More mudslinging

[akarunway 1]

Bush's Missing Records
Reports on Missing Service Time So Far Not Found
By MATT KELLEY, AP

WASHINGTON - Documents that should have been written to explain gaps in President Bush's Texas Air National Guard service are missing from the military records released about his service in 1972 and 1973, according to regulations and outside experts.



AP
George W. Bush poses in his Texas Air National Guard uniform.

For example, Air National Guard regulations at the time required commanders to write an investigative report for the Air Force when Bush missed his annual medical exam in 1972. The regulations also required commanders to confirm in writing that Bush received counseling after missing five months of drills.

No such records have been made public and the government told The Associated Press in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that it has released all records it can find.

Outside experts suggest that National Guard commanders may not have produced documentation required by their own regulations.

"One of the downfalls back then in the National Guard was that not everyone wanted to be chief of staff of the Air Force. They just wanted to fly or maintain airplanes. So the record keeping could have been better,'' said retired Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., a former head of the Air National Guard. He said the documents may not have been kept in the first place.


Talk About It


· Chat | Post Messages
· Top News Boards

Challenging the government's declaration that no more documents exist, the AP identified five categories of records that should have been generated after Bush skipped his pilot's physical and missed five months of training.

"Each of these actions by any member of the National Guard should have generated the creation of many documents that have yet to be produced,'' AP lawyer David Schulz wrote the Justice Department Aug. 26.

White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said there were no other documents to explain discrepancies in Bush's files.

Military service during the Vietnam War has become an issue in the presidential election as both candidates debate the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Democrat John Kerry commanded a Navy Swift boat in Vietnam and was awarded five medals, including a Silver Star. But his heroism has been challenged in ads by some veterans who support Bush.

The president served stateside in the Air National Guard during Vietnam. Democrats have accused him of shirking his Guard service and getting favored treatment as the son of a prominent Washington figure.

The AP talked to experts unaffiliated with either campaign who have reviewed Bush's files for missing documents. They said it was not unusual for guard commanders to ignore deficiencies by junior officers such as Bush. But they said missing a physical exam, which caused him to be grounded, was not common.

"It's sort of like a code of honor that you didn't go DNF (duty not including flying),'' said retired Air Force Col. Leonard Walls, who flew 181 combat missions over Vietnam. "There was a lot of pride in keeping combat-ready status.''

Bush has said he fulfilled all his obligations. He was in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973 and was trained to fly F-102 fighters.

"I'm proud of my service,'' Bush told a rally last weekend in Lima, Ohio.

Records of Bush's service have significant gaps, starting in 1972. Bush has said he left Texas that year to work on the unsuccessful Senate campaign in Alabama of family friend Winton Blount.

The five kinds of missing files are:

A report from the Texas Air National Guard to Bush's local draft board certifying that Bush remained in good standing. The government has released copies of those DD Form 44 documents for Bush for 1971 and earlier years but not for 1972 or 1973. Records from Bush's draft board in Houston do not show his draft status changed after he joined the guard in 1968. The AP obtained the draft board records Aug. 27 under the Freedom of Information Act.

Records of a required investigation into why Bush lost flight status. When Bush skipped his 1972 physical, regulations required his Texas commanders to "direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination,'' according to the Air Force manual at the time. An investigative report was supposed to be forwarded "with the command recommendation'' to Air Force officials "for final determination.''

Bush's spokesmen have said he skipped the exam because he knew he would be doing desk duty in Alabama. But Bush was required to take the physical by the end of July 1972, more than a month before he won final approval to train in Alabama.

A written acknowledgment from Bush that he had received the orders grounding him. His Texas commanders were ordered to have Bush sign such a document; but none has been released.

Reports of formal counseling sessions Bush was required to have after missing more than three training sessions. Bush missed at least five months' worth of National Guard training in 1972. No documents have surfaced indicating Bush was counseled or had written authorization to skip that training or make it up later. Commanders did have broad discretion to allow guardsmen to make up for missed training sessions, said Weaver and Lawrence Korb, Pentagon personnel chief during the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1985.

"If you missed it, you could make it up,'' said Korb, who now works for the Center for American Progress, which supports Kerry.

A signed statement from Bush acknowledging he could be called to active duty if he did not promptly transfer to another guard unit after leaving Texas. The statement was required as part of a Vietnam-era crackdown on no-show guardsmen. Bush was approved in September 1972 to train with the Alabama unit, more than four months after he left Texas.

Bush was approved to train in September, October and November 1972 with the Alabama Air National Guard's 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group. The only record tying Bush to that unit is a dental exam at the group's Montgomery base in January 1973. No records have been released giving Bush permission to train with the 187th after November 1972.

Walls, the Air Force combat veteran, was assigned to the 187th in 1972 and 1973 to train its pilots to fly the F-4 Phantom. Walls and more than a dozen other members of the 187th say they never saw Bush. One member of the unit, retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun, has said he remembers Bush showing up for training with the 187th.

Pay records show Bush was credited for training in January, April and May 1973; other files indicate that service was outside Texas.

A May 1973 yearly evaluation from Bush's Texas unit gives the future president no ratings and stated Bush had not been seen at the Texas base since April 1972. In a directive from June 29, 1973, an Air Force personnel official pressed Bush's unit for information about his Alabama service.

"This officer should have been reassigned in May 1972,'' wrote Master Sgt. Daniel P. Harkness, "since he no longer is training in his AFSC (Air Force Service Category, or job title) or with his unit of assignment.''

Then-Maj. Rufus G. Martin replied Nov. 12, 1973: "Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 Apr 73. Report for this period not available for administrative reasons.''

By then, Texas Air National Guard officials had approved Bush's request to leave the guard to attend Harvard Business School; his last days of duty were in July 1973.


09/05/04 23:57 EDT

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[tunaplanet 0]

It's funny. You can tell Bush is winning in the electoral college without even looking at the polls.

This is desperation by the Kerry camp. It's the fourth quarter...Kerry's team is down...Bush's team just increased the lead...time to start airing it out and pray for a miracle.

Forty-two

[Botellines 0]

Would it matter to you when choosing your president wether he skipped his duty with the army?

[tunaplanet 0]

It would be a factor, yes.

Fortunately that isn't an issue in this case since neither candidate "skipped" out.

Forty-two

[Botellines 0]

There is no doubt Kerry served, although some people do not agree with his actions when he returned. However, there is doubts about wether Bush skipped or not. Alright, there is nothing proved, but there is suspicion. Since it is important to you before voting, wouldn´t you want to investigate further the issue before election time?

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

However, there is doubts about wether Bush skipped or not.

The only doubts are those by the liberal sheep who are in absolute desperation to bring up anything to hurt Bush since they are starting to snowball down the losing side of the electoral college mountain.

Forty-two

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

However, there is doubts about wether Bush skipped or not.

The only doubts are those by the liberal sheep who are in absolute desperation to bring up anything to hurt Bush since they are starting to snowball down the losing side of the electoral college mountain.

I think many people take elections too personal, come on, this is not a football match where you will support your team no matter what.
If you vote for Bush and Kerry lies, well, he is a fucker. But i would be much more upset if the person i vote, the one i trust lies to me. I think that Republicans should watch much more closely Bush, and Democrats Kerry, not the other way around.
And there is nothing wrong if you find that the person you vote is a lier, you vote someone else and thats it.

[tunaplanet 0]

Well when Bush is proven to be a liar and brought up on impeachment charges post a link to it and I'll jump on the Kerry campaign. Until then all this is is desperation mudslinging by a party who is desperate to do anything to get them back in the game.

Forty-two

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I think many people take elections too personal, come on, this is not a football match where you will support your team no matter what.

I’m continually astounded by the level of emotion in US politics. No one seems to be saying “I support X because of his polices on Y”. No one actually appears to care what the policies are.

What I do see/hear a lot of are these sorts of comments:
“I support X because he’s great”
“I support X because he’s in Y party”
“I support X because of his military record”
“I support X because I hate Y“
“I support X because of Y’s campaign”
“I would never support X because of his military record”
“I would never support X because he seems stupid”
“I would never support X because he miss-read a statement once”
“I would never support X because of his wife”

Now some of those are understandable stances – voting for the lesser of 2 evils or voting based on party politics for example, but I find the others just odd. Most of all I’m surprised by the almost complete lack of knowledge about the policies of each candidate. No one seems to actually care about policies, only records and dirt digging.

The most worrying kind of comment I see though is:

“I support X because he’s the leader of our country… we need to support our leader; to question them or vote against them is tantamount to treason.” Talk about shock and awe! Do those people actually grasp the concept of democracy? The party’s even leading with that kind of message – support your commander in chief. Ok, there’s wartime support and that’s necessary – but NOT during an election. An election is not the time to be supporting someone simply because they are currently in power – that’s ridiculous.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

“I support X because I hate Y“

This is the worst of those examples. It is also one of the mottos of the liberals this year when they chant, "Anyone but Bush."

I have yet seen anyone say why they like Kerry. In fact most liberals on here in fact say that they don't really support him...he's just the lesser of the two evils.

Sad way to vote if you ask me.

Forty-two

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

“I support X because I hate Y“

This is the worst of those examples. It is also one of the mottos of the liberals this year when they chant, "Anyone but Bush."

I have yet seen anyone say why they like Kerry. In fact most liberals on here in fact say that they don't really support him...he's just the lesser of the two evils.

Sad way to vote if you ask me.

You prefer to vote for the greater of 2 evils?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tunaplanet 0]

There's only one evil in this year's election in my opinion.

Forty-two

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Well when Bush is proven to be a liar and brought up on impeachment charges post a link to it and I'll jump on the Kerry campaign.

Was Kerry proven to be a liar and brought up on impeachment charges? Did I miss something?

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[juanesky 0]

I guess you did miss something, back in 71, in the senate, under oath, where he declared he was a war criminal. Never got indicted. He should have.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

Was Kerry proven to be a liar

Yes.

Quote

and brought up on impeachment charges?

He's not the president.

Quote

Did I miss something?

Yes.

Forty-two

[TypicalFish 0]

Quote

Quote

Did I miss something?

Yes.

Then who were you referring to and why are they an issue in this discussion?

Edit: Hey, what happened to that Waco info? Still looking forward to it if you have the chance...

"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

There is no doubt Kerry served, although some people do not agree with his actions when he returned. However, there is doubts about wether Bush skipped or not. Alright, there is nothing proved, but there is suspicion. Since it is important to you before voting, wouldn´t you want to investigate further the issue before election time?

Not only do some people disagree with his actions when he returned (badmouthing all other veterans all the way up the chain of command), there is plenty of reason -- based on what he himself admitted to doing -- to disagree with his actions in the field. He described cutting off ears, killing innocents, torching villages, and claimed that he did it like everyone else supposedly did.

The question was posed: "Would it matter to you when choosing your president wether he skipped his duty with the army?"

I ask, would it matter to you when choosing yoru president whether he admitted to having tortured and killed innocent human beings?

Why is this question not being treated as relevant?! In my view, it's a whole lot more germain to a person's character than whether he took a cushy assignment with the National Guard!

Hmmm.... let's see... "Avoided serious service / tortured and murdered..."

I'll go with the slacker every time. At least a slacker can develop a work ethic and redeem himself. What does an an admitted torturer/murderer like Kerry do to cleanse his soul? Oh, that's right, he renounces the war effort and trashes his comrades. And then runs on the record of his war service.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,111]

>The only doubts are those by the liberal sheep who are in absolute
> desperation to bring up anything to hurt Bush since they are starting
> to snowball down the losing side of the electoral college mountain.

I'd love to hear you describe the actions of the SBVFT. No doubt that, instead of a group of political hacks lashing out in desperation to hurt Kerry any way they can to support their donor's cause, they are a noble group of veterans who only have the country's best interests at heart, and wish to see a lying treasonous false hero denounced. (If you're not sure, check out the RNC handbook for what you're supposed to say.)

[tunaplanet 0]

The American people will speak in November. Start working on your excuse for as to why your man came up short when it came down to crunch time.

Forty-two

[Zenister 0]

because the US is still slave to the two party system and those who vote their party line without ever considering or researching the real issues....

no one expects Badnarik to win, he doesnt have they huge money or propaganda machine behind him necessary to get the majority of public sheep to even know his name much less vote for him.....

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Botellines 0]

I think it would also be important if he did the torute on his own free will, or he was commanded to. Anyway, that is not my point. My point is that it seems most republicans dig on Kerry´s past and the Democrats on Bush past (note that i am neither, although i don´t like Bush the slightest). If you are going to give your trust/vote to someone, i would think you would want to know wether he deserves it or not, not wether someone you are not voting to deserves it.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think it would also be important if he did the torute on his own free will, or he was commanded to.

Are you not aware that it is illegal to obey an illegal order, and that a soldier may refuse to obey an order he knows is illegal?

Torture is illegal. If Kerry were worth having as president, and he were ordered to torture or kill illegally, he would be standing before us telling the (documentable) story of how he refused, and reported those ordering the torture to their superiors and had them court martialed.

Kerry did not have the ethical or moral fortitude to refuse to obey these orders, if indeed they were orders. He came back from the war and told Congress that he and others were war criminals. You know, the kind we tried and executed after WWII?

I can't say I myself would have had X amount of moral and ethical fortitude in war, but I am not putting myself forward as a person of the character that should be president of the most powerful nation on earth, and the most free. HE IS. So it is fair to question his integrity on these subjects!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Botellines 0]

Fair enough, it makes sense.

However, i assume you are voting for bush. Wouln´t it make sense to question more the person you are voting to? Both candidates should be evaluated for honesty or lack off, but you should watch more closely whoever you are trusting.

[mr2mk1g 10]

No, they're apparently not allowed to question Bush as he's their C-in-C and thus to do so would be sedition.

Or so goes the argument...

[juanesky 0]

Ok, sowe have to candidates, one is a proven war criminal (under oath before congress), who despised his own service, and now wants to fuel his campain from his war record, and the other one who has had his fault in his past, recognized he was wrong,l moved on and be pretty consistent about his life...

Yet we should investigate the former? most of us question everything, even the things we like, just like skydiving, we take the time, train, observe, learn, check our gear, winds, etc. Don't you?

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon