The Bush Military Record

[Mavdog]

With all this gleeful attacking of Kerry's service record it is only equitable that hypocrisy not be practiced and the shoe is put on the other foot- namely, what is the record of Dubya?
After all, if those who gladly jump at the chance to demean the service of kerry feel that it's important, it must be important for all the candidates.
Unforunately, Bush's service record is not very pretty to read about. There's even statements by his "crewmates" that paint him in a negative light!
woe is me, what a dilemma.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINALLY, THE TRUTH ABOUT BUSH'S MILITARY SERVICE RECORD

George W.'s Missing Year
Marty Heldt is a farmer. He told us, "I spent 17 years as a brakeman [for the railroad] before moving back to the farm. That job had some long layovers that gave me a lot of time to read and to educate myself." He lives in Clinton, Iowa.

Nearly two hundred manila-wrapped pages of George Walker Bush's service records came to me like some sort of giant banana stuffed into my mailbox.

I had been seeking more information about his military record to find out what he did during what I think of as his "missing year," when he failed to show up for duty as a member of the Air National Guard, as the Boston Globe first reported.

The initial page I examined is a chronological listing of Bush's service record. This document charts active duty days served from the time of his enlistment. His first year, a period of extensive training, young Bush is credited with serving 226 days. In his second year in the Guard, Bush is shown to have logged a total of 313 days. After Bush got his wings in June 1970 until May 1971, he is credited with a total of 46 days of active duty. From May 1971 to May 1972, he logged 22 days of active duty.

Then something happened. From May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1973 -- a period of twelve months -- there are no days shown, though Bush should have logged at least thirty-six days service (a weekend per month in addition to two weeks at camp).

I found out that for the first four months of this time period, when Bush was working on the U.S. Senate campaign of Winton Blount in Alabama, that he did not have orders to be at any unit anywhere.

On May 24, 1972, Bush had applied for a transfer from the Texas Air National Guard to Montgomery, Alabama. On his transfer request Bush noted that he was seeking a "no pay" position with the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron. The commanding officer of the Montgomery unit, Lieutenant Colonel Reese R. Bricken, promptly accepted Bush's request to do temporary duty under his command.

But Bush never received orders for the 9921st in Alabama. Such decisions were under the jurisdiction of the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, Colorado, and the Center disallowed the transfer. The Director of Personnel Resources at the Denver headquarters noted in his rejection that Bush had a "Military Service Obligation until 26 May 1974." As an "obligated reservist," Bush was ineligible to serve his time in what amounted to a paper unit with few responsibilities. As the unit's leader, Lieutenant Colonel Bricken recently explained to the Boston Globe, ''We met just one weeknight a month. We were only a postal unit. We had no airplanes. We had no pilots. We had no nothing.''

The headquarters document rejecting Bush's requested Alabama transfer was dated May 31, 1972. This transfer refusal left Bush still obligated to attend drills with his regular unit, the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron stationed at Ellington Air Force Base near Houston. However, Bush had already left Texas two weeks earlier and was now working on Winton Blount's campaign staff in Alabama.

In his annual evaluation report, Bush's two supervising officers, Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, made it clear that Bush had "not been observed at" his Texas unit "during the period of report" -- the twelve month period from May 1972 through the end of April 1973.

In the comments section of this evaluation report Lieutenant Colonel Harris notes that Bush had "cleared this base on 15 May 1972, and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama" (the Air National Guard Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Air Force Base near Montgomery, Alabama).

This was incorrect. Bush didn't apply for duty at Dannelly Air Force Base until September 1972. From May until September he was in limbo, his temporary orders having been rejected. And when his orders to appear at Dannelly came through he still didn't appear. Although his instructions clearly directed Bush to report to Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed on the dates of "7-8 October 0730-1600, and 4-5 November 0730-1600," he never did. In interviews conducted with the Boston Globe earlier this year, both General Turnipseed and his former administration officer, Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Lott, said that Bush never put in an appearance.

The lack of regular attendance goes against the basic concept of a National Guard kept strong by citizen soldiers who maintain their skills through regular training.
Bush campaign aides claim, according to a report in the New York Times, that Bush in fact served a single day -- November 29,1972 -- with the Alabama unit. If this is so it means that for a period of six weeks Lieutenant George W. Bush ignored direct instructions from headquarters to report for duty. But it looks even worse for Lieutenant Bush if the memory of Turnipseed and Lott are correct and Bush never reported at all.
After the election was over (candidate Blount lost), Bush was to have returned to Texas and the 111th at Ellington Air Force Base. Bush did return to Houston, where he worked for an inner-city youth organization, Project P.U.L.L. But, as I mentioned already, his annual evaluation report states that he had not been observed at his unit during the twelve months ending May 1973. This means that there were another five months, after he left Alabama, during which Bush did not fulfill any of his obligations as a Guardsman.

In fact, during the final four months of this period, December 1972 through May 29, 1973, neither Bush nor his aides have ever tried to claim attendance at any guard activities. So, incredibly, for a period of one year beginning May 1, 1972, there is just one day, November 29th, on which Bush claims to have performed duty for the Air National Guard. There are no dates of service for 1973 mentioned in Bush's "Chronological Service Listing."

Bush's long absence from the records comes to an end one week after he failed to comply with an order to attend "Annual Active Duty Training" starting at the end of May 1973. He then began serving irregularly with his unit. Nothing indicates in the records that he ever made up the time he missed.

Early in September 1973, Bush submitted a request seeking to be discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and to be transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center. This transfer to the inactive reserves would effectively end any requirements to attend monthly drills. The request -- despite Bush's record -- was approved. That fall Bush enrolled in Harvard Business School.

Both Bush and his aides have made numerous statements to the effect that Bush fulfilled all of his guard obligations. They point to Bush's honorable discharge as proof of this. But the records indicate that George W Bush missed a year of service. This lack of regular attendance goes against the basic concept of a National Guard kept strong by citizen soldiers who maintain their skills and preparedness through regular training.

And we know that Bush understood that regular attendance was essential to the proficiency of the National Guard. In the Winter 1998 issue of the National Guard Review Bush is quoted as saying "I can remember walking up to my F-102 fighter and seeing the mechanics there. I was on the same team as them, and I relied on them to make sure that I wasn't jumping out of an airplane. There was a sense of shared responsibility in that case. The responsibility to get the airplane down. The responsibility to show up and do your job."

Bush has found military readiness to be a handy campaign issue.
Bush's unsatisfactory attendance could have resulted in being ordered to active duty for a period up to two years -- including a tour in Vietnam. Lieutenant Bush would have been aware of this as he had signed a statement which listed the penalties for poor attendance and unsatisfactory participation. Bush could also have faced a general court martial. But this was unlikely as it would have also meant dragging in the two officers who had signed off on his annual evaluation.
Going after officers in this way would have been outside the norm. Most often an officer would be subject to career damaging letters of reprimand and poor Officers Effectiveness Ratings. These types of punishment would often result in the resignation of the officer. In Bush's case, as someone who still had a commitment for time not served, he could have been brought back and made to do drills. But this would have been a further embarrassment to the service as it would have made it semi-public that a Lieutenant Colonel and squadron commander had let one of his subordinates go missing for a year.

For the Guard, for the ranking officers involved and for Lieutenant Bush the easiest and quietest thing to do was adding time onto his commitment and placing that time in the inactive reserves.

Among these old documents there is a single clue as to how Bush finally fulfilled his obligations and made up for those missed drill days. In my first request for information I received a small three-page document containing the "Military Biography Of George Walker Bush." This was sent from the Headquarters Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver Colorado.

In this official summary of Bush's military service, I found something that was not mentioned in Bush's records from the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia. When Bush enlisted his commitment ran until May 26, 1974. This was the separation date shown on all documents as late as October 1973, when Bush was transferred to the inactive reserves at Denver, Colorado. But the date of final separation shown on the official summary from Denver, is November 21, 1974. The ARPC had tacked an extra six months on to Bush's commitment.

Bush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills -- in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job.

Bush has found military readiness to be a handy campaign issue. Yet even though more than two decades have passed since Bush left the Air National Guard, some military sources still bristle at his service record -- and what effect it had on readiness. "In short, for the several hundred thousand dollars we tax payers spent on getting [Bush] trained as a fighter jock, he repaid us with sixty-eight days of active duty. And God only knows if and when he ever flew on those days," concludes a military source. "I've spent more time cleaning up latrines than he did flying.">

[Drbio]

Until Kerry posts his full record this remains pissy whining by an idiot liberal.

[veruca salt]

They're posted on his website, Doc.

[dude1394]

How DARE this LIBERAL who is OBVIOUSLY supported by RICH DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE. How dare they attack the record of a fighter pilot. John Kerry should immediately CONDEMN this low-down scurrilous attack.

Where is the Democrat "War Heroes" coming to the defense of George Bush!!

[Mavdog]

I wish I was supported by a "RICH DEMOCRATIC OPERATIVE"!
Know where I can find one? [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

and for that example of hypocrisy spoken of above, enter DrCleo:

Originally posted by: Drbio
Until Kerry posts his full record this remains pissy whining by an idiot liberal.

odd, but I don't see any of Dubya's records posted like Kerry has done.
very, very revealing.
candidates in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

[Chiwas]

If the election would be decided by the military service issue, today Bush would lose it. This article overshadows those about Kerry.

Thankfully, voters will base their vote on more important and up to date subjects. At least they should.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Chiwas
If the election would be decided by the military service issue, today Bush would lose it. This article overshadows those about Kerry.

Thankfully, voters will base their vote on more important and up to date subjects. At least they should.

I only hope that is to be the case Chiwas. Take a look at the platforms and their proposals, then make one's decision

[FishForLunch]

What is Kerrys current position on Iraq? I think people are waiting for him to make up his mind before voting for him.

[Drbio]

Kerry has posted what he wants you to read. And that is all. Period.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Kerry has posted what he wants you to read. And that is all. Period.

So by that reasoning the lack of any service records posted by Bush means he doesn't want anybody to know anything about his records...

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

So by that reasoning the lack of any service records posted by Bush means he doesn't want anybody to know anything about his records...

Are you really that ignorant or do you just make yourself sound stupid for effect? There is no middle ground. It's one or the other.

(Of course I am being courteous here as well know Mavdog to be the resident dumbass)

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

So by that reasoning the lack of any service records posted by Bush means he doesn't want anybody to know anything about his records...

Bush has released some if not all of his records. I remember reading somewhere recently where he had released all, but I can't remember where so I can't check and verify. However I do know that he has at least released some.

The big difference is that Bush has not made his prePresident military service a part of this campaign except in response to questions by others. Kerry purposefully made his Vietnam military service an issue by bringing it up unprompted. We could go on all day about records that the respective candidates haven't made public. However we should stick to those pertinent to the major issues or the issues the candidates have brought to the fore about themselves. Kerry presented up his military service as a major reason why Americans should vote for him. That makes it a realitive issue.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB

Bush has released some if not all of his records. I remember reading somewhere recently where he had released all, but I can't remember where so I can't check and verify. However I do know that he has at least released some.

well, that sure clears it up [a simple look at his campaign site shows no records link].
I read somewhere that Kerry released all his records too, so just as you state about Bush that should clear up any questions on Kerry...

The big difference is that Bush has not made his prePresident military service a part of this campaign except in response to questions by others. Kerry purposefully made his Vietnam military service an issue by bringing it up unprompted. We could go on all day about records that the respective candidates haven't made public. However we should stick to those pertinent to the major issues or the issues the candidates have brought to the fore about themselves. Kerry presented up his military service as a major reason why Americans should vote for him. That makes it a realitive issue.

Well, if I had holes in my records like Bush I wouldn't bring it up either.

Show where kerry "presented up his military service as a major reason why Americans should vote for him". You can't. He doesn't.

The whole "Kerry is making his service the centerpiece of his campaign" crap has no basis in reality. Take the time to read the speeches of Kerry, he doesn't talk about Vietnam, He's talking about the economy, the tax cuts, education, Iraq...it's not Kerry who are so focused on Nam.

[LRB]

Show where kerry "presented up his military service as a major reason why Americans should vote for him". You can't. He doesn't.

The whole "Kerry is making his service the centerpiece of his campaign" crap has no basis in reality. Take the time to read the speeches of Kerry, he doesn't talk about Vietnam, He's talking about the economy, the tax cuts, education, Iraq...it's not Kerry who are so focused on Nam

Mavdog obviously you've thrown reason out the window. Anyone with half a brain functioning and who saw the time Kerry, Edwards, and Kerry's "band of brothers" spent on stage would have recognized that Kerry was using his Vietnam military service as a reason for why voters should vote for him. In fact many speaches at the DNC talked or heavily alluded to this. Edwards said if any wanted to know if Kerry was fit to server as President to ask those who had served with him. And yet you childishly deny this as if it never happened. There can be no possibility of having a rational argument with anyone who so blatantly throws reality out the window.

[Mavdog]

Yes, he had his crew at the convention.
Well, let's just ignore the dozens of speeches that Kerry has made since then with no reference whatsoever to Vietnam. They're on his website, take a look.
Just ignore and throw out the dozens of appearances that Kerry has been at post convention without any mention at all of Vietnam.
What, there have been no thing in the ads about Vietnam either?

Yeah, Nam is such a critical component of the Kerry candidacy that he doesn't even mention it.
LOL!

It sure is a funny "reality" that is your world, which is basically this: facts mean nothing when they get in the way of your opinion.

[LRB]

Mavdog I've never known anyone to talk as much as you and yet say so little. You have turned yourself into a comical caricature of liberals. You would argue that the world is flat if Kerry once said it was. As I've said you have your own distinct view of the world which is not shared by most of humanity. You cannot concede the smallest point no matter what. So again further debate is pointless with you until you develope the ability to see the world as most others do.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Mavdog I've never known anyone to talk as much as you and yet say so little. You have turned yourself into a comical caricature of liberals. You would argue that the world is flat if Kerry once said it was. As I've said you have your own distinct view of the world which is not shared by most of humanity. You cannot concede the smallest point no matter what. So again further debate is pointless with you until you develope the ability to see the world as most others do.

abridged version: I have no way to rebut the facts that you brought up that contradict my opinion, so I'll say you're wrong and go away.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

abridged version: I have no way to rebut the facts that you brought up that contradict my opinion, so I'll say you're wrong and go away.

Insists on being the town dumbass. sheesh.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

abridged version: I have no way to rebut the facts that you brought up that contradict my opinion, so I'll say you're wrong and go away.

Let me spell this out for you one more time. Because you fail to agree on the most simplist and innocuous of facts, there is absolutely no point in debating you on more complex and controversial of issues. Furthermore your tendency to act as if previous proofs have never been posted means that is pointless to persist in the same argument over and over again.

[Mavdog]

I acknowledged the presence of the crew at the convention. That however is the extent of any association.

I pointed to the FACT that his speeches don't reference Nam. I pointed out the FACT that his appearances don't have any reference to Nam. It's a FACT that his position papers don't reference Nam.

I'm searching for those "facts" you mention.
And your "proof"? none. nada. just opinion...

[LRB]

Keep searching and maybe someday you'll get a clue.

[kg_veteran]

This is such a tired debate. The "I know you are, but what am I?" defense is something I expect out of a five-year old, not a bunch of adults. Much less a presidential candidate.

[Mavdog]

when you can offer some substance then perhaps you can make a valid assertion.

[MavKikiNYC]

I'll put Bush's more recent and more relevant record as Commander-in-Chief up against Kerry's record, either as a soldier, or as a member of the Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee.

[Mavdog]

Kiki, your post is correct in the context of looking at the men, their recent record, and what they propose to do. Those are the relevant items.

If that results in support for Bush, sobeit, at least you have made an informed decision.

[reeds]

(Of course I am being courteous here as well know Mavdog to be the resident dumbass)


Hey- how to I regain my title??

[MavKikiNYC]

Originally posted by: reeds
(Of course I am being courteous here as well know Mavdog to be the resident dumbass)


Hey- how to I regain my title??

Just keep posting.