'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush

Yes, it is. I, and many others served honorably and well to keep that and other essential freedoms. Some of them paid a much higher price for that than I did. Bush had only to show up one weekend a month, and obey lawful orders of his superiors. He couldn't even do that. He is not fit to shine the shoes of those who did serve honorably.

You perhaps are saddened to know that all those who defended our nation were successful,and we retain our freedoms. If you would prefer Saddam's way, I suggest you try living in Syria.

 

Sorry, you're wrong. I served honorably, and did not go AWOL. I was never disciplined for failing to report as ordered. I obeyed the lawful orders of my commanders. All of these are ways in which the majority of Guardsmen and I differ from Bush.

Yeah, the majority. There's always a few bad apples, but Bush was an exception, thank God not the rule.

Nope. For example, when I was stationed at a SAC base, I supervised the reservists on their weekends. One of them didn't show one weekend. Turned out he had been arrested for several rapes. Like Dubya, he was not representative of the men and women in the Guard.

Then you should speak with some honor of me, unless you were born after 1978, when I left the service. I already pointed out that the majority of them have nothing in common with Bush.

How about you? </font>[/QUOTE]First, who is barbarian? If it is a reference to yourself then why of all things refer to yourself in third person?

Second, your commentary on NG is a bit off to be someone who really served, so I call into question your service as NG and Reservists are of two different strains of fighting forces, and it doesnt take a DD214 to figure that out.

I think the AWOL thing has been resolved, so you might want to take your rightous 'service' and learn to deal with that. Oh by the way, the term is now Unauthorized Absence. We havent used AWOL in at least the last 15 years or so.

The President was not charged with UA (or AWOL) and had he been, he would have been preferred over to a summary courts martial to which they would have read him his rights and he may then have obtained his own counsel. He would have likely then been placed in confinement, I mean once they actually caught him. According to you and Dan Rather, he was committing this atrocious act during a war...was he now? And we all know what happens to deserters in a time of war. Oh wait, technically you cant be a deserter if your whereabouts are not known for at least 30 days.

Ive never seen disciplanary action for anything in my military career. However, I find useful the reinforcement from my mother, the lessons of common sense and decency, to which I refer towards your constant commentary on this matter. Had you anything in common with any man or woman serving in the National Guard, you wouldnt have such a healthy post count. And you know why? Those men and women, also known as Citizen Soldiers are too busy trying to be productive members of their communities while trying to also protect it to care about trumped up charges and sensational journalism.

You do differ from the President. At least he has the good sense to move on. He apparently has better things to do than answer to dredged up, nutty accusations.

As for your example, meaningless. But let me be the first to congratulate you on your excellent leadership and supervision over what would seem a notable on the criminal element.

What I have in common with the President? I have no idea. I have no knowledge of him personally. This isnt about the President and our common interests. As usual, you missed the entire point of the post, and turned it into a shovel over the head for the rest of us, on oh how you hate the President. Got it. Nobody cares. Probably not even President Bush.

 

It's me.

Technically, Guards are reserves. They are just under the command of each state unless activated. Check that out, and you'll see.

As soon as they found the documents showing that he hadn't shown for a year, it was. The icing on the cake was the order busting him from flying status for failing to appear as ordered.

The Texas Air National Guard still uses AWOL, for formally, Absent Without Leave. "AWOL" was never a formal designation, but a handy acronym.

No, he wasn't. He was special. I don't suggest you try it, though. If you don't show for a year, the lightest you can expect is to be discharged. Bush got his wrist slapped, because, as the squadron secretary said, there was political pressure for him.

Bush's weren't known for over a year, according to his supervisor. Documented on Bush's OER.

Well, I was active duty for my career, but I did supervise them on their weekends.

Funny, a number of Alabama Guardsmen cared enough to offer a reward for anyone who could show that Bush actually served in the Alabama Guard, as he claimed.

You betcha. I served honorably. Never refused orders, never absented myself without leave. The vast majority of American servicemen and women differ from the president.

You think the Guard constitute a "criminal element?" No wonder you think Bush is was a good guardsman. Unlike Bush, most people in the guard have no criminal history at all.

 

Barbarian, earlier:
I've been told that Bush is a changed man. But as his pretending that he didn't know who authorized the Plame leak shows, he hasn't changed very much.

(Barbarian suspects that tapdancing is about to commence)

(tapdancing commences)

Barbarian chuckles:
Not what I claimed. You could get work as a WH press secretary.

Before we can do implications, we need to correctly get what was actually said. Look at the above. See what I said. Then see what thought I said.

Do you see a disconnect there?

 

From what I remember Eric Haney has always been somewhat of a loose cannon.

 

"Loose cannon" in military jargon:

"Someone who tells uncomfortable truths."

 

The term comes from the danger encountered by a loose cannon rolling around on the deck of warship. When used to describe a person it means one that is out of control and probably serious dangerous to the team and the mission. That's the military meaning I remember!

 

No personal offense intended, Galation, but the disconnects I note are those between truth and your statements. I think you're way off track on the whole subject matter. I respect your right to your opinions but I just don't find any factual basis for them.

 

I'm sorry to hear that. I think even a minimally fair person would agree that if I make a statement, that is the one that I should be asked to defend, not one made up for me by another person. We'll just have to disagree on that point.

Opinions are easy. But the evidence is what counts. You may not like it, but if you want to undermine it, you best be finding ways to attack it, and not me.

That seems questionable. You didn't even grant me the right to defend the opinion I expressed.

We have Bush's OER, in which his supervisor documents that he was absent from his duty station for over a year. We have the orders busting him for failure to report as ordered for his physical. And we have the secretary who typed the memos reported by Dan Rather, who says that the information in them was correct. Her words.

That seems like a lot of evidence to sweep under the rug, but like my right to be responsible only for the claims I actually make, we'll just have to disagree on that.

 

It is important to listen to the Secretary to Killian and learn from the post script that the bushbots are going to use the firestorm of the
memos as copied and not an original but lets actually listen to Marian Carr Knox


Knox commented "The information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones," she said


1.An order directing Bush to submit to a physical examination. This order was not carried out.
2.A note that Killian had grounded Bush from flying due to "failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards," and for failure to submit to the physical examination as orderd. Killian also requested that a flight inquiry board be convened, as required by regulations, to examine the reasons for Bush's loss of flight status. Independent documents confirm Bush was grounded for failure to complete a physical.
3.A note of a telephone conversation with Bush in which Bush sought to be excused from "drill." The note records that Bush said he did not have the time to attend to his National Guard duties because of his responsibilities with the Blount campaign.
4.A note (labeled "CYA" for "cover your ass") claiming that Killian was being pressured from above to give Bush better marks in his yearly evaluation than he had earned. The note attributed to Killian says that he was being asked to "sugarcoat" Bush's performance. "I'm having trouble running interference [for Bush] and doing my job."

bush throughout his entire life has had that silver spoon of privleige in place ..while my family and others were dieing in wars he is telling his commander what to do!

If they 60 minutes had not relied on the memos but instead on the integrity of Killians sharp minded Secretary the truth of bush being a spoiled prince of privliege would have gotten out
but the right wing noise machine hammered and hammered on that one area(rathergate) and the truth of Killians secretary was left for post scripts and history to pick up later... I think we will know after bush leaves office and is hunkered down on his ranch that he was into drugs and drinking that caused him to be a.w.o.l imho while others
of the poor and not so privlieged died in a war.

Sickening and sad that this baby christian who may be mentally unstable is using war as his whim.

 

This is the same old story from you ASLANSPAL. What exactly is a "baby christian"?

 

Yes, opinions are easy - your's included - and evidence is what counts. With respect to the false charge that the President was AWOL there is no such evidence and no such record has been presented. If he had been charged with AWOL then there'd be a record of that charge and the disposition of it. That would be evidence that counts. What we have seen are opinions of people who'd like this to have been the case. Some have even stitched together various documents and events to prove that point when, in fact, the very same documents and events prove the opposite. It is the inaccuracy of what you keep presenting that I will continue to attack. You, on the other hand, are very much into attacking others and namely the President.

 

2 more witnesses

Trees everywhere, forest nowhere in sight: Media ignores witnesses who confirm memo content
As media attention has fixated on the authenticity of controversial memos questioning President George W. Bush's service in the National Guard (first aired by CBS News), three firsthand witnesses who doubt the authenticity of the memos have also confirmed that the content of the memos is accurate. As the media has seized on the forgery angle, this aspect of the story has received little attention, even though it adds to voluminous evidence indicating that Bush did not properly fulfill his Guard duty.

Regardless of authenticity, three witnesses confirm content of memos ...

&bull; The Dallas Morning News reported on September 15 that Marian Carr Knox, former secretary for Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, purported author of the memos, said that although she did not recall typing the memos reported by CBS News, they accurately reflect the viewpoints of Killian and documents that would have been in the personal file. Knox told The Morning News: "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."

&bull; Colonel Bobby W. Hodges, Killian's superior officer, has also confirmed that the content of the memos reflects Killian's true sentiments. CBS cited Hodges in its initial defense (video links: MPEG-4, Windows Media) of the documents on September 10, but as The New York Times reported, Hodges changed his opinion because "network producers had never showed him the documents but had only read them to him over the phone." Once Hodges saw the actual documents, he judged them to be forgeries. "I thought they were handwritten notes," Hodges told the Times. But the same article made clear that Hodges confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the memos:

He [Hodges] said he had not authenticated the documents for CBS News but had confirmed that they reflected issues he and Colonel Killian had discussed -- namely Mr. Bush's failure to appear for a physical, which military records released previously by the White House show, led to a suspension from flying.

&bull; Richard Via, another former Texas National Guard officer, told USA Today that "the documents were fakes but that their content reflected questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's."

... but primetime shows focused only on forgery question

Primetime broadcasts focused on the issue of the memos' authenticity rather than on the far more relevant issue of whether Bush shirked his Guard duties and, if so, whether he benefited from his family's connections in escaping punishment for shirking his duty. There is ample evidence, wholly apart from the disputed documents, that both claims are true; statements by Knox, Hodges, and Via provide further evidence. While each of the three major network evening news programs -- CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, and ABC World News Tonight -- addressed the memo controversy on September 14, only ABC reported on Killian's former secretary. And of the eleven primetime cable news shows that discussed the CBS memos on the evening of September 14, only four mentioned Knox. Although Via's account didn't emerge until late on the evening of September 14, not a single news program made the connection to Hodges.

&bull; Several September 14 primetime reports reported Knox's comments in the context of her questioning the memos' authenticity but mentioned her endorsement of their substance only tangentially:

Brit Hume (FOX News Channel managing editor and chief Washington correspondent): Jim [Angle], we have one late piece of information on this story. Marian Carr Knox, who worked with Jerry Killian at the Air National Guard down in Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said she typed up everything from 1956 to 1979 when she was working there. And that she looked at these memos and says that they are most certainly fake memos. She didn't type them, doesn't recognize them. However, she says that they do reflect sentiments that she heard expressed by Killian and others at the time. [FOX News Channel, Special Report with Brit Hume, 9/14/04]

Jim Angle (FOX News Channel senior White House correspondent): Though CBS continues to stand by those documents ... a growing number of experts have concluded that those documents could not have been written in the 1970s. ... The 86-year-old former secretary to Colonel Killian says she typed all of his documents at the time, that the CBS documents are fake, but that they do reflect some of his viewpoints back then. [FOX News Channel, FOX Report with Shepard Smith, 9/14/04]

Brian Ross (ABC News chief investigative correspondent): CBS said they believe the authenticity of the documents reflect the thoughts and behavior of Lieutenant Colonel Killian at the time. That's exactly what Colonel Killian's former secretary told ABC News today saying she believes the documents are fake but Peter they do reflect some of what her boss thought of Lieutenant Bush at the time. [ABC World News Tonight, 9/14/04]

&bull; Other primetime reports discussed the memo controversy while ignoring entirely the issue of whether they accurately reflect Killian's views and Bush's actions in the National Guard:

Networks: CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News

FOX News Channel: The O'Reilly Factor

MSNBC: The Abrams Report, Deborah Norville Tonight, Scarborough Country

CNN: Anderson Cooper 360, Paula Zahn Now, NewsNight with Aaron Brown (No CNN primetime coverage of the memo controversy addressed Knox's remarks.)

&bull; Still others simply misrepresented Knox's remarks, noting that she believed the documents are fake, but failing to add her statement that their content was accurate:

Sean Hannity (FOX News Channel co-host): Colonel Killian's own secretary tells The Dallas Morning News she doubts their authenticity as well. [FOX News Channel, Hannity & Colmes, 9/14/04] (It wasn't until after a commercial break that Hannity & Colmes co-host Alan Colmes corrected Hannity's truncated version of Knox's remarks, pointing out that "she [Knox] said the substance of the memos were true. She believes that the memos are fake but what they said probably represents the truth.")

Also, in the September 15 edition of its daily "Wake-up Call" political e-mail, National Journal provided a link to the Dallas Morning News story, but National Journal echoed Hannity's limited presentation of Knox's remarks, neglecting to mention her affirmation of the substance of the memos: "Ex-Killian secretary Marian Carr Knox, on the CBS memos: "These are not real. ... They're not what I typed, and I would have typed them for him."

One exception to the primetime coverage was Keith Olbermann's comprehensive report on the September 14 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: The woman who was the secretary to Lieutenant Colonel Killian in the 1970s says that she believes that the documents are, in fact, fraudulent but that the sentiments are, in fact, accurate. ... Those are not real, said this woman, Marian Carr Knox. "They're not what I typed and I would have typed them for him." But she says the information in here was correct, but it was picked up from the real ones, Knox says as she looked at the memos. She said she remembered vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was going on about it. So a breaking development that sends a question of authenticity through the roof in terms of the documents but also questions whether or not they're stating the truth even if the documents themselves are false.

Like I said once the firestorm has died down and the postscript of history tells its true tale you will discover bush was a drunked/drugged up who was telling others over him what to do and could not be trusted to fly a jet and endanger others.

bush slipped through again after his deep pocketed enablers and sychophants who get a rush by sucking up to his prickiness...bush has hurt this nation...while he will face the consequences the pilot fish will leave him in droves (they always do)and find another host to hurt this nation...bush has my prayers and a brother when he is finally admonished, but those
who enabled him will be nowhere in sight they will blame him..it is they who are too blame by proping up deception and a prince with no clothes.

imho Aslanspal

 

back to topic it is important to listen to the generals and it seems the LBJ scenario has repeated itself...with military brass being silent and those who will not endanger their carreers by speaking truth to power.

but more and more are speaking and thank God for them.

Worldview | Retired generals speaking outBy Trudy Rubin
In early 1998, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hugh Shelton, sent all of his 17 four-star generals a book called Dereliction of Duty. Then he summoned them to a breakfast at which the author, a young Army major named H.R. McMaster, described how Lyndon B. Johnson's top generals let the president bog us down in Vietnam without voicing their strong reservations.

One of the generals at the breakfast, Tony Zinni, who was then head of Central Command, recalled for me the chairman's firm words. "This will never happen again," Shelton said.

But despite internal grumbling about the administration's strategy for the Iraq war, most top brass have stayed silent. Now, some retired officers are speaking up.

Zinni is one of three retired generals who recently have decried the failure of senior brass to criticize the huge mistakes by Pentagon and White House leaders that led to the miring of America in Iraq. All three have called upon Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign.

What is so important about these critiques is that they not only confirm the egregious lack of Pentagon planning for the postwar, they underline how the same blindness is undercutting prospects for stabilizing Iraq.

Retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, a three-star Marine who was the top Pentagon operations officer before the invasion, wrote last week that the decision to invade Iraq "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, accused Rumsfeld of "ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input."

Zinni, who retired prior to the Iraq war, recalls that any questions about postwar planning were unwelcome to Rumsfeld: "The military was told not to worry about Phase IV" (the postwar).

Senior military officials had developed a contingency plan in the '90s in case of an Iraq invasion, calling for 380,000 to 500,000 troops. Rumsfeld said the plan was old and stale; Zinni says it was "living, breathing and dynamic," and was updated yearly. In 2003, the top Army general, Eric Shinseki, said several hundred thousand troops would be needed for postwar Iraq, but he was humiliated by Rumsfeld, sending a clear message to other military critics to shut up.

Zinni was worried before the Iraq war that the invasion would lead to chaos. (His concerns about promoting Mideast stability are laid out in his new book, The Battle for Peace.) He believed that if you break a highly authoritarian state, a period of occupation would be required to rebuild it. Shortly before the war, he asked in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "Do we understand what we will need to do?"

But the civilian leadership of the Pentagon was wholly unprepared for occupation and believed that Iraq would quickly spring back to order. Initial plans called for a drawdown to 30,000 U.S. troops within three months of the invasion. This resistance to reality is why the three generals believe Rumsfeld must go.

Zinni pointed out that the defense secretary even rejected Condoleezza Rice's claim that "tactical" mistakes had been made in Iraq (though Zinni thinks the mistakes were strategic). So long as Rumsfeld stays, Zinni says, "we are constantly defending the past, which limits the ability to move ahead. We are not as free to make changes, to accept new ideas."

One prime example is the Pentagon's new Quadrennial Defense Review, which seems to draw no lessons from Iraq failures. Iraq has shown that any effort to help rebuild failed states calls for more, and better trained, ground forces. Many senior officers are bitter that the Pentagon has not learned this lesson. Instead, Rumsfeld has called for a traditional goody bag of expensive heavy-weapons programs.

The message from the military on the ground doesn't seem to be reaching the Pentagon, either. Zinni says "many small-unit commanders are discouraged" at the lack of an overall strategy that builds on their work at local levels. "They go back for a second tour and can't believe how far things have sunk," he says.

That may turn out to be the case for now-Col. McMaster, the author of Dereliction of Duty, who was praised by President Bush for his work in wresting the town of Tal Afar from al-Qaeda control. McMaster's Third Armored Cavalry was moved out; military sources say insurgents are already infiltrating back into Tal Afar. Let's hope the colonel doesn't feel compelled someday to write a second book.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, a three-star Marine who was the top Pentagon operations officer before the invasion, wrote last week that the decision to invade Iraq "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results."

 

By now, it's clear that no amount of evidence will shake some people's loyalty.

So be it.

 

It is clear that some people will continue their endless quest to find fault with the President no matter what they have to fabricate or extrapolate.

 

Blah, blah, blah. It's more of the same old accusations and name calling.

Again, where is the official record to support the false allegation that the President was AWOL? There is none!

Who is without clothes?

 

Dragoon I think your argument is with the Marine
General ..actually listen to what he has said but
you will probably ignore it continue to enable a very bad leader in bush and hurt this nation even more as he is bent for war again.

 

Nope, I still don't agree with you, ASLANSPAL!

I do value communications with retired military officers and consider their input very meaningful. However, I find a wide variety of political thought among them some of which I agree with and some of which I don't and much of which I put into perspective.

The military doesn't set policy for our country - they're the sword and shield by which it's implemented. Retired generals are free to express their political opinions about what that policy should be or should have been. Their perspectives are certainly not without merit. Active duty generals are sworn to carry out the national policies handed to them by effectively applying the resources provided to them. They are the experts in the art of war. Our President, unlike some in the past, has let them do their work. Our President, like all of them in the past, has set the policy along with his selected cabinet. There's always been a bit of a struggle at times between those that set policy and those that carry it out. That's true in every organization. But when it comes to our military compared to that of many other nations we stand out as not permitting nor tolerating our military to interfer with the national policy set by their civilian superiors. A few that have tested that have found themselves relieved of command. This is one reason we don't have an endless string of military coups and military dictators.