Dubya's "independent" investigation

[Capt. Tex]

So they're pretty much admitting it now. No WMD's have ever been found. None will probably ever be found. It wouldn't surprise me if this "investigation" was introduced just to give the false sense of satisfaction and was dragged out until after the election.

 

[EagleRJ]

<yawn>

You guys have a short memory, huh? Go back and read about all the various weapons that UN inspectors personally saw and inventoried in the late '90s in Iraq. It was all there- chemical and biological weapons that were ready to go, and evidence of a nuclear program. Why do you think Resolution 1441 was inked?

Some people in this country- the Democrats especially- seem to think that Saddam Hussein is a man we can trust, and if he says that he destroyed all his weapons, that's good enough for us. Do you think SH just decided to turn over a new leaf and rejoin the world community? The weapons are still there- we just have to find them before they fall into the hands of terrorists. Iraq has a big desert, and some think Hussein moved the stuff into Syria before the war.
What Bush's investigation is about is the imminence of the threat. Some of the intel showed that Hussein could launch a WMD attack within 45 minutes, and was developing other offensive weapons like theater-range rockets.

Once again, thank God we don't have a Democrat in the White House right now! With their head-in-the-sand attitude, we'd probably have had one of Saddam's WMDs deployed in our country by now.

 

[AeroBoy]

Like Bush doesn't have his head in the sand about the deficit? C'mon, it's not the parties themself that do or don't have their head in the sand--it's the people in the parties that do or don't. It's too bad that the cream doesn't rise to the top in politics. Politics are and will always be a "popularity" contest, just like it was in high school (why do you REALLY think Schwarzeneger was elected in California? It surely wasn't because of his intelligence or political experience). Those that promise the most to the herd will be elected, but they rarely ever follow through on their promises...

 

[Chas]

Can you say double standard??

why don't you libs just admit that even your pal Clinton said Iraq had WMD'S !!

 

[sqwkvfr]

I just can't believe that you're criticizing this report before the commission is even formed to investigate it. Your attitude should demonstrate to most intelligent people on this board that what you say about politics is not to be trusted as accurate or even indicitive of the truth.

I'm sure there's an opening for you in Tom Daschle or Nancy Pelosi's office. They'll give you a fancy title like "truth coordinator."

Even your misguided avatar is incorrect. A hard left kook like yourself should know that the ALLEGED AWOL incident (which really wasn't, by the way...I mean how does one recieve an honorable discharge if you're AWOL for nine months straight?) occured in the ALABAMA National Guard.

 

[HueyPilot]

WMD

I hope that avatar is meant just for Bush, because I'm sure the friends I have in the TX ANG would be pretty upset that you're calling them the "1st AWOL Unit" after they just spent over 6 months flying their C-130s in and out of Bagdhad!

I seriously doubt that Bush "lied" or "hyped up" the WMD intel. Think about it...why would he openly lie about something that would obviously be proven a lie eventually? All you Bush-bashers claim that his staff is very cunning, so why would they make such a huge mistake? AND, if they would go so far as to make such an outlandish lie why didn't they cover it up by planting some WMD evidence? No such things happened.

AND, if the intel was twisted by the white house, why did all of us in the military with security clearances get briefed on essentially the same WMD intel (that Iraq has it), and these briefs were given to us well before Bush was in office? I guess you'd claim that Republican operatives were prepping the military in anticipation of Bush's presidency?

AND, if this intel was a "lie" or "hype", then why was it the same intel basis that Clinton launched his several bombing campaigns (largest being "Desert Fox" in 1998) against Iraq for hiding evidence and/or not working with investigators? In fact, the "Saddam Question" was one of Clinton's larger foreign policy situations, aside from the Balkans. Back then, France, Germany, China and Russia advocated completely removing the trade restrictions with Iraq and resuming normal relations with Hussein's regime. Wonder why? Consider that Saddam's greatest expeditures, aside from himself, was his military. And who were the top four beneficiaries of this spending? #1 Russia, #2 France, #3 China, #4 Germany. Strange how they about-faced after Bush threatened to remove Saddam by saying the sanctions are fine, just don't get rid of Hussein....'cause they'd lose alot of money potentially (and they have, since Bush asked for debt forgiveness).

Funniest thing I saw on the news lately was a Dem senator (or congressman...whatever) state that perhaps the intel wasn't hyped or twisted, but Bush is still at fault because he appointed the CIA leadership. Really? It's fact that George Tenet was appointed by Clinton, along with many other top intel figures. Perhaps the Republicans can counter now saying that Clinton meant to set Bush up all along with this faulty intel...see how the game can be played?

Don't get me confused...I'm not a big fan of Bush...he's not the best prez we've had, and not the worst. My options are open for 2004 elections. But I also know B.S. when I see it, and it's clear to me that the Dems are playing this WMD thing up way too much. If they go back and look at their hero Clinton's record on Hussein they'd see he used much the same intel to make decisions.

My personal feeling is that Bush knew Hussein, next to Israel/Palestine and al Qaeda, was the largest threat to mideast security. After 9/11, he knew that the fall of Hussein was one of the keys to destroying al Qaeda and returning the mideast to some state of normalcy. He knew that Hussein was a time bomb and a huge thorn in the side of the US. And the intel showed that Hussein was capable of terrible things, and there were huge gaps in the accountability of his weapons stockpiles. He may have made foreign policy mistakes, but I believe he did not lie or mis-state the WMD threat. And I believe that despite what got us where we are, we can't destroy ourselves with this pathetic arguing. Or 500+ young lives will have ended in vain.

 

[N2264J]

...I mean how does one recieve an honorable discharge if you're AWOL for nine months straight?

His daddy was a congressman.

 

[Dubya]

Well said Huey

You know...when you talk to people in the military or people with military contacts...you just get straight talk. I love it.

Evidence that Hussein used gas and bio weapons and was actively pursuing nuclear capability is clear. The Isrealis blew some of it up..and Hussein used some if it. Read all of Kay's report...don't just go with the snippet you get from CNN.

 

[bart]

Captain Frenchy,

Your understanding of the situation and the reason for going to war is once again clouded by your blind hatred of GW Bush. Go back and read the UN resolutions that were the basis for action. After you have done that, then you are equipped for debate.

Until then, go play at DU, where the facts are not required.

 

[Tim47SIP]

AWOL? B.S.

Cessna dood - His daddy was a congressman.

This shows your complete lack of understanding of the UCMJ and the rules that pertain to the Guard. I know several individuals when I was in the Texas Army Naional Guard who did not show for 2-3 years. One was getting an education and the other worked out of the country. A third worked for a military contractor who was required to spend time at an undisclosed location due to the classification of the project. All of these were EXCUSED and were not considered AWOL. Two returned to normal duty and one separated. I also understand the UCMJ (big word for you so I'll let you figure out what it means and how it works) and had to personally deal with the system when prosecuting AWOL soldiers. The Guard has stated that he was not EVER in AWOL status, but on an excused LOA. Even if his dad was a congressman, there would still be documentation to show preliminary charges. His records are coded in the system that shows time out of the system. This time away from the guard does not count for points, etc. He requested separation and was granted it as everyone else does. He received and Honorable Discharge. If he had gone AWOL and his dad pulled strings as you imply, he would of gotten a General Discharge under Honorable conditions. The military does not take kindly to AWOL's or Deserters.

But it really does not matter what the Guard or anyone says, the lefities will always come up with something to discredit anyone that is not a Democrat in the office. I am still waiting for someone to explain Clintons draft doging exploits and why that was not an issue.

 

[N2264J]

Re: AWOL? B.S.

This shows your complete lack of understanding of the UCMJ and the rules that pertain to the Guard. I know several individuals when I was in the Texas Army Naional Guard who did not show for 2-3 years...All of these were EXCUSED and were not considered AWOL.

I was in the Navy Reserve for a few years and I know the difference between an excused absence and an unexcused absence. The "excused" part usually comes before the "absent" part. Here's some light reading for ya:

On November 2, 2000, four days before the most disputed election in American history, military veterans in the US Senate lashed out at candidate George W Bush for his failure to explain a six-month lapse in his National Guard service. "At the least, I would have been court-martialed. At the least, I would have been placed in prison," Senator Daniel Inouye said.

Bush would offer no explanation for his absence and, as he had throughout the campaign, refused to discuss his military service during the Vietnam War. Why would a man who was running for the office of Commander and Chief of the US Armed Forces refuse to discuss his service in the military? Why didn't the public and press take notice? Their attention that day was focused on something else.

That same day, while senators were asking for an explanation of Bush's National Guard absence, the media and the public were watching another breaking Bush scandal: the revelation of a 1976 drunk driving conviction that Bush had failed to mention during the campaign. As Bush spent the final days before the election explaining to America that he hid the arrest to protect his daughters, the National Guard absence was swept under the rug, not made into a campaign issue by Democrats.

Both Candidates avoided making Vietnam an issue during the Presidential race of 2000. Bush and Al Gore, who served in Vietnam as an Army journalist, had a sort of unwritten understanding that their military service during the Vietnam war would not be a subject of campaign debate. Both had been accused of using their fathers' influence to avoid combat in the war. Gore's father was a senator, Bush's father was a congressman.

The Washington Post reports that Bush joined the National Guard 12 days before his student deferment would have expired, and that in spite of his low score on the pilot's aptitude test (25, the lowest score allowed), and in spite of the waiting list that some kids spent years on, Bush was sworn in as an airman the day he applied. Indeed, so giddy was Bush's commander, Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, that he later staged a special ceremony so he could have his picture taken giving Bush the oath, instead of the captain who actually had sworn Bush in. Bush spent two years learning to fly airplanes in his home state of Texas.

As the 2000 Presidential campaign moved along, angry veterans in Alabama claimed that George W Bush never performed any military service in that state, as stated on his campaign website. They offered a reward of $1000 (which rose to $3,500) to anyone who could prove that he had. No one came forth with any proof.

Eight days before the election, the Boston Globe reported discrepancies between the Bush campaign's statements regarding his military service and what records and documents showed. In 1972, the Globe reported, Bush moved from Houston to Mobile, Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. It was at this time, the Globe found, that he was suspended from flight duty for not taking his annual flight physical. Furthermore, the Globe could find no evidence that he ever performed any drills while in Alabama, or any more drills after returning to Houston.

==========

Bush Let Guard Down
By George Lardner Jr. and Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, November 3, 2000

Two high-profile surrogates for Vice President Gore, in an 11th-hour attempt to exploit a dormant issue, yesterday castigated George W. Bush over allegations that he did not fulfill some of his National Guard duties in the 1970s.

Democratic Sens. Bob Kerrey (Neb.) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), both Medal of Honor winners, were drafted to attack Bush on a 27-year-old controversy that the Gore campaign has avoided mentioning until now. They spoke by phone to a veterans rally in Nashville led by Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), a decorated Vietnam veteran. Reporters were invited to listen by conference call.

Bush says he fulfilled all his obligations as a pilot in the Air National Guard, but he has had difficulty rebutting charges that he played hooky for a year.

"Where were you, Governor Bush?" Inouye asked. "What about your commitment? What would you do as commander in chief if someone in the Guard or service did the same thing?"

Kerrey questioned how Bush immediately got into the Guard "even though there were 500 people ahead of him" at a time when "350 Americans were dying every single week in Vietnam." Kerrey has been drawing a sharp contrast with Gore, who served in Vietnam.

Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer called the attacks "the final throes of a campaign that has now lost any semblance of decency. The governor, of course, was honorably discharged, and these are inventions and fabrications. All the questions have been answered."

But Gore spokesman Mark Fabiani said the senators "seem to have raised some very important questions . . . that deserve an answer."

Bush signed up with the Texas National Guard for six years in May 1968, which allowed him to avoid the Vietnam draft. He became an F-102 pilot in 1970 but made his last flight in April 1972 before moving to Alabama to work on a GOP Senate campaign. The dispute centers on what he did in the Guard between that point and September 1973, when he entered Harvard Business School.

Bush campaign officials say their evidence shows that he did his duty in 1972-73, when he worked for six months on the Senate race in Alabama and then returned to his home base outside Houston. But other documents in his Guard record contradict that claim, and critics who have examined that record contend that he also skimped on his obligations in 1973-74. It is safe to say that Bush did very light duty in his last two years in the Guard and that his superiors made it easy for him.

The personnel officer in charge of Bush's 147th Fighter Group, now-retired Col. Rufus G. Martin, says he tried to give Bush a light load, telling him to apply to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Ala.

Martin said in an interview that he knew Bush wasn't eligible for the 9921st, an unpaid, general training squadron that met once a week to hear lectures on first aid and the like. "However," he said, "I thought it was worth a try. . . . It was the least participation of any type of unit." But Air Force Reserve officials rejected the assignment, saying Bush had two more years of military obligations and was ineligible for a reserve squadron that had nothing to do with flying airplanes. Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett said Bush didn't know that when he applied.

Bush had been notified that he needed to take his annual flying physical by his 26th birthday in July 1972, but the move to Alabama made that unnecessary. He had been trained to fly F-102 fighter-interceptors, and none of the units in Alabama had those planes. He could have taken the physical to preserve his pilot's status but chose not to do so. "Because he wasn't flying," Bartlett said.

On Aug. 1, 1972, Bush's commander in Houston, Col. Bobby W. Hodges, ordered him grounded for "failure to accomplish annual medical examination." Some critics say this should have triggered a formal board of inquiry, but Hodges said in an interview that this was unnecessary because Bush accepted the penalty and knew "he couldn't fly again until he takes a physical."

"It happens all the time," Hodges said of the grounding. "That is normal when a Guardsman is out of state or out of the country."

In September, Bush was assigned to another Alabama unit, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group. Since "Lieutenant Bush will not be able to satisfy his flight requirements with our group," the unit told him to report for "equivalent training"--such as debriefing pilots--on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.

There is no evidence in his record that he showed up on either weekend. Friends on the Alabama campaign say he told them of having to do Guard duty, but the retired general who commanded the 187th, William Turnipseed, and his personnel chief, Kenneth K. Lott, say they do not remember Bush ever reporting.

The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, although most of the dates and Bush's name except for the "W" have been torn off.

According to the torn Air Reserve Forces sheet, Bush continued to compile service credits after returning to Houston, winding up his fifth year with 56 points, six above the minimum needed for retention. However, Bush's annual effectiveness report, signed by two superiors, says "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of the report," May 1, 1972, to April 30, 1973.

Hodges also said he did not see Bush at the Texas base again after Bush left for Montgomery. "If I had been there on the day he came out, I would have seen him," Hodges said.

 

[bart]

military veterans in the US Senate

Spelled D-N-C l-a-p d-o-g-s.

I don't dispute their honorable military service, however their service to the country since then is highly suspect. The story behind Max Cleland's injuries in Vietnam make interesting reading. Kerry's service to the V V A W makes interesting reading, too.

 

[HueyPilot]

Guard service

N2264J:

The National Guard is an altogether different animal than the full federal branches of the Reserves. In the Reserves, your unit is run and reports to the Federal Government. In the Guard, there is a certain amount of standardization with the federal service, and a certain amount of oversight, but the National Guard can create it's own rules to a certain extent.

If you're commissioned an officer in either the active service or within the federal reserve, you carry a full federal commission. If you receive a commission via the National Guard, you are a commissioned officer of that state, with "federal recognition". The federal recognition allows you to legally serve in the US federal armed services if you're activated to federal service. But otherwise, you're a commissioned officer of your home state.

For example...I was a Chief Warrant Officer 2 in the Louisiana Army National Guard. My peers who were active Army received a certificate of appointment to the grade of Warrant Officer from the US Secretary of the Army. I received an appointment certificate from the governor of Louisiana, and a certificate of federal recognition from the US Dept. of the Army.

Due to the legal status of the Guard as a "state militia", things that wouldn't fly in the Army/AF/Navy Reserve happen within the National Guard.

I served as an enlisted engineer for four years, then as a warrant officer helicopter pilot for another four before leaving the Guard to fly active duty for the Air Force. Here are some of my experiences...compare them with Bush's experience if you wish.

1. My first commander of B Company, 1-244th Aviation, was accepted into law school, and while attending school he worked out an agreement to check in with the LA Guard. He showed to a few drills at first, but eventually stopped going altogether when his schedule got busy. He was still on the rolls of the LA Guard, but he didn't perform drill dates. I have no idea how he worked it out, but I do know that he was never "AWOL".

2. A friend of mine got a job in Mississippi as a store manager, and moved despite still owing another year of service to the LA Guard (6 years after being winged is the service commitment). He mentioned to me that he'd commute to drill, but I never saw him at a unit function ever again. What happened is he moved, and managed to get put into the inactive reserve, and eventually was honorably discharged.

3. I was due for a flight physical in May 1998. Since we didn't have access to a real military medical facility, we contracted with a local FAA flight surgeon to perform military physicals. He was paid via a voucher system. In the spring of 1998, this voucher system was messed up for whatever reason and we were unable to schedule flight physicals for a couple months. I went medically non-current while the mess was sorted out, and eventually got my medical clearance in June of 1998. But I imagine that somewhere, a letter was produced with the names of those who didn't complete their physical in time detailing that we were no longer flight qualified for medical reasons.

4. There was a senior pilot in our unit who was promoted to CW5, and moved to a non-flying job at the state headquarters. He eventually lost his flight status because his job no longer required him to get a physical or maintain any kind of flying currency. He too probably appeared on a list detailing who no longer was qualified to be on flying status.

I have no idea what Bush did or didn't do. But the fact is, he did what many others do still to this day. They move, attend special schools, or somehow get involved in things that require their attention away from the Guard. Some commanders are willing to work with them. Others are not. It's up to their chain of command. If the chain of command didn't mind that Bush fulfill part of his obligation in the Alabama Guard, or that he need not physically show for drill, then that's the command's discretion. In fact, there are regulations that allow individuals to find a new unit if they move a certain distance (I think it's 200 miles) from their original one.

When I was in the Guard, it was quite common to see people move between various units. I personally remember, as an enlisted engineer, I had missed a drill weekend and needed to make it up. The commander told me not to worry, I would be credited with the drill so long as I showed up on another weekend, checked in, and I'd be allowed to go home. Basically, I made up a 2 day drill in about an hour. It's all on the commander.

You may think that's a waste of taxpayer's money. But think of it this way. When I showed up, it wasn't a regular drill weekend. So no one was around except a couple of full-timers. All there was to do was maybe mop the floor, and even that wasn't really needed. So rather than waste two days of my life sitting around an armory doing nothing, they credited me with the days and let me go about my life.

Again, I don't know what Bush had worked out, or if the command just looked the other way. But in any case, it's the commander's responsibility to ensure their personnel serve in a way consistent with their own policy.

My opinion....Bush probably worked it out with his supervisor. He probably called in to see if they needed him, and if there wasn't any work to be had, he didn't need to come in. That's how it works sometimes.

I'm not going to say Bush is my hero because he served in a Guard unit and did the minimum to get by. He did exactly that...the minimum. But he didn't do anything wrong either. And I've seen a ton of misinformation about his service...calling him "AWOL"....that's clearly a false statement. Another stated that there was an urgent need for F-102 pilots in Vietnam and Bush never got accepted to fly over in Vietnam. Actually, very few F-102s served in Vietnam. Another stated that Bush must have not been a good pilot because he had flown the F-102 for 3 years and had accumulated over 300 hours in it and had never "soloed". That's interesting, since Bush was mission qualified at least for the first couple years, and the F-102s that the TX ANG had were single seaters.

I guess a bottom line of mine is that people need to stop talking out of their arses about things they don't know anything about. You don't like it when non-pilots try to explain away things about flying (like how airline pilots are all well-paid rich fly boys, or media talking heads speculating about an accident). So unless you were an officer in the National Guard, you really don't know what you're talking about. Even active-duty and reserve folks don't know much about the Guard...it is truly a different animal.

Finally, serving in the Guard is an honorable thing. Serving in the Guard is alot more than 90% of the rest of America will ever do. In fact, the Guard is pulling a huge share of the burden in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guard units sent folks to fill cockpit seats in Vietnam. Guard crews were among the first crews to fly into Iraq in Gulf War I. And whole Guard divisions were sent to both the Pacific and European theaters in WWII.

My old unit, B Company 1-244th Aviation just left for an 18 month rotation in Iraq. Service in the Guard is honorable. The same folks who cry about Bush serving in the Guard defend Clinton's record of refusing to serve in any branch of the military. At least Bush did *something*.

 

[Tim47SIP]

Cessna Dood

I was in the Navy Reserve for a few years and I know the difference between an excused absence and an unexcused absence. The "excused" part usually comes before the "absent" part. Here's some light reading for ya:

You still do not show when he was AWOL. All of these interpritations of military duty do not point to an AWOL status. Since you state you were Navy Reserves, you should know what is required to be considered AWOL and what is not. Furthermore, your diatribe is conjecture rather than fact. I know that prominent news media wrote these articles, but you only hear what they want you to hear. If Bush was AWOL, his records would reflect such, and they do not! I do not care what the media is trying to portray with the history of the President, but I do care about the legalities concerning the allogations of AWOL. No one has come close to even portray the true meaning on AWOL and the corelation to the president.

 

[bart]

Guess who made this speech:

Mr. President, I also rise today--and I want to say that I rise reluctantly, but I rise feeling driven by personal reasons of necessity--to express my very deep disappointment over yesterday's turn of events in the Democratic primary in Georgia.

I am saddened by the fact that Vietnam has yet again been inserted into the campaign, and that it has been inserted in what I feel to be the worst possible way. By that I mean that yesterday, during this presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.

What is ignored is the way in which our experience during that period reflected in part a positive affirmation of American values and history, not simply the more obvious negatives of loss and confusion.

What is missing is a recognition that there exists today a generation that has come into its own with powerful lessons learned, with a voice that has been grounded in experiences both of those who went to Vietnam and those who did not.

What is missing and what cries out to be said is that neither one group nor the other from that difficult period of time has cornered the market on virtue or rectitude or love of country.

What saddens me most is that Democrats, above all those who shared the agonies of that generation, should now be refighting the many conflicts of Vietnam in order to win the current political conflict of a presidential primary.

The race for the White House should be about leadership, and leadership requires that one help heal the wounds of Vietnam, not reopen them; that one help identify the positive things that we learned about ourselves and about our nation, not play to the divisions and differences of that crucible of our generation.
We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it. Are we now, 20 years or 30 years later, to forget the difficulties of that time, of families that were literally torn apart, of brothers who ceased to talk to brothers, of fathers who disowned their sons, of people who felt compelled to leave the country and forget their own future and turn against the will of their own aspirations?

Are we now to descend, like latter-day Spiro Agnews, and play, as he did, to the worst instincts of divisiveness and reaction that still haunt America? Are we now going to create a new scarlet letter in the context of Vietnam?

Certainly, those who went to Vietnam suffered greatly. I have argued for years, since I returned myself in 1969, that they do deserve special affection and gratitude for service. And, indeed, I think everything I have tried to do since then has been to fight for their rights and recognition.

But while those who served are owed special recognition, that recognition should not come at the expense of others; nor does it require that others be victimized or criticized or said to have settled for a lesser standard. To divide our party or our country over this issue today, in 1992, simply does not do justice to what all of us went through during that tragic and turbulent time.

I would like to make a simple and straightforward appeal, an appeal from my heart, as well as from my head. To all those currently pursuing the presidency in both parties, I would plead that they simply look at America. We are a nation crying out for leadership, for someone who will bring us together and raise our sights. We are a nation looking for someone who will lift our spirits and give us confidence that together we can grow out of this recession and conquer the myriad of social ills we have at home.
We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric. What has been said has been said, Mr. President, but I hope and pray we will put it behind us and go forward in a constructive spirit for the good of our party and the good of our country.

Mr. Kerry, who served as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam, is a Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

 

[Draginass]

Mr. Bush can be criticized for a lot of things. Taking out Saddam Hussein isn't necessarily one of them. Now, that said, whether the Iraqi people deserved to be liberated is open to question. Given their performance so far . . . . . tacit support for the muslim extremists (sunni and shia), or just plain cowardice, I'm inclined to say no. And that applies to all the Arab/muslim countries. Turkey is the only muslim country that has it's head screwed on straight and has not allowed the fundamentalists to dominate the government.

However, Mr. Bush is trying to pull a fast one politically by retaining control over selection of the "investigation" and then certainly delaying anything until past the election. I'm not sure we can stand another four years of republican spending, corporate giveaways, fat-cat sweetheart deals, exportation of good paying jobs, a virtually open border with Mexico, and expecially not giving illegal aliens legal status to further drive down wages. Bush can go back to Texas and drink with his rich buddies, as far as I'm concerned . . . . . . and I'm ashamed to say I voted for him last election.

 

[N2264J]

Re: Guard service

The National Guard is an altogether different animal than the full federal branches of the Reserves.

No doubt about it but humor me here. In addition to a fitness report that stated Lt Bush has not been observed at this site from May 1972 to April 1973, his Commanding Officer told the newspaper that if Bush were drilling here, I would have noticed him.

Why didn't Bush's CO tell the Boston Globe that he was drilling in Alabama during that time or had an excused absence or was transferred to the Inactive Reserve? Certainly, his Commanding Officer would have known that.

I submit that the National Guard is more than just a rag-tag bunch of yokels who show up for drill whenever they please at their convenience. You can't just walk away from a commitment without making some kind of arrangement. There is no evidence that Lt Bush made any arrangements. And if you have any evidence that shows Bush performed drills after he left Texas, the veterans of Alabama, who can hardy be described as "DNC lapdogs," will pay you $3,500 to produce it.

 

[Dubya]

Whatever

Draginass quote: "I'm not sure we can stand another four years of republican spending, corporate giveaways, fat-cat sweetheart deals, exportation of good paying jobs, a virtually open border with Mexico, and expecially not giving illegal aliens legal status to further drive down wages. Bush can go back to Texas and drink with his rich buddies, as far as I'm concerned . . . . . . and I'm ashamed to say I voted for him last election."

By republican spending you mean huge tax breaks for America?
What corporate giveaways?

Fat-cat sweetheart deals? You mean the tax breaks for businesses that allowed them to increase spending and pull the economy out of the tailspin created by the 8 previous years of "balanced budgets" created with magic pens and overtaxation?

Exportation of good paying jobs? Oh, you mean the 5 and 6 dollar an hour jobs that are sent to India?
An open border with Mexico? Last I checked..it was closed and guarded...albeit not sufficiently..i'd agree.

How 'bout a post with some substance please.

 

[sqwkvfr]

In addition to a fitness report that stated Lt Bush has not been observed at this site from May 1972 to April 1973, his Commanding Officer told the newspaper that if Bush were drilling here, I would have noticed him.

This "CO" has since recanted his statement.

 

[HueyPilot]

More

We had a Louisiana state senator who flew UH-1Vs with us in the Guard. Our battalion commander knew who he was, but the commander was usually locked up in an office doing his job, not out hanging with the line pilots. If the senator/pilot was or wasn't at drill, I seriously doubt the commander would have known either way.

The Guard is more than a "rag tag" group of "yokels". Most of us do our commitment, but then again, most of us aren't off involved in political campaigning, going to law school or other things that would take us away from our military commitments. I mentioned those examples above, but understand that they had a reason to do what they did. You can't just leave the Guard and do whatever you wish "just because".

Bush moved to Alabama to work on a political campaign. Campaigns involve lots of travelling. Bush had a reason to work out an alternate plan with the Guard. He didn't just skip out so he could go water skiing in Texas.

That fitness report was required to be written by his commander. If his commander was unable to evaluate Bush's performance, he's obligated to write what he wrote. All he said was "I can't comment on his performance because I didn't see him". That statement does NOT mean "Bush was AWOL".

I'm pretty positive that my friends who had to be excused for lengthy periods of time from the Guard to persue their career goals got similar OPRs (officer performance reports).