Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

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

"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?

Nah, an over-statement of fact. Yeah the HRP applied to all ANG units
[if they had a nuclear mission]. If you specify particular units you
give away some intel (like who has nukes or who doesn't). Same thing
with later PRP, if your unit had a nuclear mission then you were
screened, but if you only did conventional you were not on PRP, but
PRP applied to the ENTIRE USAF. There is no lie.

Juvat

"Tempest" wrote in message
...


Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in
message

news
In article ,
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

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

Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which
almost
no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from
being
a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These
were
rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of
drug
use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
snip

The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The
bureau's
chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not
to
discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php


No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior
pilots
(Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.

As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.

Actually, he was only performing split training assemblies with them (or
more accurately, "equivalent training"); his request to transfer to
another
unit had been turned down. His own unit had just become an operational
conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102
and
F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and
given
the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one
can
understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
services of then 1LT Bush.

Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog
hunt--this
was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.

Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.

Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
through it.

No, it does not, as it is based upon faulty analysis. PRP would only apply
to nuclear armed units--Bush's unit would not have qualified by 1972 (the
AIM-26A had left the inventory, and his unit was transitioning to a training
role). Them's the facts. You don't like it because they do not play neatly
into your twisted little anti-Bush scenario, and that is just too bad.


Maybe we
will next hear where the esteemed Mr. Clark now recollects the *truth*
behind Bush's service record (well, that is as soon as Clark can
determine
exactly what he wants *that* particular "truth" to look like, based upon
his
evident skills at fabrication).

What fabrication? Please provide proof.

One presumes you possess the modicum of intelligence required to do a web
search; the transcripts of Mr. Clark's background brief (where he offered
views directly contradicting his statements yesterday) given in August 2002
are available at various sites. Likewise, the unredacted portion of the
e-mail that Rice provided contradicting his claims is available. You can
find them if you want to. Why should I bother to provide them to you, as you
won't bother to read what they had to say anyway?


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

Nope. Mr. Clark's own statements vary depending upon when he said it, who he
said it to, and whether or not his utterance was delivered before or after
he missed getting that job he wanted in DHS. Mr. Lehman was dead on target
when he said Clark has a credibility problem. One minute the guy is claiming
he had the guts to stand by his convictions, offer his opinions no matter
how impolitic they were, and tender his resignation, etc.; the next he
whines that his background comments were skewed to be favorable to the Bush
administration because that was just the position he was in. Phooey.

Brooks

*plonk*

In article ,
on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:37:59 GMT,
Tempest attempted to say .....



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.

Which was kinda hard to do if he wasn't at that meeting like he keeps
claiming....


Try again.

Feel free to..


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

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

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.


They may have had the old Genie rockets ?

IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

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

He didn't get permission.

OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
his points.

His request was denied.

But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
72 while in AL.

He left TX anyway.

True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
humor in this...or not]

Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...

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.

Juvat

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip] His own unit had just become an operational
conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102
and
F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and
given
the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one
can
understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
services of then 1LT Bush.

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

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

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

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


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

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

Brooks

snip further whining

"Tank Fixer" wrote in message
k.net...
In article ,
on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

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

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.


They may have had the old Genie rockets ?

IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.

Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101; purely
a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.

Brooks


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote...

HRP (the Human Reliability Program) was common knowledge to all
personnel on active duty. Record of removal from HRP would be clear
and prominent in the medical records of anyone effected.

Was it anything like the PRP -- Personnel Reliability Program?

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "John R
Weiss" confessed the following:


Was it anything like the PRP -- Personnel Reliability Program?

Yes sir...same deal.

In article ,
Buzzer wrote:

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...te=20043140104
0

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/break...te=20043140224
2

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?

Another misinterpretation.

The HRP regulations were enforced for nuclear-capable aircraft, as the
next paragraph shows:

"'They were to be rigorously imposed,' Andersen said. 'If the
responsible officers saw violations as set forth in the regulations, it
would be required of them to remove the suspected officer from access to
nuclear-capable weapons and equipment.'²

No nukes, no HRP.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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