America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 19 years ago by Charlie. 12 replies replies.
Just the Facts, Ma'am
gjhuff Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 05-30-2002
Posts: 56
Bush’s National Guard years
Before you fall for Dems’ spin, here are the facts

What do you really know about George W. Bush’s time in the Air National Guard?
That he didn’t show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president’s years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time — to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

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. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

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. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush “clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot” and was “a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership.”

A 1971 evaluation called Bush “an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot” who “continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further.” And a 1972 evaluation called Bush “an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer.”

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush’s service — in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets — would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry’s record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it’s reasonable to look at a candidate’s entire record, including his military service — or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it’s important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans’ attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush’s service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry’s.

In April — before the Swift boat veterans had said a word — Kerry said Bush “has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty.” Earlier, Kerry said, “Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question.”

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That’s fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.


Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: [email protected]
Cavallo Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
fact: the republicans handed out purple heart band-aids at their convention. that's an insult to every military man or woman who ever earned one. you don't have to say it in words. actions speak volumes, too.

nice "Cover Your A$$" piece by the conservatives, but i notice that he didn't even address the issue brought up by the globe and other mainstream media outlets -- bush signed a document stating that he would hook up with a local air force reserve unit when he hit MA; he did not do so. ergo, he did NOT truthfully fulfill his obligation.

oh, and it wasn't his daddy who kept him out of 'nam -- the gentleman who had that honor will be speaking about it on 60 minutes. should be an interesting show.
usahog Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
Cav, put it to Rest... Bush has an Honorable Discharge paperwork for his service commitment... and

we're talking about TODAY.. who would be the better leader today tomorrow and next week...

your choice is obviously Kerry where mine is Bush...

Kerry's actions with his medals and other issue's proves he as Commander and Chief could not and would not enforce the integrety needed to be in that position... Bush on the other hand has lead this fight since October 2001 and lead this Nation forward since taking office in Jan 2001.... he did not miss 76% of his Briefings and he really doesn't care about what his hair looks like for the show tomorrow... he cares about America Period...

Hog
Cavallo Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
i'd love nothing more, hog, than to see ALL the posts on who did what 30 years ago come to a halt. i'd love it if the misinformation campaigns would grind to a halt. i'd love it BIGTIME if my choices weren't just between bush and kerry.

but no worry -- i'm still resting for the most part. :) just got bored, honestly. lol i don't think i've been bored, really bored, in over a decade. this cipro stuff has sapped the life out of me so's that i'm too dang tired to do anything i'd LIKE to do so i'm reduced to this or staring at the walls. lol
penzt8 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
It's impossible to prove if GWB showed up for some of those drill weekends. There is no evidence that he did not show up and I can accept that. The bottom line is what harm did it do if he missed a couple of drills? How many of you ANG and AFRES guys haven't missed drills? It's a pretty common ocurrence and is mostly overlooked as long as annual requirements are met.

There is evidence that JFK served with distinction (silver star, bronze star, 3 purple hearts). However, there is also evidence that JFK betrayed the military members who were still serving in viet nam and provided propoganda for the vietnamese to use against our own POWs. He met, illegally, with vietnamese officials. What harm did it do?

You be the judge.

For that reason alone, I would not want this man as CIC. I don't see how anyone in uniform could have respect for him. If somehow he is elected, will the men and women in uniform respect his position as CIC? Sure they will, they signed an oath. Will they respect the man?
penzt8 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-05-2000
Posts: 1,771
It's impossible to prove if GWB showed up for some of those drill weekends. There is no evidence that he did not show up and I can accept that. The bottom line is what harm did it do if he missed a couple of drills? How many of you ANG and AFRES guys haven't missed drills? It's a pretty common ocurrence and is mostly overlooked as long as annual requirements are met.

There is evidence that JFK served with distinction (silver star, bronze star, 3 purple hearts). However, there is also evidence that JFK betrayed the military members who were still serving in viet nam and provided propoganda for the vietnamese to use against our own POWs. He met, illegally, with vietnamese officials. What harm did it do?

You be the judge.

For that reason alone, I would not want this man as CIC. I don't see how anyone in uniform could have respect for him. If somehow he is elected, will the men and women in uniform respect his position as CIC? Sure they will, they signed an oath. Will they respect the man?
usahog Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
" i'd love it BIGTIME if my choices weren't just between bush and kerry." Cav, I can agree with you there...

oh and my comment put it to rest... disregard let'er rip LOL.. I was just reffering to the bogus reports on Bush's service... see the way I view it (me being a guard retiree) he served his time honorably or he wouldn't have an Honorable Discharge.. and then just about 4 yrs ago he took office as Commander and Chief and has served very Honorably in that position since...

so you've got a point.. lets all take the records of both canidates for these past 4 yrs and run the numbers?

now off topic here.. that cipero... how long has your doctor told you, you gotta take it?? it gave me some major side effects and depression was one of them... cipro is an antibiotic with other crap in it... it's not something for longtime use?? good luck to you bro...

Hog
grond Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
Cavallo,

Ben Barnes will be giving an interview tonight that will refute the position and "sworn testimony" he has given over the last 30 years. He is going to completely change the way he has reported his own personal history over the last 30 years.

I also find it appalling that most of the main stream headlines on this issue are "Ben Barnes breaks silence on Bush's National Guard Service." Mr. Barnes has been very forthright in his descriptions of his actions as Lt. Governor of Texas on National Guard issues in the past. In fact, he has given "sworn testimony" that he will now refute. Does that mean he'll get prosecuted for perjury. Probably not... but you guys complain about 250 Swiftees who are telling the same store and now you've got 1 guy who has political motivations to lie and you're going to "bank" on his newest story.

Also, I'm sure his current "story change" dosn't have anything to do with the fact that he is a major fund raiser for John Kerry in Texas.

Cheers,

grond

PS What I have reported is not slanted or biased. It is the facts. Look it up on your mainstream media and you'll see it buried in there.
Cavallo Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 01-05-2004
Posts: 2,796
grond: prosecuted for perjury? lol when did the man go on trial?

careful about the swifties, now. some of them have changed their tune, too. :)

again, though, even if we drop the whole 30 years ago stuff (which would be fine by me; it's not relevant), i'm a little more concerned about what w does TODAY and has done during his presidency. i've not liked what i've seen. others have. come nov, we'll all vote our consciouses -- or however we convince ourselves to think of what's in our best interests.
AVB Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 05-21-2003
Posts: 995
"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," says an Aug. 1, 1972 memo by a superior officer, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian
grond Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 06-07-2003
Posts: 738
Cavallo,

If a person commits perjury in testimony before a legal body, he is subject to prosecution under perjury statutes. This is true whether the testimony is before Federal or State bodies (though different statutes apply.) Ben Barnes have given sworn testimony before numerous bodies concerning his activities as Lt. Governor as it concerns Texas National Guard deferrals. He is now changing those stories. I don't know about statute of limitation issues... but I do know that a person who lies under oath is typically subject to prosecution. If he isn't on trial... he should be.
usahog Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 12-06-1999
Posts: 22,691
just think Logically Liberal for a second here...

Ben Barnes lies under oath so anything that comes out of his mouth should be taken as Gospil just listen to Kerry for a bit... ;0)


Hog

Charlie Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 06-16-2002
Posts: 39,751
LMAO........this will never end!

Charlie
Users browsing this topic
Guest