Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

Dear Anonymous Smear Liar:

Because one issue refers to Reality; the other, Fantasy.

Steve Swartz


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Let's be real here.

If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
four years back.


Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
drug test all "ancient history"?

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:

Please seek help.

Soon.

I don't want to bear the burden when your psychosis gets expensive.

(p.s. regardless of what your philosophy professor said, not all "random
stream of consciousness" word strings are equally meaningful)

Steve Swartz

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Let's be real here.

If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
about four years back.


Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance

Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
(i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.

but Bush AWOL

Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); there
is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.


Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.


Desertion

Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); FYI,
there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.


Substantiated and no evidence ever offered to refute:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

[signed]
"William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
"Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"

Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
this base."]

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
to an Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.


HRP failure

Even worse; pure speculation based upon faulty reasoning (his unit no
longer had a nuclear role by 1972).


As explained, any flight officer was subject to HRP.

failure to show up for a drug test

Eh? Drug-testing was not a regular feature in the military in 1972;

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/reich-r.html

"The Air Force initiated a new drug-testing program, coincidentally, in
April of 1972."


http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.sh...00/6/17/220615

"New guidelines implemented in 1972 required that officers like Bush be
asked, "Do you now or have you ever used or experimented with any drug,
other than prescribed by a physician (to include LSD, marijuana, hashish,
narcotics or other dangerous drugs as determined by the attorney-general
of
the United States)?"

"Bush was also supposed to take a physical that included a urine drug test
within a month of his July birthday. But in May 1972, he took a leave of
absence from the Guard to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a
friend of George Bush Sr., then a Texas congressman."

Now, you aren't going to argue with NewsMax, are you?

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:

Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.

Steve Swartz


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Let's be real here.

If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
about four years back.


Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance

Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
(i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.

but Bush AWOL

Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.


Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.

Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?

Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in
news
In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
history"?

Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
Bush story.


Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
Bush's transfer
to
Dannelly was rejected.

Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET
with

What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
"transfering" without orders?

Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in
order to perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping?
Geeze.

Who gave him permission to do so?

Depends upon how the unit commander wants to run it. Not unheard of for one
of the FTM personnel to handle it on a routine basis. Should the commander
know the status of each of his subordinate officers in that regard? Yeah,
within reason. Does he always? No.

Or are you claiming that you don't need
permission?

Nope. My guy had permission--he was still counted as "AWOL" by his home
unit. In the end the time it took to get his OER corrected proved critical,
as he was passed over for promotion in part because he had no recent OER.
You folks who think the military is some kind of perfect operating
organization don't have a clue as to how screwed up the record keeping, not
to mention keeping track of the specific wherabouts of each and every one of
a slew of JO's under your command who are floating around between formal
schools, split assemblies, and ET can get.

What does "ET" stand for?

What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out you
have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend the
normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either with the
home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at all.
Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and recordation of
ET is also not uncommon.

My understanding was that Bush
transfered (without permission) for "civilian occupation"

Your understanding is wrong. He did indeed request a transfer, and it was
ultimately denied. Which is why he instead performed ET with that ALANG
unit. No special favors required--very common in the Guard.

- IOW the
campaign in Alabama. Either way, you still need permission. BUsh had no
permission.

Says you, with nothing to support that accusation. Either way, he ended up
performing enough duty days to be credited for good time through this
period. We know he performed training with the ALANG, based upon both the
dental record and the statement of the former unit member who recalled him
being there. Now, who in his chain of command was authorized to grant him
permission to perform ET? Did that individual inform the squadron and group
commander of that authorization? We do not know the answers to either
question, but experience indicates that the latter can be a "no". In the
absence of any reputable, definite proof otherwise, then the fact that he
ended up performing enough duty days to be credited with good time and to
get his honorable discharge weighs in his favor.

If he did, produce the document. I produced a document
clearly stating that his transfer to air reserve was denied.

Geeze, would you finally drop that stupid transfer argument? It is a
non-starter, for gosh sakes, Mr. "What's ET". As to documentation at this
point in time, over thirty years later--you have GOT to be joking. You think
the military has the capacity to store every scrap of paper, including all
of those equivalent training performance certificates, that is generated for
every servicemember for an infinite time period? Get freakin' real. The
admin minions scrub personnel records on about a yearly basis *while you are
still serving* and dump out the "no longer required" junk (if you are lucky,
it gets returned to you).

Now, using this same "if there is no paperwork remaining thirty years later,
then he is obviously guilty" argument you have so laborously constructed,
tell us again how you are gonna *prove* that JFKII performed *his own*
reserve duty? He was released from active duty early, and he himself has
claimed he then spent time in the USNR (while spouting off recycled BS from
the Winter Soldier Investigation and calling his fellow servicemembers war
criminals, no less)--so where is the documentation that he successfully
completed that duty? Huh?

Brooks

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Tempest wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they
do?

About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
assassinating US Congressmen did.

Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.

...and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy to
kill members of the US Government.

I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
opportunity.

What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?

Actually, yes, if you thought it was a credible threat.

If you knew "hundreds" of people like that, you need a new set of
friends.

Those hundreds of people were not my friends.

They were Pentagon employees, all the way up the chain.

Try again.

Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.

Under what obligation was Kerry to report it?

Well, besides the obvious *moral* one, the obligation of any citizen who
knows of someone planning on murdering someone. If they had succeeded,
he would have been an accessory before the fact.

It's quite possible, and most likely probable, that it was not a serious
threat.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
drug test all "ancient history"?

Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry story,
but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush story.

What documents disprove the Bush story?

There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.

Official government documents.

www.awolbush.com

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

Republican Double Standard wrote:

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
Chad Irby wrote in
news
In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
history"?

Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
Bush story.


Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
Bush's transfer
to
Dannelly was rejected.

Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET
with

What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
"transfering" without orders?

Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in
order to perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping?
Geeze.

Who gave him permission to do so? Or are you claiming that you don't need
permission? What does "ET" stand for? My understanding was that Bush
transfered (without permission) for "civilian occupation" - IOW the
campaign in Alabama. Either way, you still need permission. BUsh had no
permission. If he did, produce the document. I produced a document
clearly stating that his transfer to air reserve was denied.

You're wasting your time.

The rightards are so blinded by ideology, they refuse to belief even the
most glaring of facts.

There'll be mass rightard suicides when Kerry wins in November.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:4064440a$1@bg2....

"David Hartung" wrote:

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
...and if he had, it would be in his records
(which have already been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense
Command, have a SIOP
comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.

The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear
tipped missile (AIM 27, I
believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked
with this weapon, then the
President would have had to be on PRP. Personally,
I believe that AIM 27s
had long since been withdrawn from service.


The weapon was the AIM-26A Falcon. Not sure if the ANG ever had that
weapon,
but they did have the AIR-2A Genie.

Yeah I know, the last model of the F89 that my Dad flew was the "J" and to
my knowledge, it's only weapon was the Genie.

I believe if you check into it, you will find the later Scorpions also had
the capability of carrying and firing the AIM-4 Falcons; earlier models
carried 2.75 inch FFAR's.

Brooks

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

In California it would be conspiracy, good for 20 years.

IOW, out in 6 months, right?

Only if there is a shortage of space for drunk drivers.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:35:45 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Yeah. Source for the date when drug testing became a standard feature? I
went through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the
initiation of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another
alluded to 1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug testing
results in the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?

http://navydrugscreeninglabsandiego....%20History.pdf

"COMMAND HISTORY FOR THE NAVY DRUG SCREENING LABORATORY SAN DIEGO, CA"

"...The United States Navy responded in 1971 by standing up drug
testing laboratories in various Naval Hospitals across the country to
test for drugs of abuse..."

"...In the early stages of the program, NDSL, SD received specimens
from Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy commands in southern
California as well as Navy ships deployed in the Command In Chief,
Pacific (CINCPAC) Area of Responsibility (AOR) and military
installations in Hawaii and the Philippines..."

http://www.stuttgart.army.mil/Services/ADCO/Content.htm
"Public Law 92-129 (28 SEP 1971): TITLE V - Identification and
Treatment of Drug and Alcohol Dependent Persons in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 501."