More on Bush in the Air Guard

More on Bush in the Air Guard

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

SUMMARY

An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory
Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures
of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a
deserter by the United States Air Force.


After Bush quit TXANG, he still had nine months of his six-year military
commitment left to serve. As a result, Bush became a member of the Air Force
Reserves and was transferred to the authority of the Air Reserve Personnel
Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colorado. Because this was supposed to be a
temporary assignment, ARPC had to review Bush’s records to determine where he
should ultimately be assigned. That examination would have led to three
conclusions: That Bush had “failed to satisfactorily participate� as
defined by United States law and Air Force policy, that TXANG could not account
for Bush’s actions for an entire year, and that Bush’s medical records were
not up to date. Regardless of what actions ARPC contemplated when reviewing
Bush’s records, all options required that Bush be certified as physically fit
to serve, or as unfit to serve. ARPC thus had to order Bush to get a physical
examination, for which Bush did not show up. ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL
and a “non-locatee� (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily
participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his
local draft board. Once the Houston draft board got wind of the situation,
strings were pulled; and documents were generated which directly contradict Air
Force policy, and which were inconsistent with the rest of the records released
by the White House.

[more on link]

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...



Let me tell you why I believe this it total bull**** that some very
enterprising con men dreamed up in order to sell lies for personal
enrichment. I can sum it up in one rhetorical question. But first, a little
preamble. If a person is a deserter, there is no statute of limitations on
that crime.

So, the question is, if Bush was a deserter, why has he not been charged,
arrested and tried? Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
his location.

In reality, you guys are a joke. But, at least you have each other.


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:14:54 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:


More on Bush in the Air Guard

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

SUMMARY

An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory
Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures
of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a
deserter by the United States Air Force.

[snip]

Then post the USAF document ( all of it ) that spells this out.
There ought to be one if what you claim is true.
There ought to be a document somewhere that specifically
addresses the particulars of the case in question and states
your conclusion in black and white.
What?
You can't?
I'm shocked I tell you, shocked!

IBM

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

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
More on Bush in the Air Guard

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm

SUMMARY

... ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL
and a “non-locatee� (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily
participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his
local draft board. ...

Only the 'summary' on that site indicates that ARPC did this. No
evidence to support that conclusion is cited.

Crimony, there is no reason to make stuff up to criticize Baby Bush.
just stick to the facts. That's enough.

--

FF

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:19:18 GMT, "Brooks Gregory"
wrote:

Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
his location.

Funnily enough, the FAA doesn't seem to! (His file shows that his
address is unknown.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Or, better yet, if you believe all this crap, why don't
you file charges on him and have him removed from office? I think they know
his location.

Because the phrase "equal justice under law" has been a joke in Texas for a
long time --at least as far as the Bushes go -- and increasingly, for all of
us.

If there were no other reason to get rid of Bush there is one overwhelmingly
compelling reason.

He has detained an American citizen, arrested in the United States, for over
two years in direct defiance of the civil liberty provisions of the Bill of
Rights.

If this person were most the vile terrorist ever (and the government seems to
have no case -- that's why they don't bring charges), give the guy a trial and
sentence him to death. The Bush administration hasn't done that.

I saw suggested on another forum that this recent proposal to postpone or
cancel the 11/2/04 election was a trial balloon to see how people and the media
handled it. Now the Bushies are backing off this proposal because the
response was pretty strong.

I think the arrest and detention of Jose Padilla was a trial balloon too. It
really (the lengthy detention) serves no other purpose. But most people are
going, at least by their actions, "la-dee-da, who cares about the Bill of
Rights." In this they are complacently ignorant. A real disgrace in this
country is that Bush could even have competetive poll numbers. It's like the
blood and suffering of the Revolution means nothing, that the struggle to move
human rights forward -- it's like none of that happened.

Read your Declaration of Independence:

"He has combined....for depriving us in many cases of the benefits of trial by
Jury:"

If there is only ONE case of deprivation of a jury trial where the courts can
operate, that is way too many.

Bush has done that.

His aiders and abettors, the United States Supreme Court, disallowed the Habeas
Corpus petetiton Padilla's lawyer filled because he filed it in New York, not
where Padilla is now being held, in South Carolina.

You Republican party kool-aid drinkers need to wake up and realize that Bush is
the worst president ever. The United States of America is under attack -- by
the Bush Administration.

This thing about Bush's guard service, the economy, even the general conduct of
the war, overrun as it is by dereliction of duty (both General Anthony Zinni
and David Hackworth have used that word) by the Bush people really are not as
important as the trial balloon of suspension of the Bill of Rights that people
don't give a flip about.

As an aside, even as the occupaton of Iraq has been a disastrous failure,
causing the death of many more US service people than it should have, note that
after almost 3 years, the Bush Justice Department has secured not ONE
conviction in the War on Terror -- even against Mousaoui (sp) who was caught
taking simulator lessons for jumbo jets.

Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head into the
sand.


Walt

Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head into
the
sand.


Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file, including
me after I hit send..

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote in message
...
Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head
into
the
sand.


Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are
doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All
they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of
Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political
agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more
receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file,
including
me after I hit send..

BINGO!


--
If you really want to save the
environment, support a family farmer.

Brooks Gregory

"Steve Mellenthin" wrote in message
...
Bush is a miserable failure no matter how deeply you plough your head
into
the
sand.


Walt

Walt, I have to have to be the one to tell you but your rants here are
doing
nothing to convince anyone to change their politcal affiliations. All
they are
doing is to convince Bush supporters and the undecided that many of
Kerry's
supporters are Bush hating drones and that there is no real political
agenda
for them other than to get revenge for the perception that Bush stole the
election. why don't you let it go or take it elsewhere to a more
receptive
audience. Emaimls here are running 10:1 against you and that ratio is not
increasing mainly because everyone is putting you in their kill file,
including
me after I hit send..

Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers of
the left. Keep them coming I say so more the swing voters out there can see
just what these people are all about!

Jarg

Actually I think the wacky postings are great because they demonstrate the
poor reasoning and disregard for the facts so common among the followers of
the left.

General Zinni is not on the left:

"In the book, Zinni writes: "In the lead up to the Iraq war and its later
conduct, I saw at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility,
at worse, lying, incompetence and corruption."

“I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground
and fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. I think there was
dereliction in lack of planning,� says Zinni. “The president is owed the
finest strategic thinking. He is owed the finest operational planning. He is
owed the finest tactical execution on the ground. … He got the latter. He
didn’t get the first two.�

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy.
And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the
war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress:
“This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it
needs to be done now.�

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion
of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former
Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and
former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

Zinni believes this was a war the generals didn’t want – but it was a war
the civilians wanted.

“I can't speak for all generals, certainly. But I know we felt that this
situation was contained. Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive
zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him,� says Zinni."

General Hoar is not on the left:

Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in
Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the
Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a
battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was
interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.

EIR: You were one of the people who had been critical before the
outbreak of fighting, over whether or not the situation warranted going
to war. I believe you also had some rather accurate warnings about what
might happen, as the war unfolded, especially after the hot phase.
What's your thinking on these issues now, in hindsight, as we're over a
year past the formal fighting phase?

Hoar: There's small comfort in realizing that perhaps you were closer to
reality than the elected and appointed figures in the civilian
government. Those of us that have had some experience in the region over
the years, and don't necessarily have ulterior motivations, particularly
people that know very much about Iraq?and I don't necessarily put myself
in that category; specifically, I know a fair amount about the
political-military situation in the region, but know enough about Iraq
to know that any military operation and any subsequent reconstruction
efforts, to include the interjection of democracy, were going to be
extremely difficult, and perhaps impossible.

But, my major concern, Jeff, really was, that while I was in favor of
regime change, I was not in favor of it a year and a half or two years
ago, and certainly not these means. And the reason, of course, was the
much higher priorities: the protection of the United States through the
development of the Homeland Securities activities; the completion,
successfully, of the Afghanistan campaign; and the destruction of
al-Qaeda; all seem to me to be much higher priorities than going after
Iraq. And you know the arguments as well as I do: the weapons of mass
destruction, the threat to the United States, the connection between
al-Qaeda, and then finally, the reason was indicated that this was a
rogue regime, that punished its citizens, and its human rights record
was abysmal and so forth. We all know that story. The fact remains, that
this would have been a very difficult undertaking under the best of
circumstances, and unfortunately, with the exception of the Phase I
military operation, which terminated essentially with the end of
organized resistance over a year ago, the rest of it has been a
disaster.

EIR: I was at an event, where both Gen. [Anthony] Zinni [USMC-ret.] and
Chas Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, spoke, and this
was about eight months before the outbreak of fighting, in March 2003,
and they both basically thought that the real troubles would begin after
the "hot phase" of combat, when American forces would be there as an
occupying force. And they rejected the neo-con and Cheney thesis, that
this would be a cakewalk and we'd be greeted as liberators."

Bush is a miserable failure.

Walt