Hey BT and ECK...whats the damn use in posting material to counter your "factual claims" when you both obviously
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
"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."
" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...
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
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
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."
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?
[Edited on 8-2-2004 by Seekerof]