bush rules!

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message hlink.net...
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

Consider, if you will:

1) Being AWOL is a crime. Nothing you allege about Clinton,
with the possible exception of burning his draft card, was
or is a crime and I'm doubtful that a law prohibiting one
from burning one's own draft card would pass Constitutional
muster.


Hell, the draft didn't pass Constitutional muster!

Yes it did. Though my guess is you're no more than half serious:

Have you ever heard the saying that the First Amendment does not
protect a man's right shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater? There
are variations on that, but the original, or at least the most
famous appears in the majority decision written by Chief Justice
of the USSC, Oliver Wendel Holmes in a ruling which upheld the
treason conviction of man who agued that Conscription was
unconstitutional, and advocated draft resistance, even after
the draft was ruled to be not unconstitutional by the USSC.

Inasmuch as the best basis for holding the draft to be unconstitutional
is the 13th amendment, which was passed during the Reconstruction
of a Union that had survived in no small measure due to the
institution of conscription, it seems likely that the ruling was
consistent with the original intent of the Constitution and its
amendments, regardless of the specifics of the wording. The
draft is indisputedly involuntary and I daresay that few who
have been drafted would argue that the subsequent experience
is anything other than servitude. However the term, 'involuntary
servitude' had been used as a euphemism for slavery for some
time before the Civil War and was never specifically applied to
military service by draftees so it seems the USSC was on solid
ground.

--

FF

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message news:5% "Be Kind" wrote in message

"A review by The Times showed that after a seven-month gap, he appeared for
duty in late November 1972 at least through July 1973," the paper noted on
Nov. 3, 2000.

...
"A document in Mr. Bush's military records," the paper said, "showed credit
for four days of duty ending Nov. 29 and for eight days ending Dec. 14,
1972, and, after he moved back to Houston, on dates in January, April and
May."

[should that last have been 'and dates in..' rather than 'on dates in..'?
-- FF]


The paper found corroboration for the document, noting, "The May dates
correlated with orders sent to Mr. Bush at his Houston apartment on April
23, 1973, in which Sgt. Billy B. Lamar told Mr. Bush to report for active
duty on May 1-3 and May 8-10."

Yet another document obtained by the Times blew the Bush AWOL story out of
the water.

It showed that Bush served at various times from May 29, 1973, through July
30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe," the Times sheepishly
admitted.


http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/24/154936.shtml

The webpage above does not feature images of any of the documents
to which the article refers. Are any such images available?

--

FF

"Be Kind" wrote in message
om...
Go to Original
www.truthout.org
www.rememberjohn.com
Bush's Missing Year
By Eric Boehlert
Salon.com

Thursday 05 February 2004

In 1972, George W. Bush dropped out of his National Guard
service and
later lied about it. With the media finally paying
attention, will he
now come clean?
In 1972, George W. Bush simply walked away from his
pilot duties
in the Texas Air National Guard. He skipped required
weekend drill
sessions for many months, probably for more than a year,
and did not
take a mandatory annual physical exam, which resulted in
his being
grounded. Nonetheless, Bush, the son of a well-connected
Texas
congressman, received an honorable discharge.

If an Air National guardsman today vanished for a
year, military
attorneys say that guardsman would be transferred to
active duty or,
more likely, kicked out of the service, probably with a
less-than-honorable discharge. They suggest the penalty
would be
especially swift if the absent-without-leave guardsman
were a fully
trained pilot, as Bush was.

Bush's National Guard record, long ignored by the
media, has
surfaced with a vengeance. If the topic continues to rage,
and if the
media presses him, Bush may finally be forced to release
his full
military records, which could reveal the truth. By
refusing to make
all those records public, Bush has until now broken with a
long-standing tradition of U.S. presidential candidates.

I served in the Marines from 1961 to 1966. I volunteered for
Vietnam in 1964 while stationed in Japan with the 1st Marine
Airwing. We had 3 chopper squadrons down in Danang, RSV
before there were any "ground troops" on the ground. I also
served in the Dominican Republic Crisis in 1965.

I was at one time a card carrying member of the John Birch
Society so I have some well established conservative
credentials!

I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
egos!

We were doing a holding action instead of fighting to win
and it was costing us billions while destroying our youths.
I became opposed to the war because it was getting nowhere
and eventually became active in the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War.

Absence Without Leave during a time of war was a Courts
Martial offense that could have led to the death penalty!

I knew of quite a few Reservists and National Guardsmen who
were sent on Active Duty - usually directly to Vietnam for
failing to attend meetings. They usually had to serve their
remaining enlistments on Active Duty. There were also a
number of officers who were busted to the Enlisted Ranks and
then sent to Vietnam.

We the taxpayers spent a million dollars to send a not so
bright draft dodging poor little rich kid to flight school
to learn to fly an early 50's vintage interceptor designed
to shoot down Russian prop job bombers. This was at a time
when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

About the only bombers little Georgie saw were the ones he
rolled himself while protecting his cocaine supply routes up
the Rio Grande!

All of the weenie dicked Chicken Hawks point to Bill Clinton
as a draft dodger, what about all of the members of Bush's
entourage: Cheney for example, "I had more important things
to do" and so on.

On the eve of the 2000 election, 3 Senators released the
strait scoop on W's war record but their words fell on deaf
ears.

Georgie where were you? What did you know? We know that
Bill didn't inhale but were you a drunk and a coke head? You
didn't like cocaine, you just liked the way it smelled???

BTW, where's you're pre 1995 driving records.

"* * Chas" wrote in message
om...

I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
egos!


Nixon didn't become president until January 20, 1969. Kissinger was at
Harvard until Nixon became president.

In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"* * Chas" wrote in message
om...

I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
egos!

Nixon didn't become president until January 20, 1969. Kissinger was at
Harvard until Nixon became president.

Chas verifies the saying "if you remember the '60s, you didn't live
through them".

"* * Chas" wrote in message
om...


I served in the Marines from 1961 to 1966. I volunteered for
Vietnam in 1964 while stationed in Japan with the 1st Marine
Airwing. We had 3 chopper squadrons down in Danang, RSV
before there were any "ground troops" on the ground. I also
served in the Dominican Republic Crisis in 1965.

I was at one time a card carrying member of the John Birch
Society so I have some well established conservative
credentials!

I was a staunch HAWK up through 1968 when I started to
question how the Vietnam War was being handled. We were
destoying the country to save it while we were destroying
our freedoms at home just to support Nixon and Kissinger's
egos!

Your timeline suffers a bit when exposed against harsh reality. So, you were
a "staunch HAWK up through 68", when you then questioned the nefarious
intentions of Nixon and Kissenger as to how the war was being handled. The
problem with that is that Nixon did not win his first election until
November of 1968, and did not enter office until January 1969. So either
your concerns as to how the war was being managed were incorrectly targeted
(it would have been LBJ who controlled the war throughout 1968, and it would
generally take a few months after inauguration for the new administration to
have any effect on something as vast as a war effort), or your recollection
as to when you actually became convinced the war was being mismanaged and by
who were other than what you stated. be reminded it was Nixon who
immediately began the "Vietnamization" policy and was soon reducing the US
troop committment to the war.


We were doing a holding action instead of fighting to win
and it was costing us billions while destroying our youths.
I became opposed to the war because it was getting nowhere
and eventually became active in the Vietnam Veterans Against
the War.

Sorry to hear that. Having a military background, you should have been one
of those who realized (despite what the media was balthering at the time)
that the 68 Tet Offensive actually broke the back of the VC, for all intents
and purposes leaving the fight solely in the hands of the NVA. As to VVAW, I
hold little respect for an organization that conducted the likes of "Winter
Soldier", where folks like John Kerry in his ribbon bedecked fatigues and
long hair claimed US troops were apparently solely concerned with committing
war atrocities.


Absence Without Leave during a time of war was a Courts
Martial offense that could have led to the death penalty!

Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for
individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training"
assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't reasonably
attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results, that
is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to
perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion.


I knew of quite a few Reservists and National Guardsmen who
were sent on Active Duty - usually directly to Vietnam for
failing to attend meetings. They usually had to serve their
remaining enlistments on Active Duty.

Some may have been. But *most* Guardsmen/Reservists who went to Vietnam did
so because they either (a) were in units mobilized and sent there (yes,
there were quite a few units that did that), or (b) they volunteered for
active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which could
have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted).

There were also a
number of officers who were busted to the Enlisted Ranks and
then sent to Vietnam.

Are you sure about that? Please provide some evidence. IIRC, the only way an
officer can revert to enlisted rank in that manner is if he had prior
enlisted service.


We the taxpayers spent a million dollars to send a not so
bright draft dodging poor little rich kid to flight school
to learn to fly an early 50's vintage interceptor designed
to shoot down Russian prop job bombers. This was at a time
when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.

Brooks

snip further rant

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...
...
Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for
individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training"
assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't reasonably
attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results, that
is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to
perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion.

I've never seen copies of the documents allegedly obtained by the
NYT. Have they been posted online?

Hopefully this will eventually settle the matter:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litary_records

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb9.html

This document has been cited as evidence of poor attendence, but it
certainly is not clear to me.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif


... or (b) they volunteered for
active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which could
have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted).

Somewhere I have seen a copy of a document in which GWB had expressed
a preference to not be assigned ot overseas duty. But I wasn't able
to find it just now.

This is the first that I heard of 'Palace ALert Duty' or that Bush
had volunteered for duty outside of the US. Can you offer some
evidence in support of that, explain 'Palace Alert Duty'?

Was PAD related to the SAC in any way?




... This was at a time
when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
rather than being hard pressed for them.


Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.


If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
were lost in combat, does it not?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

(Snip)

... This was at a time
when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
rather than being hard pressed for them.

The last time I looked, the USMC did NOT train its pilots. They received their
training from the Navy; I never heard of Marines being trained by either the
Army or the AF.

George Z.


Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand and
Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already seen in
another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.


If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
were lost in combat, does it not?

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
...
Bush was not guilty of being AWOL. In the Guard there are provisions for
individuals to perform "split training" and "equivalent training"
assemblies, before or after the scheduled drills, when they can't
reasonably
attend the scheduled events. Based upon the NYT investiagtion results,
that
is what GWB did--he was not the first, and he will not be the last, to
perform a portion of his duty in such a fashion.

I've never seen copies of the documents allegedly obtained by the
NYT. Have they been posted online?

Not to my knowledge. But another poster has included a rather detailed
analysis of Bush's records that does seem to support the contention that he
attended sufficient days of training each year.


Hopefully this will eventually settle the matter:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...litary_records

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Feb9.html

Looks like the former kind of makes the latter immaterial, and that he did
perform enough required duty to receive credit for "good" years.


This document has been cited as evidence of poor attendence, but it
certainly is not clear to me.

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc23.gif

Hard to read it, but it appears to be nothing more than an acknowledgement
statement--the undersigned acknowledges he has been informed that he has to
perform IAW whatever regfulation and faces potential penalties if he does
not do so. Not an uncommon kind of transaction in the military.



... or (b) they volunteered for
active duty (just as Bush had volunteered for Palace Alert duty, which
could
have found him serving in SEA had he been accepted).

Somewhere I have seen a copy of a document in which GWB had expressed
a preference to not be assigned ot overseas duty. But I wasn't able
to find it just now.

That refers to the statement he signed upon initially entering the service.
As has been pointed out elsewhere by others, signing such a statement upon
service entry, for a guy going into a Guard unit, is not out of line. He had
enlisted into a vacancy in a particular unit, not into the Air
Force-as-a-whole as active duty personnel do. As someone else has already
mentioned regarding this, it is likely that he was told something to the
effect, "Nah, you are joining this ANG unit, so don't check the "am willing"
block for overseas service".


This is the first that I heard of 'Palace ALert Duty' or that Bush
had volunteered for duty outside of the US. Can you offer some
evidence in support of that, explain 'Palace Alert Duty'?

Palace Alert was a program where ANG F-102 pilots volunteered for extended
active duty periods (six months, IIRC) flying F-102's in active component
squadrons. The USAF was getting short of F-102 pilots in the later sixties,
so the ANG was a source for fleshing out that requirment. Palace Alert could
find the ANG volunteer serving at any number of F-102 bases (see:
www.philippecolin.net/Gmb.html ), including those in SEA. ISTR Bush
mentioned in his autobiography that he and a buddy signed up for the program
but were eventually told they lacked the experience that was required. Some
folks (one rather loud mouthed yet poorly informed old coot in this NG being
among the worst) claim that he nefariously *knew* he would not be qualified
for the program and dreamed this up as a way of being able to say he
volunteered for overseas duty when he knew it would not happen. But in fact
the determination of how much experience was required would have been based
upon how many pilots had volunteered at that point, and how many slots the
ANG was tasked to fill--here is an excerpt concerning an ANG second
lieutenant F-102 pilot who found himself serving in Iceland with the 57th
FIS while the bulk of the squadron was undergoing transition to the F-4:

"...what is believed to be the last F-102 intercept was made by 2nd Lt.
Grant E. Bollen. Lt. Bollen was an ANG pilot that volunteered along with
four other ANG pilots to go on an open ended TDY to Iceland to replace
"Deuce drivers" that were in the USA, converting to the F-4. His arrival
caused some consternation in Keflavik, because 2nd lieutenants were not to
be posted to Iceland. He had 500 hours in the 102, but he was not allowed to
stand alert at first and states that "I had to be escorted by a major
everywhere I went".

www.verslo.is/baldur/57th_fis/57th.htm


Was PAD related to the SAC in any way?

No, it was an ADC (Air Defense Command) mission.



... This was at a time
when the Marines were so hard pressed for pilots that they
had to send men to Army and Air Force Flight Schools.

It seems to me that if the Marines had to send pilots to the
Army and AF for training then the Marines must have had a SURPLUS
of pilots (e.g. too many to for the USMC to train on its own)
rather than being hard pressed for them.

I did not write that. Yeah, you'd have to wonder what the problem with their
own pipeline was, or what other considerations were taken into account
(i.e., this was arounf the time the USMC started to get the UH-1N, so
piggybacking Huey training on the Army's UH-1 training program would have
made some sense). Either way, the issue is meaningless to the GWB situation.



Hmmm...one wonders why those same archaic fighters were sent to Thailand
and
Vietnam throughout the major part of the war, and as we have already
seen in
another thread, why a couple of them were lost in combat operations.


If indeed they were archaic that does help to explain why some
were lost in combat, does it not?

Not really. The F-102 was never really intended to be anything other than a
point defense interceptor do defend against enemy bomber attacks. It did not
have the capability of carrying the best short range AAM we had
(Sidewinder), and it was rather pitiful in the ground attack role (which
some did actually perform in Vietnam). Nor was it designed to really mix it
up with enemy fighters. Baugher's site indicates that two were lost to AAA,
and one to a Mig-21. Another fifteen were operational losses not related to
combat (can't recall if that includes those destroyed in saper/rocket
attacks on their bases). It continued on in active service with the ANG
until the 74-76 timeframe, when the last were withdrawn from service; the
Turks and Greeks flew them for a few more years, with one rumored encounter
between a couple of Turkish F-102's and Greek F-5's (IIRC) in 1974.

Brooks


--

FF

Move to Screen Bush File in 90's Is Reported
By Ralph Blumenthal
The New York Times www.truthout.org
www.rememberjohn.com

Thursday 12 February 2004

HOUSTON, Feb. 11 — A retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas
National Guard complained to a member of the Texas Senate in 1998 that
aides to Gov. George W. Bush improperly screened Mr. Bush's National
Guard files in a search for information that could embarrass the
governor in future elections.

The retired officer, Bill Burkett, said in the letter to Senator
Gonzalo Barrientos, a Democrat from Austin, that Dan Bartlett, then a
senior aide to Governor Bush and now White House communications
director, and Gen. Daniel James, then the head of the Texas National
Guard, reviewed the file to "make sure nothing will embarrass the
governor during his re-election campaign."

A copy of the letter was provided to The New York Times by a
lawyer for Mr. Burkett to support statements he makes in a book to be
published this month, which Mr. Burkett repeated in interviews this
week, that Mr. Bush's aides ordered Guard officials to remove damaging
information from Mr. Bush's military personnel files.

Mr. Bartlett denied on Wednesday that any records were altered.
General James, since named head of the Air National Guard by President
Bush, also denied Mr. Burkett's account. But Mr. Bartlett and another
former official in Mr. Bush's administration in Texas, Joe Allbaugh,
acknowledged speaking to National Guard officials about the files as
Mr. Bush was preparing to seek re-election as governor.

Both said their goal was to ensure that the records would be
helpful to journalists who inquired about Mr. Bush's military
experience.

Questions about Mr. Bush's service in the National Guard have
arisen in every campaign he has run since his 1994 race for governor.
His 2004 re-election campaign is no different, as Democrats have
pointed to apparent gaps in his service record with the National
Guard.

On Tuesday, the White House released 18 months of payroll records
that it says demonstrate that Mr. Bush fully completed his service.
And on Wednesday, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said the
administration was awaiting more records and promised to make public
any previously undisclosed information from the file.

Mr. McClellan and other administration officials criticized the
Democrats for their attacks on Mr. Bush's service in the National
Guard during the Vietnam War. "What you are seeing is gutter
politics," Mr. McClellan said. "The American people deserve better.
There are some who are not interested in their facts. They are simply
trolling for trash."

Mr. Burkett's letter to Senator Barrientos was part of a running
battle that he waged with the National Guard after retiring in January
1998. In it, Mr. Burkett complained of "severe retaliation" from
General James for what he said was reporting "illegal acts" within the
National Guard. He also complained about the government's failure to
pay for his medical care after suffering from a tropical disease after
a military assignment to Panama in 1997. Before finally winning
medical benefits in July 1998, he said, he suffered a nervous
breakdown and was hospitalized for depression.

A spokesman for Senator Barrientos, Ray Perez, said on Wednesday
that "Mr. Burkett did correspond with this office." Senator Barrientos
said he was trying to find the six-year-old records of contacts with
Mr. Burkett. Another Texas legislator contacted at the time by Mr.
Burkett, Representative Bob Hunter, Republican of Abilene, said Mr.
Burkett had appeared before his committee overseeing military affairs
and had complained of mishandling of his medical claims but did not
mention Mr. Bush's files. He called Mr. Burkett "disgruntled."

In telephone interviews this week from his home near Abilene, Mr.
Burkett, 55, a systems analyst with 27 years in the National Guard
including service as deputy commandant of the New Mexico Military
Academy, said he happened to be in General James' office at Camp Mabry
in Austin in mid-1997 and overheard Mr. Allbaugh on a speakerphone
telling General James that Mr. Bartlett and Karen P. Hughes, another
aide to Governor Bush, would be coming to the Guard offices to review
Mr. Bush's military files.

Ms. Hughes, who left the White House in 2002, did not return a
call.

Mr. James said though a spokesman that "that discussion never
happened" and that he would "never condone falsification of any
record." Mr. Allbaugh called the account "pure hogwash," but said he
talked to General James about making Mr. Bush's records available to
reporters.

"We spoke about a lot of things," Mr. Allbaugh said. "I'm sure we
had a conversation with General James where all the records were kept
because it was an issue in 1994 and 1998 and would be in 2000. We
wanted to make sure we could refer people of your profession where to
go."

Mr. Burkett further said that about 10 days later he and another
officer walked into the Camp Mabry military museum and saw the head of
the museum, Gen. John Scribner, going through Mr. Bush's personnel
records. Mr. Burkett said he saw a trash basket with discarded papers
bearing Mr. Bush's name. Mr. Burkett said the papers appeared to be
"retirement point certificates, pay documents, that sort of thing."

General Scribner dismissed the account. "It never happened as far
as I know," he said. "Why would I be going into records?"

Mr. Burkett is quoted at length in a book to come out by the end
of the month, "Bush's War for Re-election" by James Moore, a former
Texas television reporter and co-author of "Bush's Brain."

The other Guard officer who Mr. Burkett says was with him the day
he saw General Scribner going though the records, George Conn,
declined in an e-mail message to comment on Mr. Burkett's statements.
But Mr. Conn, a former chief warrant officer for the Texas Guard and
now a civilian on duty with American forces in Europe, said: "I know
LTC Bill Burkett and served with him several years ago in the Texas
Army National Guard. I believe him to be honest and forthright. He
`calls things like he sees them.' "

A retired officer, Lt. Col. Dennis Adams, said Mr. Burkett told
him of the incidents shortly after they happened. "We talked about
them several different times," said Mr. Adams, who spent 15 years in
the Texas Guard and 12 years on active duty in the Army. He now works
for the Texas Department of Public Safety as a security officer
guarding the state Capitol.

www.rememberjohn.com www.truthout.org