New records show Bush didn't fulfill....

[CShine 0]

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."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._duty_at_guard/

[clantontiger 0]

QUOTE 

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."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

''He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. ''He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles..._duty_at_guard/

This ad paid for by the Boston Globe Vets for Truth.

[Tigermike 3,066]

This ad paid for by the Boston Globe Vets for Truth.

And prepared and printed from the high road.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I can't remember the guys name but he is a former officer in the Alabama Guard who was on O'Reilly last night. The guys says he came forward to set the record straight. He said he had no ax to grind with anyone and was not a Bush supporter. He basicly said what Bush is saying is true, said he personally saw and talked wth him at Maxwell during some times the Dems are questioning if Bush was there. The guy gave no-spin reasons why some records are missing and why some of Bush's performance evaluations weren't done. The dems should get off this desperate effot to discredit Bush's guard service. The polls are crying "we don't care" and "we've heard enough about Viet Nam"

[CarolinaTiger 0]

OH NO!

HE WAS PROBABLY OFF USING COCAINE AND BOOZE!

THIS IS HORRIBLE! ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE!

SAY IT AIN'T SO!

THAT'S IT...I'M VOTING FOR KERRY. AT LEAST HE WENT TO SERVICE!

<<is that about right?>>

[Tiger in Spain 0]

The Facts about Bush and the National Guard

The Democratic charges fall apart.

By Byron York

National Review Online

Full Article

<exerpt>

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "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."

[Ranger12 46]

Umm... I thought the democrats said that we should not be talking about military records because that was not important. Now all of a sudden it is important when you guys think you have something on Bush. Unforunately, you went with a bs article without really checking the facts. The new papers released do not show anything that disputes Bush's story at all. The Pentagon even admitted that these new papers were not revealed earlier because under normal circumstances they would have already been destroyed per proper procedures, but these papers somehow were filed away instead of destroyed. I love how the liberals are trying to make it sound like Bush was hiding something, all the while Kerry is far from being forthcoming.

[channonc 466]

LINK

[CCTAU 3,351]

LINK

What's your point. He quit flying just like he said. He didn't go AWOL, he didn't dissappear, he didn't join the KKK, he wasn't abducted by communist aliens....

He stopped flying by way of not taking the physical. Must not have been that devastating since he was NEVER reprimanded for it. I'm sure others did that same thing.

Besides, Bush isn't running on his guard service.

This is like a shark with no teeth, thin and hungry. Just begging for a morsel.

PPPPSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH. That's the sound of the air going out of sKerry's ballon.

[quietfan 233]

The Facts about Bush and the National Guard

The Democratic charges fall apart.

By Byron York

National Review Online

Full Article

<exerpt>

The records indicate that, despite his move to Alabama, Bush met his obligation to the Guard in the 1972-73 year. At that time, Guardsmen were awarded points based on the days they reported for duty each year. They were given 15 points just for being in the Guard, and were then required to accumulate a total of 50 points to satisfy the annual requirement. In his first four years of service, Bush piled up lots of points; he earned 253 points in his first year, 340 in his second, 137 in his third, and 112 in his fourth. For the year from May 1972 to May 1973, records show Bush earned 56 points, a much smaller total, but more than the minimum requirement (his service was measured on a May-to-May basis because he first joined the Guard in that month in 1968).

Bush then racked up another 56 points in June and July of 1973, which met the minimum requirement for the 1973-74 year, which was Bush's last year of service. Together, the record "clearly shows that First Lieutenant George W. Bush has satisfactory years for both '72-'73 and '73-'74, which proves that he completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner," says retired Lt. Col. Albert Lloyd, a Guard personnel officer who reviewed the records at the request of the White House.

All in all, the documents show that Bush served intensively for four years and then let up in his fifth and sixth years, although he still did enough to meet Guard requirements. The records also suggest that Bush's superiors were not only happy with his performance from 1968 to 1972, but also happy with his decision to go to Alabama. Indeed, Bush's evaluating officer wrote in May 1972 that "Lt. Bush is very active in civic affairs in the community and manifests a deep interest in the operation of our government. He has recently accepted the position as campaign manager for a candidate for United States Senate. He is a good representative of the military and Air National Guard in the business world."

Beyond their apparent hope that Bush would be a good ambassador for the Guard, Bush's superiors might have been happy with his decision to go into politics for another reason: They simply had more people than they needed. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," says Campenni. "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."

Just a minor point regarding this article...

It's dated August 26, before the most recent revelations, and therefore does not really address the discoveries/reports of the last few days. I don't see its relevance to the current debate over these new findings.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

I don't see its relevance to the current debate over these new findings.

what new findings are we talking about? i've sort of tuned it all out as same ole stuff.

is there really new stuff?

[channonc 466]

I posted todays Washington Post article.

[CCTAU 3,351]

I posted todays Washington Post article.

Oh. Sorry. I thought you were just piling on after the whistle!

[SupperClub 0]

Besides, Bush isn't running on his guard service.

BINGO!

The last time I checked, it was Kerry who made his military service the center of his campaign. I didn't hear Bush proclaiming himself a 'hero'. All of this infuriates me. I mean, Heaven forbid we talk about Kerry's senate voting record over the last 20 years, or Bush's performance as President over the last 4 years, you know...things that will actually matter after the election. Enough of this pissing contest about war records! It seems to me that the Kerry camp is getting desperate.

And now to quote on of my favorite movies:

"Desperation is a stinky cologne, John"

[Tigermike 3,066]

The questions to ask are:

1. Did President Bush meet all requirements to fulfill his obligation to the National Guard?

2. Did President Bush accrue enough points in the first three years of his NG enlistment to meet the requirements for the full enlistment?

3. In 1972 & 1973 was the Vietnam War winding down? If so was the Air Force, Army, Marines, Navy and Coast Guard giving early discharges to pilots and other personnel?

4. Did President Bush receive an Honorable Discharge?

The answers:

1. Yes!

2. Yes!

3. Yes!

4. Yes!

Another couple of questions:

1. Is this whole "reporting" just another in a long line of Democrat lies and misdirection?

2. Are the Democrats still reeling from the Swift Boat Vets ads? Do they want to get the attention off Kerry and on to Bush?

Another answer:

1. Yes!

2. Yes! and Yes!

I think if Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service is going to be scrutinized then President Bush's military record could be as well. Even though President Bush is not running on his Vietnam (or lack of) record. But I think the Democrats should be honest about this as well as Mr. Kerry's record. It also seems the Democrats are rather hypocritical about Vietnam service. After all it was only 10 - 12 years ago that they were saying it was OK for President Clinton to avoid the draft all together. If it didn't matter then, why does it matter now?

[Tiger in Spain 0]

'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake

By Robert B. Bluey

CNSNews.com Staff Writer

September 09, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography experts.

Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program.

The "60 Minutes" segment included an interview with former Texas lieutenant governor Ben Barnes, who criticized Bush's service. The news program also produced a series of memos that claim Bush refused to follow an order to undertake a medical examination.

The documents came from the "personal office file" of Bush's former squadron commander Jerry B. Killian, according to Kelli Edwards, a spokeswoman for "60 Minutes," who was quoted in Thursday's Washington Post. Edwards declined to tell the Post how the news program obtained the documents.

But the experts interviewed by CNSNews.com honed in on several aspects of a May 4, 1972, memo, which was part of the "60 Minutes" segment and was posted on the CBS News website Thursday.

"It was highly out of the ordinary for an organization, even the Air Force, to have proportional-spaced fonts for someone to work with," said Allan Haley, director of words and letters at Agfa Monotype in Wilmington, Mass. "I'm suspect in that I did work for the U.S. Army as late as the late 1980s and early 1990s and the Army was still using [fixed-pitch typeface] Courier."

The typography experts couldn't pinpoint the exact font used in the documents. They also couldn't definitively conclude that the documents were either forged using a current computer program or were the work of a high-end typewriter or word processor in the early 1970s.

But the use of the superscript "th" in one document - "111th F.L.S" - gave each expert pause. They said that is an automatic feature found in current versions of Microsoft Word, and it's not something that was even possible more than 30 years ago.

"That would not be possible on a typewriter or even a word processor at that time," said John Collins, vice president and chief technology officer at Bitstream Inc., the parent of MyFonts.com.

"It is a very surprising thing to see a letter with that date [May 4, 1972] on it," and featuring such typography, Collins added. "There's no question that that is surprising. Does that force you to conclude that it's a fake? No. But it certainly raises the eyebrows."

Fred Showker, who teaches typography and introduction to digital graphics at James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., questioned the documents' letterhead.

"Let's assume for a minute that it's authentic," Showker said. "But would they not have used some form of letterhead? Or has this letterhead been intentionally cut off? Notice how close to the top of the page it is."

He also pointed to the signature of Killian, the purported author of the May 4, 1972, memo ordering Bush, who was at the time a first lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard, to obtain a physical exam.

"Do you think he would have stopped that 'K' nice and cleanly, right there before it ran into the typewriter 'Jerry," Showker asked. "You can't stop a ballpoint pen with a nice square ending like that ... The end of that 'K' should be round ... it looks like you took a pair of snips and cut it off so you could see the 'Jerry.'"

The experts also raised questions about the military's typewriter technology three decades ago. Collins said word processors that could produce proportional-sized fonts cost upwards of $20,000 at the time.

"I'm not real sure that you would have that kind of sophistication in the office of a flight inspector in the United States government," Showker said.

"The only thing it could be, possibly, is an IBM golf ball typewriter, which came out around the early to middle 1970s," Haley said. "Those did have proportional fonts on them. But they weren't widely used."

But Haley added that the use of the superscript "th" cast doubt on the use of any typewriter.

"There weren't any typewriters that did that," Haley said. "That looks like it might be a function of something like Microsoft Word, which does that automatically."

Link

[CarolinaTiger 0]

what a hoot.

was it 60 minutes or dateline NBC that blew up the chevy truck on purpose for their show that focused on how unsafe the chevy trucks were?

i think that was datelineNBC...because stone phillips was involved.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

Link to one of the memos

Link to the May 4th memo

others can be found at CBSNEWS.com

[TrueBlue72 0]

Our "responsible reporters" at 60 Minutes should be required to take those fake memos and eat them..... on camera where everyone could see, then explain to the audience just why they were doing so.