Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:43:32 -0600, "tscottme"
wrote:

Q: "Mr. President can you offer any proof that it wasn't your clone that
served in the Air National Guard?"

The original served in the Guard. What we have now is the clone.

They used a 1978 Xerox machine to duplicate him.

-
``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

"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.

Desertion

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

HRP failure

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

failure to show up for a drug test

Eh? Drug-testing was not a regular feature in the military in 1972; one
source indicates it did not come into use on a random basis until 1980
(http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/policy.html ), when the indications were an
astounding 27% of service personnel were using, at least periodically,
illegal narcotics (a Google will find you at least one source that claims an
even higher use rate at that time). It appears that some drug testing was
initiated around 1974. Only one source that I have seen, besides the
unaccredited source for the Spokane newspaper's account, stated that it
started in April, 1972--but then again the author of that account was
calling himself a "retired 1LT Mission Pilot" and was posting his article in
"Democrat.com" or some such less-than-unbiased site, again without
accreditation of the claim.

all "ancient history"?

You are being quite generous-- since when do unsubstantiated claims, a
highly questionable/unsupported-by-acceredited-evidence "fact", and pure
baseless speculation equal "history", be it ancient or not?

Brooks

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

"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.

"Tammy" wrote in message
om...
"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.

There have been outright dicrepancies in Clarke's own words.

Clarke is selling books to weak minded liberals and I can't really blame him
for cashing in.

"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.

Which have been thoroughly explained, and completely ignored by the rightards.

"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"? Face it, there has been no
solid case made that he did not perform the service he was obligated to
perform--lots of "could have's", "maybe's", and "it appears", all from folks
with an axe to grind, but nothing substantial. Which is why this is a
non-issue for the voters.



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.

Zzzz...oh, you had a point? No? Just more less-than-convincing speculation?
Yes, I can spin it another way--at least one former memeber of the ALANG has
come forward and stated he remembers Bush attending equivalent training (ET)
during that time period. Had a 1LT who did that with our unit (he was out of
PA); good guy (we ended up accepting an interstate transfer of him into our
unit later)--we sent the supporting documents back to his unit--where they
were "misplaced". His subsequent close-out OER from his old PA unit
indicated he had been AWOL; took the intervention of O-5/6 level folks to
get that one cleared up. That was just about six or seven years ago--and you
find the lack of records in a *thirty* year old case hard to swallow? One
can only guess that you have no experience with military recordkeeping (or
lack thereof). The fact is he got his HD.

Now, I am guessing you are going to be much more antagonistic to the
application of "could have", "maybe", etc., to your little buddy JFKII.
Let's see... he "could have" pulled some quick ones to get those PH's for
non-lost-duty "wounds" so he could get his butt out of Vietnam early (real
early), "maybe" he pulled some strings to get his early release from active
duty, and "maybe" he did none of his *own* reserve committment (he did have
one, you may recall--where is the documentation showing he preformed *any*
reserve duty, even the obligatory annual appearance/update of files?)...
Hey, he's guilty until proven innocent, right? Good for the goose, good for
the gander?



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.

As another poster has already noted, you missed a part of that--applied to
nuclear armed units.


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."

LOL! Like *Reich* would know? You'll have to come up with a better source.



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?

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?

Brooks

"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.

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.

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Submariner" wrote:

It follows the "too stupid to be..." theme that Dubya has lived by.
Can't you just picture a definitive biography of GWB, with the chapters titled
as following?
Too stupid to be a preppy
Too stupid to be an Eli
Too stupid to be an ANG pilot
Too stupid to be an oil company exec
Too stupid to be a ...
Too stupid to be president.

But, somehow, this "stupid" man is running a massive, deeply complicated
conspiracy to take over the world, according to the same folks.

On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent eight
years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the "dumb" Bush
is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.