Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

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.

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.

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

--
"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

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip] 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.

Mr Brooks is making a gross error in suggesting that any ANG unit
would bypass one of its "favorite sons" and bring on some unknown
entity, Elmo Bowlogrits leaving active duty. The ANG doesn't work that
way, once you're in...you're IN, no swinging dick active duty guy is
taking your slot, unless you **** up and give them a reason to boot
your ass out.

Yeh the boys at Ellington were making a mission change from Air
Defense to RTU...but the minimum number of hours to qualify for an IP
slot were recommendations in some Commands (ANG) and hard and fast in
others. Hell if he could use political influence to jump ahead of guys
on the waiting list to get in the unit, he could have stayed...he
wasn't forced out by some active duty pogue.

Plus...my employer in 1972, hired just over 40 pilots, in 1973 approx
60 guys, in 1974 less than 20. So there just were not a large number
of guys leaving active duty...meaning not a lot of active duty guys
competing for precious few ANG slots.

It would have been no problem for 1Lt Bush (army types use 1LT, CPT,
MAJ while the Air Force types use 1Lt, Capt, Maj) to raise his hand
and say, "I, GWB wanna fly jets! Just like I said I did when I
interviewed for the slot in 1968," and he pink little body would have
been in IPUG (Instructor Pilot Upgrade).

He just didn't want to fly, going out of state and doing the bare
minimum is proof of that. Flying was not a priority nor a passion for
GWB, he tried it and didn't like it, so he quit. Nobody can dispute
that.

I have co-workers that tell stories of their ANG or Reserve time back
in the good ole days (the 1970s)...when units would use their T-29 to
go pick up guys out of state and bring them in for UTA weekends or
FTPs. Not all units, but some units.

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.

To which Tempest responded:

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.

GWB loyalists don't see it as an integrity issue. He served the
minimum, and by golly if the minimums weren't good enough, lower the
minimums!

[Brooks waxed sarcastic WRT to Mr Clake...with an E and Tempest
challenged him]

What fabrication? Please provide proof.

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

Tempest, sincerely...save your bandwidth.

Please don't confuse him with the facts...his mind is made up. That's
really the scary part, some folks are unwilling to entertain ANY doubt
even after no WMD, no al-Qaeda to Iraq connection, no Saddam is an
imminent threat proof. While the swing voters ponder, if Rove & Co
were less than honest on those three things why believe them now.

There was a former NSC guy (now living in MN) on local TV in St Paul
tonight (they showed a pic of him and GWB in the Oval Office and two
letters of commendation from Rice and Rumsfeld). This gentleman pretty
much backed Clarke's assertion that Iraq was the primary target
immediately after 9-11.

Here's a great place to stay informed
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip] 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.

Mr Brooks is making a gross error in suggesting that any ANG unit
would bypass one of its "favorite sons" and bring on some unknown
entity, Elmo Bowlogrits leaving active duty.

Mr. Brooks did not say that. What he/I said was that the unit would not
really *care* if he remained with them or not, as they had the pick of the
litter to get more experienced pilots during that timeframe. Mr. Brooks has
also served in the Guard, and knows full well that the focus on retention is
completely dependent upon unit strength and availability of qualified fills;
when the strength is low, and fills are hard to come by, Guardsmen have to
about be legally dead before their units will release them before their
complete term of service is expired--transfers to other units are even then
hard to get. OTOH, as was the case during this period, when strength is good
and fills are readily available (especially junior officer fills who have
*more* flight experience, and likely combat experience to boot), the
attitude is much more laissez faire. Seen it under both circumstances. Then,
compounding the situation, you have a junior LT who is checked out in a
dying airplane (the Deuce was on its way to the boneyard), in a unit that is
transitioning to a training role. You do the math.

The ANG doesn't work that
way, once you're in...you're IN, no swinging dick active duty guy is
taking your slot, unless you **** up and give them a reason to boot
your ass out.

Or unless you'd just as soon *be* out, given the unit's good strength and
availability of fills.


Yeh the boys at Ellington were making a mission change from Air
Defense to RTU...but the minimum number of hours to qualify for an IP
slot were recommendations in some Commands (ANG) and hard and fast in
others. Hell if he could use political influence to jump ahead of guys
on the waiting list to get in the unit, he could have stayed...he
wasn't forced out by some active duty pogue.

Nobody is saying he wanted to stay in. But not wanting to remain in,
fulfilling your obligated service and being released with an Honorable
Discharge is a far cry from constituting dishonorable service.

Brooks

snip further whining

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, I confessed
the following:

There was a former NSC guy (now living in MN) on local TV in St Paul
tonight (they showed a pic of him and GWB in the Oval Office and two
letters of commendation from Rice and Rumsfeld). This gentleman pretty
much backed Clarke's assertion that Iraq was the primary target
immediately after 9-11.

Allow me to correct myself. I just watched the 10pm news and the guy's
name is Tom Maertens (pronounced Martins) who was NSC Director of
Non-Nuclear Proliferation under Clinton and Bush. The retirement
letters of commendation are signed by Rice and Bush (not Rumsfeld, my
bad... d'oh).

Calls himself a political independent, but is flat out disgusted by
the current administration. He mentioned a Rove memo from 2002 sent to
GOP folks running for elected office (around the country) reminding
them to "run on the war." I hope they do.

Maertens thinks that Richard Clarke "hit a nerve," with GWB.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4684189.html

Juvat

Robey Price wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip] 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.

Mr Brooks is making a gross error in suggesting that any ANG unit
would bypass one of its "favorite sons" and bring on some unknown
entity, Elmo Bowlogrits leaving active duty. The ANG doesn't work that
way, once you're in...you're IN, no swinging dick active duty guy is
taking your slot, unless you **** up and give them a reason to boot
your ass out.

Yeh the boys at Ellington were making a mission change from Air
Defense to RTU...but the minimum number of hours to qualify for an IP
slot were recommendations in some Commands (ANG) and hard and fast in
others. Hell if he could use political influence to jump ahead of guys
on the waiting list to get in the unit, he could have stayed...he
wasn't forced out by some active duty pogue.

Plus...my employer in 1972, hired just over 40 pilots, in 1973 approx
60 guys, in 1974 less than 20. So there just were not a large number
of guys leaving active duty...meaning not a lot of active duty guys
competing for precious few ANG slots.

It would have been no problem for 1Lt Bush (army types use 1LT, CPT,
MAJ while the Air Force types use 1Lt, Capt, Maj) to raise his hand
and say, "I, GWB wanna fly jets! Just like I said I did when I
interviewed for the slot in 1968," and he pink little body would have
been in IPUG (Instructor Pilot Upgrade).

He just didn't want to fly, going out of state and doing the bare
minimum is proof of that. Flying was not a priority nor a passion for
GWB, he tried it and didn't like it, so he quit. Nobody can dispute
that.

I have co-workers that tell stories of their ANG or Reserve time back
in the good ole days (the 1970s)...when units would use their T-29 to
go pick up guys out of state and bring them in for UTA weekends or
FTPs. Not all units, but some units.

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.

To which Tempest responded:

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.

GWB loyalists don't see it as an integrity issue. He served the
minimum, and by golly if the minimums weren't good enough, lower the
minimums!

[Brooks waxed sarcastic WRT to Mr Clake...with an E and Tempest
challenged him]

What fabrication? Please provide proof.

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

Tempest, sincerely...save your bandwidth.

Noted.

Please don't confuse him with the facts...his mind is made up. That's
really the scary part, some folks are unwilling to entertain ANY doubt
even after no WMD, no al-Qaeda to Iraq connection, no Saddam is an
imminent threat proof. While the swing voters ponder, if Rove & Co
were less than honest on those three things why believe them now.

There was a former NSC guy (now living in MN) on local TV in St Paul
tonight (they showed a pic of him and GWB in the Oval Office and two
letters of commendation from Rice and Rumsfeld). This gentleman pretty
much backed Clarke's assertion that Iraq was the primary target
immediately after 9-11.

Paul O'Neill, former Bush Treasury Secretary, was present in a meeting
just after Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 when Bush came into a
meeting and said, "**** Saddam, we're taking him out."

O'Neill told of the event in his book.

Also, CBS found two other Pentagon officials who collaborated Clarke's
story.
When told of the sources, Hadley stuttered and stumbled to cover up his
shock.

Here's a great place to stay informed
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm

Thanks for the link.

Juvat

--
"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

"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.


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?


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

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

Brooks

*plonk*

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

"Tempest" wrote in message
...

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

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
his other actions and writings.

"David Hartung" wrote in message .. .
"Tempest" wrote in message
...

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

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
his other actions and writings.

So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that the
GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released positive
information to the press and saved the negative information until
after he left the White House.

There are three things to keep in mind.

1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
poster child for anti-GOP views.

2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
(amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
position.

Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.

3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
bit of the details.

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
wrote:


"Tempest" wrote in message
...

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

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
his other actions and writings.

Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
he looks.


-
``If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined,'' Scalia wrote in response to the Sierra Club's request that he disqualify himself.

America's future never looked bleaker.

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays