Records Show Bush Guard Commitment Unmet

Records show pledges unmet

September 8, 2004

This article was reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters
Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael
Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of
President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly
insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military
commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe
reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service --
first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out
of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush
signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a
punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records
show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts.
The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge,
Bush signed a document that declared, ''It is my responsibility to
locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization
augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary
order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard
regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush
spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his
six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he
left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke,"
Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in
a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a
''statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory
participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend
duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days
of annual active duty. ''I understand that I may be ordered to active
duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory
participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one
six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months
in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with
interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations
from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills
was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or
ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did
neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service
had been ''satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding
officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous
12 months.

Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped
questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted
again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not
''met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared:
''And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have
called him up for active duty for up to two years."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army
Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military
officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard
regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without
any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was
complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview
yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars
to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher
standard."

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas
Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White
House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his
obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to
Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts,
Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush ''took a chance that he
could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and
he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. ''There
were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and
reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many
of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush ''gamed the
system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so.
''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating
on my income tax," Korb said.

After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active
duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any
given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that
obligation in two successive fiscal years.

Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year
obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often
allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a
responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb,
who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. ''I see no
evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission
to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that
document, he should have fulfilled his obligation."

The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future
president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received
favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from
Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of
Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a
call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a
Bush family friend.

Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and
dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970,
after five additional months of specialized training in F-102
fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year
assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron.

In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily
to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do
equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service
records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October
of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported
Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward
with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing
guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973.
While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for
failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1,
1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his
annual performance review because he had not been observed at the
Houston base during the prior 12 months.

Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some
of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a
weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June,
and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after
reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have
received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The
regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled
drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30
days after the date of the drill.

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little
interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to
look the other way. Others agree. ''It appears that no one wanted to
hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr.,
who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National
Guard."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...duty_at_guard/

Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

Walt

Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

I was watching Buchanon and Scarborough skewer Bush on his show yesterday - the
pair of them were ticking off the list of what was wrong with Bush, from the
Conservative standpoint. It was almost exactly the same list of problems I have
with him, and it was not a short list.

I am now a 'reluctanct democrat' because I served under Bush Sr. and I was lied
to by that man and his circle of friends. I know him to be otherwise
honorable, but this was a personal thing. That led me to quit the Republican
party after years of support. If not for his stand on abortion rights and his
desire to incorporate his religion into his presidency, I would have returned
to the GOP to support Bob Dole; I remain estranged from my party of choice.

When this current guy surfaced, it was usually as some report of a drunk
incident or other tacky public faux pas that embarrassed his family. Then, in
front of God and everyone, he took over the presidency when it was clear there
was no national mandate - yet he alienated that other half of the country by
ramrodding his own agenda through in a manner that has made us reviled around
the world. When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission
Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt, and he got Powell to perjure himself in
front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick. He told me and everyone
else that field commanders in the Iraqi Army were capable of deploying those
agents. He showed us photos of tractor trailors, and pronounced them mobile
chemical warfare labs. A dozen other statements that have now been shown
wrong. Powell is an honorable man, that Bush and Cheney got to lie, for their
purposes. He is a Republican I could vote for in a heartbeat, after I heard
him explain why he did what that.

I have watched with disbelief as my country sank into the hands of the same
Bonesmen that lied to us last time (remember Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?)
and I am holding my breath to see if we are going to get clear of this
nightmare. The other night, Cheney tried to convince the nation that a vote
for Kerry could lead to an attack by the terrorists - without mentioning that
his own DHS has foretold many times that we are definitely going to be struck
again, not if, but when. Cheney was trying to scare the "sheep people" into
thinking that somehow, a vote for Bush would mean we'd somehow sidestep that
inevitability. What kind of a tactic is that? Certainly not very honest of
him.

Kerry has a hell of a lot more leadership behind him than GWB had when he took
over the White House - warts and all, I can't see the country plunging to its
doom simply because yet another career politician took over, but a few more
years under George, Dick, and Don is about the worst thing I can imagine.
Well, maybe Gore - that would be worse.

The folks that served _with_ Kerry said he earned the medals and if others that
weren't there, _on his boat_ disagree, it shouldn't matter, since the Navy
reviewed all the details at the time, and awarded them to him. That the
Republicans would now get the Navy to open a formal review of those medals is
deeply insulting, to everyone that every got one. If I disagree with the
current administration, does that mean the Navy will now revoke my Navy Comm?

Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that is
a poor judge of character.

Bush's characterization of his service ("I fulfilled all my obligations")
really doesn't toe in with what his documents show - and its bothersome to me
that these records have to come dribbling out a couple at a time, each
accompanied by a polite, "sorry, honestly, this is the last of them," note.

To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know why he
flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102? That is one ugly
bird: it now sits in a tiny air and naval museum in Del Rio, Texas, all but
forgotten. Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
available. That two seater was supposedly not that great in the air and I
wonder why he spent so much time in it. Curious.

v/r
Gordon

====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

On 08 Sep 2004 22:06:06 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

An opinion, but it's yours.

I was watching Buchanon and Scarborough skewer Bush on his show yesterday - the
pair of them were ticking off the list of what was wrong with Bush, from the
Conservative standpoint. It was almost exactly the same list of problems I have
with him, and it was not a short list.

Pat Buchanan? Gimme a break. He went way over the edge during his 2000
Republican/Independent/Reform/who'll have me candidacy. But, they get
paid to enterain, don't they.

I am now a 'reluctanct democrat' because I served under Bush Sr. and I was lied
to by that man and his circle of friends.

Your experience is formative, but to become a "reluctanct" democrat
because you were unhappy with Bush 41 policy seems to overlook the
essential difference between the two party ideologies. One party seeks
government solutions to social problems and a redistribution of
wealth, while the other party prefers individual responsibility and
minimal government intervention.

(Admittedly, in forming a myriad of policies that seek to create an
appeal to a winning election majority there is considerable overlap
between the two ideologies.)

I know him to be otherwise
honorable, but this was a personal thing. That led me to quit the Republican
party after years of support. If not for his stand on abortion rights and his
desire to incorporate his religion into his presidency, I would have returned
to the GOP to support Bob Dole; I remain estranged from my party of choice.

Sort of makes you a Republican version of Zell Miller. But, if you
were really a Republican, how can becoming a Democrat today fit your
basic idea of the role of government in society?

When this current guy surfaced, it was usually as some report of a drunk
incident or other tacky public faux pas that embarrassed his family.

When did he "surface"? George W. gave up drinking more than 20 years
ago, about the time he was rising to public prominence.


Then, in
front of God and everyone, he took over the presidency when it was clear there
was no national mandate - yet he alienated that other half of the country by
ramrodding his own agenda through in a manner that has made us reviled around
the world.

You'll need to admit that once elected by our Constitutional process
(Electoral College not popular vote) then, by definition, there is
sufficient mandate to govern. Recognize also that a President doesn't
rule by fiat, but requires legislation that is subject to the
checks-and-balances of the Constitution.

As for "reviled around the world"--that seems to be a bit of
hyperbole. Seems that there are still literally millions around the
world who would love to come here and become citizens.

When he "landed" a Navy jet on a carrier under "Mission
Accomplished", the ultimate PR stunt,

As a former Navy type yourself, it is surprising that you never
encountered a similar "Mission Accomplished" banner on return from a
combat deployment--particularly won in which your ship suffered no
combat aircraft losses. It further seems reasonable that a President
who is, in fact, a rated USAF pilot would be able to wear the Nomex
and come aboard in an aircraft.


and he got Powell to perjure himself in
front of Congress and the UN, it just made me sick.

One perjures in a court of law. Neither the UN nor the Congress have a
perjury issue.

He told me and everyone
else that field commanders in the Iraqi Army were capable of deploying those
agents. He showed us photos of tractor trailors, and pronounced them mobile
chemical warfare labs. A dozen other statements that have now been shown
wrong. Powell is an honorable man, that Bush and Cheney got to lie, for their
purposes. He is a Republican I could vote for in a heartbeat, after I heard
him explain why he did what that.

One can be mistaken without being a liar. When intelligence estimates
from a variety of sources reach the same conclusions it isn't lying to
use those conclusions for decison-making or concensus building. The
US, the Brits, and even the French all thought so. Hell, even Kerry
was convinced.

I have watched with disbelief as my country sank into the hands of the same
Bonesmen that lied to us last time (remember Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand?)

If it's Bonesmen you object to, don't examine Kerry's Yale years too
closely. He's one as well.

Kerry has a hell of a lot more leadership behind him than GWB had when he took
over the White House - warts and all, I can't see the country plunging to its
doom simply because yet another career politician took over, but a few more
years under George, Dick, and Don is about the worst thing I can imagine.
Well, maybe Gore - that would be worse.

I guess you weren't covered by the rapist, baby-killer, war-criminal
rhetoric. Lucky you. Yeah, that would be my choice for a guy I'd go to
war with....NOT.

The folks that served _with_ Kerry said he earned the medals and if others that
weren't there, _on his boat_ disagree, it shouldn't matter, since the Navy
reviewed all the details at the time, and awarded them to him.

You should know as well as most that simply being "on the boat" is not
necessarily knowing what his job was, what his responsibility was,
what his performance was, etc. Certainly "on the boat" is good, but in
formation is equally good, on the mission is equally good, supervising
is equally good, in the chain-of-command is equally good for
evaluating a leader.


That the
Republicans would now get the Navy to open a formal review of those medals is
deeply insulting, to everyone that every got one. If I disagree with the
current administration, does that mean the Navy will now revoke my Navy Comm?

I've got a Silver Star (pause for Art to "sheesh") and I don't object
to the Navy conducting a formal review. Why is this any different than
the Dems demanding that Bush' records be examined? In fact, why hasn't
Kerry signed off on a DD-180 to release the full records?

Kerry was in combat. Bush was out raising hell. Anyone that can't see that is
a poor judge of character.

C'mon. He was in "combat" for four months and then bailed out on his
crew. His first "year" tour on the Gridley he was in-theater for five
weeks of his year posting.

Bush's characterization of his service ("I fulfilled all my obligations")
really doesn't toe in with what his documents show - and its bothersome to me
that these records have to come dribbling out a couple at a time, each
accompanied by a polite, "sorry, honestly, this is the last of them," note.

The "characterization" is as much from people with no clue about the
military or the relationship of the ANG to the NG to the USAF.

To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know why he
flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102?

No problem there at all. He had to train in the airplane. That means
he flew the two-seater during operational qualfication. Every F-102
equipped unit had a couple of "tubs" and if they weren't used for
check-out or periodic check rides, they could fill the flying
schedule.

That is one ugly
bird: it now sits in a tiny air and naval museum in Del Rio, Texas, all but
forgotten. Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
available. That two seater was supposedly not that great in the air and I
wonder why he spent so much time in it. Curious.

So, do you suppose that someone qualifies in a single-seat fighter by
just going out and firing one up because they prefer single seat?
There are a number of single-seat aircraft with no 2-seat variant
(A-10 currently) and back in the old days, the F-86 and F-84, but for
most one-holers there are a couple of 2-seaters around.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org

"Ed Rasimus" wrote


To bring a small amount of on-topicness to this post, does anyone know
why he
flew so many of his hours in that bizarre 2-seater F-102?

No problem there at all. He had to train in the airplane. That means
he flew the two-seater during operational qualfication. Every F-102
equipped unit had a couple of "tubs" and if they weren't used for
check-out or periodic check rides, they could fill the flying
schedule.

We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.

Pete

"Krztalizer" wrote

Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything else
available.

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
else
available.

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

The one that comes to mind first is Diz Laird, who thought once you had a
"friend" in the cockpit, it was no longer a "fighter". I've sat at tables with
fighter aces at their reunions in San Diego, Mesa, San Antonio and other places
and Diz' comments were in line with what the guys were saying. That said,
almost anyone with a history of flying would fly in a motorized ****can, if
that was the only thing available. I can't imagine why Bush would go through
training and then walk away from a once in a lifetime opportunity to fly the
Deuce, or any other jet fighter.

Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

(WalterM140) wrote in
om:

Records show pledges unmet

All the record shows is that Walterm140 is an idiot who
knows nought whereof he whines.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

I mentioned Diz - the other name that pops up right off the bat is Robin Olds,
who used to tell his backseater to "shut up and hold on".

Besides, I didn't say the guys wouldn't ride in a two-seater, I said

I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
else
available.

Did you miss that part of my comment,
Bob?

Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

"Pete" wrote in
:

[snip]

We (49th FIS) referred to our 2 seat -106 as 'The Bus'.

I was only ever close to a 106 at an airshow in Plattsburg back
in the 80's. I was surprised. I'd always pictured it as a much
larger aircraft.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Krztalizer" wrote

Most fighter jocks I know love single seaters, and I don't know any
of them that preferred to fly a side-by-side ship, if there was anything
else
available.

Most generalizations don't stand up. OK, name five fighter pilots that
you "know" who wouldn't fly any airplane that was full of free gas.

The one that comes to mind first is Diz Laird, who thought once you had a
"friend" in the cockpit, it was no longer a "fighter". I've sat at tables with
fighter aces at their reunions in San Diego, Mesa, San Antonio and other places
and Diz' comments were in line with what the guys were saying. That said,
almost anyone with a history of flying would fly in a motorized ****can, if
that was the only thing available. I can't imagine why Bush would go through
training and then walk away from a once in a lifetime opportunity to fly the
Deuce, or any other jet fighter.

Believe me! It happens all the time. In the late 90's F-15 and F-16 pilots
were jumping out in record numbers because of all the bull**** orbits in Iraq.
When the training is not realistic, the fun goes out of flying pretty fast. There's
just a ****load of additional duties that pilots have to perform, and some
peckerhead is always coming-up with a new ground training requirement
that must be bean-counted to ****ing death. Charts and slides, briefings to
people who can't wipe their own ass. It all adds up to the fact that flying is
5% of the job description, and 95% is non-mission-related.

I tell you what... Spend 90 days overseas wearing diapers and ****ting all
over yourself, and ****ing all over yourself while sitting on a seat kit for
14 hours waiting for some raghead to fire a round at you. Please! Let me
get rid of this ****ing ordinance so I can empty my ****ing diapers.

There's only a very special breed that will do that, and they usually will take it
because they want to be a General one day, and of course fix everything :-)