Bush's National Guard Service - FULL story

CBS falls for Kerry campaign's fake memo

"A few weeks ago, Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe was on PBS' ''Newshour'' explaining why the hundreds of swift boat veterans' allegations against John Kerry's conduct in Vietnam was unworthy of his attention. "The standard of clear and convincing evidence," he said, talking to Swiftvet John O'Neill as if he were a backward fourth-grader, ''is what keeps this story in the tabloids -- because it does not meet basic standards.''

Last week, we got a good idea of what Thomas Oliphant's ''basic standards'' are. Dan Rather and the elderly gentlemen at ''60 Minutes'' were all atwitter because they'd come into possession of some hitherto undiscovered memos relating to whether George W. Bush failed to show up for his physical in the War of 1812. The media had been flogging this dead horse all spring, but these newly ''discovered'' memos had jump-started the old nag just enough to get him on his knees long enough for the media to flog him all over again.

Unfortunately for CBS, Dan Rather's hairdresser sucks up so much of the budget that there was nothing left for any fact-checking, so the ''60 Minutes'' crew rushed on air with a damning National Guard memo conveniently called ''CYA'' that Bush's commanding officer had written to himself 32 years ago. ''This was too hot not to push,'' one producer told the American Spectator. Hundreds of living Swiftvets who've signed affidavits and are prepared to testify on camera -- that's way too cold to push; we'd want to fact-check that one thoroughly, till, say, midway through John Kerry's second term. But a handful of memos by one dead guy slipped to us by a Kerry campaign operative -- that meets ''basic standards'' and we gotta get it out there right away."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn12.html

 

None of the new documents do anything but echo what AF and TANG already have made clear.

We know Bush was AWOL for an ordered physical, and was removed from flying status as a consequence.

We know he disappeared from a year, from his supervisor's documentation.

We know that he got preferential treatment by political pressure. Ben Barnes has admitted it (and he admitted it in a private lawsuit, not in a campaign release)

I'm still waiting for someone to show that the woman who called up a talk show host and claimed to be Barne's daughter was really his daughter.

No one's stepped up.

 

Still no confirmation?

 

I have to apologize for an erroneous statement I made to Major B. Bush was not AWOL. He was a DESERTER.

(3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm


An examination of the Bush military files within the context of US Statutory Law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of that era lead to a single conclusion: George W. Bush was considered a deserter by the United States Air Force.

CONCLUSION
When you compare the Bush records to the United States Statutes, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies of the early 1970s, only one conclusion can be reached: that 30 years ago, George W. Bush shirked his sworn duty as a member of the United States Armed Forces to the national security of the United States of America.

However, Bush’s desertion from the Armed Forces thirty years ago is not terribly relevant. Lots of people make mistakes in their early twenties, and those mistakes do not necessarily reflect on the character of individuals when they are in their fifties.

What is relevant is Bush’s continued lies about his service, and his insistence upon presenting his service in the US Military as “honorable”. It was not. Bush simply blew off his last two years of required service, and was able to get away with it because he came from a politically influential family.

There is no other explanation for Bush’s records. None.

 

Calling a talk show claiming to be his daughter? Hasn't this woman been interviewed in person? I've heard a couple of programming teases list interviews with her.

 

The US Military disagrees with you for whatever it's worth. According to records, Bush more than fulfilled his obligations to the guard and the US Military gave him an honorable discharge, something that seems inconsistent with your claim. I think we should probably go with teh people who know on this one ... the US Military themselves.

But this whole thing remains irrelevant for both sides.

 

Someone needs to check the Geodon and Zyprexa dosage levels.

A deserter refers to someone who leaves the service with no intention of returning, and in the face of the enemy.

The US Government says Bush served honorably. They said that when his dad was out of office and before he was anything other than a kid himself.

If you really believe what you say, get the name of the person who signed the DD 214 and demand that the US attorney press charges for malfeasance in office.

 

In fact, the TCMJ says that desertion amounts to either leaving with no intention of returning, or leaving in the face of the enemy.

There is no conclusive evidence that Bush never intended to return. He was AWOL, not a deserter.

And it was not uncommon for someone to be given a non-judicial punishment for being AWOL,and still receive an honorable discharge.

 

"desertion" by one. "treason" by another?

Don't they both have honorable discharges?

Notice I put these terms in quotes because if untrue they are libelous statements if you do not say "in my opinion".

And in fact and in my official opinion neither of these statements about either President Bush or Senator Kerry is true but partisan hype and distortion of the facts.

Hankd

 

I tend to agree with Hank. It would be better to discuss issues of contemporary application. But, then, there's not much do discuss, since Bush and Kerry have pretty much the same agendas.

 

Hank's right. So is Jim. And aside from the patriotism angle, there's not a lot of difference.

Kerry's a decorated war hero. Bush used political influence to avoid combat.

Other than that, not much.

 

Kerry--five months of combat, 35 years of trying to disarm, destroy, and undermine the US military.

Bush--five and a half years of honorable service--if you say not, then file a formal charge against the officer who signed the DD 214--and a lifetime of political support for arming our troops, plus three years of combat leadership.

And, Bush tried to get to Vietnam to fly.

And, flying those old rattletraps for several years, including flying active interception missions, was far more dangerous than Kerry's five months.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18982-2004Sep13?language=printer

 

The Plot Thickens in Memogate.

Of course, this is a report by that bastion of conservatism--ABC!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html

 

Deeper and deeper.

Poor Danny-boy...

more at web page

 

As you may have heard, major, those stories about Kerry trying to "destroy the US military", most recently asserted by Zell Miller, have turned out to be fraudulent.

Here's a rundown on the scam from snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

But for the sleaze machine, no lie is too great. Note that one of the systems Kerry is accused of trying to "destroy" was the Apache Helicopter, a program that was actually attacked earlier by none other than Sec. of Defense Dick Cheney.

If you really care about the military, shouldn't you be voting for someone who didn't want to tear it down?

 

Galatian,

Kerry's consistent votes against military spending increases are not fraudulent, they are real. His false testimony about atrocities, and his suborning perjury by other veterans even while POWS were being tortured in Hanoi--this is real.

The sleaze machine cranked up by CBS is the big phony--and I wait with interest while Memogate works its way out.

 

snopes.com has been widely discredited as a supposed source for debunking internet myths and legends. It's like the tabloids...there's just enough truth to make you believe everything there.

 

Snopes includes references. Check them. It turns out they are right. I invite you to show me a case in which you can show they are wrong.

BTW, there was an interesting new development in the case of the memos.

Marian Knox, the former secretary for Col. Killian, says that the documents are not those she typed, and are most likely fakes.

But she says that they do accurately reflect the actual memos she typed for the Col, and that she remembers all the "Ya-ya" that was going on about Lt. Bush at the time.

"The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones. I probably typed the information, and somebody picked up the information some way or another."

So, it appears that it's "Shame on CBS" for not being more careful, and further confirmation that Bush defied direct orders to take the physical (which might have turned up evidence of drug use) and had used political pull to avoid consequences.

My initial thought was that this was another Bush special like the episode in which the Bush campaign anonymously sent Gore a tape of Bush's debate preps, hoping that he'd use it, and be exposed as dishonest. (he reported it instead)

But now, it looks like this was the work of some liberals who knew enough about Killian's memos, but couldn't actually get their hands on a copy.

Shame on them, too. And, if it can be shown that Kerry had something to do with it, we could safely concede he's as crooked as Bush.

What a mess.