Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

Cub Driver wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
wrote:


Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
Guard.


Surely you jest. Everyone knows that he was abducted by a black
helicopter from Mexico!

There's a mystery only if you want to see one.
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

I am fascinated by the trolls on this newsgroup. It seems that all the
really nutty stuff is anti-Bush. What does that say about the present
Democratic candidate? (The same one who moans about the "Republican
attack machine".)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

CD:

1. Didn't you notice the name of the newsgroup?
2. Of the 51,282 posts on my news server, the majority (72%) attempt to
deride Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton (Bill & Hillary) and Gore; some
even attempting to blame them for everything from mopery & dopery on the
high seas to blame for killing Cock Robin.

That's a lot of work from those who are convinced GW's going to win the
November election (how's that go? Me doth thinkest thou protestith too
much?). Please, either do the math, read the content or quit lying,
whichever is easier.

Miles "That's the Best" Long

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

I knew it was going to happen.

If you knew what was going to happen you would quit posting, pest.

Clinton's Penis has been replaced by Clarke's Perjury.

Clinton's penis could not make Chelsea, so Webb Hubble had to pinch hit.

Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.

pot-kettle

A very poor one at that.

You would know....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
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..."

None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature, to
include being used in the ANG.

Brooks


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."

"qwerty" wrote in message
om...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week
or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his statements
under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the commission,
under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Brooks


Indeed, considering the consequences there's no way Clarke will be charged
with perjury.

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?

Nope. They carried the AIM 4 and AIM 26 model Falcons, but no Genies. Genie
was carried by (IIRC) F-89, F-101, and F-106; ISTR hearing that some F-4's
were also wired to carry them, but never did operationally as the other's
did. The Deuce's nuclear round was the AIM 26A, which was completely retired
from service by 1972.

There are some who claim that the F-4 was capable of carrying the
Genie - that's really not the case. There are one or 2 photographs of
an F-4 carrying a "Genie-Shaped" object under one of the inboard wing
pylons, it's not actually a Genie, but an air-launched sounding rocket
based on the Genie's rocket motor. There's a big difference between
being able to fire off an a rather dumb rocket. (You only need the
firing signal) and firing a real AIR-2. The airplane systems have to
be able to acquire the target, compute the firing solution, both for
the launch airplane's position and vector, and the fuze timer settings
in the Genie, and be able to direct the airplane, or teh pilot, to the
proper firing point. There were some efforts to explore the use of
the Genie on other interceptors - The English Electric Lighting could
have ended up carrying two of them, and the F-104A was considered at
one point. (The F-104 system required this big pantograph rack on the
belly station - given the size of th AIR-2, there are some questions
about who was launching who, in that case.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" writes:

I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?

Nope. They carried the AIM 4 and AIM 26 model Falcons, but no Genies.
Genie
was carried by (IIRC) F-89, F-101, and F-106; ISTR hearing that some
F-4's
were also wired to carry them, but never did operationally as the
other's
did. The Deuce's nuclear round was the AIM 26A, which was completely
retired
from service by 1972.

There are some who claim that the F-4 was capable of carrying the
Genie - that's really not the case.

OK. I stand corrected on the F-4 ever having such a capability.

Brooks

There are one or 2 photographs of
an F-4 carrying a "Genie-Shaped" object under one of the inboard wing
pylons, it's not actually a Genie, but an air-launched sounding rocket
based on the Genie's rocket motor. There's a big difference between
being able to fire off an a rather dumb rocket. (You only need the
firing signal) and firing a real AIR-2. The airplane systems have to
be able to acquire the target, compute the firing solution, both for
the launch airplane's position and vector, and the fuze timer settings
in the Genie, and be able to direct the airplane, or teh pilot, to the
proper firing point. There were some efforts to explore the use of
the Genie on other interceptors - The English Electric Lighting could
have ended up carrying two of them, and the F-104A was considered at
one point. (The F-104 system required this big pantograph rack on the
belly station - given the size of th AIR-2, there are some questions
about who was launching who, in that case.




--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature, to
include being used in the ANG.

Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
dramatically in 1972.

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature,
to
include being used in the ANG.

Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
dramatically in 1972.

The early tests were easily passed by drinkers. Only non-drinkers ever
failed.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"qwerty" wrote in message
om...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Tempest" wrote in message
...
Leslie Swartz wrote:

And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?

A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week
or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his statements
under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the commission,
under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Bring it on.

If Clarke felt there was a problem, he'd be all over the media with
clarifications.

Oh wait, isn't Rice doing that now?

I guess Bush has a problem.

--
"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