It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush Was AWOL: How Will It Affect Election '04?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I have done my homework friend.

I have made up my mind as have you.

But when I post a thread, I'm willing to back it up, not tell everyone to go do some homework.

You want to put an idea out there, back it up.

This isn't the Mudpit.




posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Anybody here a Vietnam vet?

Well I'm not, just curious about you.

I don't think many people care about his military records, cause maybe they don't understand what it means in the first place.

Mr. Bush chose to be in the coast guard, basically sitting safe at home away from the draft and let other fine young citizens fight a war. That in itself should speak something to you besides the AWOL thing, if it is true.

And now he has the power to send fine citizens to fight a war, and basically, he did. So...
no one has ever had power over him, and he exercises it on us?



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
First of all, there is a big difference between the Coast Guard and the Air National Guard. Not busting your balls, just clearing that up.

To say that reserves are "safe" is a falacious arguement. There were plenty of reserve units at home and quite a large number of service people from all walks of life serving Vietnam here in the States.

Maybe it's only obvious to me, but to fight a war by sending every Tom Dick and Harry to the war zone is bad politics and terrible stategy.

But hey, you can tell the folks who fought, died, or were in POW camps from reserve units that they should be glad they took the "safe" route.

Side note-people were drafted into the Air National Guard by the way, along with other reserve units.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Bush Was AWOL: How Will It Affect Election '04?


It will make just as much difference as it diid in 2000. Everybody knew about it then, the conservatives were willing to overlook it and the liberals weren't going to vote for him anyway.



posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Liberals are desperate!?!

Story debunked!?! By Newsmax!?!

The Urban Legend: That Bush score in the BOTTOM 25% ON THE PILOT APPTITIUDE TEST WARRANTED HIM BEING LEAP FROGGED OVER 250 MEN WHO SCORED HIGHER!!!

Liberals are desperate: No, Republicans are. Wy would they give so much bluster to defend Bush, yet provide zero facts? Because they're aren't any to support their Dim Son.

Story Debunked: Which one is the NY Times suppose to be - a "liberal rag" or an altruistic debunker?
The Boston Globe is not it's sister paper.
To try and link the selective usage by NewsMax as representative of what the Times article proffered is disingenuous.

From NewsMax:
"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," Why the 7 month Gap?
The best pasting together of selective data that NewsMax can be credited with is that: "various times from May 29, 1973, through July 30, 1973 - "a period of time questioned by The Globe."

Why do you sheeple so blindly follow someone so obviously unqualified for the role, and then choose to defend him as if he were the Second Coming of Roosevelt!?!
As for why it matters:

- some of us on here are parents of servicemen deployed, some of us have young teens who will be of draft age during Idiot Boy's potential second term

- some of us have family who either left something of themselves on foreing soil or didn't come back at all.

- some of us did serve in the military and are proud to have done so. Having an arrogant child of wealth not only get a choice assignment to Guard flight school over others mre deserving ( who did get sent to War & died), and then have him skip out.....is unpardonable.
Yes, I do want my president to have a warrior past....I feel you can't be strong enough for peace until you know conflict. I can make exceptions, of course, but it is a preference.

From the Goole searches we were admonished to perform: They're 90% support the fact that he was AWOL.

From TomPaine:
chronological listing of Bush's service record. This document charts active duty days served from the time of his enlistment. His first year, a period of extensive training, young Bush is credited with serving 226 days. In his second year in the Guard, Bush is shown to have logged a total of 313 days. After Bush got his wings in June 1970 until May 1971, he is credited with a total of 46 days of active duty. From May 1971 to May 1972, he logged 22 days of active duty.

Then something happened. From May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1973 -- a period of twelve months -- there are no days shown, though Bush should have logged at least thirty-six days service (a weekend per month in addition to two weeks at camp).




posted on Feb, 5 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Its apparent that you did not read what I mentioned maybe BT? Article was originally done by New York Times.

How about this article published 10/10/2000? This will answer what you are seeking, but will surely be denied and played-off....

"The Real Military Record of George W. Bush: Not Heroic, but Not AWOL, Either"
Link:
www2.georgemag.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html


Or these:

"Was Bush "AWOL"?"
Link:
billhobbs.com...
terpsboy.com...



BTW BT, there is no such thing as AWOL in or from the (Air) National Guard, unless your are active duty?
Maybe when the dust settles from this thread on Bush and the AWOL controversy...we can address Kerry's or Clinton's "military records"?




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 6-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I have done my homework friend.

I have made up my mind as have you.

But when I post a thread, I'm willing to back it up, not tell everyone to go do some homework.

You want to put an idea out there, back it up.

This isn't the Mudpit.


Yawn.

Bush is a world class liar and deserted his post in a time of war. Because he was a spoiled, rich brat. He dishonors every veteran becuase of that. I know it's hard to have your illusions shattered. You'll get over it, tho.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Seek:
"This will answer what you are seeking, but will surely be denied and played-off.... "
Please don't feel like I don't respect your opinion, I do. It's just that it regularly & consistently relies on partisan sources that are debateable at best, and out right manipulated fantasy at worst.

The NewsMax piece is a great example: it's selective usage of information from the NY Times ( which I subscribe to ) attempting to link legitimacy.
Recent stuff:
The George Magazine raised as many questions, more so actually, than proof supporting your argument. Example:
"....Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver rejected Bush's request to serve at the 9921st, because it did not offer duty equivalent to his service in Texas. "[A]n obligated Reservist [in this case, Bush] can be assigned to a specific Ready Reserve position only," noted the disapproval memo, a copy of which was sent to Bush. "Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
Despite the military's decision, Bush moved to Alabama. Records obtained by Georegemag.com show that the Blount Senate campaign paid Bush about $900 a month from mid-May through mid-November to do advance work and organize events. Neither Bush's annual evaluation nor the Air National Guard's overall chronological listing of his service contain any evidence that he performed Guard duties during that summer.


The Bill Hobbs link is a blog!!!

The other link is a blog that references the other blog and the same material it had or referenced!

Non-attendance during war time serves as an automatic switch to Active Duty. That was also skated by.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Blog or no blog, the information is just that "information".
The AWOL "conspiracy" has been addressed effectively and successfully debunked. As typical, the continued bringing of this up is a derailing method, especially since this was also commented today:

"Truth goes AWOL"
www.washtimes.com...

"Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge"
www.newsmax.com...

So BT, keep spreading the falsehoods of this supposed AWOL, being that the original proponent and person that originally mentioned this publically, has recanted his position and story.




regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Nice post East Coast.

It truely proves that you are all for attacking people and not an issue that YOU posted.

I don't care for Bush, but I can make a judgement on an issue in his favor without liking him.

Much like the FHA loan being dropped to 0% down in 2005. Good plan

Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Good plan.

Yet I still do not like Bush. See how it works? If you want to spew your garbage, go to the mudpit and level your falacious trash there.

Otherwise, please try to have a point.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
.....in anyones eyes except the "true believers" like yourself. Did you ever serve? Not that it matters, but it's a thorn for us who did.

The Bush team has a way of making folks "recant":

- O'Neill was backpeddling away from the truth he let slip faster than an NFL cornerback.

- Remember the "Mayberry Machevelli" quote? Remember the "retraction"? Wonder where homeboy is now.

About Corperal Coke Head:



Did Bush drop out of the National Guard to avoid drug testing?
The young pilot walked away from his commitment in 1972 -- the same year the U.S. military implemented random drug tests.

One of the persistent riddles surrounding President Bush's disappearance from the Texas Air National Guard during 1972 and 1973 is the question of why he walked away. Bush was a fully trained pilot who had undergone a rigorous two-year flight training program that cost the Pentagon nearly $1 million. And he has told reporters how important it was to follow in his father's footsteps and to become a fighter pilot. Yet in April 1972, George W. Bush climbed out of a military cockpit for the last time. He still had two more years to serve, but Bush's own discharge papers suggest he never served for the Guard again.

It is, of course, possible that Bush had simply had enough of the Guard and, with the war in Vietnam beginning to wind down, decided that he would rather do other things. In 1972 he asked to be transferred to an Alabama unit so he could work on a Senate campaign for a friend of his father's. But some skeptics have speculated that Bush might have dropped out to avoid being tested for drugs. Which is where Air Force Regulation 160-23, also known as the Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, comes in. The new drug-testing effort was officially launched by the Air Force on April 21, 1972, following a Jan. 11, 1972, directive issued by the Department of Defense.

salon.com...

Bush's missing year
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - -


salon.com...

I'm all for a full release of his military records......are you?



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Nice post East Coast.

It truely proves that you are all for attacking people and not an issue that YOU posted.

I don't care for Bush, but I can make a judgement on an issue in his favor without liking him.

Much like the FHA loan being dropped to 0% down in 2005. Good plan

Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Good plan.

Yet I still do not like Bush. See how it works? If you want to spew your garbage, go to the mudpit and level your falacious trash there.

Otherwise, please try to have a point.


Boy, you sure do think you're important!


Keep following me. One of these days you'll snap out your illusions.



posted on Feb, 6 2004 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Exactly.

Great post, Bout Time.


[Edited on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Hey BT and ECK...whats the damn use in posting material to counter your "factual claims" when you both obviously ignore them?


Then you go and post what you find to be the factual truth? Hehehe, ok....

Whats this say from an article and link I already provided? I mean geez, you can post your "factual material"...please allow me:

"On September 5 (1972), Bush wrote to then-Colonel Jerry Killian at his original unit in Texas, requesting permission to serve with the 187th Tactical Reconnaisance Group, another Alabama-based unit. "This duty would be for the months of September, October, and November," wrote Bush.

"Capt. Kenneth K. Lott, chief of the personnel branch of the 187th Tactical Recon Group, told the Texas commanders that training in September had already occurred, but more training was scheduled for Oct. 7 and 8 and Nov. 4 and 5. But Mr. Bartlett said Mr. Bush did not serve on those dates because he was involved in the Senate campaign, but he made up those dates later.

Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter.

Mr. Bartlett pointed to a document in Mr. Bush's military records that 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.

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."


"In July (1972), the Decatur Daily reported that two former Blount campaign workers recall Bush serving in the Alabama Air National Guard in the fall of 1972. "I remember he actually came back to Alabama for about a week to 10 days several weeks after the campaign was over to complete his Guard duty in the state," stated Emily Martin, a former Alabama resident who said she dated Bush during the time he spent in that state."

"After the 1972 election, which Blount lost, Bush moved back to Houston and subsequently began working at P.U.L.L., a community service center for disadvantaged youths. This period of time has also become a matter of controversy, because even though Bush's original unit had been placed on alert duty in October 1972, his superiors in Texas lost track of his whereabouts. On May 2, 1973, Bush's squadron leader in the 147th, Lieutenant Colonel William Harris, Jr. wrote: "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit" for the past year. Harris incorrectly assumed that Bush had been reporting for duty in Alabama all along. He wrote that Bush "has been performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." Base commander Hodges says of Bush's return to Texas: "All I remember is someone saying he came back and made up his days."

Two documents obtained by Georgemag.com indicate that Bush did make up the time he missed during the summer and autumn of 1972. One is an April 23, 1973 order for Bush to report to annual active duty training the following month; the other is an Air National Guard statement of days served by Bush that is torn and undated but contains entries that correspond to the first. Taken together, they appear to establish that Bush reported for duty on nine occasions between November 29, 1972-when he could have been in Alabama-and May 24, 1973. Bush still wasn't flying, but over this span, he did earn nine points of National Guard service from days of active duty and 32 from inactive duty. When added to the 15 so-called "gratuitous" points that every member of the Guard got per year, Bush accumulated 56 points, more than the 50 that he needed by the end of May 1973 to maintain his standing as a Guardsman."

www2.georgemag.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...://www2.georgemag.com/bush.html


And since you, BT, asked if I served....for what intent and purpose was that question for? Because if I didn't I have no right to voice my opinion? If I didn't, this gives you the ok to continue to give your "factual" information and that it is absolutely 100% correct? Well, all I will say is this:
My father served 28 years and did two tours in Vietnam. I would think a man who was an officer would know the reg's on what AWOL is, wouldn't you think?

Let's start with what Brig. General William R. Turnipseed, commander of the Alabama NG at the time Bush was in the Texas NG, mentioned:...."the term AWOL is not used by the NG."

What?!?

But, but, what about those calls for Bush to come clean and admit that he was AWOL?


Let's set the General straight on this, according to my father's interpretations of this....
AWOL is most definitely used in the National Guard and Reserve, but the difference depends on the service members status. This is one of three: Active, NG, and/or Reserve. Example: if a active duty individual decides not to come into work on a specified day, or does not call in and provide reason(s), or did not request this time ahead of time, this can be viewed and considered as AWOL. In the of Bush and missing drill day(s), the individual is NOT considered AWOL and will not be charged for AWOL. The difference is one was ACTIVE duty *full-time) and the other was NG and/or Reserve (part-time). Secondly, his unit(s) was/were not being deployed (Vietnam) or called to active status.

Again, where is the AWOL? IMHO, whether I served or didn't, if you or ECK served and knew about NG and Reserve 'workings', you would obviously NOT be here advocating Bush was AWOL! Again, IMHO, "that" dog won't hunt......

BTW, Bush's records are open to public scrutiny, how else would these people be making these bogus charges?

Maybe you both can shed some light on this subject too?
www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com...




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
BTW, that picture you posted BT, in your last thread....I happened to find it attached to this TIME article:

"An Absence in Alabama"
www.time.com...

Very carefully worded article by TIME.


Found this excerpt to be very profound?

"Citing Bush's honorable discharge, military legal experts dismiss the two accusations as rhetoric. "No military lawyer would say what's being alleged here is either desertion or AWOL," says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice."

And this eye-opener from the General:

"I did say in 2000 that I didn't remember seeing him," Turnipseed, now 75, told TIME. "But after I said that, I backed up and realized I didn't even remember if I was on the base in 1972 or not."



regards
seekerof



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
That's not true. My brother, for example, serves in the National Guard and he is most definitely expected to drill his once a month. This is a time of war. Or hey - maybe in this BS twilight it's not - afterall, congress abdicated their constitutional-given authority and did not declare war. Back in the day, if you did not show up for duty, a minute after formation, you would be considered not only AWOL, but as a deserter. George W. Bush is a DESERTER.

I will tell you this much. That is bul#e. The NG is the most inept, lacksadasical outfit when it comes to discipline.

Miss a drill----"uh, I'm sick." get a relief date to make it up, bye bye.....


You people who don't know should just educate yourselves first before commenting on something.....



posted on Feb, 8 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Hey Seeker..................



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Thank you Tyriffic.
Good to see you again and thanks for the clarification.
BTW, since you are in the "know", can you provide us with the NG/Reserve Reg's quoting such?

Personally, Bush was a pampered lil' rich kid that learned the "system" and then used and manipulated it wisely....and thus, after all, went on to become a Yale Grad.


Here's a couple of questions for you and others:

1) Why wasn't Bush called on this sooner, say like the 2000 Presidential Campaign/Election? Could it be that the Democrats were afraid that the Clinton-era "draft-dodging" days would be brought up and then thrown subsequently back in thier collective faces?

2) And why now? More wood for the fire, so to speak? Does it matter? No! Its more mud that can be tossed is all. BTW, Tyriffic, you in military JAG? A military lawyer? You must have a more clear cut understanding of the terms AWOL and DESERTION and military justice reg's and law then most military lawyers today? Again, I mentioned and pointed it out in the TIME's article....there aren't too many military lawyers who would touch this with a 10-20 foot pole, but alas, many of you are?

May I?

"Citing Bush's honorable discharge, military legal experts dismiss the two accusations as rhetoric. "No military lawyer would say what's being alleged here is either desertion or AWOL," says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice."
www.time.com...


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-2-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Nice post East Coast.

It truely proves that you are all for attacking people and not an issue that YOU posted.

I don't care for Bush, but I can make a judgement on an issue in his favor without liking him.

Much like the FHA loan being dropped to 0% down in 2005. Good plan

Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Good plan.

Yet I still do not like Bush. See how it works? If you want to spew your garbage, go to the mudpit and level your falacious trash there.

Otherwise, please try to have a point.


Boy, you sure do think you're important!


Keep following me. One of these days you'll snap out your illusions.




Important to you or the board? Probably not.

You can try to snap me out of my illusions, but if that entails spiralling down into the blind distaste you seem to harbor, then you can sure try.



Anyway, my point is that no one has proved anything on either side yet.



posted on Feb, 9 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
,,,actually, to determine your perspective. Your opinions are every bit as valid as mine, ECK, Tyriffic, Thomas or anyone else who did serve. They are as valid as any retired generals; you're an American & despite what Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Ashkrofts might think....that's all that matters!

It's symantics really - deserter, AWOL. The fact is that he was derelict to his commitment during war time, had pissed away millions of dollars spent on him for flight training and showed everyone that you can be rich enough to get something others deserved much more, as well as decide to piss it away on a whim.

Your information that you keep saying I turn a blind eye to...false, I read everything. I'm just not as predisposed to a given outcome as you.

This whole "End justifies the means" mindset of yours - because it was manipulated for him to get an honorable discharge when he didn't qualify for one - that discharge explians away the whole question?

To make a long story short, Bush apparently blew off drills beginning in May 1972, failed to show up for his physical, and was then grounded and transferred to ARF as a disciplinary measure....Bush's official records from Texas show no actual duty after May 1972, as his Form 712 Master Personnel Record from the Texas Air National Guard clearly indicates:...
Bush's record shows three years of service, followed by a fourth year in which he accumulated only a dismal 22 days of active service, followed by no service at all in his fifth and sixth years. This is because ARF duty isn't counted as official duty by the Texas guard.
So Bush may indeed have "fulfilled his obligation," as he says, but only because he had essentially been relieved of any further obligation after his transfer to ARF. It's pretty clear that no one in the Texas Air National Guard had much interest in pursuing anything more serious in the way of disciplinary action." -

www.calpundit.com...

"Experts say that citation does not wipe away the questions. "An honorable discharge does not indicate a flawless record," says Grant Lattin, a military law attorney in Washington and a retired Marine Corps lieutenant colonel who served as a judge advocate, or JAG officer. "Somebody could have missed a year's worth of Guard drills and still end up with an honorable discharge." That's because of the extraordinary leeway local commanders within the Guard are given over these types of issues. Lattin notes that the Guard "is obviously very political, even more so than other military institutions, and is subject to political influence."...

Lattin is more blunt. "The National Guard is extremely political in the sense of who you know," he says. "And it's true to this very day. One person is handled very strictly and the next person is not. If George Bush Jr. is in your unit, you're going to bend over backward not to offend that family. It all comes down to who you know."

www.salon.com...

About those Commanding Officers:
("Major General Daniel James was head of the Texas National Guard at the time of the alleged scrubbing of George W. Bush's National Guard records. He was appointed by George W. Bush to be commander of the nation's Air National Guard -- and was confirmed by the Senate last week." --Buzzflash, 05.28.02

www.buzzflash.com...

("Bill Burkett, a former lieutenant colonel in the Guard, said, 'As the State Plans Officer for the Texas National Guard, I was on full-time duty at Camp Mabry when [Bush aide] Dan Bartlett was cleansing the George W Bush file prior to G.W.'s presidential announcement. For most soldiers at Camp Mabry, this was a generally known event. The archives were closely scrutinized to make sure that the Bush autobiography plans and the record did not directly contradict each other. In essence it was the script of the autobiography which Dan Bartlett and his small team used to scrub a file to be released. This effort was further involved by General Daniel James and Chief of Staff William W. Goodwin at Camp Mabry.'" --Online Journal, 09.04.00)

onlinejournal.com...



Still think we'll get his file released?
I'll admit, there are two sources linked above that are partisan sites......but I think this dog will not only hunt ( being fully vetted in the mainstream) but will bring home the duck, er, Chickenhawk.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join