[BlackGriffen]

Bush fell short on duty at Guard

Records show pledges unmet - The Boston Globe. Excerpts:

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."
[...]
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.
[...]
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.
[...]
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.

Hmmm, interesting, but not inconsistent with him receiving the job as a favor from a Texas official. It seems to me that either an understanding of special treatment was handed down upon Bush's recruitment, or strings were pulled during his service, because special treatment certainly appears to be what he got.

It's sounding like that honorable discharge was also part of his special treatment.

Please note that this is perfectly consistent with the opposition to the swiftvets - in both cases I'm on the side of the military record.

BlackGriffen

[Shaddim]

Wow. RAILhead was right, you guys are doing this on the anniversary of it's initial release (page 138 of the Liberals handbook). Damn.

[BlackGriffen]

Hey, Zimphire, here's a lie straight from Bush's mouth:

On “Meet the Press,” Bush said, “I put in my time, proudly so.” When pressed by Russert on why news reporters who previously investigated the charge could find no records of his Alabama service, Bush said, “They’re just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report; otherwise, I wouldn’t have been honorably discharged. In other words, you don’t just say ‘I did something’ without there being verification. Military doesn’t work that way. I got an honorable discharge, and I did show up in Alabama.”

BG

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow. Railhead was right, you guys are doing this on the anniversary of it's initial release (page 138 of the Liberals handbook). Damn.

I'm doing squat. I'm just bringing some news to the attention of this board.



BG

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I'm doing squat. I'm just bringing some news to the attention of this board.



BG

No way man. He predicted it 3 days ago. Just amazing.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow. RAILhead was right, you guys are doing this on the anniversary of it's initial release (page 138 of the Liberals handbook). Damn.

You forgot to turn the page. Page 138 was hire Carville, 139 was rehash the coke accusations.

Page 140 is the page that directs Liberals to refocuse on Bush's Guard service.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You forgot to turn the page. Page 138 was hire Carville, 139 was rehash the coke accusations.

Page 140 is the page that directs Liberals to refocuse on Bush's Guard service.

Ahh.. it was you who predicted it first. Damned impressive.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Ahh.. it was you who predicted it first. Damned impressive.

It wasn't a hard prediction to make. Many liberals have been clamoring for Kerry - or his underlings and allies - to hit Bush's service record (or lack thereof) even before the swiftvets thing.

It was like hitting fish in a barrel.

BG

[Zimphire]

It's a good thing Bush never tried to make his involvement into service as the main reason he deserves to be president.

Unlike the OTHER candidate.

[spacefreak]

And here's a sneak peak at what's to come in the 150-numbered pages...

Will it be the three, or is it four or five, drunken driving arrests that Bush and Cheney, the two most powerful men in the world, managed to rack up?

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment.

What if Bush were to fall off the wagon? Then what? Has America really faced the fact that we have an alcoholic as our president?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Hey, Zimphire, here's a lie straight from Bush's mouth:



BG

Bush lying...I'm shocked.
What a minute. If Kerry is lying about his record, and Michael Moore is lying in his movie, and Bush is lying through his teeth...who am I to believe?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
It wasn't a hard prediction to make.

I know, I could smell the Liberal fear all the way out here, in the Conservative heartland.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Bush lying...I'm shocked.
What a minute. If Kerry is lying about his record, and Michael Moore is lying in his movie, and Bush is lying through his teeth...who am I to believe?

All politicians are scumbags, just go with the one that will most likely do what you want done.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Wow. RAILhead was right, you guys are doing this on the anniversary of it's initial release (page 138 of the Liberals handbook). Damn.

What did I predict? I think you have me confused with someone else.

Maury

EDIT: Ahh, got it.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
What did I predict? I think you have me confused with someone else.

Maury

Yeah, I concluded it was spacefreak.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
All politicians are scumbags, just go with the one that will most likely do what you want done.

Unfortunately none of the politicians in this election are doing anything that I want done...they're actually doing the opposite.

[Myrkridia]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's a good thing Bush never tried to make his involvement into service as the main reason he deserves to be president.

Unlike the OTHER candidate.

No, he'd rather have his pal Cheney blame me for the next terrorist attack.

[djohnson]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Unfortunately none of the politicians in this election are doing anything that I want done...they're actually doing the opposite.

Since when do Politicians do what everyone wants?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Since when do Politicians do what everyone wants?

When do they do what anyone wants.

[tie]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I know, I could smell the Liberal fear all the way out here, in the Conservative heartland.

We're all so terrified now that we know the terrorists will attack if Kerry is elected. What are we to do?! How come the terrorists like Bush but not Kerry?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by tie:
We're all so terrified now that we know the terrorists will attack if Kerry is elected. What are we to do?! How come the terrorists terrified of Bush but not that horse-faced wanker Kerry?

Fixed™.

[BlackGriffen]

Uh-oh, more has come out.

Dallas Morning News Article (via The Mercury News):

AUSTIN, Texas - (KRT) - President Bush's Air National Guard commander said he felt pressured by higher-ups to "sugarcoat" his evaluations of the young pilot after grounding Bush in 1972 in part for failing to perform up to standards, according to military memos disclosed Wednesday.

The documents, presented on the CBS News program "60 Minutes," appeared to contradict Bush's and the White House's longtime contention that the future president was voluntarily grounded in August 1972 because he took on non-flying duties while helping to run a political campaign in Alabama.
[...]
Also on the CBS program, former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes - a Kerry supporter - gave his first interview about his role in securing Bush his spot in the Texas Air National Guard and expressed remorse for his actions.
[...]
Bush said in February that he would make all his military records available. But the documents on the CBS program were not among those the White House previously released.

The four memos were written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commander at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston who died in 1984. They were in his personal file, and suggest his growing frustration at Bush's attitude toward fulfilling his Guard duty:

The first memo was Killian's May 4, 1972, order to Bush in Houston to take the physical required of all pilots within 10 days.

The second memo, dated May 19 - five days after the deadline expired for the physical - contains Killian's notations of a phone call from Bush, in which Bush inquired about options of how he could "get out of coming to drill" through November, when the political campaign in Alabama would conclude. Bush expressed his desire to transfer to an Alabama Guard unit - a later source of contention over whether he actually reported for duty there.

In the same memo, Killian said Bush told him he would complete his flight physical in Alabama if he took a flying slot there, but the colonel said he suspected Bush also was "talking to someone upstairs."

"He has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time," Killian wrote. "I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment."

The third memo, dated Aug. 1, 1972, contains Killian's order suspending Bush from flying status for failure to take his physical and "failure to perform" to Air Force and Texas Air National Guard standards, which were not described in the memo.

And there is no mention of a phasing out of the aircraft Bush was trained to fly - one of the reasons previously cited by the White House for the grounding.

"Officer (Bush) has made no attempt to meet his training certification of flight physical." Killian wrote. "Officer expresses desire to transfer out of state including assignment to non-flying billets."

The fourth memo, a year after Bush's suspension from flying, had the subject "CYA." Killian cited pressure from Walter "Buck" Staudt, the top officer at Ellington who has since denied Bush got any special treatment.

"Staudt has obviously pressured (another officer) more about Bush. I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," Killian wrote.

He complained that he was being asked to evaluate Bush, although Bush had not shown up at Ellington, and Killian had heard nothing from the Alabama Guard about his performance.

"Staudt is pushing me to sugar coat it," he wrote.

The Dallas Morning News reported in 1999 that Staudt was a close friend of Houston oilman Sid Adger, the Bush family friend who asked Barnes to help Bush get in the Guard during Vietnam.
[...]

Ouch, looks like documentary evidence to back up Barnes.

There's also a 527 group started up to mirror the poorly named Swiftboat Veterans for Truth - the probably equally poorly named, and tied to partisan fundraisers, Texans for Truth. They're running an ad containing "Alabama Air Guard Veteran Lieutenant Bob Mintz" claiming neither he nor his friends ever saw Bush there, and claiming that he would have in a unit that size.

The ad will probably suck up some attention, but is frankly irrelevant. I'm more interested in records and documentary evidence, because this one is just going to boil down to an irreconcilable "he said, he said" situation. *shrug*

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Again, it's a good thing Bush hasn't based his entire campaign on his military record like Kerry has.

He has barely mentioned it.

Unlike Kerry who mentions it any chance he can. He works it into some of the most moronic ways.

[Joshua]

A summary of Bush's National Guard record.

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.

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).

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. . . .

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).

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.

“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.”

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points — not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go.

That aside, I simply can't understand why Kerry supporters keep going back to Bush's National Guard service. These conspiracy theories have been bouncing around for at least five years and they've never been particularly successful in hurting Bush. If anything, the National Guard debate just draws attention to Kerry's own service record, and that story has had a negative impact -- on Kerry.

[OldManMac]

Stung!
A swarm of new media stories on young George W. Bush's dereliction of duty pops his heroic-leadership bubble.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert


Sept. 9, 2004 _|_ On Feb. 13, as controversy swirled around President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War, the White House released more than 400 pages of documents on the press corps, proving, it claimed, that Bush had served honorably and fulfilled his commitment. The sudden rush of records, often redundant, jumbled and out of chronological order, generally left reporters baffled. From Bush's point of view, the document dump was a political success, as the controversy cooled and the paper trail ran dry.

In retrospect, it's doubtful that even White House aides understood all the information embedded in the records, specifically the payroll documents. It's also unlikely they realized how damaging the information could be when read in the proper context. Seven months later, the document dump is coming back to haunt the White House, thanks to researcher Paul Lukasiak, who has spent that time closely examining the paperwork, and more important, analyzing U.S. Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of the 1960s and 1970s. As a result, Lukasiak arrived at the overwhelming conclusion that not only did Bush walk away from his final two years of military obligation, coming dangerously close to desertion, but that he attempted to cover up his absenteeism through swindle and fraud.

Lukasiak's findings, detailed on his Web site the AWOL Project, have since been bolstered and augmented by independent research by the Boston Globe and the Associated Press. On Wednesday, CBS News reported what may be among the most damaging details yet: that Bush's squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian, complained he was being pressured by higher-ups to give Bush a favorable evaluation after he suspended him from flying for failure to take his annual physical exam. Titled "CYA," Killian's memo concluded, "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job."

But for the last several months, Lukasiak has practically had the AWOL story to himself, as the mainstream media mostly seemed silenced by the big February document release, the daunting task of decoding military personnel records, and the repeated refrain from the Bush White House that the president was honorably discharged. Among the three most compelling conclusions reached by Lukasiak in his new, meticulous research, are:

Bush's request to transfer to an Alabama Guard unit in 1972, in order to work on the Senate campaign of a family friend, Lukasiak found, was not designed to be temporary, but rather was Bush's attempt to sever ties completely with the Texas Air National Guard and find a new, permanent unit in Alabama for which he was ineligible, where he wouldn't have to do any training during his final two years. His superiors in Texas essentially covered for Bush's getaway. However, the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver, Colo., which had final say, uncovered the attempted scam, put an end to it, and admonished Bush's superiors for endorsing Bush's bogus request. (The CBS News report shows that the locals were chafing at interference from "higher-ups" presumably connected to the powerful Bush family). In the interim, Bush simply ignored his weekend duties for nearly six straight months, not bothering to show up at military units in either Alabama or Texas.

The White House has conceded that Bush missed some required weekend training drills, but insists Bush promptly made up those drills and earned enough annual credits for an honorable discharge. In fact, according to Lukasiak's research, based on the procedures in place at the time requiring that makeup dates be completed within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill date missed, between half and two-thirds of the points credited to Bush for substitute training were fraudulent. Some of the points credited to Bush were "earned" nine weeks beyond the date of the missed drill. According to Air Force policy, Bush could not have received permission for substitute training that far outside the accepted parameters. The evidence is also overwhelming that Bush failed to get authorization for substitute training in advance, suggesting the points were awarded by the Texas Air National Guard retroactively and without any supporting paperwork. The fraudulent points are key, because without them Bush would have fallen far short of meeting his annual obligation, which meant he should have been transferred to active duty for 24 months and made eligible for service in Vietnam.

On Oct. 1, 1973, Bush received an honorable discharge from the Texas Air National Guard in order to move to Boston and attend the Harvard Business School, where he was still obligated to find a unit in Massachusetts to fulfill his remaining nine months of duty, or face being placed on active duty. Once again, Bush made no such effort. But the Air Force in Denver, acting retroactively, in effect overturned Bush's honorable discharge and placed him on "Inactive Status" effective Sept. 15, 1973. When Bush left Texas, his personnel file was sent to Denver for review. The ARPC quickly realized Bush had failed to take a required physical exam, his Texas superior could not account for his whereabouts covering nearly a 12-month period, and due to absenteeism Bush had failed to "satisfactorily participate" as a member of the Texas Air National Guard. Bush's "Inactive Status" meant his relationship with the Air Force (and the Guard) was severed and he was therefore eligible for the draft.

Soon afterward, large gaps began appearing in Bush's paper trail. Lukasiak concludes that only last-minute intervention, likely from Bush's local Houston draft board, saved him from active duty, as well as finally securing his honorable discharge, removing his "Inactive Status." Ironically, that means strings were pulled to get Bush out of the Guard in 1973, just as they were pulled to get him enrolled in 1968.

The AWOL Project's conclusions are bound to give Dan Bartlett concern. He's the White House director of communications and has served as Bush's point person over the last five years regarding inquiries about National Guard service. Dating back to the 2000 campaign and right up to this day, Bartlett has routinely changed his stories regarding Bush's service depending on what information was available to the public. As more and more documents trickle out and it becomes increasingly obvious Bush received wildly favorable treatment during his Guard days while doing his best to skirt his duties, Bartlett is left trying to stake out explanations that haven't already been discredited. And those options are shrinking.

[OldManMac]

Cont'd

Bartlett's latest flip-flop surrounds Bush's failure to locate a new Guard unit and fulfill his duty while attending Harvard Business School. In 1999, Bartlett said Bush had reported for duty at a Massachusetts Guard unit as required. This week Bartlett conceded to the Boston Globe he must have "misspoke," because it's clear Bush made no effort whatsoever to serve out his term while living in Boston. That answer is reminiscent of Bartlett's response during the 2000 campaign when asked about Bush's failure to take a required military physical in 1972: "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take a flight physical exam." But that response is directly contradicted by the Air Force Specialty Code, which required a physical regardless of flight status.

On Wednesday, Bartlett told CBS News, in response to Jerry Killian's memos, "It's impossible to read the mind of a dead man." He then reverted to his usual refrain: "The official files tell the facts," says Bartlett. "And the facts are President Bush served. He served honorably. And that's why he was honorably discharged."

The shifting explanations and obfuscations coming from the White House are one reason why the Guard story remains dangerous for Bush. The controversy, after all, is not merely about how he received a million dollars' worth of free pilot training and then stiffed the government when it came time to pay it back in service. It's also about how, for the last decade, Bush and his advisors have done everything possible to distort, if not erase, the truth about Bush's service record in order to advance his political career.

The detailed research from Lukasiak, a Philadelphia caterer, deals strictly with the contents of Bush's military service documents, particularly those after April 1972, when Bush decided -- on his own -- to stop flying. But what's fascinating is that when recent news reports from Salon, the Associated Press, CBS and the Boston Globe are layered on top of the AWOL Project research, they fit together almost seamlessly, revealing a vivid portrait of Bush as a young man whose military service was evaded.

Last week Salon reported that in late 1972 George H.W. Bush phoned a longtime Bush family confidant in Alabama, Jimmy Allison, to ask if there was room on the local campaign he was managing for Bush's troublesome son George, or "Georgie" as he was called. "The impression I had was that Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family, and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston and under Jimmy's wing," Linda Allison, his widow, told Salon. "After about a month I asked Jimmy what was Georgie's job, because I couldn't figure it out. I never saw him do anything," said Allison. Asked if she'd ever seen Bush in a uniform, Allison said: "Good lord, no. I had no idea that the National Guard was involved in his life in any way."

This week a new advocacy group calling itself Texans for Truth announced that it will air a television commercial featuring a former Alabama National Guard pilot who insists he never saw Bush in 1972 at the small Guard unit at Dannelly Air National Guard base in Montgomery, where the president claims he served. The pilot, Bob Mintz, has told a consistent tale. In February, he told the Memphis Flyer newspaper: "There's no way we wouldn't have noticed a strange rooster in the henhouse, especially since we were looking for him." Mintz was referring to the news on the base that somebody from Texas with political influence was coming to train with the unit. "I was looking for him," said Mintz.

On Wednesday night, on CBS's "60 Minutes," in an interview with Dan Rather, former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes went public for the first time about how he pulled strings to get young Bush a coveted slot, at the height of the Vietnam War, in the Texas Air National Guard. "I've thought about it an awful lot and you walk through the Vietnam memorial, particularly at night like I did a few months ago and, I tell you, ... reflecting back, I'm very sorry about it, but you know, it happened and it was because of my ambition, my youth and my lack of understanding. But it happened and it's not ... something I'm necessarily proud of."

CBS also reported on four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander. One memo ordered Bush to take "an annual physical examination" -- an order he refused. CBS reports: "On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered. A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment. Killian's memo, titled 'CYA,' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, 'I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.'"

This week, the AP reported that a thorough analysis of Bush's military documents indicate obvious gaps in his service along with equally gratuitous gaps in his paperwork. Specifically missing are: "A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing." "Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status." "A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him." "Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions." "A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas."

In February of this year, Salon interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Texas National Guard, who claims he observed aides to Bush going through his military file in 1997 to remove any embarrassing information, tossing documents in the trash, allegedly the types of documents that might help answer many of the unanswered questions surrounding Bush's Guard service. "Activities occurred in order to, in my opinion, inappropriately build a false image of the governor's military service," Burkett told Salon. Burkett first went public with his accusations in 1998 and has told the same story consistently for six years.

Also last February, Salon reported that Bush's mysterious decision in the spring of 1972 to stop flying and subsequently refuse to take a physical exam came at the same time the Air Force announced its Medical Service Drug Abuse Testing Program, which meant random drug testing for pilots, including Guardsmen.

Meanwhile, the White House has not been able to produce anything or anybody with any credibility to contradict the growing body of evidence that suggests Bush deliberately walked away from his duties and that Bush and his handlers continue to lie about his military service. Retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun was the one witness who was brought forward this year to back up Bush's story that he actually showed up in Alabama. He recalled seeing Bush at training sessions between "eight to ten times from May to October 1972." Yet not even Bush's own payroll records suggest he did drills in Alabama at the time Calhoun allegedly spotted him. (Amazingly, ABC News on Wednesday used Calhoun as a credible witness to bolster Bush's account, despite the fact that the dates Calhoun cites don't even match up with Bush's.)

There's also no paper trail to support Bush's claim that he completed any service following 1972. As Lukasiak notes, each substitute training Bush completed, and there were many, should have generated authorized AF Form 40a's: "All told, Bush performed 'substitute training' on at least 20 days. Thus there should be, at the very least, 20 AF Form 40a's with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the name and signature the officer who supervised the training, and Bush's own signature." But not one such form exists.

A similar absence of information surrounds Bush's dubious explanation of his attempted transfer to Alabama. The move should have generated a small mountain of paperwork. Under normal circumstances, 10 steps are required to transfer:

1) The Guardsman announces that he will need to relocate.

2) His personnel officer explains the relocation policies and procedures to him.

3) The Guardsman signs an acknowledgment that he has received the relocation counseling.

4) The personnel officer gives the Guardsman a certification of satisfactory participation, which he will need to get approval for a transfer.

5) The Guardsman locates an appropriate Ready Reserve position with a new unit, and submits a "Transfer Request Form" (Form 1288) and a new "Ready Reserve Service Agreement (Form 1644), along with the certification of satisfactory participation, to the "receiving unit."

6) The receiving unit "indorses" the request on the back of the Form 1288, and provides the Guardsman with certification that an appropriate position is available in that unit.

7) The Guardsman gives Form 1288, Form 1644, the certification of an appropriate position, and a letter of resignation to his current unit commander.

8) The unit commander indorses the request, and forwards it to the state adjutant general.

9) The adjutant general approves the request, and discharges the Guardsman from the Air National Guard to the Air Force Reserves.

10) The Air Force Reserves assigns the former Guardsman to his new unit.

In Bush's case, according to Lukasiak's research, "There is no statement of counseling, no certification of satisfactory performance, no certification of a suitable vacancy, no letter of resignation, no discharge papers, no discharge orders, and no reassignment orders."

There are also indications that Bush -- unwilling to fly, take a physical or report for duty -- was trying to mislead Guard officials with his transfer application. When asked for his permanent address, Bush listed the P.O. box for the Alabama campaign headquarters he worked for temporarily. When asked to note his Air Force Specialty Code, Bush wrote down 1125B, the designation for F-89 or F-94 pilots. At the time of his transfer request, both of these planes had been retired from service in all components of the Air Force, including the Guard and Reserves. Bush's accurate code was 1125D, designing an F-102 pilot. At the time, F-102 planes were still very much in use. It was an error Bush made more than once on the application. Lukasiak writes: "The odds of Bush being able to scam his way into a non-training unit [in Alabama] would be enhanced if his specific skill set was one which was no longer useful to the Air Force."

In May 1972, Bush was informed that the unit in Alabama he requested was clearly unsuitable for a pilot of his stature, yet he pressed on, and his Texas superiors endorsed the transfer request and submitted it. But the Denver headquarters caught the scam and rejected it. The Texas chief of military personnel sent a curt warning to Bush's unit about the clearly bogus request: "Attention is invited to basic communication."

Lukasiak's work has created a storm in the blogosphere. (He's also a Salon Table Talk member, and an active thread is devoted to his research.) He makes no secret of his conviction that Bush used his family connections to evade the draft. The AWOL Project concludes: "Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically influential family. There is no other explanation for Bush's records. None."

Of course none of that stopped Bush from hyping his military service as he launched his political career. In 1978, during an unsuccessful run for Congress in West Texas, Bush produced campaign literature that claimed he had served "in the US Air Force and the Texas Air National Guard." In 1999, when asked by an A.P. reporter why Bush had claimed to have served specifically with the U.S. Air Force when he'd only been in the National Guard, Bush's spokesperson Karen Hughes insisted the claim was accurate because when Bush attended flight school for the Air National Guard he was considered to be on active duty for the Air Force. That was plainly false, as the A.P. noted, citing Air Force policy, which stated Guardsmen are never considered to be members of the Air Force active duty.

Just four years after escaping his military obligations, Bush was already trying to rewrite his military record for political gain. Bush said he strongly supported the Vietnam War, obscuring how he spent several years, after securing a safe spot in the National Guard, evading his military obligation. Now President Bush orders Guardsmen and Reservists to shoulder an unprecedented load -- physically, financially and emotionally -- in the war in Iraq. As new information at last begins to emerge about what he really did, Bush and his aides are still at work covering up the record. His ultimate war is with the truth about his past.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Stung!
A swarm of new media stories on young George W. Bush's dereliction of duty pops his heroic-leadership bubble.

Hardly. These memos show Bush was in contact with his superiors about what his duties were and how he wanted his last year in the Guard to evolve.

Sounds like a stand-up guy to me.

The Vietnam-era memos add new dimensions to the bare-bones explanation of Bush's aides over the years that he was suspended simply because he decided to skip his annual physical exam. The exam was scheduled during a year in which Bush left Texas, where he had been flying fighter jets, to work on a U.S. Senate campaign in Alabama.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett told CBS' "60 Minutes II," which first obtained the memos, that Bush's superiors granted permission to train in Alabama in a non-flying status and that "many of the documents you have here affirm just that."

"On this date I ordered that 1st Lt. Bush be suspended from flight status due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination ... as ordered," states an Aug. 1, 1972, memo by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian.

A memo a year later points to turmoil among Bush's superiors over how to rate his performance because there was no "feedback" from Guard officials in 1972 and 1973 in Alabama, where Bush had been largely inactive.

A third Killian memo makes clear that Killian was concerned from the outset over Bush's plan to go to Alabama because the military had spent a substantial sum of money turning Bush into a pilot and that his National Guard duties might suffer if he went elsewhere.

"Phone call from Bush," Killian wrote in a May 19, 1972, memo. "Discussed options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November. ... Says that he is working on another campaign for his dad. ... We talked about him getting his flight physical situation fixed ... Says he will do that in Alabama if he stays in a flight status."

The memo added that Bush "has this campaign to do and other things that will follow and may not have the time. I advised him of our investment in him and his commitment."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Hardly. These memos show Bush was in contact with his superiors about what his duties were and how he wanted his last year in the Guard to evolve.

Sounds like a stand-up guy to me.

Wait a minute. The White House release more records? I thought that we already had all of them. Sounds like the administration was less than truthful in the matter. You might even say they lied.

What about all of those missing records mentioned in KarlG's post? The allegation that they were trashed in 97 is especially interesting.

BlackGriffen

[deedar]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It's a good thing Bush never tried to make his involvement into service as the main reason he deserves to be president.

Unlike the OTHER candidate.

Damn straight. Did you mean to say "lack of involvement?" Do you realize what a joke you are?

Face it. Bush ran away from service when his country "needed him." No more complicated than that. He could do it because he was rich and his family well connected. He's a real tough guy sending other people in harm's way, but he wouldn't do it himself. He won't even own up to it.

The right has the unmitigated gall to pull the Swift Boat ad crap while backing a liar like GW. Unbelievable.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by deedar:
Face it. Bush ran away from service when his country "needed him." No more complicated than that. He could do it because he was rich and his family well connected. He's a real tough guy sending other people in harm's way, but he wouldn't do it himself. He won't even own up to it.

If service was so oimportant to you and your ilk on the left, Clinton would have never been elected President, either in 1992 or 1996.

So transparent.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Wait a minute. The White House release more records? I thought that we already had all of them.

60 Minutes had them. As for when these "new" records were released :

Walter Robinson, the lead editor and writer on The Boston Globe's sure-to-be-controversial major story Wednesday that concluded President George W. Bush did not fulfill his military obligations, said the timing of the report had nothing to do with the beginning of the fall campaign or the recent attacks on Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam service.

When asked why the story ran in September when it refers to documents made public as far back as February, Robinson responded, "We publish as soon as we have the story, irrespective of what it is. If we had this in June, we would have published in June."

The story points to two key documents, signed by Bush and promising to meet training requirements or face a call-up to active duty. One from 1968 "has received scant notice," the Globe observed. The other, from 1973, "has been overlooked in news media accounts," the paper said.

Robinson pointed out that other documents had been released since February, but would not say how much of the story came from more recent information. "We are talking about several hundred pages of records that most people would not understand because they use a lot of military parlance," Robinson said. "That means it takes a lot of effort.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If service was so oimportant to you and your ilk on the left, Clinton would have never been elected President, either in 1992 or 1996.

So transparent.

They also wouldn't have nominated Edwards for Vice President. If military service makes you qualified to be president, then why did they nominate an unqualified person to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

And by the way, what did Terry MacAuliffe do during Vietnam?

[deedar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If service was so oimportant to you and your ilk on the left, Clinton would have never been elected President, either in 1992 or 1996.

So transparent.

What are you talking about? What does this discussion have to do with Clinton? I was responding to zimp's comment. Nice try, but no cigar. Stay in context.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by deedar:
What are you talking about? What does this discussion have to do with Clinton?

I was just pointing out your obvious transparency.

Cheers!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Hardly. These memos show Bush was in contact with his superiors about what his duties were and how he wanted his last year in the Guard to evolve.

Sounds like a stand-up guy to me.

Someone who pulls strings and leapfrogs a waiting list to avoid the draft, goes to Alabama without permission (it wasn't granted until 5 months later), disobeys an order and is suspended, and generally shirks his commitments and makes misleading statements about it, is a stand-up guy because he called his superior officer and told him he was too busy to show up for duty? Now I've heard everything.

Let's face it: Bush played the system. I don't think it has any particular bearing on the election, but if this is about honesty, integrity, and character in wartime, Kerry still wins by a landslide. My hope is that the whole Vietnam thing plays itself out within the next few weeks so we can move on to more important things, like the fact that Iraq is a mess.

[OldManMac]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Someone who pulls strings and leapfrogs a waiting list to avoid the draft, goes to Alabama without permission (it wasn't granted until 5 months later), disobeys an order and is suspended, and generally shirks his commitments and makes misleading statements about it, is a stand-up guy because he called his superior officer and told him he was too busy to show up for duty? Now I've heard everything.

Let's face it: Bush played the system. I don't think it has any particular bearing on the election, but if this is about honesty, integrity, and character in wartime, Kerry still wins by a landslide. My hope is that the whole Vietnam thing plays itself out within the next few weeks so we can move on to more important things, like the fact that Iraq is a mess.

Bush's team has made the honor and integrity of Kerry an issue in their campaign; perhaps it's time they looked in the mirror. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Someone who pulls strings and leapfrogs a waiting list to avoid the draft, goes to Alabama without permission (it wasn't granted until 5 months later), disobeys an order and is suspended, and generally shirks his commitments and makes misleading statements about it, is a stand-up guy because he called his superior officer and told him he was too busy to show up for duty? Now I've heard everything.

Do guys who go "AWOL" folks often stay in touch with their superiors? Do they often discuss with their superiors how to fulfill their committments during the last year of a multi-year committment?

It's been generally agreed upon that Bush's father or family friend pulled a string for him to boost him up the list for the pilot training program. What father wouldn't do that for their 22-year-old son?

And it's been generally agreed upon that Bush was fiddling around during his last year in the Guard while spending much of that time working on a campaign in Alabama.

Bush has stated that he fulfilled his committment. The Guard has stated that he fulfilled his committment.

Now how exactly has Bush been misleading?

[deedar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I was just pointing out your obvious transparency.

Cheers!

??

[deedar]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
They also wouldn't have nominated Edwards for Vice President. If military service makes you qualified to be president, then why did they nominate an unqualified person to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?

And by the way, what did Terry MacAuliffe do during Vietnam?

It's not about the military service, people.... It's about honesty, integrity and honor. The right continues to attack Kerry questioning his patriotism, courage, etc. all the while backing a hypocrite like Bush. That's the issue, not the service, per se.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by deedar:
It's not about the military service, people.... It's about honesty, integrity and honor. The right continues to attack Kerry questioning his patriotism, courage, etc. all the while backing a hypocrite like Bush. That's the issue, not the service, per se.

Nobody has questioned Kerry's courage or patriotism. What's been questioned is his and his select group's version of events - the very events that Kerry on which has based the majority of his campaign.

It's not like Bush accepted the nomination with a bunch of Guardmates at his side, with a photo/video presentation of him and his "Band of Brothers" as the backdrop.

As a matter of fact, Bush has never mentioned his Guard service as an office qualifier. The only time he or his staff mentions his Guard duty is in reply to the ridiculous AWOL suggestions.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nobody has questioned Kerry's courage or patriotism.

I'm sitting on a stack of links that say otherwise. I'll withhold them to give you a chance to retract this statement.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Do guys who go "AWOL" folks often stay in touch with their superiors? Do they often discuss with their superiors how to fulfill their committments during the last year of a multi-year committment?

It's been generally agreed upon that Bush's father or family friend pulled a string for him to boost him up the list for the pilot training program. What father wouldn't do that for their 22-year-old son?

And it's been generally agreed upon that Bush was fiddling around during his last year in the Guard while spending much of that time working on a campaign in Alabama.

Bush has stated that he fulfilled his committment. The Guard has stated that he fulfilled his committment.

Now how exactly has Bush been misleading?

I didn't say he was AWOL - I was addressing the "stand-up guy" remark because it strikes me that, apart from the solid Guard service he put in for four years, his behavior didn't quite meet that standard, at least relative to many of his peers. But yes, better that he called his superiors than not.

I agree that many fathers would do the same, but that doesn't really go to the "stand-up guy" issue. Both father and son have claimed that they didn't pull any strings, which appears to be false and defies common sense.

As for fulfilling his commitments, it's fairly obvious that he didn't, but got an HD anyway. I accept that because things were fairly loose at the time. There might have been some additional political pressure applied, but I'm not all that worried about it.

[Whether he was AWOL or not I wouldn't venture to say - he was never disciplined or convicted as such, but that doesn't mean he wasn't AWOL, it just means he wasn't disciplined. If you're supposed to be in Texas and you go to Alabama and don't report, that's being absent without leave as I understand it. But I recognize that things were played pretty loosely at the time so I don't put much stock in it.]

I really don't condemn Bush for what happened 30 years ago, no more than I condemn Kerry for his misjudgments. And I agree that Kerry has made his service an issue more than Bush has. My only objection is to portraying either in a false light. I'm in favor of letting all the facts come out, and I suspect that when that happens, we'll be able to conclude that both candidates were flawed and hopefully move beyond it.

The only people I can see who are actually basing their votes on what happened 30-35 years ago are those who still resent Kerry's anti-war activities, which is their prerogative. The rest of us have already decided and are just getting lung exercise defending one candidate and/or condemning the other.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by deedar:
It's not about the military service, people.... It's about honesty, integrity and honor. The right continues to attack Kerry questioning his patriotism, courage, etc. all the while backing a hypocrite like Bush. That's the issue, not the service, per se.

Bush has been under attack for his service in the Guard for many years. So far all that has emerged is that out of a 6 year commitment he was released from the active national guard a few months early. Bush has never maintained otherwise. He performed his duties well enough to get his honorable discharge and was never at any time "AWOL" nor close to being declared AWOL. People who assert otherwise do so from a position of complete ignorance about how the reserves actually work. That really is the end of the story, only Democratic partisans, including partisans in the media keep bringing it up every time their candidates get into trouble.

In contrast, Kerry has made his few months service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. The problem is he has never released his records to anyone but his hand picked historian. He has not signed Form 180 so anyone else can go through them.

Given that, there have been some fairly wild attacks on Kerry by people who served with him. I do discount many of those attacks. However, some of their comments are absolutly accurate. Kerry has repeatedly lied and misrepresented his positions. He lied about being in Cambodia. He has misrepresented the facts of how he came to be in Vietnam. He didn't volunteer for brown water duty. The tactical use for swiftboats changed after he volunteered for them. But he'd like us to believe he volunteered for Vietnam.

Once in Vietnam, I accept, as Bush has accepted, that he performed admirably, and even heroically. But that does not insulate him from criticism of his lying on the record before the senate and his poor judgment in sliming his fellow servicemen. Nor does it insulate him from the documented fact that he lied about secret missions that there is no evidence ever happened. It's not about his military record. It is about his misrepresentation of it.

Now Kerry and his attack dogs want to attack anyone who served with honor in the National Guard as not meeting his standards of heroism. And he attacks everyone who didn't go to Vietnam. The problem is that his own Vice Presidential candidate didn't serve at all. If not going to Vietnam is a problem, then he shows no judgement at all by selecting Edwards.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Let me add though that this is not going to make any difference. Bush has been president now for 3 years. Attacking his pre-presidential resume will not have any impact at this point. He is running on his record as president. That's what people will judge him on. Not irrelevancies from 30 years in the past.

Kerry, on the other hand, is still an unknown quantity to many voters. He has a terrible record in the Senate and an embarrassing record as a left wing activist before he entered electoral politics. That's why he is pushing his 4 months with Swiftboats as the most significant thing he has done in his pampered life. But the story he tells doesn't add up, and with nothing else to run on (other than anybody but bush), he has to go negative. What a terrible candidate! Why did you nominate him?

[OldManMac]

Will you please stop saying Bush served with honor? It just isn't true.

CBS also reported on four documents from the personal files of Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's squadron commander. One memo ordered Bush to take "an annual physical examination" -- an order he refused. CBS reports: "On August 1, 1972, Col. Killian grounded Lt. Bush for failure to perform to U.S. Air Force/Texas Air National Guard standards and for failure to take his annual physical as ordered. A year after Lt. Bush's suspension from flying, Killian was asked to write another assessment. Killian's memo, titled 'CYA,' reads he is being pressured by higher-ups to give the young pilot a favorable yearly evaluation; to, in effect, sugarcoat his review. He refuses, saying, 'I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job.'"

The White House has conceded that Bush missed some required weekend training drills, but insists Bush promptly made up those drills and earned enough annual credits for an honorable discharge. In fact, according to Lukasiak's research, based on the procedures in place at the time requiring that makeup dates be completed within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill date missed, between half and two-thirds of the points credited to Bush for substitute training were fraudulent. Some of the points credited to Bush were "earned" nine weeks beyond the date of the missed drill. According to Air Force policy, Bush could not have received permission for substitute training that far outside the accepted parameters. The evidence is also overwhelming that Bush failed to get authorization for substitute training in advance, suggesting the points were awarded by the Texas Air National Guard retroactively and without any supporting paperwork. The fraudulent points are key, because without them Bush would have fallen far short of meeting his annual obligation, which meant he should have been transferred to active duty for 24 months and made eligible for service in Vietnam.

There is much more, and obviously, you only read what you want to believe. Stop being a spin doctor and apologist for Bush.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bush has been under attack for his service in the Guard for many years. So far all that has emerged is that out of a 6 year commitment he was released from the active national guard a few months early. Bush has never maintained otherwise. He performed his duties well enough to get his honorable discharge and was never at any time "AWOL" nor close to being declared AWOL. People who assert otherwise do so from a position of complete ignorance about how the reserves actually work. That really is the end of the story, only Democratic partisans, including partisans in the media keep bringing it up every time their candidates get into trouble.

The documentation is suggesting that Bush got an honorable discharge in spite of, not because of, his service. According to a memo from one of his commanding officers, someone was exerting pressure to "sugar coat" reports of Bush's service.

Again, in both cases I'm siding with the contemporary records. Kerry's records appear to be quite flattering. Bush's, much less so (to put it lightly).

Do you suppose they could still call Bush up for active duty? Wouldn't that be funny.

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Let me add though that this is not going to make any difference. Bush has been president now for 3 years. Attacking his pre-presidential resume will not have any impact at this point. He is running on his record as president. That's what people will judge him on. Not irrelevancies from 30 years in the past.

I call bull$hit! Bush isn't running on his record as President. He's running like he isn't the incumbent at all. In his RNC speach, I don't recall him mentioning any specific accomplishments from his first term. His entire focus was on what he will do - even though making such promises implies that he failed to deliver on these things, some of them first term campaign promises, in spite of Republican control of both necessary branches of government.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
The documentation is suggesting that Bush got an honorable discharge in spite of, not because of, his service. According to a memo from one of his commanding officers, someone was exerting pressure to "sugar coat" reports of Bush's service.

Again, in both cases I'm siding with the contemporary records. Kerry's records appear to be quite flattering. Bush's, much less so (to put it lightly).

Do you suppose they could still call Bush up for active duty? Wouldn't that be funny.

BlackGriffen

Do you understand how an honorable discharge works? I guess not.

An honorable discharge is an overall evaluation, designed to summarize a person's service and avoid this kind of mindless archaeology. An honorable discharge doesn't mean that every supervisor loved you. It doesn't mean that you performed extraordinarily. It doesn't mean that all your evaluations were glowing. It doesn't mean that every minute of your service was up to standard. If it did mean those things, nobody would ever receive an honorable discharge. Certainly, I wouldn't have done, because I certainly had my fair share of scrapes and bumps during my service. Troll through my record and no doubt you could find things to criticize there too. It's part of life.

An honorable discharge is an overall statement that the servicemember performed up to standard. It is supposed to replace al those petty ups and downs and characterize the entire record on balance. Don't make it more than it is, but definitely, don't make it less than it is.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you understand how an honorable discharge works? I guess not.
[...]
An honorable dischrage is an overall statement that the servicemember performed up to standard. Don't make it more than it is, but definitely, don't make it less than it is.

Unless there's evidence that the honorable discharge was in response to political pressure to sugar coat the guy's service.

I'm not saying that he definitely wouldn't have gotten an honorable discharge without the pressure - I don't have the knowledge necessary to make that call. It does, however, raise the question of the validity of the honorable discharge.

Either way, he didn't serve honorably in my eyes, and it's the voters' perceptions that ultimately matter in this game.

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Either way, he didn't serve honorably in my eyes, and it's the voters' perceptions that ultimately matter in this game.

BlackGriffen

Your vote was never in play. I suspect the voters perceptions will be "what this again? How desperate is Kerry?"