The Military Biography of Geo. W. Bush - American Empire Posted by Jeff (Tuesday February 03 2004 @ 06:35PM EST)

During the 2000 presidential campaign, a series of articles based on documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act presented evidence that George W. Bush failed to report for obligatory military duty for an entire year. At the time, this revelation failed to capture much attention in the liberal media. In the months leading up to the election, barely a day transpired without a Republican assault on Al Gore's character. In the smog of electoral politics, the Texas governor's own transgressions were lost in the scuffle. Bush enlisted in the Texas National guard several months after the Tet Offensive wrought highly publicized bloodshed in Vietnam. Currently, a National Guard hitch will buy you a one-way ticket to overseas warfare. But in 1968 the opposite was true. The National Guard provided a means to avoid combat. Consequently, demand for National Guard positions exceeded supply. It was a trivial hurdle for a Bush family member to clear. In his first two years, Bush the Younger served a total of 539 days. After he recieved his wings, the future Commander-in-Chief spent considerably less time in the service of his country, 46 days in his third year, then 22 in his fourth. The contract Bush signed obligated him to serve a minimum of 36 days a year, one weekend per month plus two weeks at camp. By his fourth year, Bush was derelict in duty. In his 1999 autobiography, Bush writes that after he recieved his wings, he "continued flying with my unit for the next several years." In reality, he was grounded by superiors. They had no choice. It wasn't possible for Bush to fly with the Texas National Guard from May until his suspension in August, 1972. He wasn't even in the state. From May 1, 1972 until April 30, 1973, there are no entries in George W. Bush's service record. During a four month period, May through August, the future president was in Alabama working on Senator Winton Blount's re-election bid. During that time, Bush applied for a transfer to the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron in Montgomery, Alabama. The request was eventually accepted by the commanding officer of the Montgomery unit. But that officer didn't have jurisdiction over such matters. The Director of Personnel Resources in Denver, Colorado rejected the request noting that Bush was not elligible for a non-Ready Reserve position. Despite an official rejection, the transfer was a success. In their annual evaluation, Bush's superiors noted that he was fulfilling his obligation by "performing equivalent training in a non flying status" with a tactical reconaissance group in Alabama. Beyond that, they were unable to evaluate him as "Lt. Bush has not been observed in this unit during the period of report." -- The details of this account were borrowed heavily from Tom Paine.com For an exhaustive look at this issue, check out AWOL Bush

< Janet Jackson's Right Tit | The Skier Who Could Not Stop >

By Funkman (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 07:06AM EST)

Bush AWOL? Don't be so sure.

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 08:14AM EST) I stand by the case that I presented which was based on original documents. Bush may not have been prosecuted, but he was clearly AWOL. In his annual service report, his commander, William T. Harris, indicated that Bush was in Alabama "performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac[tical] Rec[onaisance] G[rou]p." Interesting is the fact that Harris didn't mention the transfer (which was denied.) Didn't it strike him the least bit odd that he was completing an annual report for an officer no longer in his command? Regardless, as his service record indicates, Bush failed to report for duty for a period of one year despite a minimum obligation to report at least one weekend a month. [ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 08:18AM EST) I believe the best term I've heard is 'delinquent guardsman.' Evidently it was an official designation. Delinquent guardsmen were to be processed into the active Army. The more important issue for me has always been the preferential treatment Bush received to get into the Guard and the preferential treatment he received when he had erratic attendance. During this period of course, his father was a US Congressman who supported thIe War in Vietnam. The question to ask is "If Funkman had the same attendance record as GW, would he have received the same treatment?" The Washington Post did a fine review of the issues yesterday. Talking Point Memo has great coverage on the topic. But really, for me, all that matters is that we talk about it. Air it out. Can't be anything wrong with that, particularly since so many brave Americans are on the ground abroad doing their duty. [ reply | parent ]

By John Galt (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 09:09AM EST)

I love this shit... I assume you all have a chest full of medals?? Is this groundwork to prove the "true hero status" of Mr. Kerry?? Or, are you actually concerned about absolute truth in every area of your lives?

[ reply | parent ]

By Cher (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 09:28AM EST) Given the events of the past year, I would hope Bush's questionable service record is a legitimate topic of discussion. Interestingly, Kerry isn’t bringing it up. [ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 09:33AM EST) I'm concerned about a pattern of lying on the part of the President. It goes back quite a ways. I know the Christians like to cut him slack for "discovering" he was a sinner, that doesn't cut any mustard with me. My concern is that we're treating the President with the soft bigotry of low expectations. He deserves to be held to a higher standard. I don't really care about "heroes" or medals, but I'm interested in people doing their duty or explaining honestly why they did not. [ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 09:34AM EST) I don't claim to have a chest full of medals, but I used to have a Ramones 25th Anniversary pin. Nor do I claim that I "continued flying with my unit for the next several years" after I was in fact grounded by superiors. But I am willing to consider the Pragmatist's above designation in contrast to AWOL since young Bush was not prosecuted for the crime. As John Galt's alter ego, I'd think that you'd appreciate concerns for absolute truth. As for Kerry, I think he's about as exciting as Campbell's soup.... [ reply | parent ]

By John Galt (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 11:01AM EST) I have served with both Clinton and Bush as my commander-in-chief, and trust me; I have 1000-fold reasons to be concerned with the integrity of the President. I get my ass chewed for being two minutes late, much less AWOL, and have a VERY serious view of doing what I say, when I say I will do it, even when no one is looking. But, I'm sure this crew of armchair Politburo members doesn't need a lesson on integrity. And, I know that the BIG issue is that we hold the President to a higher standard and it's only a concern because an individual at that level must be above reproach. Right?? That is the reason you're concerned about Bush's service record? I smell a revolution if we hold the state of '04 candidates to that standard. [ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 01:29PM EST) As I mentioned, I care about Bush's record because of what it indicates about a pattern of lying throughout his entire life. His biography was written only 5 years ago, so it's not as if we have to go back 30 years to find discrepancies. And if Bush fans are honest, they'll have to admit that the guy really seems so have coasted his way through life. Of course some people like that quality in their betters. And if you want to see my thoughts on politburos and the like, please check out this old entry. [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 10:45AM EST) Just curious, have you read or just heard about a book titled "Atlas Shrugged"? [ reply | parent ]

By John Galt (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 11:06AM EST) Does that matter? If I change my name to Oprah are going to expect me to push Dr. Phil? And, I did read it; now what? [ reply | parent ]

By Oprah (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 11:09AM EST) I think we just need to hug, cry and have a bald psycho analyst yell at us... Stedman, get me a tissue... [ reply | parent ]

By MattC (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 10:05AM EST)

I think you meant to link to this article.

[ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Wednesday February 04 2004 @ 04:55PM EST)

This just in --- vintage photos of the President in his flight suit from sometime around 1972. I wasn't aware of this but, he and Condi Rice served in the same unit.

[ reply | parent ]

By Anonymous (Thursday February 05 2004 @ 03:20PM EST)

maybe it just took him a little longer to finish his obligation?

[ reply | parent ]

By Tom (Friday February 06 2004 @ 08:21AM EST) Good point! He's still making up absences. [ reply | parent ]

By Anonymous (Friday February 06 2004 @ 04:18PM EST)

What did clinton do? He went to England to protest and burn flags. click here for the complete story

[ reply | parent ]

By Anonymous (Friday February 06 2004 @ 04:19PM EST)

s/flags/american flags/

[ reply | parent ]

By Jeff (Friday February 06 2004 @ 11:31PM EST) Clinton Who? The day George W. Bush leaves office is the day I stop concerning myself with him. [ reply | parent ]

Post a Comment

Name: Email: URL   Remember my information (uses cookies)   I would rather be anonymous Comment: * HTML tags are allowed. * Your email will not be made public. * LINK SPAM WILL BE DELETED!