The trumped up charges now are that Bush was AWOL during his National Guard Service. Being AWOL is a serious crime in the military and had he been AWOL he wouldn't have been honorably discharged. He wouldn't have been DIS honorably dischared. So, we're supposed to take it on faith that Bush's honorable discharge is not legitimate, yet John Kerry's three purple hearts are, in spite of the fact Kerry hasn't released all his records. Only hand picked records are posted on his website.<br><br>So, we trust the military for Democrats, yet we don't for Republicans. Nice double standard.<br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
What a fabulous twist here! The swifties are to be believed despite the official documents that belie what they say. But accusations against Bush's dereliction (I'm not up on the military terminology--I can't say he's a deserter, or that he went AWOL: is not showing up for work dereliction?) can't be believed because there's no supporting documentation.<br><br>Talk about bias!<br><br>I hate to refer to that liberal rag again, but tehNY Times op ed yesterday had it right, I think:<br><br>[color:blue]Missing in Action<br><br>By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF<br><br>President Bush claims that in the fall of 1972, he fulfilled his Air National Guard duties at a base in Alabama. But Bob Mintz was there - and he is sure Mr. Bush wasn't.<br><br>Plenty of other officers have said they also don't recall that Mr. Bush ever showed up for drills at the base. What's different about Mr. Mintz is that he remembers actively looking for Mr. Bush and never finding him.<br><br>Mr. Mintz says he had heard that Mr. Bush - described as a young Texas pilot with political influence - had transferred to the base. He heard that Mr. Bush was also a bachelor, so he was looking forward to partying together. He's confident that he'd remember if Mr. Bush had shown up.<br><br>"I'm sure I would have seen him," Mr. Mintz said yesterday. "It's a small unit, and you couldn't go in or out without being seen. It was too close a space." There were only 25 to 30 pilots there, and Mr. Bush - a U.N. ambassador's son who had dated Tricia Nixon - would have been particularly memorable.<br><br>I've steered clear until now of how Mr. Bush evaded service in Vietnam because I thought other issues were more important. But if Bush supporters attack John Kerry for his conduct after he volunteered for dangerous duty in Vietnam, it's only fair to scrutinize Mr. Bush's behavior.<br><br>It's not a pretty sight. Mr. Bush was saved from active duty, and perhaps Vietnam, only after the speaker of the Texas House intervened for him because of his family's influence.<br><br>Mr. Bush signed up in May 1968 for a six-year commitment, justifying the $1 million investment in training him as a pilot. But after less than two years, Mr. Bush abruptly stopped flying, didn't show up for his physical and asked to transfer to Alabama. He never again flew a military plane.<br><br>Mr. Bush insists that after moving to Alabama in 1972, he served out his obligation at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery (although he says he doesn't remember what he did there). The only officer there who recalls Mr. Bush was produced by the White House - he remembers Mr. Bush vividly, but at times when even Mr. Bush acknowledges he wasn't there.<br><br>In contrast, Mr. Mintz is a compelling witness. Describing himself as "a very strong military man," he served in the military from 1959 to 1984. A commercial pilot, he is now a Democrat but was a Republican for most of his life, and he is not a Bush-hater. When I asked him whether the National Guard controversy raises questions about Mr. Bush's credibility, Mr. Mintz said only, "That's up to the American people to decide."<br><br>In his first interview with a national news organization, Mr. Mintz recalled why he remembered Mr. Bush as a no-show: "Young bachelors were kind of sparse. For that reason, I was looking for someone to haul around with." Why speak out now? He said, "After a lot of soul-searching, I just feel it's my duty to stand up and do the right thing."<br><br>Another particularly credible witness is Leonard Walls, a retired Air Force colonel who was then a full-time pilot instructor at the base. "I was there pretty much every day," he said, adding: "I never saw him, and I was there continually from July 1972 to July 1974." Mr. Walls, who describes himself as nonpolitical, added, "If he had been there more than once, I would have seen him."<br><br>The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. It's not fair to say Mr. Bush deserted. My sense is that he (like some others at the time) neglected his National Guard obligations, did the bare minimum to avoid serious trouble and was finally let off by commanders who considered him a headache but felt it wasn't worth the hassle to punish him.<br><br>"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the full 32-page analysis here). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released.<br><br>Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh.</font color=blue><br><br>I've bolded the final paragraph for emphasis.<br><br>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
You are correct in that the New York Times is, indeed, a liberal rag. I, on the other hand, think this has it right:<br><br><blockquote>Bush’s National Guard years<br>Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts<br><br>Byron York<br>The Hill<br>September 9, 2004 <br><br>What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?<br>That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?<br><br>News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:<br><br>The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. <br><br>That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years. <br><br>Not two years of weekends. Two years.<br><br>After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.<br><br>According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis).<br><br>Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?<br><br>That brings the story to May 1972 — the time that has been the focus of so many news reports — when Bush “deserted” (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went “AWOL” (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee).<br><br>Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren’t unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.<br><br>“In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots,” Campenni says. “The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In ’72 or ’73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem.”<br><br>So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.<br><br>Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.<br><br>In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.<br><br>Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.<br><br>During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.<br><br>A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.” <br><br>A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”<br><br>Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. <br><br>And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.<br><br>The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.<br><br>And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.<br><br>In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”<br><br>Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. <br><br>That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.<br><br>And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.</blockquote><br><br>****************<br><br>[color:blue]VOTE</font color=blue>[color:red] for President George W. Bush on November 2, 2004</font color=red>
***************<br><br>This space left intentionally blank
Being AWOL is a serious crime in the military and had he been AWOL he wouldn't have been honorably discharged. He wouldn't have been DIS honorably dischared.<br><br>I assume you meant Bush WOULD have been dishonorably discharged, but I found something regarding an AWOL violation:<br><br>Here<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP) or Court-Martial<br><br>Refusing to follow orders, going UA or AWOL, or refusing to wear your uniform are all violations of the UCMJ and could result in nonjudicial punishment (Article 15s, Captain's Masts, or Office Hours) or even court-martial. Even though your actions result from your CO beliefs, you could be sentenced to prison and a Bad Conduct or Dishonorable Discharge.<p><hr></blockquote><p><br>So one would assume that it IS possible to go AWOL and *not* be booted from the military...Daddy pull some more strings on that one? <br><br>[color:white]God speed, mikeb. Go drive your Boxster in the big Autobahn in the sky...</font color=white>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The swifties are to be believed despite the official documents that belie what they say.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Well at least the documents Kerry has allowed to be released. Maybe if he'd consent to let all his records be released as Bush has we'd have some more to go on.<br><br>Also, aren't those "official documents" under dispute as being based on reports that may have been generated by Kerry himself? Hmmmm. Casts some doubts about those "official records" that everyone thinks should be believed as military gospel. I guess in that vain then ALL "official documents" from the military should be believed without question. So, when there are "official military" documents that say something like "Only seven people at Abu Ghraib are responsible for the abuses and no one else in the chain of command" then it's "case closed"?<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Geeze, I'm still trying to find the quotes from the Bush campaign sliming his military service. I've found a bunch of quotes from the Bush campaign honoring Kerry for his service but I'm still searching for those sliming quotes.<br><br>Dean Davis<br><br>-----<br>"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." -- John Kerry (D) - May 3, 2003
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> (I'm not up on the military terminology--I can't say he's a deserter, or that he went AWOL: <p><hr></blockquote><p> I believe if you are absent without official leave less than 30 day you are AWOL. More than 30 days and it is desertion. Was Barnes on 60 minutes last night? I was too interested in the Red Sox closing the gap to 2 games on the Stinkies, I mean Yankees. Oooh, Stinkies ready to lose again in ten minutes.<br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.