Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Republican Double Standard wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:


...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Not all his records were released.

His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
next to impossible to erase.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
someone in the government to do him any favors.

Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
that would get you some prison time.

Let's be real here.

During Reagan/Bush Sr. we had Iran/Contra.

How many people went to prison over that?

It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
from any branch of the government.

--
"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

Buzzer wrote:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
wrote:



by James Ridgeway
A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:



http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...e=200431401040
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...e=200431402242

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



According to the second article:

"The air-to-air missiles in the jets were intended to destroy Soviet
bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles in midair before they
could strike the continental United States."

Whatever the truth here, I find it difficult to believe they'd discharge
ANYBODY who could shoot down an ICBM...

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.

Try again.

--
"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
...


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.

But Kerry wasn't even in the City and then he wasn't at the meeting ...

Try again.

I'll bet Kerry lied a third time and you are bluffing.

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

Robey Price wrote:

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

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.

The pedant in me must point out, GWB did not "transfer" from the TX
ANG to the AL ANG. He merely got permission to drill in AL while
retaining his TX ANG affiliation for reporting purposes.

He didn't get permission.

His request was denied.

He left TX anyway.

He would have
ZERO chance of flying the RF-4 regardless of rank.

The most likely scenario was that GWB put in a little (we're talking
VERY little) "VFR face time," but literally didn't do anything but
walk around unsupervised, drink coffee, have mock dog-fights with his
right hand shooting the watch on his left wrist while telling, "There
I was..." stories.

Having said that, you are correct that a guy with very little
obligation left would NOT normally check out in the next airplane,
doing so adds another two or three years to your service obligation.

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.

Back then the B (as in Basic) course for Fighter/Attack/Recce pilots
was six months. The Tx (Transition) course for guys coming from
similar missions would run approximately three months...that's if you
attended RTU fulltime (back then that would have been with the 363d
TRW at Shaw AFB). Local checkouts, part-time would take longer.

But the proper conclusion is not that the AL ANG didn't want to use
their resources (RTU slots) on GWB, but rather GWB had ZERO reason to
expect/anticipate flying the RF-4. It's not applicable in his case.

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

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


"Buzzer" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
wrote:

by James Ridgeway
A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:


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

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

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

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

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

Another lie?

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.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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.

Try again.

Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

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