Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Tempest" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in
message

news
In article ,
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

by James Ridgeway
A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:

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. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from
being
a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These
were
rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of
drug
use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
snip

The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The
bureau's
chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not
to
discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php


No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior
pilots
(Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.

As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.

Actually, he was only performing split training assemblies with them (or
more accurately, "equivalent training"); his request to transfer to
another
unit had been turned down. His own unit had just become an operational
conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102
and
F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and
given
the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one
can
understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
services of then 1LT Bush.

Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog
hunt--this
was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.

Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.

Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
through it.

No, it does not, as it is based upon faulty analysis. PRP would only apply
to nuclear armed units--Bush's unit would not have qualified by 1972 (the
AIM-26A had left the inventory, and his unit was transitioning to a training
role). Them's the facts. You don't like it because they do not play neatly
into your twisted little anti-Bush scenario, and that is just too bad.

What the **** are you talking about?

Just what does that nonsense have to do with Bush leaving his unit
without permission and going AWOL?

Maybe we
will next hear where the esteemed Mr. Clark now recollects the *truth*
behind Bush's service record (well, that is as soon as Clark can
determine
exactly what he wants *that* particular "truth" to look like, based upon
his
evident skills at fabrication).

What fabrication? Please provide proof.

One presumes you possess the modicum of intelligence required to do a web
search; the transcripts of Mr. Clark's background brief (where he offered
views directly contradicting his statements yesterday) given in August 2002
are available at various sites. Likewise, the unredacted portion of the
e-mail that Rice provided contradicting his claims is available. You can
find them if you want to. Why should I bother to provide them to you, as you
won't bother to read what they had to say anyway?

I read them, and you are lying.

If you believe Rice, you're as stupid as you seem.

You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

Nope.

Yup.

But since it doesn't correspond with your fabricated belief, you won't
acknowledge it.

Mr. Clark's own statements vary depending upon when he said it, who he
said it to, and whether or not his utterance was delivered before or after
he missed getting that job he wanted in DHS.

Clarke explained himself.

And from my own experiences in Washington, he is absolutely correct.

You don't give negative news if it's not asked for.

Mr. Lehman was dead on target when he said Clark has a credibility problem.

Then why did Lehman fall silent and look embarrassed after Clarke
explained himself?

You didn't watch the hearings, did you?

One minute the guy is claiming
he had the guts to stand by his convictions, offer his opinions no matter
how impolitic they were, and tender his resignation, etc.; the next he
whines that his background comments were skewed to be favorable to the Bush
administration because that was just the position he was in. Phooey.

Which is SOP when you work in Washington.

Not that you'd know anything about that.

Brooks

*plonk*

The last act of a lying coward.

--
"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