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

"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

"Ian MacLure" wrote in message
...
"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

The museum at Wright-Pat has one of our birds (S/N 58-0787) .
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/modern_flight/mf30.htm

Pete

Bush is as dishonorable as he is unfit to command.

An opinion, but it's yours.


Actually, I wasn't the person that wrote that, Ed. The original poster did.

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.

Well, I believe he still goes around under the label of Conservative
Republican, as does Scarborough.

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.

If I was a mindless automaton, perhaps, but if you were a boy scout and you and
several other boy scouts lied to me personally, I wouldn't associate myself
with you or them anymore, regardless of how much I think they are a great
organization. There are vast differences between all degrees of Republicans or
Democrats -- I fell in line with many more Republican policies than Democrats,
but I have a couple sticking points that are making it impossible to throw my
support behind either party. The current "yer with us, or agin us" attitude of
the GOP certainly doesn't help.

One party seeks
government solutions to social problems and a redistribution of
wealth, while the other party prefers individual responsibility and
minimal government intervention.

I find it difficult to consider the Patriot Act or invading Iraq and tagging on
hundreds of Billions of dollars to the national debt "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.)


Thats the gray area in which I fall, between the main platforms.

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.

I don't recall ever going on national television and denouncing every part of
my currently-claimed political affilliation? I have never stood on a stage
claiming to be from one party and loudly, overwhelmingly toss my support to the
other team. Zell is a politician and a showman - I am neither.

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

I didn't become a Democrat today - it happened slowly, over time, watching
Bush41's background guys get away with murder, then waste millions of dollars
trying to impeach a guy for lying about a blowjob, but the last straw was
Cheney refusing to let the GAO know what went on during the Texas oil lobby's
meetings with him while he formulated our nations energy policy. I would
support a three legged dog like Clinton before I would agree to let Cheney have
four more years to shape our future energy policy. And how long was "the great
uniter" in office before he gutted the EPA, and began full scale efforts to
roll back Roe v Wade, knowing it is the single most devisive issue in modern US
history? That's not the actions of a uniter.

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.

We must come from different parts of the country, because GWB had a reputation
for partying hard long before 1984. It wasn't a good reputation.

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.

Sufficient to govern? Ok, but when you know 49% of the voters disagree with
your policies, how compassionate or unifying is it to basically **** on
everyone that didn't vote for him? Such a meager victory should have taught
him humility - instead, he took it as a God-given right to jam his agenda, and
his war against Saddam, down everyone's neck. He told Congress that he didn't
feel military action was inevitable in Iraq, even as he planned the invasion he
knew he was going to order, in the face of widespread national disunity on the
issue. Now, here we are.

Recognize also that a President doesn't
rule by fiat, but requires legislation that is subject to the
checks-and-balances of the Constitution.

Like when Cheney essentially tells the GAO to f-off, or when the entire
administration uses a large stack of "mistaken" evidence to convince Congress
to go along with him?

As for "reviled around the world"--that seems to be a bit of
hyperbole.

No sir. Its not just in Muslim countries, either. All over the world, people
do not look at us the same as prior to our invasion of an oil state. At a time
when Al Qaida was an active, determined threat, he diverted resources to go
after his sworn family enemy, Saddam, placing him higher in priority than
wiping out the organization that caused 9-11; General Franks said in an
interview that units were stripped away from the hunt for Bin Laden in the
spool up for the Iraq invasion - as long as he is out there, he remains Threat
#1. I think it was a strategic goof to back-burner Bin Laden and spend
inconcievable amounts of money going after a country that had NOT attacked us.
NK is a far greater threat than Saddam ever was; that will probably be our next
war.

Seems that there are still literally millions around the
world who would love to come here and become citizens.

Millions out of billions, with far more folks wondering what the hell we are
doing and where this is all heading. For every person wanting to immigrate to
America today, there are just as many that want to kill an American, for
general purposes. The total number in that category sure seems to have gone up
in the last 20 months.

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 was inappropriate - we hadn't accomplished finding Bin Laden, once his
stated #1 goal and the reason that carrier had gone out in the first place. We
hadn't even found Saddam - whose forces still bleed us today. If the "Mission"
had been to plunge us into a protracted ground war in Asia, then yes, its been
"accomplished".

It further seems reasonable that a President
who is, in fact,

WAS. And he walked off the job by choice - you hold that against Kerry, so
hold it against Bush as well.

a rated USAF pilot would be able to wear the Nomex
and come aboard in an aircraft.

I recall a lot of people calling John Glenn's final flight into space a giant
PR stunt - on a grander scale, a sitting US President that goes for a joyride
to a photo op is not what I would consider presidential.

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.

So lie like a rug then, hmm? I consider when a US Government official lies
directly to Congress and the governments of our allies alike about national and
global security to be a bad thing.

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.

So we went to war through a series of mistakes? Why is that better? Powell
may not be a serial liar, but during his UN speech, he made enough 'mistakes'
to basically render our stated motive for war moot.

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.

He told us the reason we were going to war was that Iraq possessed and was
getting prepared to use chemical weapons and biological weapons, was actively
ramping up a nuke program, and it was imperative to strike before he could do
so. The *actual* reason was that Bush 43 had made up his mind to invade Iraq
long before those intel estimates said anything - his own memo from the
earliest days of his administration shows that.

The
US, the Brits, and even the French all thought so. Hell, even Kerry
was convinced.

He mistakenly believed the President. We all have to learn from such mistakes.

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.

Bonesmen make good leaders - I have a problem with THESE Bonesmen , who I don't
feel serve the American population at all.

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.

In the news two days ago, a report came out that the Pentagon knew and covered
up a large-scale problem with wartime atrocities in SVN by Tiger Force; I would
never paint all vets of a conflict with the same brush (either positively or
negatively), but I think you and I both know that there were atrocities by both
sides in that war. A small percentage of almost every fighting force I can
think of has fallen into such depravity. I think Kerry's comments 30+ years
ago were ill-concieved and immature; but back then, lots of people were trying
to sort out what was happening, while the Pentagon and McNamara were feeding us
all bull****. Remember, "What the Major really means.."? I care a lot less
about what Kerry did in combat 30 years ago or what he said in its aftermath:
what concerns me today, right now, is what Bush has done since he took office,
and what Cheney has been doing in the background. I am not a "Kerry
supporter", but I will support him if that is what I can do to help remove
Cheney from office.

History looks back with a strong lens and I believe that one day we are going
to discover things about this administration that will justify my intense
misgivings about them.

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,

C'mon, Ed - on a small riverine craft that's like saying you don't know if the
guy in the rack beside you farted. Within a few days of joining a small boat
crew, you know more about the rest of the guys than anyone you went all through
school with.

what his responsibility was,
what his performance was, etc.

Do you believe that no one on his boat was in a position to determine if his
actions were meritorious?

Certainly "on the boat" is good, but in
formation is equally good,

The guys that were in formation with the A-10 that went off to crash and die on
his own on a snowy mountainside were unable to give any indication of what
happened to the man flying directly beside them in their formation. I am
confident that, if he had a backseater, that person could have added at least
something to the inquiry. The guy at your elbow is going to have a better view
of what you are doing than the guy in that other boat over there, and being in
the same general area in another small boat, in the dark, just isn't going to
convince me they had a better view.

on the mission is equally good, supervising
is equally good, in the chain-of-command is equally good for
evaluating a leader.

Funny you bring that up - those guys signed off on his medals and made
supportive statements right up until he made his abrasive postwar comments.
Right up to then, they agreed he was a fine small unit commander, that
exhibited bravery under fire. I say if we are going to refight his whole life,
then we should have to accept that at the time of the actions, he was seen as a
solid performer.

I lot of us regret what we did in the 1970s, and Kerry quit the anti-war
veterans group when they spun out of control. His statements in front of
Congress cannot be seen as pointed at every single warrior that served over
there - I am not going to try to heal the wounds his comments made, because
they impugned you and the men with which you served. It was undoubtably a
wrong act on Kerry's part and I believe he would be miles ahead to step forward
and say he took a stand for what he believed and in the process went over the
line and disrespected the vast majority of those that served with their moral
honor intact.

The ongoing investigation into Tiger Force for exactly the same sort of abuses
that Kerry claimed back then shows that he was not inventing it out of whole
cloth - the Pentagon's reports came back with affirmations of the Tiger Force
crimes, recommendations for charges, etc., and the case against the
participants, the very people that did this "Abu Ghraib"-type of malevolent
behavior, were never brought to justice.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...y=SRTIGERFORCE

This is relevent, because it is exactly the same type of behavior that Kerry
portrayed to Congress. Its reprehensible, but his comments certainly applied
to this particular unit. It wouldn't explain Kerry's non-efforts to heal the
wounds he caused with his comments, which I think is something he is going to
have to do.

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.

How would you have felt if your feelings over our three-legged former President
caused the AF to reopen your record, for the purpose of re-evaluating your
awards? What if Clinton had ordered a formal investigation of Senator McCain's
conduct in the Hanoi Hilton? My point is, every single one of us would have
gone through the roof - your record is your record, and political foes
shouldn't be in a position to direct a branch of the military to put you
through the wringer, just for opposing them in an election.

Why is this any different than
the Dems demanding that Bush' records be examined?

Part of it is that he is the highest official in the land, and he should be
held to the highest standard in the land. Like when the GOP hounded Clinton -
I think its part of the territory when you are at the top, you had better be
above reproach or have the strength of character to admit when you were wrong.


In fact, why hasn't
Kerry signed off on a DD-180 to release the full records?

Beats me. But if there was anything in there that would help Bush, it would
have been leaked by now.

You know it would.

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.

Not something I would have done, or appreciated. I am not here to fight his
battles for him - my view is that Bush AND Kerry have made poor choices over
the years. That doesn't take away the pair of Queens in his hand - he IS a
combat vet and Bush is not. He WAS awarded medals for bravery in combat and
Bush has not. All things totalled up, I can't vote for Cheney in any case.

His first "year" tour on the Gridley he was in-theater for five
weeks of his year posting.

???? Wait a second, Ed - now you are quantifying the service of someone else,
setting it as less than worthy because he wasn't in theatre as long as you
think he should - that's what you crack on Art about. If Kerry was riding
around on a tin can for a few weeks or months, it still counts.

The first ribbon I got, I didn't wear for years - VS-31 got a Battle E on the
Ike during their 1978 Med Cruise and for the rest of that year. I joined
towards the end of the deployment and was told I got the Battle E, certificate
included, a few months later. I knew I wasn't in the unit long enough to have
earned it, but I got gigged on my final inspection in the squadron because I
was not wearing it - I stood out because every single other person was wearing
the ribbon, and I had none. I wore it after that. I would point at it and
tell folks I got that one for Mess Crankin' at Jax (Cecil Field, actually).

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.

In February, the White House released documents, saying "This is all there is".
Its not the first time, and its not just nit-picking, its a valid point. How
many FOI requests does it take to get the whole story? There are months he
didn't drill and after a million dollars in flight training, he doesn't go for
a physical and drops out of flying. That bothers me, Ed.

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.

Understood - I was curious about the comparitively small amount of flight time
in the actual F-102 - it looked like he was more of a TF-102 pilot. I'm not
trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, I wondered why so much time in
the TF and so little in the F; you've set me straight.

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.

I didn't realize there were so many - I watched a program on them that made it
sound that there were scant few (63 built is a lot more than they stated).
Shows what happens when I watch tv... I did check out the Del Rio TF-102;
strange that it is not listed as a preserved example.?

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?

No sir, and Colonel, I am not going to be disrespectful about your profession.
I know the drill. Tons of training to reach the top rung of the ladder - as
you did. His flight hours as quoted seems like his flight time was primarily
trainers and comparitively few sorties in the F-102, and I was wondering aloud
why anyone would prefer a "tub", once they qualified on the for-real fighter
version.

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.

The Wings program on the F-102 claimed that the widened cockpit was a botched
job, causing seriously degraded performance. Was it really that much
different?

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

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

"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

Give 'em hell, Gordon. We're pretty much on the same page, and my past personal
political history and experience very closely imitates yours. The only
difference between us is that I no longer have either the patience or the energy
to get into the point by point refutations that you so admirably have done. So,
keep up the good work, Gordon.....they may have stolen our party from us and
left only the name behind with which to confuse the public, but that doesn't
entitle them to a free ride.

Like I said, keep up the good work, and "nol illegitimati carborundum" (don't
let the *******s wear you down)!! (^-^)))

George Z.

PS - I apologize for posting this only tangentially-related aviation topic in
this forum. I tried to communicate these views to you via email without success
and felt that I had no other options left if I wanted to let you know how I felt
about your efforts.

From: "George Z. Bush" am
Date: 9/9/2004 8:34 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Like I said, keep up the good work, and "nol illegitimati carborundum" (don't

let the *******s wear you down)!! (^-^)))

George Z.


Illigitimus non tatum carborundum.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Thanks, George. These days, stating your political beliefs is basically
inviting a load of hurt, but I refuse to believe our country would be better
off without the debate.

v/r
Gordon