by: GWPDA at February 9, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINKMarc, I disagree. The old biphasic function is no longer operational. I think that to a lot of those same folks who forgive Bush for his pre-40 behavior, military service is important. I think that perception of improper behavior in an officer will strike a chord - it will NOT be viewed as frat-boy hijnks. Just my opinion, but that's why we see people like Ellis chiming in. BTW, Ellis, thanks for reminding us: The real story is HOW he got that honorable discharge - not that he got it at all. Posted by: Jeff Boatright at February 9, 2004 09:35 AM | PERMALINKbetween CHPY and CMPY maybe we can compromise on CHMPY? Posted by: xian at February 9, 2004 09:37 AM | PERMALINKA brief note on the "Why Denver" question. The Air Force Finance Center was in Denver, until it was closed in the late 70's / early 80's. It was a huge complex at 38th Ave and York St. My guess is the ARF was a paper unit, where misfits and screw-ups like George W Bush were assigned, until they could be processed out of the military. This being 72-73, the armed forces would have been releasing personnel right and left. Posted by: Charles K at February 9, 2004 09:38 AM | PERMALINKI'm so sick of hearing the Bush defenders brag about Dubya's "honorable discharge," as if that trumps everything. Bush had hundreds of people ahead of him on the list to get into the National Guard (as opposed to going to Vietnam), and yet his political connections were enough to get him moved right to the front of the line. If he had connections like that, certainly they would've been enough to finagle him an "honorable discharge" he didn't earn. Posted by: Doug Gillett at February 9, 2004 09:40 AM | PERMALINKWell Doug, once you can prove (instead of simply making bald accusations) GWB should have been "dishonorably discharged" then you may have a point. Until then, "honorable discharge" (at the the very least) shifts the burden of proof to your side : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 09:44 AM | PERMALINKCharles K: "My guess is the ARF was a paper unit, where misfits and screw-ups like George W Bush were assigned, until they could be processed out of the military. This being 72-73, the armed forces would have been releasing personnel right and left." Good guess - sounds like a lot less than AWOL too ; ) P.S. I'll catch up on the rest of this thread and post my comments later. Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 09:46 AM | PERMALINK"Most of the people here may not agree with this, but the above is what the 60-80% of the public who are not Bush-haters think..." marc, 60-80%? that's a little generous buddy. take off the rosy shades dude, they really don't work for you. Posted by: travy at February 9, 2004 09:49 AM | PERMALINKSweet! Great research! Now to get it into the mainstream, in front of every voter, every person still clinging to the notion that Bush is a legitimate leader rather than a liar, a bully, a coward, and a corporate whore. We should all be writing letters to the editor and e-mailing the mainstream media leaders (Koppel, Jennings...) demanding that they look into it. Posted by: Kate Watt at February 9, 2004 09:49 AM | PERMALINKI was just listening to NPR this morning and a Democratic being
interviewed in Tennessee commented on how much Kerry's war service meant
to voters there. Frankly, I don't much care about a candidate's
military service dating from I repeat: if its a "paper unit" he's been transferred to, how has he been earning points for specific dates? Does he mail in things he could have done in theory on a certain weekend? Is ARF a "special disciplinary unit," or just a general name for the Air Reserve and Guard. Note that the retirement document on Bush service starting with 1968 is headed "Air Reserve Forces." To me, all this seems a strained interpretation of the document. Posted by: rd at February 9, 2004 10:01 AM | PERMALINKA first lieutenant in the Air Force makes captain in two years -- and it's pretty much an automatic promotion. Is it really as fast for reserve/guard members that aren't on active duty? My assumption has always been that the reduced duty would also mean considerably slower advancement. Posted by: cmdicely at February 9, 2004 10:02 AM | PERMALINK"I was just listening to NPR this morning and a Democratic being interviewed in Tennessee commented on how much Kerry's war service meant to voters there." NPR interviewing a Democrat? Could you really conceive of hearing anything different? Steve Posted by: Steve at February 9, 2004 10:03 AM | PERMALINKThis is so,so little act. You DEM. Look at the pres. that BUSH replace. a down right draft dodger, sex addict, liar and you DEM still love him. that makes my head turn round. Posted by: daniel lemke at February 9, 2004 10:04 AM | PERMALINKThis is so,so little act. You DEM. Look at the pres. that BUSH replace. a down right draft dodger, sex addict, liar and you DEM still love him. that makes my head turn round. I noticed that you were incapable of typing anything that had more than two syllables. Coincidence? Posted by: Gryn at February 9, 2004 10:06 AM | PERMALINKLewis Lapham has a theory that the enduring hold of Bush on Americans has to do with a feeling that he is a charming rogue/scoundrel. If what you are getting at here is true, that he was in a disciplinary unit in '72, may have the opposite effect on his popularity of what we expect. Posted by: BobNJ at February 9, 2004 10:07 AM | PERMALINKCharlie -- Mmmmm . . . not quite. Reading the comments in this thread leads me to the conclusion that the ARF reassignment happened BECAUSE Bush was AWOL -- and / or failed to report for his TANG flight physical. As a Silver Spooner in a Champagne Unit, Bush used family connections to cut in line ahead of 500 or so men who were on the waiting list -- and then, didn't even trouble himself to fullfill his obligation. Posted by: Charles K at February 9, 2004 10:09 AM | PERMALINKLink to the original work by Martin at coldfeet@cis.net http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ Not sure if the author is Martin or Fertik. Regardless, FOIA is great. Let's keep it. Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKDaniel Lemke, Strunk and White: The Elements of Style Look into it. Posted by: apostropher at February 9, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINK"A first lieutenant in the Air Force makes captain in two years -- and it's pretty much an automatic promotion. Is it really as fast for reserve/guard members that aren't on active duty? My assumption has always been that the reduced duty would also mean considerably slower advancement." You are correct. Promotion is slower in the reserves. Posted by: Campesino at February 9, 2004 10:18 AM | PERMALINKI'm a reservist so I have a some knowledge of retirement points. One can earn retirement points for doing nothing other than "being" in the reserves. You have to earn a minimum amount of points to have a year of qualified duty and your basic points alone won't do that. So YES, it is possible to get retirement points without showing up for duty (although it won't qualify you for retirement). Posted by: msampie at February 9, 2004 10:21 AM | PERMALINK"This is so,so little act. You DEM. ..." When this bastard lies, our soldiers blood gets spilled. So don’t even talk about honor and truthfulness. Posted by: Alfred at February 9, 2004 10:21 AM | PERMALINKThis is so,so little act. You REP. Look at the pres. that BUSH is. a down right draft dodger, drug addict, liar and you REP still love him. that makes my head turn round. Well, this little rewrite offers a teaching moment, here. When Rove and Hughes considered the charmed legacy of Young Bush back in 1999, they could have gone with the Henry V, Part I model: immature screw-up, but latent competent leader. Well, they chose not to, largely because the same excuse might have extended to Bill Clinton. Bush was supposed to be the anti-Clinton, remember? And, if Gore won the nomination, his young life would look positively noble in comparison with that of a guy who apparently took his military committment as a lark, even if a lot of guys of his time did the same. Apparently, Bush 2000 judged that they'd rather conceal than confront the issue--as they might have decided with his early substance-abuse problems and driving records--than just own up to the possibility that young men can do stupid stuff, just like the stupid stuff Clinton might have done, and Gore didn't. Now, having clung to their version of the Guard story for more than four years, it's practically impossible for the Bush team to admit that the guy was only human in his youth and ought to be cut some slack: it would be an admission that fear and shame and political opportunism drove them to lie. And this White House doesn't believe in admitting error, ever, let alone an actual lie. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 9, 2004 10:36 AM | PERMALINKFlipYrWhig -- It took me a minute, but that is hilarious! Maybe we can get Drudge to work the bath-house angle of Texas in 1972. Posted by: 537 votes at February 9, 2004 10:49 AM | PERMALINKI can't believe you grown ups are name calling and bashing our President of the United States. I read so many made up statements about our leader, I'm embarrassed for us Americans. You nardowellers, run for office or get a life. Roland C. Young Posted by: Roland C. Young at February 9, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINKIt's a shame that you Democrats, lacking any real solutions and/or innovative ideas to address real-world issues, are reduced to hate-speech and smear campaigns in order to get elected. Perhaps more time should be spent developing, dare I say it, a strategy and execution plan? It's shameful that your single minded and misguided rhetoric aims at dividing America rather than solving problems. Posted by: bruce at February 9, 2004 11:08 AM | PERMALINKGreat work! Keep up the pressure--Never stop digging If around Oct. 72 he was transferred to ARF from TANG, why was HQ asking TANG for the annual fitness report in July, 73? (second page of initial report had been sent to HQ at end of service year in May, 73 indicating he had not been present so no review could be given.). What is the meaning of TANG's Nov. '73 response to HQ that no fitness report is available for "administrative reasons"? If Bush's statuts with TANG changed in Oct. 72, why does TANG on May 1, 73 order him to report for duty for various dates in May or June? Why do those dates then correspond to the May and June dates on the '73 ARF as well as the last entry on the 72-73 ARF? But then why are there dates on the 72-73 ARF for 5/1-5/3, 5/8-5/10, and 5/19-5/20 which are not mentioned in any TANG documents, including the 5/1 order to report for duty? Why do none of these 72 and 73 dates then get entered onto his permanent service logs? See Kevin's posted document and this one. Note that the service record (last linked document) shows the transfer to ARPC (ORS) in Oct 73, not Oct 72. I posted earlier about other numerous oddities between these documents. The ARF documents don't make sense, and we need more info on exactly what they are and how they are prepared. They don't seem to match Alabama duty service at all. If they represent actual duty served, they are rather inconsistent with the TANG records. It's very tough to make sense of this issue with only a partial set of documents and inadequate information on the custom and practice in preparing these cryptic documents. The key is for Bush to authorize the military to release ALL records. I imagine further FOIA requests and public pressure on Bush to stop stonewalling the release of records will bring this issue to a head in the near future. Posted by: dmbeaster at February 9, 2004 11:11 AM | PERMALINKIt's a shame that you Democrats, lacking any real solutions and/or innovative ideas to address real-world issues, are reduced to hate-speech and smear campaigns in order to get elected. Projection, thy name is Republican. Posted by: Gryn at February 9, 2004 11:12 AM | PERMALINKMy, there's no shortage of trolls with fake email addresses today. Posted by: scarshapedstar at February 9, 2004 11:15 AM | PERMALINK"I'm a reservist so I have a some knowledge of retirement points. One can earn retirement points for doing nothing other than "being" in the reserves. You have to earn a minimum amount of points to have a year of qualified duty and your basic points alone won't do that. So YES, it is possible to get retirement points without showing up for duty (although it won't qualify you for retirement)." Msample, would those points for doing nothing match up with specific dates, or are they the 15 "gratis" points a year the George Magazine article talks about? The document above lists a total of 41 points connected to dates, which when added to the 15 "free" points, adds up to the 56 points George Magazine reported he earned in 72-73. Is it possible to earn 41 points doing nothing? Here's the George article: As distasteful as it is to me, I believe that your findings fully exonerate George W. Bush. Here's why. His Air Reserve Services Retirement Credit Summary, shown in this document, records FOUR good years of service not 3. The 22 points he amassed plus the 15 that everyone gets just for being on the rolls equals a 37 point 'good' year. It tallies the good years as 4 on the right hand side of the sheet. Why he failed to take his physical is open to question and he was transferred to the Reserves in September of 72. One cannot draw the conclusion that a transfer to the Reserves is disciplinary - it happens all the time for lots of reasons. In his case, he had no way to stay in his unit unless he was a functioning pilot. The Guard did what they would have done if he had failed due to medical reasons - transferred him to the Reserves to finish his obligation. In the Reserves he clearly performed drills somewhere, or was given official credit for having done so. From October 72 through May 73 he amassed a total of 34 points - 12 in '72 and 23 by the end of May 73. For this he would have received another 'good' year then totaling FIVE good years of service The last ARF document shows him performing 10 drill periods in a short period of time from May through Jul '73. It's hard to read the document but it looks like a total of 25 or so for drills. I believe he would have been given the 15 'gratutious' points that everyone gets and that would have given him enough points for a SIXTH good year by July '73. And I think that completes his obligation I don't like it, but that's the way it reads out Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 11:19 AM | PERMALINKRetired He certainly didn't amass those drill points in Alabama (3 people there said they never saw him) and he certainly didn't amass drill points in Texas because his OER states that he cleared the based May 1972 and hadn't been seen since. He wasn't cleared for medical reasons because he failed to take the physical and was grounded. Bush has said he flew until the end -- not. Charles K: "Reading the comments in this thread leads me to the conclusion that the ARF reassignment happened BECAUSE Bush was AWOL -- and / or failed to report for his TANG flight physical." I'd take a closer look at retired LTC's comments first before you come to that conclusion. Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINKI'm still conflicted about what the whole "ARF' debate means. You point to the "untorn document" as not being a Texas or Alabama document, simply because it doesn't say Texas or Alabama, and thus it must be something much darker and sinister -- The Air Reserve Forces. Yet we've now established that the Air Reserve Forces is nothing more than a term used to collectively refer to the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. What's more, the second document shown -- Form 712 -- also says quite clearly on it that it is an Air Reserve Forces document. Guys, is it conceivably possible that the "untorn document," in fact, shows that President Bush DID put in Air National Guard duty on those days listed. In other words, that it proves exactly what he has been saying, and not the other way around. Look, I'm no Bush fan, and I would be giddy with delight if some "smoking gun" popped up that sunk his bid for a second term. But I also think that we ought not to jump to half-baked conclusions based on a speculative interpretation of evidence that is most favorable to our own viewpoint. After all, isn't that how we ended up in Iraq? Posted by: Nessmen at February 9, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINKI'm afraid there's not much there to indicate the "ARF" is a disciplinary unit. ARF = "Air Reserve Forces" The Air Force Reserve (AFR) and the Air National Guard (ANG) are together called the ARF. Both are reserve components of the Air Force. Just look at the second document Kevin listed ("Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary"). This is an ARF document, and it shows credit for service on the Air National Guard. This makes sense because the ANG is part of the ARF. Gotta work harder to get your facts right. http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=2 The nine major commands, 35 field operating agencies, four direct reporting units and their subordinate elements constitute the field organization that carries out the Air Force mission. In addition, there are two Reserve components, the Air Force Reserve, which is also a major command, and the Air National Guard. Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINKNothing in the documents indicates where the drills were accomplished nor for what purpose. These summary documents never do, and there should be supporting drill attendance sheets for each drill period performed - we haven't seen those. Nonetheless the official record records sufficient service to amass 6 good years of service Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKAlma: "What turnipseed (et al.) *didn't* see is not evidence of what there was to be seen." Hmmm, seems all of us doubting Thomases popped up at once. Hope we're not branded Republicans. Posted by: Nessmen at February 9, 2004 11:33 AM | PERMALINKNeither was the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS) the punishment unit for Bush. Bush himself requested to be reassigned to inactive duty because he was atttending Harvard Business School in Sept 1973. The request was approved and he was assigned to ORS (basically a file center associated with the Air Force Personnel Center -- AFPC -- in Denver) as of Oct 1, 1973. See http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc21.gif Posted by: Mike at February 9, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINKY'know I'm looking at these documents both as an ex-guardsman *and* a Bush supporter, and I *am* worried by them. The most worrisome thing to me: the dates. Clearly something is up with the dates. Why else were they ripped off in the "torn" version? Posted by: ExGOPGuardsman at February 9, 2004 11:39 AM | PERMALINKWould everybody please re-read the notes and corrections under the
ARF document at the beginning of this thread. That way everybody will
be on the same page and quit asking about the discrepancy between "Army
Reserve Force" and "Airforce Reserve Force". IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED
THAT THE LATTER DESIGNATION IS THE CORRECT ONE. Liz: Man, I hate when officers go doing the work of an NCO. Retired LTC
managed to address the points I was going to. Had to toss out a whole
mess of words. Thanks to Marty Heldt, and Kevin for pursuing this story. Maybe
their efforts will finally force GWB to make good on his promise
yesterday to release all his military records. I was astonished that
the media didn't demand this when he first ran for President. Let's be clear on what is and is not being said here. My earlier post shows that he performed the required amount of service in a fairly consistent and contiguous series of drills and active duty. Anyone second guessing the quality of that service is going to have a long, uphill, and ultimately unsuccessful battle trying to discredit him. It looks like he pulled his duty at some level and finished his obligation. A lot of service records for Reservists and Guardsmen look just like this one. Now to what I haven't discussed yet. He has questions to answer about how he got a Guard spot in the first place. Was undue pressure put on the Texas Adjutant General by the Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Apparently there is sworn testimony by the Speaker to that effect. Finally, why was GWB apparently given a direct commission in a highly unusual fashion when he presented no particularly remarkable credentials? Most importantly why has he been so coy about revealing his drill and attendance record? Might there be something worse he'd rather not have dug up? It looks, however, like the issue of AWOL or desertion just isn't going anywhere based on these findings Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 12:05 PM | PERMALINKRetired LTC: All this discussion saying the "ARF document" proves that Bush did something bad, was disciplined, or failed to complete his obligation is ignorant. It in fact says the opposite. The "ARF/ARPC/ORS" is not a "disciplinary assignment", it's where they transfer you when you cannot drill with your regular Air Guard or Reserve unit. Today that section is referred to as the "Individual Mobilization Augmentee" (IMA) program, and it is the opposite of disciplinary. It's simply a way of accounting for individuals drilling as individuals with a unit that they are not normally attached to. President Bush requested transfer to ORS, with the stated intention of completing drills in Alabama, because he knew he would be participating in the political campaign there. He apparently didn't take his flight physical because he knew he would not be flying in Alabama. The "suspension" you speak of was simply the suspension of flight status for not having a current physical. It is not disciplinary and it is not predjudicial. All of you who are asserting otherwise obviously don't know what you are talking about. The fact that the Lieutenant Colonel in Alabama (who is now 75) does not remember 1st Lt Bush means nothing. He probably wouldn't, because GWB did not belong to his unit and probably did no specific work for him. That doesn't mean that Bush wasn't there and didn't meet his obligations. The record shows that he did. While this may not be the most stellar record of military service, to say it is a scandal because Bush did something wrong is completely uninformed and incorrect. Posted by: NS at February 9, 2004 12:09 PM | PERMALINKI am certain that Bush missed at least half a year and that he was grounded for skipping a mandatory physical.
Going after officers in this way would have been outside the norm. Most often an officer would be subject to career damaging letters of reprimand and poor Officers Effectiveness Ratings. These types of punishment would often result in the resignation of the officer. In Bush's case, as someone who still had a commitment for time not served, he could have been brought back and made to do drills. But this would have been a further embarrassment to the service as it would have made it semi-public that a Lieutenant Colonel and squadron commander had let one of his subordinates go missing for a year. For the Guard, for the ranking officers involved and for Lieutenant Bush the easiest and quietest thing to do was adding time onto his commitment and placing that time in the inactive reserves. Among these old documents there is a single clue as to how Bush finally fulfilled his obligations and made up for those missed drill days. In my first request for information I received a small three-page document containing the "Military Biography Of George Walker Bush." This was sent from the Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver Colorado. In this official summary of Bush's military service, I found something that was not mentioned in Bush's records from the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia. When Bush enlisted his commitment ran until May 26, 1974. This was the separation date shown on all documents as late as October 1973, when Bush was transferred to the inactive reserves at Denver, Colorado. But the date of final separation shown on the official summary from Denver, is November 21, 1974. The ARPC had tacked an extra six months on to Bush's commitment. Bush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills -- in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job. Tom Paine
Look at the discharge code on his DD214. an RE-R4 discharge code is an honorable discharge, but under no circumstances do they want you back in. Usually that means they caught you at something but for some reason could not (or would not) court martial you. Posted by: alan at February 9, 2004 12:16 PM | PERMALINKRetired LTC says Nonetheless the official record records sufficient service to amass 6 good years of service. So what you are saying is that the records show he did what he had to do to get an honorable discharge? But you are also saying nothing about whether he ever showed up in Alabama, why he refused to take the physical exam in 1972, whether he was disciplined in 1972? In other words, same as it ever was. The drill attendance records would be helpful. Posted by: 537 votes at February 9, 2004 12:20 PM | PERMALINKBizombe First my comments are not an interpretation, they are an accurate accounting of the facts that these new documents show. I have a hunch that Kevin's advisor will agree with my results when he has a chance to walk through what is a relatively complicated set of paperwork. Note that others with knowledge in this area agree with my results in this stream of comment. To clarify I have been a GuardsMAN, a Reservist, and an active duty officer. What that means is that I've spent a lot of time with this kind of paperwork that not everybody with a military background may have. Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 12:20 PM | PERMALINKThe Liar-In-Chief is certainly finding himself in some hot water this time. After a belated start, maybe our insipid mainstream media will start to dig into Mr. Awol's life as thoroughly as they did into Bill Clinton's. Posted by: Bushbasher at February 9, 2004 12:27 PM | PERMALINKQuestion for former or current Guardsfolk: Lost in the shuffle over this was Bush's early departure to work on the Blount campaign. How kosher is it for someone to just pick up and leave their unit, then after the fact request a transfer, then not bother to report back to the original unit when the request is rejected? Would someone who's daddy wasn't a congresscritter have been able to get away with that in the summer of '72? Posted by: Erik at February 9, 2004 12:29 PM | PERMALINKAnd this kerfuffle about what happened thirty years ago is supposed to carry more weight than GW's proven record as a triumphant leader in the war on terrorism waged since 9/11? It is to laugh. Posted by: anon at February 9, 2004 12:30 PM | PERMALINK1972 was an interesting year in the Bush family. George Sr. was Ambassador to the U.N. that year, and therefore not around his family much. Prescott Bush died in Oct of '72. We are being told that G.W. wandered through that year a lost sheep, culminating in a confrontation with his father in December. All of this was ordinary for families of that time. The Bush family would have been having a typically difficult 1972. If nothing more turns up than that G.W. spent his entire 1972 doing things that were very ordinary for young men his age in that year, I would be fine with it. However, I'm skeptical of that storyline. If National Guard training of that era was drilled into him in '72, then I'm concerned. If on the other hand G.W. did something along the lines of driving around in the desert in a van with seven women on his mind and stopping to look at flat bed Fords, than I have no problem whatsoever with him being a little bit awol, and if that's all that turns up, I will be critical of Kerry for pressing it as an issue. Posted by: alcaeus at February 9, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKAs aretired member of the US Air Force, July 1, 1954 through August 31, 1974, I am disgusted and angered that we have a President who is apparently a deserter from his Air Natinal Guard Duties. In accordance with federal laws exising at that time, he should have imediately been called to active duty. Posted by: Hugh Rudd at February 9, 2004 12:35 PM | PERMALINKReading leit's comment made me wonder: what was going on with the Texas Air National Guard in early 1972, when Bush left for Alabama? I know that IN GENERAL American forces in Vietnam were being drawn down and few new people were being sent. Were the commanders of the Texas ANG saying, "Nobody here is going to see combat," in which case the $200,000 spent to train each pilot was already "wasted," and they wouldn't care too too much about one of them skipping three states over to take part in a political campaign? Or was the TANG tight and combat-ready, expecting to see active service at any time? Posted by: Roger Sweeny at February 9, 2004 12:38 PM | PERMALINK
Or was the TANG tight and combat-ready, expecting to see active service at any time? The President flew F-102s ... an intereceptor. These units, if activated, would never have gone to Vietnam. Remember, there was a very real cold war going on at this time. F-102s would likely have gone to Alaska, Europe, Korea and other spots around the globe. Not Vietnam. Emptywheel is on to something. James R. Bath is an extremely interesting person. Posted by: Frans at February 9, 2004 12:54 PM | PERMALINKUpthread a bit, Alan said - "Look at the discharge code on his DD214. an RE-R4 discharge code is an honorable discharge, but under no circumstances do they want you back in. Usually that means they caught you at something but for some reason could not (or would not) court martial you."
"The Armed Forces use Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) codes to categorize individuals for enlistment or reenlistment in the Armed Forces. RE codes in the '1' series indicate a person is eligible for immediate reenlistment or prior service enlistment, provided otherwise eligible. RE codes in the '2', '3' and '4' series restrict the individual from immediate reenlistment or prior service enlistment. You must receive a review and/or waiver of these RE codes before you are eligible to enlist again." Alan's right - they didn't want him back. There are many qualified prior service applicants who possess a '1' series RE code who will not be able to reenter the military due to specific needs of the service. (See article on Prior Service Enlistments). In most cases, a person with a "2" RE or "4" RE code is not allowed to enlist. Those with an RE Code of "3" may be allowed to enlist, with a waiver, if they can show that the reason for discharge no longer applies. Such waivers are granted through the individual services through military recruiters, not the DRB process. Posted by: andante at February 9, 2004 12:57 PM | PERMALINKLast paragraph should be in quotes, sorry. Posted by: andante at February 9, 2004 12:58 PM | PERMALINKLet me comment on some of the recent postings. I'm with you folks who question why he was allowed to wander around, making up drills as he liked and where he liked. Additionally, the drills recorded on the ARF summaries bear some scrutiny. It's a good deal when a general rolls Reservist can get his required points and not be attached to any particular unit with any particular job. That kind of thing is usually reserved for people in special situations - for instance, a senior grade Medical Service officer who has a specialty in chemical warfare training and goes around the country conducting highly specialized inspections and classes. I doubt that GWB had anything like those credentials. Nonetheless, let's be careful about what we're aiming at. These documents pretty clearly show that he wasn't AWOL. That he performed drills or was credited with having done so in a legit, if questionnable and spotty fashion. You're not going to make the AWOL or deserter charge stick, but you might be able to show that some of these drill were credited in a highly unusual fashion - maybe worse. Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 12:59 PM | PERMALINKThe F-102 was taken off front-line in 1970 (I expect that's why the Guard was flying them in the first place). IIRC Bush's TANG squadron became a training squadron for the F-102 soon/somewhat after. Posted by: Troy at February 9, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKI wouldn't jump to *any* conclusions based on the partial document at http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif. This is the last page of some document. What's the nature of the document? Many appear to assume that this is a disciplinary document, but I signed many a document in my 20 year Naval career that promised dire consequences if I failed to do something. Standard fodder. You're constantly told that something bad will happen to you if you don't do what you're told. Without knowing what was on the preceding pages, we've got no context for this partial document. Why are the earlier pages missing? There's no date on this document. was it from 1968? 1974? Who's hiding the facts here? There's no rank indicated for Bush. Not unheard of, but usually if hold a rank, it's reflected on *everything*. My suspicion is that this is the last page of an enlistment agreement, but I'd sure like to see the rest of the document. Everyone else here should want to see it, too. I wouldn't place too much importance in this without knowing more about it. It sounds like some folks have decided what happened, and now want to find evidence to support it, rather than discerning whatever truth they can from the evidence. As it stands, this document should be disregarded, at least until it's provided intact. Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKNeed to distinguish between these 2 questions: 1. Did Bush fulfill his military obligations? 2. Was he reassigned from the ANG to the ARF, which doc23.gif
specified would happen if his participation in the ANG was
unsatisfactory? Bush should be directly asked question #2. He must remember that, and he will have to tell the truth. Posted by: JS at February 9, 2004 01:07 PM | PERMALINKAnd this kerfuffle about what happened thirty years ago is
supposed to carry more weight than GW's proven record as a triumphant
leader in the war on terrorism waged since 9/11? If you're referring to your ludicrous characterization of GWB as
having a "proven record" of anything other than abject failure, then yes
- it is to laugh. The discussion above on the DD-214 is highly pertinent, but seems speculative. Is there a known copy of his DD-214 anywhere to view? Has anyone gotten one through an FOIA request? He was supposed to have deposited his copy of it with the county officials at his home town upon discharge, although that's rarely enforced or even known. For those of you unfamiliar with this, there is a LOT of interesting information about a service career contained in a DD214 and he had to have been given one Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 01:12 PM | PERMALINKWhat is the discharge code on his DD214? Has a link been posted to that document? Looking at the actual codes ( http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blcode-4.htm ) shows quite a wide range under RE-4. From hardship to civilian convictions and Art 15 unishment. Posted by: charlie at February 9, 2004 01:17 PM | PERMALINKI wasn't a hotshot flyer, but way back during the Korean War I served in the active duty Air Force as a radio repairman. After my mustering out following a hitch of nearly four years, the military gave me, along with my Honorable, a folder at least an inch thick called a records jacket, and it contained ALL my military records, including several letters of commendation, and I still have that jacket, and I plan to always have it. My question therefore is why all the mystery and detective work required about the military records of this presumably much more important man? Knowing that issue would come up during the MTP interview, why didn't he simply reach into his Oval Office desk, as I would've done, grab his jacket, and push it into Russert's face, saying, "There! In here you will find documents covering each and every thing that I ever did in the military, ad infinitum and even ad nauseum." You would think that as the Glorious Warrior, he's going to need this info anyway, to stock his Presidential Library, unless it will only cover events after September 11, 2001, the day he seems to think he was born. Bush reminds me of those bigamists who have multiple wives in different places, and after they're discovered, you wonder why no one, noting their absences and other things, bothered to check their stories. The same shrouds of mystery are draped over his past. For instance, as a friend suggested, is it really in the realm of belief that this unread man wrote his own papers in those Ivy League schools? Posted by: Sofarsogoo at February 9, 2004 01:18 PM | PERMALINKAs it stands, this document should be disregarded, at least until it's provided intact. whoah, hold on there pardner. You raise good caveats, and I for one don't find any of this evidence convincing, but evidence is evidence and should never be "disregarded" categorically, like you imply. Posted by: Troy at February 9, 2004 01:19 PM | PERMALINKAnon Your comment "And this kerfuffle about what happened thirty years ago is supposed to carry more weight than GW's proven record as a triumphant leader in the war on terrorism waged since 9/11? It is to laugh." It's no kerfuffle and it's no laughing matter. Presidents and Americans in general are often judged on their military service record - it reflects what a man will do when the chips are down. If GWB used his father's political influence to leapfrog other deserving candidates so that he could rest the war out comfortably in the Guard, and then continued using that influence to smooth over all his career bumps and hiccups then YES it is a huge illustration of the character of the man. In this case, and speaking as an active Infantry officer at exactly
the same time this occurred, I will tell you that anyone who would do
that is the lowest of the low, and far worse than anyone who opted to
stay in school, get married, or go to Canada to avoid an awful war. I think someone should ask Jeb where his brother was during this AWOL time ? Can you imagine the anwers ? Posted by: mjr at February 9, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINKAs I've posted before, if the White House wants to shut down the cottage industry that has developed around interpresting Bush's National Guard documents, they just need to authorize a complete release of his service records, and say that any gaps are just gaps. Nothing can be done about it. John Kerry's, Wes Clark's, and, for that matter, Al Gore's became completely public information. The fact that Bush hasn't suggests a) he resents being made to, for one reason or another b) if he let's researchers at the documents, unfettered, something might fall out that he would find embarrassing: some document, somewhere, perhaps one that he doesn't even know about, will illuminate a part of his past that he'd rather keep in the dark, perhaps merely because he's been pretending this embarrassment didn't exist for so long. It could have been minor, if it had been dealt with in 1999. Remember the youthful Maine drunk-driving conviction expunged from his records, but revealed in 2000? Hardly a big deal, this DUI, but he had some bad moments when it was brought up, since he'd never mentioned the arrest before. Posted by: Brian C.B. at February 9, 2004 01:24 PM | PERMALINKsome info from link found, above, in comments: http://elemming2.blogspot.com/2003_10_05_elemming2_archive.html "...After refusing to follow direct orders involving falsifying readiness reports, Burkett sought "whistleblower" status for reports involving anti-Semitic activity; personnel fraud; readiness fraud and the alteration of the personal military file of Governor George W. Bush. Lt. Col. Burkett is currently the plaintiff in his appeal to the US Supreme Court in the case of Burkett v. Goodwin, Taliaferro, Meador, et al, in regard to the retaliation against him following breaking the Bush records issue...." Posted by: J at February 9, 2004 01:25 PM | PERMALINKIt seems that doc21.gif settles the issue of the transfer from ANG to ARF, as Mike pointed out in this post: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003220.html#100002 Seems that it was not done for unsatisfactory participation in the ANG. The only questions that remain, IMO, have to do with possible favoritism. Hard to deal with those. Posted by: JS at February 9, 2004 01:25 PM | PERMALINKMy suspicion is that this is the last page of an enlistment agreement, but I'd sure like to see the rest of the document. Everyone else here should want to see it, too. Excellent point. Since the owner of the site where it was posted has commented on this post, perhaps he'd be willing to post it. Or at least explain why he has only posted the last page on his site. Here at the ARPC Fact Sheet it talks about two ways for someone in the reserves to be reactivated -- voluntary and involuntary. Involuntary activation requires that you be up and ready to ship out within 24 hours notice. Now how or why would someone be under an involuntary reactivation? Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINKOkay, y'all got me, I'm resigning tomorrow. Hey Laura! pack my boots and shotgun . . . we're going back to the ranch! BTW, Dick's in charge . . . good luck! --W Posted by: POTUS at February 9, 2004 01:32 PM | PERMALINKFor the record, the posted by charlie at February 9, 2004 01:17 PM was not by me, Charlie in California, a leading member of the VRWC ; ) Sofarsogoo: "My question therefore is why all the mystery and detective work required about the military records of this presumably much more important man?" I've posted some possible reasons - I bet one or two of those would be the exact reasons YOU would not turn over that service record to me if I asked. retired LTC: "In this case, and speaking as an active Infantry officer at exactly the same time this occurred, I will tell you that anyone who would do that is the lowest of the low, and far worse than anyone who opted to stay in school, get married, or go to Canada to avoid an awful war." As a civilian, I would agree with all of that except the "go to Canada" (or Oxford) part. Luckily, there's an explanation for how and why GWB changed his life for the better after all of this. Thanks for your input. Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 01:36 PM | PERMALINKI'm looking at a copy of DD214 as we comment. Where are the RE codes listed? I can't find it. Also, I did notice item 20, "member request copy 6 be sent to CA Dir of Vet Affairs." Perhaps, Bush's went to TX Dir of Vet Affairs. Posted by: nakadie at February 9, 2004 01:40 PM | PERMALINKBrian C.B.: "As I've posted before, if the White House wants to shut down the cottage industry that has developed around interpresting Bush's National Guard documents, they just need to authorize a complete release of his service records, and say that any gaps are just gaps. Nothing can be done about it." As I've posted before, you've seen my possible reasons, right? "John Kerry's, Wes Clark's, and, for that matter, Al Gore's became completely public information." Not true - Kerry won't release his medical records upon which his Purple Heart was awarded. As for Clark's - if he get's the nomination (which I doubt) then I'll check to see if anything's not being released. Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 01:41 PM | PERMALINKJust to clarify my earlier post, I'm looking at MY dd214. Posted by: Nakadie at February 9, 2004 01:41 PM | PERMALINKStrange, on one monitor the first set of dates looks like oct 28-25 on my other it looks like 28-29. Guess one of them needs adjustment. The Honorable Discharge b.s. is funny because you really have to work at it to get anything else. You can do a few years of prison with good behavior and still get at worst, a General. Posted by: sac666 at February 9, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINKNakadie The RE codes or 'spin' codes as they were called, were discontinued in, I think, about 1975 or so. Also not all DD214's from the time they were in use have them because there may have been no particular reason to appended them or, more likely, some AG type just didn't feel like doing it. My DD214's and NG equivalent don't have any codes either. Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 01:49 PM | PERMALINKI served as a company clerk in the Georgia Army National Guard, so I have some insight on how failure to attend drill is handled administratively. 1) The Air Reserve Force is the equivalent of the Army's Inactive Reserves, which handles the rejects of both the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. Thus, ARF will have airmen dumped in from both the Air Force Reserve (Federal) and the Air National Guard (State). Like ARF, the Inactive Reserve is a pool of soldiers not assigned to any organized unit of the Army Reserve or the National Guard, and transfer to to is considered to be disadvantageous because these soldiers can be ordered to active duty at any time. The same can be said of ARF. 2) The Georgia Army National Guard unit I was with handled AWOL cases at drill in a pretty lax fashion. The CO could swear out a warrant and have the AWOL soldier arrested by the sheriff of the soldier's home county and delivered to the armory, but this was not done in my unit while I was there. Instead, a soldier's absences were tallied, and if he exceeded a certain number (I forget at this point how many), then he was transferred to the Inactive Reserve without any judicial procedure at all. It was purely administrative, and the soldier would be notified by mail after the fact that he was in the Inactive Reserve, that he was responsible for maintaining a TA-50 (rucksack and personal field equipment) set, and that he was subject to being called to active duty at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army. I am quite certain that this is what happened to Bush when he was transferred to ARF. 3) With regard to the Air National Guard, one thing that must be remembered is that it is part of the National Guard of a state, and at the state level level it is co-administered with the Army National Guard by the state's department of defense, or its equivalent. Thus, the National Guard is a hybrid service with both Air Force and Army components in which members of the Army can transfer to the Air Force, and vice versa, without having to be discharged and then re-enlist. 4) With regard to the DD-214, a National Guardsman's DD-214 will only include his basic training and MOS training, which are conducted on the Federal dime and as such are considered genuine active duty time. The National Guard has its own discharge and service record form, the National Guard Form 22. To determine Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard, his National Guard service record must be used, because the Federal document will not be genuinely indicative of anything beyond flight school. I hope this gives some administrative insight on inattendance of drills. Posted by: John Deterick at February 9, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINK"nic" wrote: The point to make about the differences in the two documents is that they are not just in the typed-in part (the "H" -> "M", the base of the "1"s) but in the printed form itself. Look at the kerning on "FROM DATE" and "TO DATE" on the torn copy - it's elegant and even, as expected in a printed form that predates desktop publishing. Now look at the new copy. The D-A and especially the A-T letter pairs are unkerned, as if each letter were stuck in its own little inviolable rectangle of white space. Look similarly at the P-A and A-G pairs in "PAGE" at the upper right. Again, the torn copy is well-kerned but the new copy is clumsily open-spaced. So, these aren't even two copies of the form printed out contemporaneously in one office. Either the new one was printed out elsewhere or later, after forms had for some reason been recreated and reprinted - or it's a crude forgery. -------------------------------------- I have examined both images a bit, and feel that nic's assessment is completely wrong. Here's my analysis: First off, we're looking at GIF images...8 bit greyscale images of two FAXES. Various fax machines have various differences in transmission and print quality. Most, if not all, of the "discrepancies" I see are directly attributable to the electronic transmission process, not to actual differences in the original documents. As far as the ID "L7CMPY vs. L9CHPY" number discrepancy...there is NO "7" in that number...they are both nines. A numeral seven glyph in that font has a left-facing bow in the down stroke, the nine has a right-facing bow. Also, the numeral 7 glyph does not have a 'cross', it is not a 'european' seven. So the glyph that is being interpreted as a "7" is indeed a nine, with the downsweep of the bowl missing...most likely obliterated by the faxing. The "M" vs. "H" discrepancy is attributable to the fax bit-mapping, and also because the 'torn' copy has been hand-inked. This hand over-stroking is visible in the initial "L" and "9" as well. I lean toward calling it an "M", as it is on the untorn copy...on the untorn copy there are 8 "M"s, in the dates, that were struck at the same time as the "M" in the ID code, all of which show a large degree of variance, mostly attributable to the fax resolution. The kerning on the pre-printed lettering at the head of the form is virtually identical on both copies, the variance we see here is absolutely attributable to the varying fax resolution and the rasterization to a GIF image. Overlaying them one-on-the-other shows identical spacing. As far as "elegant, even spacing..." well, this IS a government form. This is unkerned. unfortunately a FAR CRY from elegant. If this was printed in 1972 or earlier, then it is was almost certainly typset on a linotype machine (hot lead), and you wouldn't find 12 pt. kerned type being set by Govt. printing office forms typographers!!!! In summary, my analysis of the GIF IMAGES presented here are that they are one-and-the-same document, having gone through two different fax transmission processes, two different GIF transformations, one of which has been hand-modified with pencil or pen. Without seeing the original documents, there is nothing to the differences here that cannot be explained adequately by my analysis. The code in the upper right is "L9CMPY", on both documents. david Posted by: david at February 9, 2004 01:57 PM | PERMALINKGreat stuff, John Deterick. Do you have a cite to some back-up for paragraph 1) re the ARF? I do
not doubt what you are saying, but it would be great to see it
corroborated. David - from one designer and type aficionado to another, MWAH! :) Posted by: Helical at February 9, 2004 02:07 PM | PERMALINKjust a bit of followup to my last post...it does look like these are two different printouts of the same document...there's a slight vertical registration difference between the two. So one is not a photo copy of the other, rather they are two originals of the same doc. The difference in the redacted SSN bears this up, too. Its interesting though, that the upper right corner of both copies is weak...weak enough that the caretaker of the 'torn' doc felt the need to trace over the code number in pencil. david Posted by: david at February 9, 2004 02:07 PM | PERMALINKJohn Deterick, Thanks for jarring my memory. You are exactly right. The document that would be the most interesting to see is the NG Form 22. Has anyone a lead on a copy of either his DD214 or his NG Form 22? John, wouldn't he have received another DD214 once he was discharged from the last two years in the Reserve? Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 02:10 PM | PERMALINKBARF does indeed seem to be the term that needs to bounce around the echo chamber. (credit due to somebody who commented above) BARF BARF BARF First - a "thank you" to all the veterans who have contributed so much to the discussion, and thank you for your service to the country. You have my uttermost respect. Has anyone attempted to put together a "timeline for dummies" on all the known & proven facts, such as they are? Posted by: andante at February 9, 2004 02:12 PM | PERMALINKWhat I like the most about Kevin's latest disclosure of new data is how it helps inform and extend the ongoing discussion and debate. How you respond initially to this new data is the extent of your preconceptions, your prior information on the matter, your personal involvement - essentially your stake in the matter. Are you looking for information to undermine George W. Bush as president? If so, and you initially determine this latest disclosure as important, because it seemingly shows Bush lied, what happens if after further analysis there is an explanation that support Bush's case? Is this information still as important, or will it be discarded and the search begun again for information that does support your preconception. This is like the whole Iraqi intelligence scandal reoriented towards those politically opposed to Bush. After having read through the whole thread, I've come to the conclusion that there is no conclusion yet to be drawn from this latest disclosure. I'm sure in the hours ahead the fruits of this discussion and others like it will shed light on the matter. In the meantime, I'd like to remind everyone that there is plenty of evidence of certain veracity in the public realm that undermines Bush's bid for reelection. Posted by: jimm at February 9, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINK(yes, I realize that emphasizing the term BARF is grossly childish in light of all things verteran, but it is a catchy soundbite). Posted by: TUG at February 9, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINKBush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills -- in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job. Yes...but he performed his paper-unit, no-show duties in an honorable way. If you don't trust me....just ask your favorite republican troll. See : http://www.tpub.com/content/advancement/14325/css/14325_34.htm for explanation of discharge from active duty DD-214 codes Posted by: poster at February 9, 2004 02:27 PM | PERMALINKStraight, Let me try to set this on course. The records revealed today show that he DID perform drills during the period OCT '72 through JUL '73 - or, at a minimum, that he was officially credited by someone for having done so. That's the real issue here. What were the nature of those unusual credits? What work did he do to receive drill point credit? Who authorized, supervised, and ultimately signed off that the drills were performed? All that is a much harder set of questions to answer, but ones that might reveal the reason that this guy is so coy about discussing these things. You can say over and over again, and in bold type, that he didn't perform any drills BUT the record as revealed here shows otherwise. Anyone during the upcoming campaign that holds your position is going to end up with egg on their face when these specific records come to light. Let the AWOL/deserter thing go. The dirty truth lies elsewhere. Let's find it Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 02:30 PM | PERMALINKRetired LTC: John Deterick above seems to disagree with you on this matter. Which one of you is right? Posted by: WhoKnowsThere at February 9, 2004 02:34 PM | PERMALINKKevin, How come you are not doing any story on JFK throwing his ribbons (and not his medals) and medals of other veterans at the protest after his return from tour? Furthermore, what kind of sick GI would photograph himself (or herself) as a way to do PR for a future run. (PS: A WashPost story about his music album had a band-mate quoting that JFK wanted to be a president. Also, this JFK wanted to "get girls" and so formed a band.) Be an independent analysis. Get JFK. Expose JFK. High Noon JFK. JFK: An opportunistic, unaccomplished, marrying, botox-special interests senator. Go for it. GO DEAN! AKB Posted by: Ali Karim Bey at February 9, 2004 02:36 PM | PERMALINKbut evidence is evidence and should never be "disregarded" categorically, like you imply. As it stands (incomplete), it means nothing. There's absolutely zero indication of why those two paragraphs are used. They certainly bear no resemblance to any disciplinary document I saw while in the military, while they do resemble the contents of various other administrative (read: neutral) documents, such as security clearances, enlistment/reenlistment, etc. Have you ever seen any of those soundbites that TV programs such as Saturday Night Live make by splicing together unrelated words and phrases of prominent politicians, to make them appear to say something ridiculous? This isn't far removed from that. Without seeing more of the document, you can't draw any conclusions on this fragment. IMHO, of course. Look at some facts: WhoKnowsThere I'm not aware of any disagreement between what John has written and my stuff - except that he was right about the difference bewteen a DD214 and a NG Form 22 which I acknowledged. John has pointed out what the usual procedure is when a Guardsman moves to the Reserve and some (but only some) of the reasons that might occur. The important point that John illustrates is that most people in these circumstances would have been treated one way and GWB was treated in a very different one. That may be the heart of the issue Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 02:43 PM | PERMALINKRetired LTC: I may be stupid, but I thought that John wrote that
transfer to the reserves was quite common for guardsmen who went AWOL.
That his unit did it frequently. Which is what Calpundit thinks may
have happened with Bush. The Monkey agrees (mostly) with Retired LTC. The full release of Bush's records is probably being held in reserve by Karl Rove until a document dump can be done later in the campaign. They are just waiting, hoping that the Democratic candidate works themselves into a lather about this, and get overconfident. Then, release the records, and Kerry (should he be the nominee) will have serious egg on his face. The Democrats should just keep pressing for the release of the records, but not take any definitive stand on whether or not he was a deserter or AWOL, or whatever. Just keep asking for the records, wondering why Bush won't release them. It should have been simple for Russert to ascertain whether or not Bush served in Alabama. Here's a few questions he should have asked: What base did you serve on?
Also, his tax returns from that year will show whether or not he got paid, by whom, and where. That is also very interesting, as is the John Barth (sp?) story of his friend getting discharged from the same TANG unit as W. There's a story there, IMO. Posted by: Monkey at February 9, 2004 02:48 PM | PERMALINKI had the Statement of Understanding that someone asked for upthread. Page 1 of Statement of Understanding. Page 2 same as doc 23 posted earlier. Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 9, 2004 02:48 PM | PERMALINKI forget who wrote this comment but I would like to reply. "President Bush requested transfer to ORS, ...because he knew he would be participating in the political campaign there." I think you mean he hoped to get permission to be away from his base long enough to participate. It was not his right to go off to Alabama and not return for months.
Again how could he know. He requested transfer to a base with no planes, but his request was denied on the grounds that it had no planes. He was not allowed to stop flying. He was required to take the physical. It was not his call. "The "suspension" you speak of was simply the suspension of flight status for not having a current physical. It is not disciplinary and it is not predjudicial. All of you who are asserting otherwise obviously don't know what you are talking about." The suspension was the result of direct disobediance of an order and
is clearly disciplinary and predjudicial. Bush had asked to be
transferred away from airplanes and his request had been rejected. This
means he was required to continue to fly. He was not grounded because
he wanted to be (he asked and was refused). He was grounded because he
did not do that which he was clearly obliged to do. If that is not
disciplinary what is ? WhoKnowsThere John is correct. Guardsmen that failed to perform their required duties were often sent to the Reserves. From there they could be put on active duty, or ultimately court-martialed or less than honorably discharged. On the other hand, many Guardsmen went to the Reserves for perfectly benign reasons like their unit was deactivated or they failed a flight physical, or thie unit was over strength. Now GWB may have been being punished, or he may just have been sent out of someone's hair. The military is a master at transferring rather than solving it's problems, and GWB's connections MAY have insured that he was quietly sent away. The most interesting question is why he was able to continue amassing drill points toward good years after he went to the Reserve. Look at my earlier posts, but that is a very unusual circumstance. Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 02:54 PM | PERMALINKMy stab at a Grand Unified Tinfoil-Hat Conspiracy Theory that ties AWOL, the Iraq Intelligence debacle, and Valerie Plame together: Did anybody notice how Dubya, completely unsolicited and in something of a non-sequitur on MTP yesterday, told Russert that he still "has complete faith in George Tenet's leadership of the CIA"? And we've all been wondering, amid the war between the White House and the CIA over intelligence, and Tenet's very public refusals to play along with the preferred WH narrative on Iraq, why Tenet (a holdover from Clinton) still has a job.Surely, amid all the shit that's flying around, Bush would have demanded Tenet's head on a platter to appease his critics by now. And there's been speculation that the Plame-leak thing was a CIA brushback to let the WH know that the CIA wouldn't be afraid to play hardball. So my theory is that Tenet is still there, and will remain there as long as he wants, because he has some serious dirt on Dubya, including, perhaps, the real story behind the AWOL thing (I like the intriguing stuff above hinting at some youthful indiscretions, resulting in disciplinary measures, with James Bath). He has Dubya by the short hairs, Dubya knows it, and Dubya remains president at Tenet's sufferance. I love conspiracy theories. They make the world make sense. Posted by: Pierre Menard at February 9, 2004 02:55 PM | PERMALINKMonkey has exactly hit the nail on the head. Everything that I've discovered today and commented on has one main point. Opponents have to be VERY careful about the AWOL/Deserter accusation. It can be shown to be unsubstantiated now. Anyone who makes that accusation may walk into a cleverly designed trap. When they've been thoroughly pummeled and humiliated, all the rest of the questionable GWB service issues will be thrown out as well. Monkey's right. Just keep asking for all the records. Keep asking him those pertinent questions. There's a pony in this pile of manure somewhere Posted by: retired LTC at February 9, 2004 03:00 PM | PERMALINKRetired LTC: This guy got free training on military aircraft and hardly did anything in return for that privilege. How many young Americans would give their right arm for that deal. Besides, has he even piloted a plane after being dis "honorably discharged?" Posted by: Johnny Cho at February 9, 2004 03:16 PM | PERMALINKThe fact that this paper exist is no surprise. When a NG reservists moves from one state to another for whatever reason they have some time to make that change. During that time they will be in a inactive reserve unit. I believe they can take up to 90 days to make that change. A Reservist will also be placed in such a unit for non attendance, Or for disciplinary action, A Reservist can also be placed in such a unit for non attendance, or for disciplinary action, compassion or heath reasons Most likely there are more reasons. What surprises me about the paper are the points received. Here is how it breaks out today. FACT SHEET The program most familiar to Guard and Reserve members One point per training period of four hours. In this case it would look like 1st LT George Bush was actively training. To my knowlege there is no evidence to support this. What this most likely reflects is an attempt to fool the system into thinking that he was doing some training so that he would not be snatched up onto active duty.
1.) He clearly could of volunteered for this duty he wanted to. The people who were called draft dodgers during the Vietnam War did
the above. They mostly were born with silver spoons in there mouths and
could get deferments at will so long as they were in school, the peace
corps, NG, etc, etc, etc. These elitist where all to happy to send
someone else's less fortunate son to die in their place and then vote
for war.
As you good readers are probably the real targets of AlQueda (sic) who wish to destroy America, because you represent those who enjoy the best of our way of living. Additionally, this status also places you in the societal strata where those on the lower rung seek to emulate, but many of these same people would rather take your lives and what you have. So you're under a double barrel target from those here and those (without)who would join those here. G.W. Bush is doing more (for you) than you know of keeping those groups from joining forces. It was under Clinton that those beasts were let in the door. Posted by: Jaimie at February 9, 2004 03:35 PM | PERMALINKRe the demand that Bush disclose his service records: Why would Bush
have his own records? I was in the Navy for six years and don't have
anything more to show for it than my Honorable Discharge certificate and
DD-214. Any suggestion for the president to be nominated for upcoming Bollywood award? Posted by: Abg Long at February 9, 2004 03:38 PM | PERMALINK"And this kerfuffle about what happened thirty years ago is supposed to carry more weight than GW's proven record as a triumphant leader in the war on terrorism waged since 9/11?" Triumphant leader in the war on terrorism? In what sense, exactly? I enjoy the fact that the debated unit-designation serial numbers on both documents spell out: CH/MPY. Clearly Dubya's code name. Seems significant enough for me. Posted by: Pierre menard at February 9, 2004 03:57 PM | PERMALINKCan someone tell me if he has piloted a plane since being trained to fly one in the National Guard? Not only did he avoid fighting in Vietnam but he gets to become a pilot like his dad? I can't imagine anything more patriotic and more macho than flying a fighter jet. I read somewhere that it costs a million bucks to train a new pilot. That money went down the drain in George Bush's case. Instead of getting high in an airplane, he preferred to do so otherwise. Posted by: Johnny Cho at February 9, 2004 04:24 PM | PERMALINKI'd like to pose this question. Is it possible that the reason Bush
was "suspended from flying status" in 1972 for failing to "show up for
annual (flight) physical is he knew he couldn't pass a flight physical
because he was using illegal drugs? Thanks Aaaargh: I sense the frustration in your post - could some of that be from secretly knowing the outcome of November's election? "Triumphant leader in the war on terrorism? In what sense, exactly? Has he caught Osama bin Laden?" Patience, young grasshopper. I guarantee that bin Ladin will be "found" before the election. "No, but he has overthrown the government of a nation that posed no threat to anyone and was not working with Al Qaeda." That's your (I assume uniformed by classified information) opinion. "Has he brought Al Qaeda to its knees? Yes - he has (or, please tell me where in the U.S. al Qaeda struck since 9-11 and whether you thought back then we'd avoid such an attack for almost 30 months now). ". . . but he has subpoenaed American antiwar protesters to face a grand jury, for undisclosed charges, and without the ability to have an attorney." Sorry, I can't comment on, or even confirm the existence of, any such grand jury proceedings. "Has he built strong relationships with allies?" Just the ones in our international coalition - you heard Japan sent troops into Iraq, right? "Has he done anything constructive?" Sure he has. You need a list? "Like everything else George W Bullshit touches, the country is spiralling into bankruptcy." Gevernment deficit spending (especially furing war) is NOT bankruptcy. In fact, it got us out of the Great Depression once before . . . "I'm so relieved that we have a "business leader" in the White House." Finally - something we can agree on : ) Johnny Cho: "Can someone tell me if he has piloted a plane since being trained to fly one in the National Guard?" Officially, no - following advice from the United States Secret Service, he did not pilot a plane on May 1, 2003 : ) Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINKThe ARF is a fake! Oh, wait. That explanation is no longer operational. But Kevin has a new and wild explanation this week. Notice, everyone, how any inconsistency in the documents must be construed against Bush. If one document says Bush served, and another says he didn't, then we know Bush didn't , and the only question is who faked the document which says he did. Really amazing stuff... Posted by: Thomas at February 9, 2004 04:35 PM | PERMALINKI can already see the ad now... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I say that Clinton and Bush are almost even. It was common to blow off drill and be sent to the ARF?? where one might be called to active duty. Clinton did inhale and probably so did Bush. All this is mostly a commentary on the hypocracy and stupidity of our culture. Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2004 04:54 PM | PERMALINKI looked up Bush's draft number...born July 6 and he was "lucky" in that it was a 326 or thereabouts...however, he "enlisted" in the Guard BEFORE he ever knew this...the lottery was a tad late for him. Posted by: Richard at February 9, 2004 05:03 PM | PERMALINKThis is from the President of the United States. The man who visions the United States of America as the protector of freedom. Bush said. "He could have developed a nuclear weapon over time — I'm not saying immediately, but over time. ... We would have been in a position of blackmail. In other words, you can't rely upon a madman." So this is an imminent threat? Or is this a pre-emptive pre-emptive strike? No, that's not a mistype. "over time"??? So the ONLY solution was to wage war IMMEDIATELY??? Perhaps over time the UN inspectors may have found exactly what the ISG has found. Oh...wait...what have they found? Posted by: Poz at February 9, 2004 05:05 PM | PERMALINKFor the person who thinks that ARF stands for Army Reserve Forces it actually stands for Air Reseve Forces. The Air Reserve Personnel Center is located in Denver, CO. Since I was a member of the Army Guard during that time frame here is what I know. If an enlisted person missed a drill weekend during the Viet Nam era, they were activated (placed on Active Duty)within a couple of months. Points are not earn while a member of ARF other than membership points which just means you were a member of the military you got them no matter what. The reason there are no entries the last two years with the Texas unit is because once transfered to ARF the unit no longer has the individual assigned to them. It would be interesting to see if there was discharge certificate from ARF after the two years. If you would like more information on this issue visit awolbush.com. It has a lot of interesting information not only about President Bush but also other key personnel in this administration pertaining to military service.
As I've posted before, you've seen my possible reasons, right? As I recall, the seemed to focus on "maybe he thinks its none of our damned business." Bush, the victim of a prying public, should be spared such inquiry. Fair enough. Like I said when you brought it up, he declares himself no longer a candidate for re-election, and I'll stop asking. But as long as he's playing naval aviator on American aircraft carriers, as long as his response to guerilla attacks on American GIs in Iraq is to spout "Bring 'em on!" while standing 2400 miles from Baghdad, we're gonna ask about his military career. He doesn't want the public job, he doesn't have to answer questions from the public. As far as Kerry's third Purple Heart, this is rapidly becoming the right-wing meme: He wasn't wounded badly enough to be rotated out of combat on request after three wounds, with the medical records a red herring. Funny, but members of his Swift boat crews are campaigning for him. Don't seem to resent his getting stateside. (Members of Clark's infantry company are campaigning for Clark, too.) Members of Bush's National Guard unit in Alabama can't remember him, at all, even to cash in a reward. The new meme ignores that Bush used his family influence to to stay out of Vietnam, preferring that the issue be whether the third battle wound received by a man who volunteered for combat, won two other Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and Bronze Star (V), a man who is by all accounts a one who literally got his hands bloody on more than one occaision, was sufficiently deadly to request transfer out of 'nam. This is the best Bush 2004 and its minions got? At least Al occaisionally posts something of substance. Keep working this argument. It'll go far.
One quickie - obviously, both "CHPY" and "CMPY" stand for "Chimpy," so it hardly matters which is correct. Wasn't that obvious? Posted by: Lars at February 9, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKit's actually L9CHPY, "laughing chimpy", or more accurately, "smirking chimpy". Posted by: ch2 at February 9, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKThis whole AWOL matter, as it currently stands, is based on lack of knowledge and/or misinterpretation. I am unable to crystalball the motives or basis for this effort to unfairly destroy this man's character with half trues and lies. There are areas in his policies that warrant criticism. To claim that "Bush was warned" by quoting part of the "sign-up" contract (signed in 1967 or 1968 not after transferring to Alabama in 1972 or 1973), is to ignore that every person entering the National Guard is warned of the consequences of misconduct. At the sametime, Bush refused to accept voluntary foreign assignment. Most folks that joined the National Guard did so to satisfy military service requirements without disrupting their stateside lives or risking their lives in war (The exceptions are people that become fighter pilots. Only those with the "right stuff" survive.). Only those that voluntarily went to Vietnam can afford to make in other judgement. Most would not accept a voluntary assignment. This did not mean that, if his unit was ordered to foreign assignment, he would not be required to go. Furthermore, there is no explanation of why he missed his physical. A major also missed his physical and was grounded for the same reason. What evidence is there that either of these pilots blew off their physicals. Finally, in a performance review, it was stated that some activity was "not observed." This is miltaryease of the reviewing officer that the answer to that performance question was not observed. In other words, if the question had to do with supervisory performance and the reviewee was not a supervisor, the reviewing officer would state, "not observed." So if Bush was in Alabama at the time of the performance review in Texas, his Texas performance review would read "not observed." It means no more than that. For those that are going to commit character assinations, how about doing it intelligently. What mostly appears at this site, is evidence that lots of children were left behind. Posted by: Mallory May at February 9, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKWell Brian C.B. - thanks for confirming that Kerry will not release his FULL Military Records either. As for the rest - if you have a specific question of us minions, be my guest. I'm wondering though, if it were Bill Clinton instead who played naval aviator on American aircraft carriers, responded to guerilla attacks on American GIs in Iraq is to spout "Bring 'em on!" while standing 2400 miles from Baghdad, everything EXACTLY as GWB did - would you be as critical? You certainly wouldn't be asking about Clinton's military career, right? Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINKI must have missed it, forgive me for not paying close enough attention. Where is the documentation of disciplinary action against Bush? Or is this supposition based on his reassignment from TANG to ARF? Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 05:27 PM | PERMALINKFor what its worth the "L9CMPY" is a Geographic Location Code. GEOLOC in military parlance. It indicates the unit and location of that unit. Should be easy to look up. Posted by: James at February 9, 2004 05:28 PM | PERMALINKI agree with retired LTC. The Desertion and AWOL issues are mute because George W Bush did get a honorable discharge. Although this is talking about ancient history now, in 1968 the military was hard up for bodies and I was drafted out of graduate school. In 1971 I got an early out from the Army to return to school because of Nixon’s Vietnam troop withdraw they didn’t need more cannon fodder. All the military needed in 1972 were B-52 and Phantom pilots. If he pulled his failure to take flight physical in 1968, his ass would have been shipped to Vietnam. In 1972 no one gave a damn. George W Bush reneged on two years of his six year obligation to be an F-102 pilot. Likely due to random drug testing that started in 1972. Hardly the image of character and strength of a War President that Karl Rove is going to propagate. Posted by: Jim S at February 9, 2004 05:32 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone commented on the fact that GHW Bush was Ambassador to the United Nations at this time? And Nixon was the President. Do you think it's possible the administration would have wanted to avoid the embarassment of having a cabinet member's son court martialed for going AWOL? Not that the Nixon administration wasn't completely ethical in every regard. Posted by: Willoughby at February 9, 2004 05:33 PM | PERMALINKUSAF-MEDIC or others, Thanks Great job Kevin! Posted by: Jeremy at February 9, 2004 05:34 PM | PERMALINKThe sequence of different assignments is confusing, especially since
someone said that the reserves are AFR and ARF=AFR+ANG. Did he go from
TexasANG to Alabama to TexasANG (when he returned he was disciplined for
not taking physical and immediately reassigned) to "detention" to
discharge? or My question is, assuming he was done in Texas after May 72 and was
either in Alabama and/or detention thereafter, has he ever said that
after Alabama he served in the ANG or finished off his service in the
ANG? I think that unless something terrible happens before election, the only way to beat him, his lies and his $$$ is to make sure America sees him for the phony, deceitful, misleading, bait and switch politician that he is. He may not be the most well read person but he is very shrewd and not at all the nice guy he has conned the media into portraying him as. His admin has taken political deception to a new level, mastering the ability to make people think they are actually doing the opposite of the impression their words leave. I think his credibility is starting to be quesitoned but the American people need to see that he cannot be believed on anything. Then when he runs his ads people will question their veracity and that will neutralize their effectiveness. Posted by: GordonShumway at February 9, 2004 05:35 PM | PERMALINK there is a simple question to ask bush, "Name one human being you served with in Alabama?" Think about it, he is a celebrity, the President and no one says they
served with him, it defies common sense, yet the right wing (as usual)
manages to get the story to be about anything other than common sense
analysis and the guy who gets his paycheck from General Electric cannot
ask an obvious question, "Mr. President, why is there not one person who
can vouch for your story by saying he or she served with you during the
time in question?" We do not need stories about torn documents,we just need one obvious question. "Name one person you served with in Alabama?" Posted by: vince at February 9, 2004 05:35 PM | PERMALINK"For those that are going to commit character assinations, how about doing it intelligently. What mostly appears at this site, is evidence that lots of children were left behind." Indicting Bush again. GRYN Rember that a head job is not having sex according the last dem pres. Posted by: dan at February 9, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKIn reviewing some old GWB speeches, I found this one: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/02/20010214-2.html "In 1968, July of '68, I was stationed in Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hooah. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: You don't sound old enough to have been there. (Laughter.) But today when I got off the airplane, Master Sergeant David Eshbaugh, from West Virginia, was there to greet me. He and I shared the same dorm in Lackland Air Force Base, Texas." THERE YOU GO - go track that guy down - maybe he needs the reward money! Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 05:40 PM | PERMALINKaccounts say 300 hrs. logged in f102s, without specifying rt. or lt. seat in the training model, or solo in combat model. i,m sure he must have trained in more primitive trainers also. it'd be nice to break it down in his log book as most pilots are proud to do to demonstrate skill progression. no question he was wasting tax $ so as to build a faux honcho resume'. had he taken his piss test he might have gone to ft. leavenworth rather than the white house. i'm an independent, split ticket voter who believes in constitutional checks & balances. the executive branch is out of control & in a tailspin with an incompetent pilot @ the controls in case anyone's noticed. Posted by: jim bob at February 9, 2004 05:47 PM | PERMALINKAli, don't be silly. We love "JFK" (sic) here. So, why should we examine him? This is not deanforamerica.com. Go there and talk about your man Dean. PH Posted by: Patrick H at February 9, 2004 05:48 PM | PERMALINKBut today when I got off the airplane, Master Sergeant David Eshbaugh, from West Virginia, was there to greet me. He and I shared the same dorm in Lackland Air Force Base, Texas But Charlie, that was in 1968. Everyone's wondering about 1972. I'm still wondering about the source for any disciplinary action, as opposed to connecting some supposed dots that may or may not have led to disciplinary action. Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 05:54 PM | PERMALINKIt's interesting after looking at a majority of the comments on Bush's Guard service, I cannot find anyone who admits to having actually served in the guard on this blog. Why would that be? Posted by: b grubb at February 9, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKGreat work,has this been distributed to mainstream press or Dems? This shows the guy as a liar and hypocypt. Landing on an aircraft carrier, 'Mission Accomplished'. Then blaming the banner on the crew, what a whuss. Posted by: Pete at February 9, 2004 06:06 PM | PERMALINKAaaargh asked above: "Has [GWB] done anything constructive?" While I assume most of this does not qualify as "constructive" to most liberals, here is a quick recap IMO (and in chronological order to the best of my memory - which is not all it's cracked up to be since some here would say I don't think at all): Restoration of the Mexico City policy. Announces Faith Based Initiative. Christening for the USS Ronald Reagan. Decision that ABA will not be given the identity of any judicial nominee before the nomination is submitted to the Senate and announced to the public. Opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Tax Cut # 1 (including repeal of the Death tax). Embryonic Stem-Cell Decision. Withdraw from the International Criminal Court and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. (obviously) Every Front of the War of Terrorism so far - bringing Democracy to the Middle East as an actual solution to the problems. National Sanctity of Human Life Day Issues National Security Strategy (putting all terrorist countries including Iraq the U.S. will not stand by any longer and wait for you to plot our demise). Tax Cut # 2. Signed Partial Birth Abortion ban. Medicare Reform. Appointed Charles Pickering to 5th Circuit. America's Economy Continues to Grow, 112,000 New Jobs in January 2004. (On the down side - he did sign the so-called Campaign Finance Reform bill into law hoping that it would be struck down by the SCOTUS - this was a far worse attack on the 1st Amendment than anything imagined by the Patriot Acts : ( Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 06:11 PM | PERMALINKNavy retiree: "But Charlie, that was in 1968. Everyone's wondering about 1972." Well, you got to start somewhere - I'll keep posting names as I find them of those who served with GWB in the honorable National Guard. "I'm still wondering about the source for any disciplinary action, as opposed to connecting some supposed dots that may or may not have led to disciplinary action." I doubt you'll find that. I think that retired LTC's explanation best fits the facts as we know them now. Posted by: Charlie at February 9, 2004 06:14 PM | PERMALINKI cannot find anyone who admits to having actually served in the guard on this blog. Why would that be? Hmm...I can't recall anyone saying they served in the ANG, but at least one poster said he served in the National Guard. Lessee...Steve said he is currently in the National Guard. setzman also said he was in the Guard. I won't bother looking for more. You can look under that rock all you want, but I don't think you'll find anything. Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 06:16 PM | PERMALINKNavy Retiree, he failed to show up for a physical exam. That was the reason for the disciplinary action. Supporting documents have been posted on here as well. Posted by: Dutch at February 9, 2004 06:17 PM | PERMALINKMy links for the I had the Statement of Understanding upthread were bad. http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/23.jpg http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/23b.jpg Posted by: Martin Heldt at February 9, 2004 06:26 PM | PERMALINKOur resident clown, Charlie, wrote: " would you be as critical?" Yup. You obviously weren't reading left-wing political forums during Clinton's presidency. "You certainly wouldn't be asking about Clinton's military career, right?" And again, yup. You might want to check your facts before you embarrass yourself again. That's what I'm saying, Dutch. None of the documents posted or linked here say 1Lt Bush was being disciplined for anything, including "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." It seems like some folks are connecting Bush's suspension from flight duties and not getting his flight physical to disciplinary action, but there's no posted or linked document which addresses any disciplinary action against 1Lt Bush, including missing his physical. That's what I'd like to see. Everything else seems to me like seeing shapes from the stars in the night sky. If anyone's going to push this into a smoking gun, more solid documentary or testimonial evidence is going to be necessary. Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 06:33 PM | PERMALINKAha! Thank you, Martin. So the supposed disciplinary statement is the second page of a "Statement of Understanding," which appears to be an attachment to his enlistment contract in 1968. Absotively no connection to any disciplinary action whatsoever. These FOIA documents are starting to sound like a dry hole. Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 06:37 PM | PERMALINKFISH ON!... Baby! ....You got a Big ONE! .....Great Job. Posted by: Point1Man at February 9, 2004 06:39 PM | PERMALINKLet me get this straight. After disappearing from Alabama and failing to show up in Houston, GW is "transferred" to a Colorado unit that never meets in order to make up "units" of service on specific dates for which there is no mandatory participation. Am I missing something here or did he just skip out on his obligations and give the military the middle digi?t. Posted by: Jim at February 9, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKNo navy retiree, what that means is that if he didn't show up for duty, he would be put into ORS/ARF. I found this under the U.S. Codes which rule! TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 3 > Sec. 323. Sec. 323. - Withdrawal of Federal recognition (a) Whenever a member of the National Guard ceases to have the qualifications prescribed under section 301 of this title or ceases to be a member of a federally recognized unit or organization of the National Guard, his Federal recognition shall be withdrawn. (b) Under regulations to be prescribed by the President, the capacity and general fitness of an officer of the National Guard for continued Federal recognition may be investigated at any time by an efficiency board composed of commissioned officers of - (1) the Regular Army or the Army National Guard of the United States, or both, who out-rank him and who are detailed by the Secretary of the Army, if he is a member of the Army National Guard; or (2) the Regular Air Force or the Air National Guard of the United States, or both, who outrank him and who are detailed by the Secretary of the Air Force, if he is a member of the Air
(c) If a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States is transferred to the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve, as the case may be, under section 12105, 12213(a), or 12214(a) of title 10, his Federal recognition is withdrawn. Sec. 12214. - Officers; Air Force Reserve: transfer from Air National Guard of the United States
Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, and with the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned, an officer of the Air National Guard of the United States may be transferred in grade to the Air Force Reserve.
When you get put on reserve from the Air or Army National Guard, it means you have been kicked out and then you're up for involuntary active duty. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 06:49 PM | PERMALINKHey Charlie; U.S. businesses announced 117,556 job cuts in January, up about 26 percent from 93,020 in December 2003, according to Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas, which keeps track of monthly job-cut announcements. I guess that would leave us at -5,556 if you include all the new jobs at Wal-Mart that Bush created in January. (pssst, we won't talk about the debt accrued during that period - that's our little secret.) Posted by: Jim at February 9, 2004 06:55 PM | PERMALINKOur unelected, Bobbleheaded, fencepost for Prez. needs to be given a choice: Would you like your new bracelets to be plastic or stainless ? Posted by: doubleagle at February 9, 2004 07:02 PM | PERMALINKThis article begs a re-read http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154#item1 Posted by: poster at February 9, 2004 07:07 PM | PERMALINKHey, Kevin, I have to add my congratulations to the heap o' backslappin going on here. Yep, thanks man. Without this post, I'd have never known what a transcript of dogs watching television would look like. By all means, keep the thread going - with as much speculation, second guessing, and 'analysis' of the admin codes on that document, you guys might some day eventually be able to blame Bush for the common cold. Couple of points - everyone seems in an absolute thrall over the transfer to the inactive reserve unit being for disiplinary reasons - far be it from me to quibble with such an august and scholarly body, but before you guys all jump on that bandwagon, would'nt it be a good idea to research -all- the reasons that an individual might be assigned there? Might prepare you from the mean, vicious assaults of folks pointing out that there were other reasons, and without any proof one way or the other... just sayin. Also, a quick observation of the mention of non-judicial punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, also known as an Article 15 (so named, because, well, that's the number of the article of the code that describes it) - ah, no, once an article 15 goes in, it doesn't 'go away' or 'get pulled out'. In the military, there's a term used for the very type of speculative, self fulfilling discussion going on here - barracks lawyering. It typically leads people into untenable positions that they are later embarrassed about, also. But don't mind me...let the show continue, you guys are hilarious. Posted by: Wind Rider at February 9, 2004 07:09 PM | PERMALINKAlma, that's a failure of logic. If you want to prove cause and effect, you need a seamless chain from beginning to end. You've stated a cause from an effect, but there's nothing that indicates that the only reason for a transfer to the Air Reserve Force is for disciplinary reasons, and there are no FOIA documents presented so far that state that the transfer was for disciplinary reasons. It's looking to me like folks are seeing steam from a working system and declaring it to be smoke from a fire. I think folks need to work a little harder to prove this theory. You do yourself no good putting forth a theory that can easily be shot full of holes. You're still looking for a smoking gun. Keep searching, 'cause no one's found it yet. Everything so far is penny-ante stuff that would come across to the common man as political back-biting. Hard evidence is necessary, and it doesn't look to me like anyone's turned it up. Unless the vast right-wing conspiracy has convinced the reporters at the NYT and WaPo (nevermind Washington Times...they're already brainwashed into the Conservative Cabal) that they should ignore this supposed hard evidence. ;) Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 07:23 PM | PERMALINKI understand that when President Bush returned to Texas, the aircraft he was trained to fly was schedule to be or was being phased out and that he would have had to undergo more training to qualify to fly another aircraft therefore since he just had a year or so left in his obligation he was given a desk job and/or assigned to the unit in Colorado. Further the document you show as being a disciplinary warning to President Bush looks like standard enlistment boiler plate to me that everyone signs when they enlist. Since it is not dated, how do we know that it is a warning given to him later? If it were a warning given to him later it also would probably rate a separate letter addressed to him and not just a paragraph on the what looks like the second(?) page of something(?). And why does every document or whatever that may exonerate President Bush always have to be wrapped in the words "clever forgery" or "fake" while all other documents that may or may not support a case against President Bush are not. The AWOL/Deserter case against the President is a Democratic pipe dream. You people are just grabbing at straws. Get a life. Posted by: Dennis Slater at February 9, 2004 07:34 PM | PERMALINKWhy would doc23 say, if you don't do what you're supposed to do, we're going to put you in ORS/ARF? It looks as though if you are transfered to reserve from the Guard, you're no longer with the guard, i.e., kicked out. That would put someone on voluntary or involuntary activation -- and as I stated "involuntary activation" means getting called up for duty within 24 hours. Everyone is assuming that there were no punitive damages for Bush's lakadasical performance (and we already know his files at TANG have been scrubbed, so it wouldn't be in there), but maybe this is it. He was disciplined, sent to ARF, kicked out of the Guard. That in itself, seems to me, that he is no longer in the cushy guard, he can now (then) be called up for active duty within 24 hours. I think he was just lucky, maybe, that the war was winding down. (c) If a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States is transferred to the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve, as the case may be, under section 12105, 12213(a), or 12214(a) of title 10, his Federal recognition is withdrawn. Sec. 12214. - Officers; Air Force Reserve: transfer from Air National Guard of the United States
Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, and with the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned, an officer of the Air National Guard of the United States may be transferred in grade to the Air Force Reserve. Also, being an officer in the reserve, he could not be generally court-martialed unless he was activated, but special courts-martial could sentence him to forfieture of pay and allowances, which could be why he is certain there aren't any pay records! HA! TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 3 > Sec. 326. Sec. 326. - Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: composition, In the National Guard not in Federal service, there are general, special, and summary courts-martial constituted like similar TITLE 32 > CHAPTER 3 > Sec. 327. Sec. 327. - General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service (a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general courts-martial may be convened by the President or by the governor (b) A general court-martial may sentence to - (1) a fine of not more than $200; (2) forfeiture of pay and allowances;
In the National Guard not in Federal service, the commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air (b) A special court-martial may not try a commissioned officer. [is 1st Lt. a commissioned officer?] (c) A special court-martial has the same powers of punishment as a general court-martial, except that a fine imposed by a oops, I got the special and the general courts-martial mixed up. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINKAlma, you're wandering off in the wrong direction. Your efforts are counter-productive to proving any malfeasance or misfeasance by 1Lt Bush. You've got to prove that the transfer to the ARF is a consequence of discplinary action. Quoting Title 32 gets you nowhere. You have to show where the Title 32 quotes you're providing specifically applied to 1Lt Bush. You've got to quit chewing at the edges and go for the meat. There has to be some solid documentation somewhere, or someone willing to testify to 1Lt Bush's misbehavior. Anything else will be dismissed out of hand. Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 07:48 PM | PERMALINKI have been asked to post this by Lanya at the Three Dead Horses
Saloon http://www.debategate.com/3DHS/index.htm Do forgive me,. but
this is a lengthy post. It is a refutation of this blog entry, which
she posted there. First, some background on myself. I spent twenty
years in the United States Army, the bulk of which was spent in Active
Guard/Reserve (AGR) status. I have worked as a training NCO in a CFP
Tier 1-A unit as well as doing USR preparation, finance clerk work and
many other administrative duties. I have found several incorrect
interpretations of these documents. In the interest of fairness, I must
say that I cannot be absolutely certain of the interpretation of Texas
NG rules. But the documentation you have provided is easily understood -
and it completely disproves what you would have it prove. At its worst
interpretation, it simply leaves no answer. I should point out that I
have been dealing with these issues for a while and there is one
important definition I must make: Control Group. That is a generic
term that refers to units like this "ARF" unit. In the Army Reserve,
this is called the IRR or "Individual Ready Reserve." But everyone
calls it "the control group". You mentioned very much in passing that
it was used "among other things" for disciplinary purposes. Strictly
speaking that is not true; Control Groups are only administrative. But
even in the less legal sense there are NUMEROUS reasons for being in a
control group. I spent a few years in the control group myself, as a
Delayed Entry Program soldier and as an IRR member during a voluntary
break in service. It is pure supposition to assume (and we in the
military know how to spell that word) that Bush was "ARF'd" for
"disciplinary" reasons. Having made that clear as mud let me proceed to
post my refutation. (I will not edit this from its original intent, so
if I say something which seems out of place, please excuse me. Even I
don't have THAT much stamina!) Lastly, do forgive me if I post something
beyond a reasonable limit. I intend no breech of etiquette, but you
have invited comment and I have been asked to respond. Also, CAPS are
for emphasis. Excuse my loudness! POST FOLLOWS: (comments enclosed in [ARF is a "paper unit" based in Denver that requires no drills and no attendance. For active guard members it is disciplinary because ARF members can theoretically be called up for active duty in the regular military, although this obviously never happened to George Bush.] Untrue. Being placed in a control group is not disciplinary. It is simply what happens when you are not serving in an active status for ANY reason. And many people in control group status attend drills and receive credit from individual units. Which leads us to the big "mystery". [In fact, it's unclear even what the points on the ARF record are for, ] ROFLMAO!!!! It is ABUNDANTLY clear what the points are for. There is ONLY one way to get TWO POINTS PER DAY. That is DRILL ATTENDANCE (though for clarity it should be pointed out that one can attend an alternate drill individually - like doing admin work for the unit). If you work a day of ACTIVE DUTY it is only worth ONE point (and one day's pay). EVERY SINGLE ENTRY ON THIS FORM is for a drill period except three periods in may where he performed 9 days of active duty. (Those days also correspond to points.) So the great "mystery" here is solved. George Bush performed drill duty (or alternate drill duty) on these days except the nine days of AD. To the point, THIS CARD IS PROOF OF HIS DUTY PERFORMANCE. It is acceptable proof of retirement points. Let's examine his Training Year 1973 (TY 73): In the first quarter (military years start in October) Bush received 12 points for drill performance. That is perfect. Apparently, he drilled extra in November to make up for December. This is entirely appropriate and very frequently done to accomodate holiday plans. TY731Q - PERFECT. In the second quarter, Bush received 12 points for drill performance - perfect. He did them all in January. That is a little unusual, but so long as all of the periods in question fall in the same quarter that is legal. It is also unusual, though again legal, that he crammed his drills into four-day periods. Actually, that MIGHT be a little less than kosher because I thought that the MAX time period for a drill was a MUTA-6 (three full days) but that may be only for full units. I expect commanders have some discretion for individuals. Also, since this was still in a "wartime" period (though obviously not actively so by then) such rules may have been more flexible. Nevertheless, Bush's TY73-2Q is also PERFECT. Third Quarter: Bush received 8 drill points and 9 active duty points. Where is the other Drill period? Must have missed one, eh? NOPE. But I'll save that for next quarter. So he had two drills for that quarter, with a "summer camp" period thrown in. (Again, the standard unit Annual Training (AT) period is fourteen days but individual soldiers can and do perform alternate duties and frequently split the time up to accomodate civilian employment or personal needs. This is at the discretuion of the commander.) So, TY73-3Q is not perfect, UNLESS . . Fourth Quarter. There is no recorded performance of duty during this period. Got that bastard now!!! TY73-4Q Crash and Burn!! Umm, not quite . . . Look at that TNG form. Note the EXTREMELY important date called Anniversary Retirement Date: 27 May 68. Well, right off I know this is wrong. Huh? Well the correct retirement date is actually 26 May. PERIOD. No year and NOT 27 May. WTF is Pooch talking about? Well this is another admin type's pet peeve. The clerk who prepared this form made a very common error - two in fact - in this block. He put a year on the date. This is ONLY supposed to be a month and a day. And this date will always be ONE DAY BEFORE your original enlistment date. It is the day of the year on which YOUR PERSONAL RETIREMENT YEAR ends. In the reserves today it is called the RYE (Retirement Year End) date. It is the day BEFORE your enlistment date because a year goes from 1 Jan to 31 Dec - not 1 Jan to 1 Jan. (Get it? Bush's retirement year went from 27 May to 26 May EACH YEAR.) Don't believe me? Look at those lines on the bottom of the form in pencil. Each year just like it belongs there. Whaddaya know? The reason the computer form cuts off in May is because MAY 27th STARTED A NEW YEAR!!!!! And guess what? Click on that link for the next year's form and we have, yet again, PROOF that Bush DID serve both inactive and active duty time for the remainder of that TY. In other words, this "damning" evidence is anything but. It is CLEAR PROOF THAT BUSH WAS SERVING ON DUTY (and gittin' paid) DURING THAT TIME! Now let's look at the retirement year as a whole. A reservist/guardsmen is required to obtain 50 points to make a "good" year. During this year (or at least the period from October - May that we see documented) Bush obtained 9 AD points, 32 drill points (for a total of 41) and also (as every guardsman or reservist) 15 points for membership (freebies, they all get 'em.). This gives Bush 56 total points for a good year. In fact, since we do not know what Bush had during the FIRST half of this year it is very likely more. (Why is this not on the other form? See below.) It is sheer fabrication - and I think maliciously - to make the patently false statement that control group is a "disciplinary" unit. The specious logic that is is disciplinary "because you can be called up to active duty" is ridiculous. ANY Guard or Reserve unit could be and can be called to Active Federal Service in a crisis. And individual reservists can be called from their units to fulfill special needs (such as the need for a critically short job field or "MOS"). So I guess ALL guard.reserve units are disciplinary. Clearly, there is a complete lack of knowledge of the military - at least certainly of admin procedures - in the analysis of this information. There is also a simple misunderstanding of a basic reality of military - and general - life, to wit, the TNG form. Now, though technically all such forms should be reasonably standard (because these are the "proof" of points for retirement and pay purposes) they can vary from unit to unit. Also, remember that in the early '70's computer technology was nothing like it is today. The fact that information on one form is not recorded onto another proves absolutely nothing. To apply Achem's Razor, the most simple explanation for this computer form information not being recorded on the pen and ink form is that someone FORGOT TO DO IT. I once took a PT test and somebody lost the form. When it came time to be evaluated that year I had no PT test! (This is huge for a soldier.) So I had to rush right out and take one, though I protested the whole time. I was highly pissed! Now, to the rest of the world, it was as good as if I had NEVER taken a PT test at all. Had I been running for President of the local Physical Fitness club my rivals would have said "Why, this man never took a PT test! SLACKER! SHIRKER!! UNFIT FAT AND WOBBLY ONE!!! And in the case of the first two charges they would have been wrong. :D People lose records, fail to update records, make errors on records and generally screw up records CONSTANTLY in the military. Try resolving a records error issue through the Army Board of Corrections. It takes YEARS, literally, because there is such a backlog of errors. The simple fact that some clerk failed to make an annual entry at the end of 1973 or couldn't find that form among the thousands of other sheets of paper could explain this huge "mystery." Bottom line: These forms are ABSOLUTELY proof that Bush served
honorably during that period of time. Those who have tried, repeatedly,
to skew and misrepresent these forms as anything else are WRONG - maybe
maliciously, possibly ignorantly. But they are nonetheless wrong. Hey Retired what do you think doc23 says? Besides that, have you looked at all of the docs? Have you seen the signed suspension of flying orders? And you think they are going to let him off scott free after training him for years plus the costs? He cleared TANG May 1972 and never showed back up. He missed his physical in July, suspended from flying in August and you think they're going to say, "ATTA BOY! KEEP IT UP!" No, they're going to do what they said they would do, put him in reserve. I did not edit out any of those laws I posted. The law states that if you are transferred to ARF you are no longer recognized federally, i.e. with the guard. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 07:56 PM | PERMALINKTitle 32 of the U.S. Code deals specifically with National Guard -- that is its Title -- National Guard. period. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 08:05 PM | PERMALINKStray Pooch, might it be different for someone in the National Guard
who has been transfered to reserve. Title 32 National Guard U.S. Code
states -- If a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States is transferred to the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve, as the case may be, under section 12105, 12213(a), or 12214(a) of title 10, his Federal recognition is withdrawn. Sec. 12214. - Officers; Air Force Reserve: transfer from Air National Guard of the United States
Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe, and with the consent of the governor or other appropriate authority of the State concerned, an officer of the Air National Guard of the United States may be transferred in grade to the Air Force Reserve. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINKIf it's legitimate to ask about Bill Clinton's sex life or his use of marijuana, even to the point of impeachment... If it's important to get to the bottom of the Whitewater real estate deal.. If it's accurate to label his concientious objection to the Viet Nam war as "draft dodging"... Then it is certainly legitimate to seek to discover the nature and details of George W Bush's military service, and to question his decision to take the United States to war with Iraq. Posted by: Albion at February 9, 2004 08:08 PM | PERMALINKAnd people here wonder "why oh why hasn't the mainstream media picked up on this damning evidence?!!!" Please, you have to critically evaluate this information. If you let your preferences guide your investigations instead of objectivity, your effort is doomed. Focus on reality. Find the links. Prove the connection. Put yourselves in the shoes of the Bush Faithful. Find irrefutable proof. Anything less consigns you to failure. P.S. I think Stray Pooch meant "Occam's Razor." Posted by: Navy retiree at February 9, 2004 08:15 PM | PERMALINKNavy retiree and retired LTC (and any others with experience in the matter): I have to say that I think you're right -- these documents don't show much of anything. Would you mind answering two questions, though? 1) Do these documents disprove the theses that there were serious (i.e. newsworthy) irregularities in Bush's service? 2) If not, what documents would be needed in order to decide the issue? Posted by: Anarch at February 9, 2004 08:15 PM | PERMALINKAHA! He could not have received a sentence of dismissal or dishonorable discharge without the approval of the Governor of the State. Sec. 331. - Dismissal or dishonorable discharge In the National Guard not in Federal service, no sentence of dismissal or dishonorable discharge may be executed until it is approved by the Governor of the State or territory or Puerto Rico, whichever is concerned, or, in the case of the National Guard of the District of Columbia, by its commanding general Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 08:19 PM | PERMALINKAlma, I have seen all of the other documents - and the skewed interpretation of those - posted all over the web. I cannot absolutely rule out Bush's transfer to the ARF as a result of unsatisfactory performance. I can, however, recognize incorrect interpretation of data when I see it. And this clearly is that. The repeated mantra that "Bush was WARNED" is a strawman. EVERY reserve components member (guard or reserve) is similarly warned. One of these websites included the document where Bush signed off on the "warning." It was his ENLISTMENT CONTRACT though once again, as is the habit with these sites, excerpted and poorly (or perhaps manipulatively) analyzed. This blog, at least in this post, appears to at least have had the decency to post a sufficient image to make the document identifiable. EVERY TANG (and other reserve components) member signed that same thing. Bush was not given a SPECIFIC warning - aimed at him as a result of his performance. It was a generic warning. More to the point, however, while I can rely on my experience and understanding of military administration to interpret these forms, others cannot. So anything that is found on these forms and then "interpreted" is readily bought into by those who are looking for "proof" that Bush lied. There may well be something out there that will damn Bush to eternity. This ain't it. This ain't even close. The only clear violation of any real rule that Bush appears to have committed is failure to show for a flight physical. This is clearly an irresponsible act for an enlisted member, let alone an officer. Guys like that used to drive us crazy. But my interest here is not in defending Bush. I may vote for him this year or not. I am generally conservative, though RW excesses scare me. But even if this were the dreaded Clintonicus Libidinus I would refute this stuff because of POOR ANALYSIS. There is just nothing here. Someone above referred to this as a "stained dress moment." It isn't. In fact, these Retirement Point forms are quite clearly proof of his performance of SOME kind of duty. PAY procedures are not different between the services and components. A buck is a buck. Posted by: Stray Pooch at February 9, 2004 08:31 PM | PERMALINKYou sliced and diced them very well "Stray Pooch." DOC23.gif is an ENLISTMENT CONTRACT. If this proves Bush was disciplined then EVERY member of the TANG was similarly disciplined. I tentatively take back my earlier assessment of this blog's integrity. Though again, in fairness, it may be that this blog is merely posting this excerpt from another site. The "impression" that one poster had that this was not a standard document was, in fact, wrong. If I were not so damn lazy I would gather all of the nonsense I have seen posted on this subject and make my own website showing how this information is being deliberately or ignorantly (or a bit of both) misrepresented to paint an incorrect picture. But I suspect that those who wish to see Bush canned would not bother to visit, or would not bother to critically examine this evidence. There is nothing here that cannot be refuted by someone knowledgeable. The good airman who interpreted this in the first place may well be simply misinformed. Even the best pilot (and make no mistake I respect anyone with the balls to drive a sky buggy) is not necessarily informed about administrative things. OTOH, this airman may also be simply trying to create a BS story. My gut feeling is the former, but either way, again, it is wrong. When someone gets REAL proof that Bush was UNSAT (He was probably not
AWOL and DEFINITELY not a deserter - he couldn't possibly be.) please
forward it to straypooch@yahoo.com. So far, everything I have seen
points to only one screw-up - his failure to obtain a physical - which
is definitely irresponsible and for which he was quite correctly
administratively disqualified from flight status. Other than that, I
see nothing wrong with his record so far. The comment on his discharge
form that states that he had remaining time on his obligation is, again,
a standard comment. Someone called the language "astonishingly
unammbiguous." It is. It should be. Any reserve soldier I discharged
into the IRR after they completed the active portion of their reserve
duty had the same statement. Any active duty soldier who is honorably
discharged has the same statement. Any member (and this could well
include Bush) who takes an "early out" will have that statement. It
simply means that a member has been moved from active status to inactive
status with a remaining obligation. If you take a three year active
duty hitch today, your DD 214 will have a similar statement on it when
you leave three years from now. It will state that you have completed
three years of your eight-year obligation. And for the five following
years you will have no duty to perform (except keeping your records up
to date). All of this damning evidence is simply routine statements
taken out of context or badly misinterpretted data. When I see terms
like "punishment orders" (no such thing)and "disciplinary unit" (for
control group) thrown around I have to laugh. I have said to this point
in my conversations (on other sites) that it looked like Bush was at
least a pretty crappy unit member. This ARF retirement point form has
modified my view. It looks like Bush was pretty active after all. It
just looks like he blew it as an officer on a hugely important point -
flight qualification. If he intended to be an AF Officer, I wouldn't
have given him three years after that - certainly not past the next
promotion board. But in all other areas, this AWOL nonsense is just
that. btw, he could have missed EVERY drill and not been AWOL. Summer
camp was another issue. But I am boring you. That's because this is
just so much dull administrative blather. Sensationalist interpretation
makes it sexy. Too bad that so far it is all wrong. Since Bush didn't intend to make a career out of the Air Force or ANG, and the F-102 was being phased out and I believe wasn't even available in Alabama, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical. He wasn't going to fly anyway. I was in the Naval Air Reserve, not ANG, but it was still pretty lax. I never took a flight physical there and they lost all my records, and I didn't even get paid for my last duty station. It is interesting to watch the civilians grasp at straws trying to understand the complexities of a military bureaucracy of 30 years ago. Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at February 9, 2004 09:17 PM | PERMALINKThanks very much to the veterans, of various political persuasions, who have backed up what some of us sensed at the start: there may be legitimate questions about Bush's service, but the "ARF" document shows pretty conclusively he wasn't AWOL, despite various strained attempts to make it prove the opposite. Posted by: rd at February 9, 2004 09:22 PM | PERMALINKIn case no one knows, Camp Mabry, where the torn doc was found in '99, is in Austin, Texas...gee, walking distance from the capital, well okay, a cab ride away....right off of Mo-Pac. That is kinda convenient, since he didn't ever serve there, right? Posted by: Bill McGuire at February 9, 2004 09:27 PM | PERMALINKNavy Retiree: Thanks for the correction. I made the mistake of dreaming up a spelling and googling it for a verification. Nice to know that there are people out there that spell it like I do - lol! But a really bad way to get an answer. ANARCH: Your first question is a request to prove a negative. No, this does not prove he DIDN'T do anything wrong. But there is a necessary presumption of innocence here. One of the more cranially-challenged posters on 3DHS has tried to illustrate this by posting things like (and I'm making this one up) KERRY RAPED HIS SISTER!!! Now prove he didn't!!! The preponderance of the evidence, though, seems to prove only that the attempt to smear Bush is based on specious evidence. If you wanted to "settle the issue" there would be only one way: Find a written document wherein Bush was specifically and individually counseled, reprimanded, admonished or disciplined. In short, there has to be a record of disciplinary action - whether non-judicial under Article XV of the UCMJ or judicial under applicable articles pertinent to the offense - or some other SPECIFIC individual record of action. None has yet surfaced that I have seen. The excerpt Alma provided above pointed out that the Governor needed to approve a dishonorable discharge. What she FAILED to point out is that before the governor got that opportunity there would need to be a court-martial recommending such a discharge. There was CLEARLY no chargeable offense here. Some points: Bush COULD NOT be a deserter - his reserve components status made that impossible unless he were to be brought on for at least a thirty day active period. Bush MIGHT have been AWOL. That would require missing an Active Duty period such as Annual Training without prior authorization. As a general rule, even in that circumstance it is unlikely that strong action would be taken against him - bigshot or not. People were getting early outs all over the place back then due to the winding down of the VN era. It is entirely possible that is all he did, and that would lead to the ORS assignment. All early outs got that in case something came up that required their presence in the future. Finally, if he simply missed a ton of drills (someone mentioned 12, though in the USAR it is 9, but I will defer to that other number for NG purposes) he could be UNSAT'd and dumped into a control group. With the sole exception of AWOL, no offense worthy of court-martial could have been committed. If it could be shown that Bush actually missed Active Duty time then some sort of documentation (at least a counseling statement) SPECIFICIALLy citing the incident would prove it. (Example of credible wording: LT Bush was counseled that on 29 May 1973 he failed to report for Annual Training at Camp Wattalottamuck, Alabama. LT Bush was informed that further behavior of this nature could lead to disciplinary action including slapping about the head and shoulders with an ugly stick.) Note, please, the SPECIFIC offense and date. A more formal counseling would cite the UCMJ article violated or other pertinent information. A counseling of this nature would be pretty heavy. A couple of a record of proceddings under Article XV would be dynamite and, of course, a record of court-martial would be thermonuclear. Neither of these things is gonna happen. Every statement I have seen has said "nobody remembers, nobody has come forth, no record exists, etc . . ." When someone comes forth with a SPECIFIC accusation, call me. When someone says "I recommended Bush for court-martial and the governor stopped me" pick up the phone. Until then, this all belongs on SNOPES. Posted by: Stray Pooch at February 9, 2004 09:29 PM | PERMALINKI am not saying doc23 proves anything except that he signed a waiver where if he f__ked up, he'd be put in ARF/ORS. It didn't say, now if you do everything right, we're going put you in the reserve. Posted by: Alma Evans at February 9, 2004 09:30 PM | PERMALINKAnd i think Bush basically admitted on MTP that his records were "cleansed" when he said they were "scoured"....he just didn't realize how freakin' stupid he really was to admit it....remember that it is easier to remember the truth and tell it than to make up a lie....he told the truth! This "moral" church-going hypocrite told that truth and another; that he will not change his philosopy or his point of view....that is scary, but true. And that is what we all have to worry about..... Posted by: Bill McGuire at February 9, 2004 09:33 PM | PERMALINKThe posts by Bush apologists are eeringly Clintonesque: they defend Bush by parsing little details here and there out of the available military records, insisting in a legalistic way that there is no actual proof that Bush was AWOL or disciplined. Like Clinton talked about the meaning of "is," the detailed parsing of military merely dances around the moral truth. One merely needs to stand back and look at the big picture - - 1. No responsible and diligent officer fails to report for a flight physical. These documents may not tell the whole story, but there's enough to prove there is something very irregular and wrong with Bush's service. Bush's defense, "I was honorably discharged," sounds to me like the D- student who says, "at least I didn't flunk." Posted by: skyguy at February 9, 2004 09:45 PM | PERMALINKStray, I'd be interested in your take on the apparent 6-month discrepancy between the end date of Dubya's 6-year commitment (1974-05-26) and the acknowledged actual discharge date, 1974-11-21. As late as 1973-10-01, TANG calculated his commitment from the 05-26 date -- so why would ARF hang onto him for an additional 6 months? Posted by: color me confused at February 9, 2004 09:46 PM | PERMALINKStray Pooch, you make a compelling argument, but i think you are forgetting who his papa was...a sitting Congressman from Houston, TX...who had as all know, already pulled strings to get his boy placed ahead of 500 or so other deserving boys on a waiting list to join the ANG. Shoot, GWB himself said it on MTP; had we remained inactive in Iraq, Saddam would have been emboldened....just like when his papa got him into the ANG...it emboldened GWB to know he could get away with pretty much anything because his papa, the Congressman in Houston, TX, could get him out of any trouble that came down the pike. Guess what, former President Bush never speaks of his son, the president....embarrassment keeps him from it. Papa should've stayed the hell out of it, but then other guys in power did the same damn thing with their boys, because no one wants their sons to be put in harm's way, do they? It's simply the guys in power have ways of pulling strings to make sure their sons have an unfair advantage over the rest of us. My point is that the senior Bush used his influence on behalf of his son, and his son crapped all over it instead of guttin' it up ((even though he was on safe turf)), screwing off when no one else could ever get away with it, and how he can look into the eyes of young troops who are in harm's way today and tell them he understands what they are being asked to do for their country is beyond me. I can only assume he has absolutely no conscience....this very moral man, who would never pass the buck like Clinton did....so, Pouch, you can rationalize whether or not there is a proponderunce of proof to what is being tossed out about Shrub's ANG duty all you want, but the fact is as Tom Brokaw said a few weeks ago on MTP, "we all know that Bush had an absenteeism problem while in the Guard, but he wasn't a deserter". Hey, if Tom Brokaw knows it, that makes it pretty true for me. Posted by: Bill McGuire at February 9, 2004 09:52 PM | PERMALINKIt all points to the fact that Mr. Bush was a "C" student at Yale; which his dad had to pull major strings to get him in there, too. A member of the secret society, Skull & Bones, with John Kerry and yet he says he didn't know Kerry. I wager more will be forthcoming on this as well. Another question popped up a year into his presidency here in Texas. One day, we found out we were $10 Billion short on our state budget. Governor Perry vetoed everything that came before him in his first year, which had everyone raising their eyes wondering what was up with that....as Bush is fond of saying, "In other words", it didn't happen on Perry's watch because he didn't allow any money to be spent! It happened on Bush's watch and they swept it under the carpet until after the election, so it would appear he had done a great job in steering Texas. Now he is well on his way to bankrupting all 50 states, and that will be his legacy. Anyone who believes this guy can cut the deficit in half after all the other lies he's flung our way, needs to have their heads examined or stop watching those old Hee Haw repeats. argh! Posted by: Bill McGuire at February 9, 2004 10:02 PM | PERMALINKHas anyone filed a FOIA request for James R. Bath? Check out: http://www.rense.com/general47/thecoincidenceskeepon.htm Macariah Posted by: Macariah at February 9, 2004 10:06 PM | PERMALINKAlma: That statement, nonetheless, only proves that ALL members may be sent to the control group if they are UNSAT. It does not even IMPLY that such is the ONLY reason for begin sent to the control group. In fact, I know absolutely that such is not the case. Bill: The use of the term "scoured" in that quote may have been meant as in "those records have all been raked through" the statement may not have been as Freudian as you think. Still was a pretty lousy choice of words, though. Skyguy: I would say that the problem is the opposite. The Bush detractors here parse out statements from the available military records (like Doc23.gif, for example) to try to paint an incorrect picture. That we "apologists" - if you designate me as such - refute those items point-by-point is merely fisking. I agree with your basic assertions that Bush's failure to maintain flight status is irresponsiblity at best - but also at worst. That is a far cry from the ridiculous misuse of words like "deserter" and "AWOL." Feel free to say Bush was a lousy officer, but please do not pretend that anything has even been shown as likely here. This is utterly poor reasoning - or at least ignorance. (excuable ignorance, btw, in all the civilians and most of the mil types who weren't in admin.) Confused. I cannot say. Among the reasons that excess time is tacked onto a duty is an extension of service. Such a thing can be voluntary or involuntary. But it is unlikely that an involuntary extension of service was done that late, even if there was some disciplinary issue. If Bush reenlisted during his career, his ETS (Expiration Term of Service) would change and might well increase his discharge date. It would NOT, however, change either his RYE date or his obligation period. It may just be that his latest enlistment contract took him beyond his original obligation. When I was in I took a break after seven years. My obligation (at the time) was six years. My ETS was a year and two months or so beyond my obligation date. The "obligation" referred to here is NOT the contractual obligation you enlist for. It is a mandatory period of obligation for ANY enlistment. A soldier today has an eight-year obligation. He may serve three on active duty and then just go into the IRR for the last five. Officers may have different obligation periods based on how they were acquired (West Point, Green to Gold, ROTC, OCS, etc). Beyond that, I have not dug into the issue but again, it may just be that he reenlisted or extended voluntarily at some point so the dates didn't match. Sorry I couldn't be of more assistance. Posted by: Stray Pooch at February 9, 2004 10:13 PM | PERMALINKBill: The fact that Bush and Co. may have pulled some strings is lamentable but not unusual. But my point here is twofold: a) Bush has been accused of being AWOL or a deserter. He is clearly not the second and likely not the first. In fact, though I did not get into it on this forum, Bush's behavior in the Guard was pretty run-of-the-mill based on my experience. It doesn't excuse him, but it makes it less likely that any undue influence got him off the hook; b) The simple quality of reasoning and the standard of debate used in discussions of this topic is very poor. As an NCO I would denounce Bush in no uncertain terms if I found he had committed any serious offence - especially after denying it. But so far, all of the "smoking gun" evidence I have seen is really just smoke and mirrors. I am more offended by the lack of critical analysis than by the anti-Bush stands taken by those doing it. If it helps, I was similarly pissed by those who insisted Clinton only bombed the Al Quaeda sites to distract from his impeachment. It may well have been the case; however, I was perfectly willing to believe that Clinton - who I had no use for - was acting in the interests of the US against a dangerous enemy. Good grief, defeat Bush if you can on real issues, but leave this strawman nonsense to the tabloids. Kerry has no more integrity than Bush. I lived in Massachusetts long enough to see that. If Paul Tsongas were alive today I would say there might be an honest politician - though I would never vote for him. But other than him, I have little trust in party, power-monger or pundit. I just like the truth, when it is available. Posted by: Stray Pooch at February 9, 2004 10:28 PM | PERMALINKRetired LTC: Here's Bush's NG22 discharge form: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif I couldn't see anything particularly enlightening in it. could find the discharge code, other than the "honorable" discharge listed. Perhaps you could explain how Bush was able to satisfy his 6-year obligation with only 5 year and 4 months of service. A few other docs made available through FOIA: "Perhaps you could explain how Bush was able to satisfy his 6-year obligation with only 5 year and 4 months of service." Mike: Can I field this for the LTC? The answer is very simple. He fulfilled the remaining obligation in the ORS. That is what it is there for. That is the purpose of that statement and the reason for the existence of the ORS and similar control groups. I sent hundreds of reservists who were perfectly good soldiers into the IRR (the Army equivalent). Do be aware that the "obligation" referred to here is a TOTAL time obligation. That obligation will have a certain ACTIVE portion and an INACTIVE portion. When Bush was discharged from the ORS his obligation was fulfilled. Just like when somebody in the army today fills he three and gets out he still is "obligated" for five more years - though he will never wear a uniform again - unless he wants to. This is reality, I did it for twenty years (or at least a big chunk of my twenty). In fact, I went into the IRR AFTER my obligation was over because I wanted to maintain my rank in case I decided to come back in (which I did). This really is just a case of misunderstanding military procedures and jargon. Posted by: Stray Pooch at February 9, 2004 11:16 PM | PERMALINKstray pooch: Your first question is a request to prove a negative. No, this does not prove he DIDN'T do anything wrong. But there is a necessary presumption of innocence here. I wasn't asking for rigorous proof. I was asking whether this new information is consistent with the theory that Bush acquitted himself during his time in the NG and, more pointedly, whether it is inconsistent with the prior [reasonable] theories concerning unauthorized absences. As for the second question, yes, of course, a specific sheet containing a charge against GWB would be complete proof that he had not only failed in his duties as a member of the NG but had actually been charged for those failures. What I was trying to ask was whether it was credible that he might have been derelict in his duty without necessarily being charged. Specifically, if that were in fact the case, what kinds of evidence would have accumulated and where would it be located? Only by answering that question will we ultimately be able to decide whether there's any case to be made here. Posted by: Anarch at February 9, 2004 11:29 PM | PERMALINKIf I'm reading these nearly 500 comments properly, the only things that that can be categorically stated as fact or probable fact: 1. W benefitted from family connections to get into the TANG. Pretty common, nothing illegal. 2. For reasons unknown, he did not report to take his medical exam. Not typical of commissioned officers trained as pilots but again only circumstantial facts available to infer motive. 3. W was transferred to the ARF unit and fullfilled the remainder of his committment as he accrued enough service/drill credits --including "make up" credits -- to warrant an honorable discharge. 4. Service/drill credits were accrued for the "lost year" in Alabama. Either W was present at the time or he made them up -- also precedented. 5. W did not "continue to fly with my unit" after Alabama as stated in his book. Posted by: longshot at February 10, 2004 12:03 AM | PERMALINK" W did not "continue to fly with my unit" after Alabama as stated in his book." Actually, I believe that is true. He became a flight crew member after blowing off the physical, I believe. Posted by: Right-Wing Vegetarian at February 10, 2004 12:19 AM | PERMALINK Vietnam was fought under the guise of US national security, as is
GW2. Bush said on MTP, that he "supported my government", concerning VN.
He did not eschew his personal gains to back up this claim by enlisting
to fight in that war, I would bet he would keep a safe distance from
this one also. This is an issue of moral cowardice. The first thing I would highly question in the presented "Air Reserve Forces Retirement Credit Summary" is the hand "written-in" enteries [last three lines] of the document. If I am not mistaken, any document of such importance, as computing time-in-service, like the Active Duty Army DD Form 214 is always "typewritten" or uses "typewritten charcters" from a computer entry on the document!! [No handwritten entries allowed!!] I find this document in question improperly completed or it is possible that forged entirees may have occured. Posted by: ai5u at February 10, 2004 01:06 AM | PERMALINKSo, he may have been sent to ARF because he was in the dog house? (sorry, no one had said it yet...) Posted by: John Abbe at February 10, 2004 01:42 AM | PERMALINKJean, Your ignorance is monumental. Get a life! These documents are only a few that chronicle the misadventures of W. Get over your denial and DO THE RESEARCH before you call those who researched this stupid. There are literally hundreds of references which may be verified on the Internet through reputable sources. If you are too lazy to vet this, then please don't bitch. Be prepared to defend your argument with FACTS or go write a check to the RNC. There are plenty of conservative websites around where you would be much happier. I give them my respect and do not flame them. I suggest you accord the same respect to liberal sites. PS The frame on my license plate reads: "My next license plate will be made by George W. Bush." Clever, eh? But I guess you would need a sense of humor to appreciate it. Vote in November, and God Bless America. Posted by: Liberal1 at February 10, 2004 03:47 AM | PERMALINKRaf Hound: Actually, Al Gore won the popular vote by 530,000 votes. The US Supreme Court stepped in and overruled the Florida State Supreme Court recall order when W's margin shrank from 537 votes to something like 125 votes. The Supreme Court then elected George W. Bush president, 5-4. Although there was no specific law allowing this unprecedented intervention in state affairs, the Court's argument was essentially that there was no law to prohibit it. So you see, there is nothing to "get over. " Constitutionally speaking, the election was invalid. This is history, not speculation. You guys are doing great work! Keep it up! Great explanations of ANG, Reserve, and Military peronnel procedures by Stray Pooch, Navy Retire, Retired LTC, John Moore and Malloty May. Your remarks were informative and to the best of my knowledge accurate. No conjectures, no guesses. I retired from the USN after thirty years in 1991 but if I had to prove where I was and provide a witness to my presence to what I was doing in the 72-73 timeframe I am sure it would be most difficult. I have been overpaid, underpaid, received someone elses flight deck pay, had someone else receive my Pro-pay, been credited with flights I did't fly and vice versa. I agree completly with your points but if you think you can change one of these nuts minds with the truth IMO YOU'RE CRAZY. Posted by: don Bentley at February 10, 2004 05:33 AM | PERMALINKMike: Perhaps you could explain how Bush was able to satisfy his 6-year obligation with only 5 year and 4 months of service.
Even today, and even in the active military (which I was in), you can request an early release from the military; at the time I left, the maximum was 3 months prior to your EAS (End of Active Service), but as we were beginning a big drawdown in forces post-Gulf War I, that was informally extended to 6 months. After seperation, I too was assigned to the inactive reserve, until my obligated service of 8 years (which every enlistee garners) was finished. When people say they sign up for 3 years, 4 years, or 6 years, what they really mean is 3, 4, or 6 years of _active_ service. Transferral to inactive reserve status does not indicate any sort of punitive action; it's just a holding pool of trained people that can be recalled, if necessary, during that time between when that servicemember (in the case of the Guard and Reserves) has accrued the required number of points to be released from active reserve status and the end of your 'true' service obligation. Posted by: Jeepster at February 10, 2004 05:49 AM | PERMALINKOh, by the way, I once sat at a duty station for 8 months waiting for orders (as an active servicemember!) due to an administrative screwup at HQMC. I was officially nowhere; the only people in the Corps that even knew I existed were in Kansas City, issuing me pay, and the admin personnel at the detachment I was with. Posted by: Jeepster at February 10, 2004 05:52 AM | PERMALINKI always pondered the power of money that will elect a guy like George W. to president. a man who was a user of Drugs, had extra martial affairs, and is an outlandish liar. I have always pondered his tax returns for an ordinary bankruptcy that put millions in his pocket. Posted by: Sammy at February 10, 2004 06:16 AM | PERMALINKwhere were u guys when clinton was running Oh ya i remember u were saying that none of this stuff was important. Posted by: dan at February 10, 2004 06:38 AM | PERMALINKThe record you have is clearly a forgery. Bush requested permission to perform equivalent duty with the Alabama ANG during the months of September, October, and November 1972. That request was dated 5 Sep 1972, see http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc2.gif The Alabama ANG approved the request on 15 Sep 1972 and noted that
the Alabama ANG had already held its September training session. The
training dates remaining were 7-8 October and 4-5 November 1972. Those
are the only two dates Bush could have attended and the only two dates
for which Bush had authority to attend. see
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif We know that Bush was not seen at his Texas unit from 1 May 1972 through 31 April 1973. see http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc4.gif and http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif Moreover, Bush did not request discharge from the TANG until 5 September 1973, see http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/Doc20.gif Bush did not have authority to attend any other sessions so the only possible training sessions he could have attended were with his TANG unit or in the Alabama ANG on the two dates in October and November 1972. There is no record that Bush attended ANG sessions during the period 1
May 1972 through 31 April 1973. He did attend a number of ANG sessions
during May, June, and July 1973. The logical reason is that he was
making up time lost during the previous 12 months period for failure to
attend ANG sessions, a status known as AWOL. Been away awhile had to sleep Stray Pooch and I agree virtually down the line. We have both had substantial experience in the military and with these sort of documents and regulations. I would most like to respond to Anarch's questions. The 5 years 4 months probably reflects that the remainder was forgiven - a very common practice at the end of the Viet Nam era. In fact, I count 6 full years based on the drill summaries. Most importantly 'what document DO we need to see next' Those drills he was credited with in the Reserve years are highly suspicious. They do not appear to be academic credits received for correspondence course completion because of the date pattern which, as someone else pointed out, look like drill and AT atendance days. Someone authorized, supervised, and signed off on his attendance at the drills or alternative drills. What he did, where he did it, and who oversaw it are the critical issues. Two other critical points to investigate 1. What were the circumstances surrounding his refusal to submit to a flight physical? He had to have missed several appointments because these things get rescheduled. What does he have to say in defense of having failed to comply with orders? 2. Despite what someone said earlier, anyone exercising undue influence or anyone in authority violating standard recruiting and assignment policies and regs is damn sure in violation of the law. How did GWB leapfrog over so many others and enter the TANG in such an accelerated fashion Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 07:11 AM | PERMALINKSame line different pundit Like or not we are at war there's a wapo column today from a man who was a guardsman - very similar story to george - blew off his obligation, got an honorable discharge in spite of it - and apparently ended up in the army reserve for his avoidance maneuvers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27178-2004Feb9.html Posted by: m at February 10, 2004 08:05 AM | PERMALINKIt's likely that the interpretation of the Bush military record is being done in ignorance of the facts of how the Reserves were actually run at the time. In particular, painting Bush as uniquely lax in meeting his requirements is likely incorrect. There was a war on, money was scarce. Once Bush stopped flying, the military probably wanted to stop spending money on him, as on everyone else in a similar situation. The failure to attend, and the transfer to an inactive "disciplinary unit" were quite possibly routine. (Although I am not familar with the Air Reserves, I did encounter a similar situation in my experience in the Army. At that time, draftees incurred a nominal 6 year commitment; 2 years active duty, 2 years active reserves, 2 years inactive reserves. In practice, they were never assigned to an active reserve unit, and their service effectively ended after the first two years.) The purely political nature of this witch hunt is revealed in the utter lack of interest in the libelous implication, without evidence, that higher-ups in the Reserves were so incompenent and/or corrupt to issue an honorable discharge to "deserter." I find the man's presidency deplorable. Spend your energies on current events. Posted by: SeaDrive at February 10, 2004 08:15 AM | PERMALINKSigh. The same fear-mongering "We're at war!" meme strikes again. C'mon, let's face it, al Qaeda isn't gonig to overthrow the United States even in their most fervent wet dreams. At best they can pull off a few more WTC-style strikes, kill another 6,000 or so Americans (about as many Americans as die in auto accidents in a month), and accomplish nothing except look like morons as they try to avoid the B-52 bombs falling all around their heads. Look, there's not anybody, anywhere in the world, who threatens the
overthrow of the United States of America -- except George W. Bush and
his team of looters in the White House. Only cowards think a few terror
strikes will overthrow the United States. When did the Republican Party
become the Party of sissy-men who cringe in fear of the rest of the
world? Sheesh! Tom, As a draftee who served overseas from 09/71 through 01/73 I can vouch
that I had plenty of fellow active duty comrades in arms who ended up
next to me with two years active duty because they blew off too many
reserve meetings. Activating reservists who did not show up for duty
was very common and used as a punishment/deterent. The Boston Globe, which got this going in the first place, agrees that this backs up Bush, wipes the egg of their face and says it still "raises questions." Wake me when the election is about a few more recent events. Posted by: HH at February 10, 2004 08:30 AM | PERMALINKSeaDrive It might help if you actually read the posts before making comments on the posters. Had you done so you would find that several of us have extensive service records and familiarity with exactly the kind of documents and their uses, and served during exactly the same period. In my particular case I have served as an active duty officer of both Infantry (Regular Airborrne) and Reserve Medical Service. I have service in the Colorado National Guard and the US Army Reserve and completed 22 years of total service before retiring. It is obvious from the notes of several others (e.g. Anarch John Deterick) that they too have extensive service and knowledge in these areas. In addition their posts and mine are well reasoned and deeply researched - in stark contrast to your broadside Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 08:31 AM | PERMALINKARF is more likely "Air Reserve Forces" rather than "Army Reserve Forces", but then, that is now vs what may well have been different nomenclature in the 70's. The Air Guard acronym is (now) AGR, but I don't know what it was in the 70's. I am currently a Reservist. I served in the regular AF from 1985-1992. After I was RIF'd (RIF = Reduction In Force - the big military downsize that occured after Desert Storm), I was transferred to the Air Force Reserves as an member of the Individual Ready Reserves. I had no drills, was assigned no where, but I had to maintain my physical condition and was eligable for recall to active duty if military necessity required it. After a period of several years in this status, I was about to be transfered to the inactive reserves. In this status an individual remains on the rolls but would only be recalled in the worst of military emergencies and is, for all practical purposes, no longer a player. Before I went into the inactive rolls, I joined a traditional AF Reserves unit. Because I was still (just barely) on IRR status prior to this, the way it was/is handled is that my retirement records treat it as if I was never separated from the service. I DO show a long, inactive gap in my records where I attended no (military) schools, performed no obvious duty, but as far as retirement goes, that gap in years counts. If I had waited until I was in the inactive rolls, this would not have been the case (I am led to understand). Anyway, what I am getting to is that it is POSSIBLE that Bush was dumped into something akin to IRR status and that he may have then pulled even inadequate duty at the very last minute in 1973 such that he wasn't dumped into the inactive file, thus losing his "points" from being in the IRR. I am currently researching this a bit, and will try to come up with a better/more enlightened explanation as well as a meaning to the L9CMPY code on the current document. It would be most helpful if the previous year's document were also examined. You would have a point record for the pre-72/73 period and be able to compare the annotations (ARF vs AGR perhaps) on that document vs the current document. I am not sure how the Guard would have handled retirement points vs the USAFR at that time. Perhaps a Guardsman from that period of time could enlighten? Posted by: Praedor Atrebates at February 10, 2004 08:36 AM | PERMALINK Praedor Atrebates Search through the posts with my name and the names of Stray Pooch and John Deterick and you'll save yourself a lot of research time Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 08:41 AM | PERMALINKThe bottom line is, even if Bush misrepresented himself by ommision, he was never AWOL. People that made that accusation should apoligize. Thats like calling someone a rapist. Posted by: Mark Buehner at February 10, 2004 09:21 AM | PERMALINKNone of this matters to me. I'll vote for President Bush no matter what BS from 30+ years ago is brought up. If anyone here on this blog was even alive 30 years ago, it must be a low number. For those that are here of that small number, how many served? I bet the number goes down drastically. You folks dig all you like, it will get you nowhere as far as anything bringing this President down. Don Posted by: Donald Larson at February 10, 2004 09:31 AM | PERMALINKIt's watching circuses like this that make me realize that Bush is a shoe-in next November. This whole ridiculous, grassy-knoll-ish conspiracy theorizing reminds me of the way the Right humiliated themselves during the Clinton years. Posted by: Joey Joe Joe at February 10, 2004 09:32 AM | PERMALINKDonald Larson Its not BS and its not unimportant. Presidents and Americans in general are often judged on their military service record - it reflects what a man will do when the chips are down for him personally. If GWB used his father's political influence to leapfrog other deserving candidates so that he could rest the war out comfortably in the Guard, and then continued using that influence to smooth over all his career bumps and hiccups, or to keep himself from getting activated then YES it is a huge illustration of the character of the man. In this case, and speaking as an active Infantry officer at exactly the same time this occurred, I will tell you that anyone who would do that is the lowest of the low, and far worse than anyone who opted to stay in school, get married, or go to Canada to avoid an awful war.
To those recent posts (an a few before) who are critical of this forum and those of us engaged in it. One might get the impression that you're not very comfortable with free speech and the exchange of thoughts in an open forum. One might further surmise that is so because you're not very good at joining in a constructive way. Not everyone here has insightful or deeply researched opinions or the experience on which to base them, but if you read carefully through the posts, you'll find that many do have all those things. Do your homework. Read through Kevin's site and these postings and join us in an adult conversation. Its very clear that most of the people posting here are serious, concerned about their country and it's future, and willing to engage others in a meaningful conversation. Its called a Democracy and its not for everyone. Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 09:57 AM | PERMALINKCan you provide a bit more information about the Air Reserve Force Retirement Credit document? There's speculation that it's just a partial document, and that other might exist. Was this summary directly from the Texas Gaurd, or was it an Air Force document from Denver? Where are these types of reports usually handled? Locally or centrally? Great work, BTW. I hope you sent Robinson an e-mail concerning mistakes in this morning's Globe article. If not, here's his email: wrobinson@globe.com Posted by: Augie at February 10, 2004 10:07 AM | PERMALINKTime to wake up and smell the roses. This non-event is, for all practical purposes, over. By election time, this whole ANG issue will be as dead as the veritable door nail. Get over it. Dubya is in for the second term even if he was going up against Jesus. Cheney & Co. are not about to let a little thing like this cut the puppet Bush from act II of this drama. The real deal here is that the situation planners have got everyone of you on calendar and off focus. Take a deep breath and get on to the real issues. Like war and oil and economics and international realtions. Ask yourselves this question: Why Russert? Of all the available folks, Russert! How palatable is he? Very. Even tough questions melt his audience and the worst fears of Bush melt with them. It's over! Posted by: TDR at February 10, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINKI'd like to thank everyone with admin experience (particularily Stray Pooch)... I served in the Marine Corps, active duty, and then later in a reserve unit, and admin mistakes were definitely not uncommon. From the documents presented, there is no smoking gun at this point. I do want to point out something about Bush's lack of flight physical. My reserve unit was a C-130 squadron. At a few times, I had the unenviable task of calling each and every officer who had not had their flight physical. I ended up having to call half the officers...including our CO. Reserve units have a very hard time gettting these physicals completed. Even on active duty, we had a monthly list I recieved with medical and dental "Class 4's"...this meant servicemembers who needed to reccieve physicals and dental exams immediately. When we started contacting their company commanders, one of the companies had 35% of their members on a class 4 list. So, Bush's not having received a physical doesn't shock me... generally the officers and Staff NCOs were the most difficult. Needless to say, my class 4 list was very 'top heavy'.... lance corporals on down who made the list took care of these matters immediately. Posted by: muskratbyte at February 10, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINKThink about it, the pay record in question serves to point out that Bush was disciplined for something. It could have been the democrats motive all along ... to point out that Bush was disciplined. That will lead to the question for what? The for what can swirl around for 3 more months. Until it is reported that it was for failure OR REFUSAL to take a physical (that lead to his pilots wings being stripped). The the question can swirl as to why he did take the physical. That can swirl for a while until someone notes that that ws the first year a drug test was required with the physical. Then we can come full circle back to the cocain allegations we've all heard before. Maybe the democrats are more devious than I have given them credit for. Or maybe they are just getting lucky. Regardless this issue is going to get some traction. The Washington Post linked to this blog today (Dan Froomkin). McClellan better call Rush for some pain killers. He is going to need them in the comng days and months. Posted by: FlipFlopnFly at February 10, 2004 10:42 AM | PERMALINKAs a former ANG pilot, Bush's case is not all that strange, really.
For various reasons ANG pilots are unable to fly. It seems like Bush got
involved in the campaign and then Harvard and the flying became to
difficult to comply with because he realized that flying in the Guard is
nearly a fulltime committment. Why then did his unit not make him fly?
Well, "forcing" somebody to fly is unsafe to the individual, other
pilots, and the general population, moreover, at the minimum he could
damage a valuable aircraft. Besides the faster they get him out of
there the quicker they can get somebody in there who wants to do their
fairs share of work. There doesn't have to be this FEB, Flight Evaluation Board, or any criminal (dishonrable) proceedings, why? Well ANG units only want motivated pilots to be there they don't have the time to nanny anyone, and as pilots they hate paperwork, so it is much easier to kick somebody into the ARF status than go and do all this stuff, and more importantly, the Texas unit was not about to piss off a congressman (Bush I) because they need to stay on good terms with people who get them funding like base infrastructure, airplanes, etc. So politically it would have been suicidal to do that, and if the commander of the unit had done that well then he would have had his general on his ass, and the commander who maybe wants to be a general or see retirement does not want to come off as a dolt to his boss, and even if the commanding general (Adjutant General appointed by the Governor) would have allowed it then you would have had the general at the guard bureau on his ass, threatening his funding, see? And maybe then the whole congressional delegation from Texas would have had something to say, so why would any supervisor want that kind of heat? Suffice it to say this is a classic case where the Air Guard got rid of Bush as fast as they could, once he decided to not participate, because politically they could not do anything to him, and so despite what all these AWOL rules say he had different treatment. I'm certain somebody told him how to do it, perhaps there were other pilots in the unit who did the same thing, note on Bush's suspension from flying duty there was another guy in his unit who also did not get the physical done, becuase in the finaly analysis, I'm sure somebody told Bush to do what he wanted becasue the unit would simply give him an honorable in the end. What is bad is that Bush doesn't acknowledge the facts, he did not do the duty, he could have requested to get out of the unit like he eventually did, instead he chose to not do his drills and he blew off the unit as a whole, in short he wanted them to kick him out, because there should be letters of counseling and stuff like that warning him of the consequences of his action, but there are not, Bush was protected and he knew it and the ANG knew it. Posted by: jed at February 10, 2004 10:43 AM | PERMALINKI served 24years 4 months and 10 days of Active Service, just tell me how much the author and some of the draft dodgers including the former CinC served? ADC(NAC)USN RET Posted by: Ken Ward at February 10, 2004 10:43 AM | PERMALINKKerry and McAuliffe want to preemptively strike at Bush using "patriotism" and in so doing, have actually done something unpatriotic. "What is it about Bush that turns otherwise intelligent people into kooks?" - best comment on the thread. Kooks indeed: keepers of odd knowledge. Trying to undermine the authority of the only President we've got to act as Commander-In-Chief and send US Armed Forces into battle is unpatriotic, pure and simple. Posted by: Carlton at February 10, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINKWhy this thing took so long to get legs? Yikes, most of the peeps that are editors in the news media probably did the same thing as Bush and Clinton and now we've finally got Kerry and Clark. 2nd lt. in two or three weeks with no ROTC or OCS…anyone ever heard of that before? When going through Basic and AIT with NGs and Reservists, I don't think I met one whose father or mother didn't get them the appointment. They harassed us relentlessly about getting to go home while we were going to the Nam to get killed and I've never forgotten that. I tried to get into a an NG unit about the same time as Bush and the person in charge of recruitment just laughed at me and wouldn't even put my name on a waiting list. To be sure, many deferments and dodges were legitimate - medical
problems and married with children, but only 8% of eligible males served
and that means that a good portion of the 90% that didn't serve found a
way long ago to rationalize their cowardice - they made freeing the
people of Viet Nam a bad thing and effectively stereotyped those that
served as uneducated misfits. In actual fact, the education level
achieved for US Viet Nam servicemen was much higher than those that
served in WWII while the average age was much lower: average age in Viet
Nam = 19; average age in WWII = 25. The average number and intensity of
combat incidents was higher for US Nam soldiers. Thanks
It is time to face the truth - combat service or non-service during the Viet Nam was quite often a function of family influence and not universal democratic conscription. Gee, I wonder how that fits in with all the talk about values. PSS To Retired LTC, Stray Pooch, and others knowledgeable about military procedures: I'd appreciate it if you could address a few additional thoughts I've had. I was originally under the impression that Bush was in Alabama for a year from May 1972 on, but according the White House press secretary, Bush was only in Alabama during Oct-Nov 1972. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_08.html#002545 That makes sense because his stated reason for the temporary transfer to Alabama was to work on the Nov 1972 Senate campaign. Indeed, the approval for the transfer and order for him to report to the 187th Tac Rec unit in Alabama only referred to Oct and Nov 1972: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc11.gif Bush presumably left Alabama after the Nov 1972 election. He wouldn't had much reason to stay on in Alabama after the campaign. So where did serve for dates listed in the "ARF statement of points earned" from Jan-July 1973? According to Bush's annual officer effectiveness statement (dated May 2, 1973), his superiors in the Texas Air Guard had not seen him with his Texas unit since May 15, 1972 and had thought he had been performing equivalent duties in Alabama with the 187th: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif If Bush had left Alabamba after the Nov 1972 election, wouldn't it make it sense for him to report back to the Texas Air Guard to finish his remaining obligation? Do you know what this document is: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif ? It seems to be chronology of Bush's service record, but for some reason, it has a big gap from May 26, 1972 to Oct 1, 1973 (when he was placed on inactive status after he started business school). It seems at this point, all the documentary evidence we'll find won't settle the question one way or another. I think the only way to settle it is if Bush can get affidavavits from people he served with. If he did serve during the period in question, it shouldn't be that hard for him to find people, either in Alabama or Texas (even if he was in an office pushing paper) who'd remember that, right? don bently: If I had to prove where I was and provide a witness to my presence to what I was doing in the 72-73 timeframe I am sure it would be most difficult. Would it really be that difficult for Bush to find someone who served with him in either the Alabama or Texas National Guard from May 1972 to May 73 to testify to that fact, if he did in fact serve? I ask in all seriousness. I find it hard to believe that no one would remember Bush being there. Absolutely no one. No superior officers? No fellow junior officers? No enlisted men? Posted by: Mike at February 10, 2004 11:00 AM | PERMALINKCarlton Trying to discover if a man occupying the White House has deep character flaws, may have used his father's power and political influence to keep him from his fair military obligations, and may have committed unlawful acts or allowed others to do so on his behalf is a supremely patriotic thing to do, and is in the highest traditions of this country's greatest men - men like Woodward and Bernstein. Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINKThis whole Air Na. Guard story (which was hashed and re-hashed four years ago) is indicative of the fact that the Democrats have no issues. Do you folks think that anyone, other than the congenital Bush-haters, give a rat's patootie about any of this? Posted by: Greg at February 10, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKGreg The answer is, YES tens of millions of Americans are interested in this story and it's outcome because it represents a fundamental issue involving the character and behavior of the man occupying the WHite House. That's why it has received so much national attention in recent weeks - from an NBC Nightly news special segment, to the Russert interview, to a repeated series of articles in the press including the Boston Globe and the Washington Post Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 11:30 AM | PERMALINKBTW wondered "Is it possible to get a copy of Bush's SAT test? I doubt he took it, and a fake signature could prove it." I have the same doubts as to his whole educational adventure; his admission into Yale and Harvard, and his MBA days at the latter. What kind of courses did he take, and how did he perform? Did he have to write any papers? Any record of them? Observing him in any situation, he hides the fact that he is a Harvard-MBA, with great felicity. Posted by: pKrishna at February 10, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKThis whole thing isn't about politics, per se...and it certainly
isn't because there aren't other issues about which to critique GWB.
Rather, it's about the nerve of this man to stand in front of
us...beginning with the 2000 campaign...and actually expect us to trust
him, believe him, and to take sincerity as a sign of truthfullness. For
goodness sake, he actually thinks that just because he SAYS something,
that we're suppose to believe him. The man doesn't have a clue about
self-perspective and the effect that he has on others. Now maybe this
is okay as a characteristic of a fast-food restaurant manger, etc., but
it's not okay with me in this country's president. You know, the one
who has possession of the black satchel with the nuclear codes in it? The latest I've read on this suggests that the pay records from Denver close the case on this (or so Mr. McLelland would like to be the case). If it does and we are all in some sort of blue dress death spiral that's fine. We should come back to our senses and concentrate on the issues that matter. However, I don't trust W and his handlers enough to not think that they could have either: A. Leaned on his old unit commander to recant; or So ... I'm willing to walk away from this entire mess if they can produce W's tax returns for 1968 to 1974 (the actual returns, not some elctronic facsimile). If he was being paid they way he claims he was being paid by the guard then it won't just show up with his DFAS records, it will appear in his 1040s too. I recon it's a little harder to monkey around with IRS records. If the money shows up there, fine. If not, there's probably smoke to go with the fire. Posted by: Rick at February 10, 2004 12:25 PM | PERMALINKThe torn and untorn documents match exactly: I just stumbled over this link. Very interesting stuff. To add my two cents. The difference in the appearance of the blacked out SS # could most likely be due to them first making copies of the originals then blacking out the SS # on the copies and making the copies public, so that the originals are preserved. 'F-L-S' Posted by: FLS (Fat Lady Sings) at February 10, 2004 01:03 PM | PERMALINKI can already see John Kerry reaching for this information. His record vs Bush...scathing for the administration...good work. Posted by: mark at February 10, 2004 01:05 PM | PERMALINKExcept that Kerry is on record saying that what one did in Vietnam should not be dragged into an election... he's now stuck in a Gore-esque "I haven't brought this up... but others have!" mode and today was quoted backing away from it. Ultimately Kerry shot himself in the foot in 1992 over this. Posted by: HH at February 10, 2004 01:30 PM | PERMALINKThe main reason Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry, and you liberal blogs have taken to regurgitating the "Bush was AWOL" charge with such verve is because you know you can't beat the president arguing national security policy so you have to try discredit him personally. Frankly, I find it to be a bit on the scummy side. I'm not such a Kool-Aid drinking Bush supporter to be completely closed off to the idea that Bush may have missed a few meetings in Alabama while serving in the National Guard. But as things stand now - and as they've stood for the past three years - the facts don't support an AWOL charge against the President, no matter how much you may love or hate him. Because if you take a step back and think about this for a second, even if you grant your worst case scenario against Bush - that he blew off Guard duty for an entire year and then crammed at the end to fulfill his requirement before heading off to business school - there really is no getting around the fact that Bush did indeed fulfill his service obligation and received an honorable discharge from the National Guard. That fact alone makes the AWOL charge a scurrilous one. Let's assume for the sake of argument the truth lies somewhere in the middle; that Bush reported to duty in Alabama a couple of times and the records got lost along the way, but also that he did miss some service during that year. Unless you're willing to challenge the veracity of Bush's discharge then you are left trying to prove the unprovable, all the while ignoring the only salient fact (Bush's honorable discharge) in order to trade in speculation and innuendo that casts aspersions on Bush's character. But if you can't produce proof or come up with anything more than endless streams speculation over the next 8 months then you will have performed a great injustice to the President and to your readers. And you may also help reinforce the notion among some that the blogosphere is nothing more than an online rumor mill. That would be most unfortunate. All I can say is, "keep it up." Please. The Democratic party looks increasingly like a junkie strung out on Bush-hating drugs. They have no vision for the future, are unable to articulate any serious policy alternatives, and now live only for the next high, which usually comes in the form of slanderous, ad hominem attacks on the President like the one Al Gore delivered last night. Or the ones channeled through groups like MoveOn.org. Hence the base's utter indifference to John Kerry as a person, as a candidate, and to his current and past positions on the issues. The party's hollowness is summed up neatly by the breathtaking banality of their current call to arms: "Anybody but Bush." This is the first presidential election in America since three
thousand of our fellow citizens were killed by terrorists on our own
soil and Democrats are coming to the country with the message "anybody
but Bush." Um, okay. Bill One thing you should pay attention to. The Commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy is headed by Tom Kean, a very conservative ex-govenor of Pennsylvania and a heretofore solid Bush supporter. Kean has already spoken about the commission's findings and they will be reiterated in print when the report is released later this year. In summarization he will say that the attacks were preventable; that the attacks should have been prevented; that the failure to prevent the attacks lies squarely with various instrumentalities of the Bush administration; and finally, that the most astonishing thing is that those responsible for the failure are largely still holding their jobs. I think that probably justifies a few of us thinking we might need a new President, and an elected one this time Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 01:46 PM | PERMALINKTom Kean is a very conservative ex-governor of Pennsylvania and a solid Bush supporter. He is a not-especially-conservative Republican ex-governor of New Jersey and a solid Bush supporter. "I think that probably justifies a few of us thinking we might need a new President, and an elected one this time" I suspect that you probably thought this well before and are simply trolling for rationalizations. Posted by: Joey Joe Joe at February 10, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINKJoey I wouldn't call taking the findings of a bipartisan Presidential Commission trolling. I think for most of us it pretty much jumps off the page Posted by: retired LTC at February 10, 2004 02:16 PM | PERMALINKGee Bill...you sure do have the standard "Bushit" line down pat. Keep it up...you'll discredit Bushie as well as yourself. LOL Posted by: David at February 10, 2004 02:16 PM | PERMALINKI was in the National Guard for 3 years before I went active. Let me tell you that half of the people in the Guard don't show up. What they used to do (90 to 93) is have a roll call in the morning, the people that showed up get paid, the people that didn't, don't get paid. The fact that he has payroll receipts (what we call LES) means he showed up. Also, I've been active for a total of 10 years so far. I still meet people who was in the same Company(120 people) I was in and don't know who the hell they are or remember them from that time. And that is active Army, where you go to work with the same people day in and day out, not the NG when you see them just once a month for two days. While in the military you meet thousands of people a year, you become close friends with those you serve with on tours(Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq in my case), not the people in units where all you did was train with...generally speaking. Oh yeah, the reason I put the dates up there is because today's Guard is very very different from the NG of back then, it was a lot more relaxed and the only worry we had of a deployment was if the USSR invaded W. Germany. Today they have a totally different set of motivations and since the war on Terror have been deployed just as much as Active units. So, all you Liberal Civilians that would NEVER join the military because it is so beneath you, should try to understand how things work in a society you'll never understand from the outside. And for those Libs who did serve, thanks, and you should know better than to even comment on it....John Kerry isn't for a reason, because he knows how it is and was back then. Also, some other tidbits. When you sign up for anything in the military, it is always an 8 year commitment(atleast since the 80s, not sure how long it was back then). So if you join the Army NG for 3 years, what you're actually doing is 3 years going to drills and what have you, then 5 years in IRR (Inactive ready reserve) which basically means you just have to keep them up to date with your where abouts and when/if they need your MOS (military occupational specialty) or Branch they can re-activate you in an emergency. Also, ARF (not sure what it stands for) is just the acronym that Finance went by back then. Now it's known as DFAS(Defense Finance and Accounting Service). I know you Libs really want to bash our President so badly, but the only way you're really going to do it is when you can find something you don't have to spin or spout things you "heard" from others without checking up on it first. And for those of you who already hit these points, sorry I didn't read much of the commentary. Posted by: Bryan at February 10, 2004 03:10 PM | PERMALINKTom: Unless I miss my guess, Commander-in-Chief is a civil position, and no more qualifies as "military service" (excellent or otherwise) than does Secretary of the Army... or any other executive branch position. Like or not we are at War I live less than 1 mile from a Marine Corps base, and run into these guys all over the place. You might be surprised how many of them think that the economy and healthcare are important issues. You might also be surprised how few think that the nation's security depends solely on George W. Bush occupying the Oval Office. You might even be surprised that some folks who served during wartime think that the president's TANG activity (or lack thereof) during the Vietnam War is a matter of some interest. Mark Buehner: Whether or not Lt. Bush was charged, he was almost certainly absent, and had not been given leave. That would make him, you know, absent without leave. Saying that someone was AWOL is nothing like calling someone a rapist... which is exactly what Bill Clinton was called on more than a few occasions. How many apologies have you heard from those who made that claim? Ken Ward: If this is a serious consideration for you, I take it that you voted for Al Gore in 2000, and will vote for John Kerry if he is the Democratic nominee? Posted by: Keith at February 10, 2004 03:20 PM | PERMALINKhttp://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/rso/major_commands.html When organized in December 1948, Continental Air Command (CONAC) assumed jurisdiction over Tactical Air Command and Air Defense Command. . . . After January 1951, CONAC remained responsible primarily for administering the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, known collectively as the Air Reserve Forces. Posted by: David Tomlin at February 10, 2004 03:46 PM | PERMALINKBig assumptions here. Not all of us are Democrats. Not Republican does not mean Democrat. So, get a clue that not every question about Bush is some attempt to get a Democrat elected. From where i sit, I see a President and and Administration that has committed crimes defined by both International and US Law. This from the Administration that touted "Rule of Law" and the return of the adults. The pattern I see is one where a great deal of statements are later proven to be false. This not only affects the personal credibility of the people in the Bush Administration, but the credibility of the United States. It is one thing to guess badly at the cost of a bill (missing by over $100 Billion dollars), and mistakes are expected from any human. But, it seems clear that even if intelligence product was flawed, the Bush Administration clearly misled the nation and world into a war of choice. The problem is, the last time a leader invaded another country under the pretense of defense, and it turned out to be a lie, there was this tribunal that determined that the planning of the war was a crime - not just the illegal invasion. That leader, and his fellow conspirators were all judged to be guilty of War Crimes. Their notion of a pre-emptive war to defend a country was a lie to get the support of their citizens, and to keep international forces at bay. Apparently, there is no reason why we had to invade Iraq in March of 2003. There was no grave, gathering, mortal, or any other kind of urgent threat. And, while those that made the decisions can point to the intelligence they received, the bottom line is that millions of people around the world knew that the "proof" was false, months and weeks before the invasion. The forged Niger document was known to be false for more than a year, yet it was used as evidence at the UN, in the SOTU address, and to convince Congress to pass the Iraq resolution. I don't buy that they really thought this was the truth, and that they had no doubts. I knew it was a forged document, the UN knew, and so did many others. But, there was no debate - it was brushed off. Until Amb. Wilson spoke up. And, the administration obviously fouled up in trying to pay back the Ambassador. So, without getting into a long list you have heard before, the issue is credibility. We know for certain that we have been lied to. And not just over inconsequential stuff from 30+ years ago. The reason why I am interested in the truth behind George W. Bush's service is not to get a Democrat elected. I believe George W. Bush is sending Americans on a dangerous mission, one based on false pretenses. The mission will cost Billions of dollars, and may never really end. And, the end result may be replacing a contained dictatorship (which we tolerate in many places around the world) with a country that ends up as a radical islamic country, or one that rips itself apart in Civil War. Either way, we have provided a haven for terrorists that did not exist prior to our actions. Our plan backfired, even if you believe we had the best intentions. It seems to me that we can no longer trust the Bush Administration about ANYTHING. Some of you feel this is a small issue. Great - then why not provide the proof? Why wasn't the proof provided in 2000? I, for one, am not convinced with what has been submitted today. The contradiction with the lack of ANY human beings who can corraborate the story would cause a jury to vote against Bush. He has not proved his assertations beyond a reasonable doubt. He is on trial. He wants to be a leader for the next 4 years. Fine. He needs to prove that he will not lie to get his way. He was given a pass for the first several, but he crossed the line with Iraq. They said they knew where the WMDs were. Powell held up a vial of anthrax. They tried to scare the shit out of us, and it worked. So, call everyone names, and even threaten with DEATH those who call Bush a deserter (Ed Gillespie did on CNN this afternoon). We are not intimidated by you. If you are a liar, we will find you and smoke you out of your hole. If you support a liar, then you are no better than the liar. In fact, you become part of the lie. We will not rest, and we will not stop, until all the liars are brought to justice. The liars have gone too far this time, and we will hunt down the lies and the liars until they do not lie to us any more. Want to shut me up? Put up the truth. The proof. The full story. It is not my duty to give honor or allegence to anyone who lies to me, even if he is the President. Particularly when over soldiers have given their lives for nothing, and over 10,000 innocents have been killed. Posted by: pantsonfire at February 10, 2004 03:54 PM | PERMALINK"Saying that someone was AWOL is nothing like calling someone a rapist... which is exactly what Bill Clinton was called on more than a few occasions. How many apologies have you heard from those who made that claim?" It's a bit different when the accused actually denies the charge personally. Posted by: HH at February 10, 2004 04:49 PM | PERMALINKpantsonfire - Gillespie most clearly did NOT threaten anyone with death. Here's his quote: "The Democrats said the president was a deserted. The Clark campaign said he was a deserter, which, by the way, is a treasonous offense punishable by death." He said being a deserter is punishable by death. But as long as we're calling people deserters and AWOL without proof, why not start hurling accusations like this? Posted by: HH at February 10, 2004 04:53 PM | PERMALINKvery simple if this was your military record you wouldnt show it to anybody youd be to embarsed next chenny is going to be indicted over bribing niger gov ken lay who works for bush is going to escape prosicution for enron and bush is gone in 2004 hope we never hear from him again he can stay and fram his life away banging his ugly wife and i hope his great great grandkids dont ever need help from the gov we will have to tell them thatnks to bush you cant have it Posted by: reupman22 at February 10, 2004 05:02 PM | PERMALINK"The position is relevant today...this national security threat is severe enough for SOMEONE OTHER THAN ME to fight for. Mendacity." At the time Bush started his flight training, his future Texas Air Guard unit had planes in South Vietnam. The training to fly jet fighters is long, and by the time he got his wings, the unit had been moved back stateside. As someone who joined between Greneda and Panama, and never saw action, I guess you also view me as someone to look down on. By the way, how much combat did you see during your time in the service? Posted by: Siergen at February 10, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINKI served 3+ years active duty and 16+ in the Navy Reserve and am familiar with the requirements for reserve members of the military during the time in question. I began inactive duty drills in August of 68. You need an officer who served in the Air National Guard during that time to explain the documents. For example, I would go slow in stating that the 22 days spent on active service in 71-72 was "dismal". At that time it would appear to me that his active duty requirement was probably 14 days per year! How he got into the Air Guard without undue influence is the real issue to me. Drilling requirements, at least in the Navy Reserve, were loose in those days. Posted by: Bob Price at February 10, 2004 05:18 PM | PERMALINKpkrishna wrote, BTW wondered "Is it possible to get a copy of Bush's SAT test? I doubt he took it, and a fake signature could prove it." I have the same doubts as to his whole educational adventure; his admission into Yale and Harvard, and his MBA days at the latter. What kind of courses did he take, and how did he perform? Did he have to write any papers? Any record of them? Observing him in any situation, he hides the fact that he is a Harvard-MBA, with great felicity. Has anyone researched the possibility that, during the time he was supposedly in Alabama, he was actually running cocaine through an airfield in Mena, Arkansas? Posted by: Roger Sweeny at February 10, 2004 05:24 PM | PERMALINK"very simple if this was your military record you wouldnt show it to anybody youd be to embarsed next chenny is going to be indicted over bribing niger gov ken lay who works for bush is going to escape prosicution for enron and bush is gone in 2004 hope we never hear from him again he can stay and fram his life away banging his ugly wife and i hope his great great grandkids dont ever need help from the gov we will have to tell them thatnks to bush you cant have it" Good work, reupman22. Drop by the WH to pick up your check. Posted by: K. Rove at February 10, 2004 05:25 PM | PERMALINKBush says he served 30 years ago and that is too long ago for anyone to come forward and remember he served with him. I served 60 years ago and still have people who can substantiate they served with me. do we old folks have longer memories? Posted by: Dick Behrens at February 10, 2004 06:30 PM | PERMALINKFor what it's worth, after serving four years active duty in the
Marines from 1966 to 1970, I was transferred to the "inactive" reserves
for another two years to complete my six-year obligation. However, no
meetings were required during my two-year reserve period. I had
friends, though, who enlisted (also in the Marine Corps) but served in
the reserves for their entire six year enlistments. They were required
to attend meetings and summer camps for the entire six years. This is how one bulletin board is putting it: GEORGE W. BUSH RELEASES MILITARY SERVICE RECORDS: GUILT PROVED GEORGE W. BUSH RELEASES MILITARY SERVICE RECORDS. IT BACKFIRES. http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=9275 Posted by: ScottXYZ at February 10, 2004 07:43 PM | PERMALINKI must question Mr. Stoneking's statement that Lt. Bush did not serve a stint of active duty. The record set forth above clearly states that he had 226 points for active duty training in the period May 68-May 69 and 313 points for the period May-69 to May-70. In the reserves you get one point for each full day of active duty or active duty reserve training and one point for each four hour period of inactive or reserve drill training such as weekend drills. You would get four points for one two day weekend inactive period of training. You would get fourteen points for a "Fourteen Day" period of "Active Duty for Training". which you normally would do once each year. Lt. Bush obviously served an extended period of active duty while undergoing flight training etc. as he had a total of 539 days of active duty between May 68 and May 70, plus 46 days of active duty from May 70 to May 71. Just pointing this out as it's objective fac. Bob Price p.s. I'm a YellowDogDemocrat and would like nothing better than to see General Clark become the next President and Commander in Chief. Posted by: Bob Price at February 10, 2004 07:49 PM | PERMALINKI would like to make one other observation. The Retirement Credit Summary set forth above is obviously not the final such record for Lt. Bush as it does not show points earned after May 72. There is a significant question as to whether he achieved enough points and active duty for training to satisfy the requirements for a satisfactory year of Air Guard participation for his anniversay year ending 26 May 73. Bob Price Posted by: Bob Price at February 10, 2004 08:09 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I have a similar clause in my Navy Reserve enlistment contract. In the late 80's I requested transfer to the IRR so I could finish college without having to drill on finals week (which always seemed to be the case). The idea that such a transfer was de facto punitive (unless proven otherwise because as a Republican he's guilty unless proven innocent), when such transfers are common ans ordinary administrative actions, is indicative of a very closed mind. The type of mind that repeats mantra's about Niger documents that were never part of an assessment that Britain still stands behind today. You see facts don't matter; the pseudo-faith that Bush must be a liar, cheat, and cad just like the beloved Clinton has to be maintained. To really understand the issue ask yourself this, if you had 100% iron clad proof - would it change your mind? If not then don't bother debating because anything that challenges your faith will result in making irrational interpretations on data that you have little to no understanding. For example take the following question posted earlier, "[W]hat happened to the rest of his commitment?" Never mind that the issue has been addressed many times before, that Bush (just like Al Gore) was granted an early discharge to attend school or that the law, understanding the multiple responsibilities of the citizen-soldier, allows for makeup drills (did many a makeup myself). You see, any such fact-biased explanation will not allay the suspicions of the faithful, for Bush must be guilty and if not - he should be! Posted by: Sparkey at February 10, 2004 08:14 PM | PERMALINKLove you guys. Keep up the awesome work and keep trying to get this out to everyone! One thing I have observed that nobody else has mentioned .. I got the .pdf that Foxnews.com had on it's site .. they have little intro pages before the page with the corresponding chart. I would look at what it says about Document 2. Something to the extent of NEVER BEEN RELEASED! Some bollox like that. Anyway .. go to the next page .. look at the very top when it was faxes .. it's the same stupid one from 2000. Fox was dumb as a box of rocks. (which they are heh) fox document: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/021004_bushmil.pdf Posted by: polyorchid at February 10, 2004 08:24 PM | PERMALINKCongrats on an excellent investigative journalism. It was disheartening to see the republicans attack true American heros like John McCain and Max Cleland while at the same time giving a free pass to AWOL Bush in 2000. Anybody but Bush in 2004! Join us at Although I was 11, I remember that 1972 was when it became clear that "peace with honor" was on the table. Nixon wasn't going to be sending too many more boys to die. Is anyone surprised that someone who joined the air national guard four years earlier to stay out of Vietnam, suddenly loses focus on his military career? Of course he made sure he got an honorable discharge. Like Yale and the rest of the first 40 years of his life, he happily took the "gentleman's C" and bellied up to the bar! Are there even 50 people in this country who were going to vote for W. despite the last 4 years, but won't because he might have been AWOL 32 years ago? Yeah its ironic he's sent hundreds to die overseas with his record, but its the tradegy, not the irony, of Iraq that will cost him the White House. Posted by: Chris McGovern at February 10, 2004 08:30 PM | PERMALINKStray Pooch, I think your thought process serves you well. My service to my country was '72-'77 active overseas mostly. I wouldn't trade those years for anything in the world. To this day, I enjoy reliving the memories of basic training, advanced individual training, Okinawa, Japan, and S. Korea. Some who post here mistakenly believe that we are bashing Mr. Bush for the wrong reason. I merely have observed that he is a privileged rich kid whose road to the WH was paved for him. His party needed a guy who could project "moral" family values. Few of them care to find out that none of us is without a few skeletons in the proverbial closet. If Bush's record of service was indeed cleansed to make him look better in any way, it is a LIE perpetrated on the AMERICAN People, regardless of party affiliation. I don't care one iota whether Bush partied his ass off or not. That is part of growing up in a free society. The military stuff is simply small potatoes by itself, but when you start putting all of the pieces together you find that he is not the who he pretended to be. We were lied to about the impending need to strike Hussein, pure and simple; but we are there and i want us out without losing American lives. Those folks will never ever form a democratic society and those who believe they will is simple minded at best. We have a "war president" who has done only what was absolutely necessary to get by in this life. His father doesn't even speak of him here in College Station, home of the Bush Library because he is embarrassed by GWB; of course he doesn't speak of Neil either, who bilked a savings and loan back in the '80's and never paid a dime back, the same Neil who is now a marvel at day-trading. I've grown to respect the elder Bush, having attended several of his events at the library such as the 10 year anniversary of the Gulf War. But, enough rambling....it boils down to this for me and for a lot of folks i know: (1) Bush needs to go before he bankrupts the country (2) I'd be willing to let him out of his last year if he'd agree to depart early without penalty (3)and i'll forgive him his sale of Harken Energy stock just before it was discovered their books were misstated and he was given another "pass" (4)and i will have him awarded an honorary "B" student Doctorate for fooling everyone who voted for him in 2000. Posted by: Bill McGuire at February 10, 2004 10:08 PM | PERMALINKOK, so we've established the following: (1) Bush didn't technically "lie" when he said he fulfilled his obligations - because for the last 2 years of his 6-year tour, he was disciplined by being transferred to a "paper unit" which HAD not attendence obligations. (But being in this paper unit - the ARF - was somewhat of a punishment because he COULD theoretically be called up from to duty in Vietnam.) (2) The reason he was disciplined was two-fold: (a) failing to report for duty, and Now that these (fairly damning) facts have been documented by records obtained under the FOIA (AFTER the 2000 election by the way), we should focus on the even more damning issues: (1) WHY didn't he show up for his required physical? It's unlikely that it was simply because he had alcohol in his system - many of his colleagues did the same. (2) I have heard it reported that Bush was hanging out with James Bath during the weekend before the missed physical. I have also heard that they sometimes did coke together. James Bath has long been involved with the Bush dynasty in later years - maybe simply because he knew so much and had to be paid off. Later Bath became a world-class private arms dealer and had many dealings with the CIA as well. I'm too tired to do all the googling now, but here's one link with info on Bath and speculation about what Jimmy and George may have been up to the weekend before the missed physical: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1105592 Posted by: ScottXYZ at February 10, 2004 10:17 PM | PERMALINKFor those of us living in Texas at the time, the rumor was that Georgie was in drug rehab at the time. If true, I'm sure those records have disappeared, just like the Texas DUIs, even the ones with injuries. But medical records may exist somewhere. Posted by: Giannotes at February 10, 2004 10:18 PM | PERMALINK |
