Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 8th, 2004, 11:31 AM        Documents show Bush fell well short military obligations
Bush fell short on duty at Guard
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.


© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
More News
Subscribe
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Sep 8th, 2004, 11:50 AM       
So Bush didn't go to a couple of traing classes????

WoWiE!!
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 8th, 2004, 01:21 PM       
No, W failed to meet obligations to the united states government he had signed his name to.

More than once.

This is the nature of the service he has said he's proud of.

Other people who did the same thing got called to active duty.

Do you think his military service record is something someone ought to be proud of? If it was you, would you be proud? At a time when other people, both draftees and volunteers were risking their lives he couldn't even be bothered to meet the obligations he'd signed his name to? Youthful indescretion, I guess.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
conus conus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
conus is probably a spambot
Old Sep 8th, 2004, 05:11 PM       
Quote:
So Bush didn't go to a couple of traing classes????
Technically he's a deserter. I have no problem with desertion per se. During Vietnam George Bush and I did the same thing; we avoided the military like the plague. In light of recent events and Texas' death penalty application, it appears as if we avoided service for very different reasons. Some of us did it out of belief, others out of cowardice or because they felt as if people of their social class were inherently above that sort of thing. But, whateveer his reasons, he did desert, and if American law was not so selectively applied George W. Bush would be sitting in a jail cell.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 8th, 2004, 05:17 PM       
Money. That is all.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
ScruU2wice ScruU2wice is offline
Mocker
ScruU2wice's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: thursday
ScruU2wice is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2004, 12:14 AM       
I don't know I think this is just as bad as swift boat ads. It kinda seems like petty vendetta to me. Isn't the Globe a tabloid?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2004, 05:03 AM       
It is bad, and kind of a mudslinging tactic. But as people have said before on these boards, it's probably what the democratic party will have to revert to if they want to have a serious chance.

Of course, it's kind of double as bad for Bush as it was for Kerry. I mean, the Republicans keep hammering on that people shouldn't want a pansy like Kerry in control of the military, when their own commander in chief simply didn't care enough about his military service to even make an effort.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 9th, 2004, 11:21 AM       
No, the Boston Herald is a tabloid. The Globe is a slightly left of center paper of excellent, long term reputation.

Conus, you avoided the draft for Vietnam? Does this mean you are OLDER than I? have I lost my crown as Oldest Mocker?!?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Ant10708 Ant10708 is offline
Mocker
Ant10708's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York
Ant10708 is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2004, 03:22 PM       
[/quote]
if American law was not so selectively applied George W. Bush would be sitting in a jail cell.[/quote]
Thats bullshit. Almost all Vietnam deserters were pretty much given permission to come back into the country after the war because nearly none of them saw any prison time or even a fine.
__________________
I'm all for the idea of stoning the rapists, but to death...? That's a bit of a stretch, but I think the system will work. - Geggy
Reply With Quote
  #10  
conus conus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
conus is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2004, 04:14 PM       
Quote:
Conus, you avoided the draft for Vietnam? Does this mean you are OLDER than I? have I lost my crown as Oldest Mocker?!?
I'm 50 and turned 18 in 1972, a couple of weeks after Nixon and Kissinger saw fit to mine Haiphong harbor. I registered for the draft in Los Angeles County and was slighly worried at the time; the L.A. draft board was pretty notorious. I hadn't yet decided what I'd do in the event that I recieved a low lottery number, but I only saw two choices-- Canada or the five-year federal prison sentence. I was leaning toward the latter. Nothing against Canada, but it is is a little chilly up there and the Canadian thing seemed like a life sentence as opposed to the possibility of parole after 2/3 of the federal sentence had been completed. As it turned out, my lottery number was so high I didn't have to sweat it.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
kellychaos kellychaos is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Where I Started But In A Different Place
kellychaos is probably a spambot
Old Sep 9th, 2004, 04:25 PM       
Kerry has hearsay working against him and his military service. Bush has military documentation with, perhaps more suppressed stuff waiting in the wings. Yet Kerry is still getting pummeled in the polls. I think that Kerry's elective administration is poorly managed if they can't fend off a dolt like Bush and mount some kind of offensive. I don't know ... something like ... addressing real issues and pushing more assertively for a debate.
__________________

Wherever you go, there you are.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:02 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.