Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"David Hartung" 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.

Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you have?




I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not allowed to
discuss this."

I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
either way, but what's your experience?

My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who has
not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to tell a
Guardsman how the Guard works.

"David Hartung" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
"David Hartung" 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.

Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you
have?




I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not
allowed to discuss this."

I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
either way, but what's your experience?

My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who
has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to
tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.

What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?

Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that tells
gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied virology
(BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but feels like he's
in a position to tell people who have studied virology how viriuses
work? And let's not forget your grand theory of HIV epidemiology. Are
you an epidemiologist? Do you live in Florida? Have you voted there? You
certainly have had a lot to say about how voting works in Florida over
the past few years.

You don't have to serve in the guard to be able to read a transfer
request denial from personel headquarters. Or are there hidden messages
in it that you only learn how to decifer after you've served?

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.

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

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:43:47 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:05:28 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Buzzer" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, 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:


http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...e=200431401040

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...e=200431402242

Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
guard back then...

The story is a lie, the Texas ANG was conventional weapons only.

"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
Guard units in the 1970s."

Another lie?

You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?

Hint: It goes way beyond "human reliability rules".

Al Minyard

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"David Hartung" wrote in
:


"Republican Double Standard" wrote in
message . 1.4...
"David Hartung" 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.

Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you
have?




I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not
allowed to discuss this."

I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
either way, but what's your experience?

My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who
has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to
tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.

What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?

Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that tells
gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied virology
(BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but feels like he's
in a position to tell people who have studied virology how viriuses
work?

Are you a bug chaser, Republican Double Standard troll?

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:24:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"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.

Personal experience?G

It is strange nothinig is said about testing for drunks at the lab
site. Maybe it was an easier test and done locally.
Now that I have thought of it alcohol testing for everyone in 80 might
be the reason a SMS decided to bail at 22 years around that time. Only
guy I ever knew that had a beer keg in his refrigerator with a valve
on the door. I always figured if he was straight enough to attend the
commanders daily briefing I sure as heck wasn't going to say
anything...

"The drug panel had changed by the fall of 1981 to PCP, morphine,
amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, and cannabinoid (THC)."

This is the one that amazes me. I thought they were testing for THC
long before this. Might be the reason though when they brought the
dogs through a squadron barracks at K.I. Sawyer on a weekend it almost
wiped out the squadron. At least that was the word that spread quickly
around base on Monday. Or maybe it was just a rumor designed to cause
a mass flush off to get rid of the evidence in other barracks.

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:16 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
Guard units in the 1970s."

Another lie?

You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?

I only spent about ten years under HRP for some reason at various
times from 1963 to 1982.

Hint: It goes way beyond "human reliability rules".

Not really. It isn't that complicated. What does seem to be
complicated is for people to realize back in the paranoid days of the
Cold War there were basically two ways of operating - war mode and
training mode. In war mode people might be operating out of their main
job (AFSC in the AF) as an augmentee. Aircraft might even deploy or
recover at other bases. Just because something wasn't done at the
normal everyday base doesn't mean it might not be done at the base
deployed to or recovered at. Actually I am surprised HRP wasn't a
requirement for certain guard personnel before 1972. Or to meet the
requirements at least in case they might deploy to another base where
they might carry a nuclear weapon. Lot of mights and ifs, but...

"Republican Double Standard" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"David Hartung" wrote in
:

My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who
has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to
tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.

What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?

Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that tells
gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied virology
(BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but feels like he's
in a position to tell people who have studied virology how viriuses
work? And let's not forget your grand theory of HIV epidemiology. Are
you an epidemiologist? Do you live in Florida? Have you voted there? You
certainly have had a lot to say about how voting works in Florida over
the past few years.

You don't have to serve in the guard to be able to read a transfer
request denial from personel headquarters. Or are there hidden messages
in it that you only learn how to decifer after you've served?

It is obvious that you will reject anything which counters your preconceived
opinion, but the simple fact is, one who is in the Guard is much more
qualified to speak to the operation of the Guard than one who has not. I
never served. I do not pretend to know everything about how the Guard works,
except that it was occasionally necessary for My Dad to miss drills, this
was no problem, he would make them up later. The concept of equivalent
training is not one which I am familiar with, but it does stand to reason
that there would be provisions for Guardsmen to do such, after all, they all
had civilian jobs.

One more point, there has been at least one individual who served with
George Bush in the Texas Guard, and according to this individual, Bush did
nothing wrong. My suggestion to you fools who keep beating this dead horse
would be to get a life.

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:16 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
Guard units in the 1970s."

Another lie?

You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?

I only spent about ten years under HRP for some reason at various
times from 1963 to 1982.

Then you are aware that HRP certification was not necessary unless you were
in a job which put you in close proximity of specific weapon types, and it
is not known if President Bush's unit was tasked with these weapons.

"Buzzer" wrote in message
...

This is the one that amazes me. I thought they were testing for THC
long before this. Might be the reason though when they brought the
dogs through a squadron barracks at K.I. Sawyer on a weekend it almost
wiped out the squadron. At least that was the word that spread quickly
around base on Monday. Or maybe it was just a rumor designed to cause
a mass flush off to get rid of the evidence in other barracks.

You should have seen the mess when Anderson had a base wide drug bust in
1977, if MMS had lost one more #3 man we would have fallen below EWO
minimums. It was not a happy time!

"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.

What other articles? All anyone has posted is repeated references to "April
1972", and then they provide a "source" like...Robert Reich??! Or that bozo
who claims he is a "1Lt Mission Pilot, retired"?! pardon me, but neither
seem to have much going for them in terms of being a reliable source for
when widespread drug testing began in the military in general, and in
particular in the ANG.

Brooks