Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush served 9 Days May 72 to May 73 - Is that a Sorry Record?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:27 PM
Original message
Bush served 9 Days May 72 to May 73 - Is that a Sorry Record?
The documents indicate that Bush received credit for nine days of active duty between May 1972 and May 1973, the period that has been cited by Democrats as evidence that Bush shirked his military responsibilities

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20040210/D80KIDJ80.html?PG=home&SEC=news

Isn't that kinda sorry-a**ed record? Does NG have to serve two weeks a year like Reserves? Sure wasn't putting in one weekend a month.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
metisnation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. "I can't prove it but I was paid"
Just like thousands of other ghost payrolling operations. BUSHIT! Time to make GW a ghost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redleg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, considering the Reserve and Guard consider one
weekend drill to be 4 days and that the normal Reserve and Guard obligation is for one weekend drill per month and two weeks during the summer as a minimum. A hot-shot pilot like Bush would need to log a certain number of flight hours to remain qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. "A hot-shot pilot like Bush ..."
Redleg sez: "A hot-shot pilot like Bush would need to log a certain number of flight hours to remain qualified."

DemoTex sez: It was not a question of "remaining" qualified. He lost his qualification to fly a F-102 (or a Piper Cub, for that matter) when he failed to take his flight physical and was suspended from flying. This is the most salient point of Bu$h's sorry service record: WHY DID BU$H, ON HIS OWN, DECIDE NOT TO FLY ANYMORE AND INCUR A SUSPENSION FROM FLYING BY NOT MAINTAINING THE REQUIRED MEDICAL QUALIFICATION? This one point is the crux of all others. Why would TANG let him back in the unit if he were not qualified to fly? Why would AANG take him, even into a non-flying billet, given the fact that he had, de facto, disobeyed an order from a superior officer to take a flight physical? Submission to the flight physical, which is required of all pilots operating under the auspices and regulations of the USAF (as was TANG), IS NOT AN OPTION; IT IS A MANDATE. USAF REGS are about as inflexible and hard-core as it gets. Those regulations are not bent or broken without serious consequences. These are just about the only talking points you need on this subject. All others derive from the missed flight physical. Go yee, and spread the word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. DemoTex I agree with you
But I'm wondering how we get our dumbass media to focus on this. We need an ex-Air Force or pilot to get on the talking heads show and start pushing this.

Maybe it would also bring his alleged drug use back to the fore again. That too got quickly buried in 2000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I just sent the above text to The Randi Rhodes Show
It will be the core of many letters-to-editors and an op/ed piece that I will do in the next couple of days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lisa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. something that'd be handy -- examples of other pilots who were punished
Particularly from the TANG.

It would be very interesting if we could find some situations from that time period where people were more seriously penalized than the Shrub, for similar infractions. For one thing, that would make it harder for Bush's supporters to claim that "oh that was standard for the time, it wasn't a big deal". Bush's goofing around in an airplane (even a non-military one) may not have been a problem back then, but as you say, if they were strict about rules pertaining to flight physicals etc., it raises that many more questions about why he was cut so much slack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drifter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. That's par for the course ...
with this slacker.

A majority of the days this coward has been in office, he has been either campaigning, vacationing, or running scared.

Cheers
Drifter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
placton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. Where is the REAL record-a DD 214?
Edited on Tue Feb-10-04 02:36 PM by placton
Max Cleland apparently indicates there is a form which states EACH DAY SERVED on it. Didn't Bush promise chickenshit interviewer just last Sunday to turn over ALL records? Could it be that we are being lied to? That only partial information is being presented by the Bush Junta? Oh, the horror!

added: the form is designated as a "DD Form 214"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jivenwail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Yes DD 214
This is given to everyone who leaves the military and is often used as a form of referral when applying for jobs. We hire a lot of veterans and transitioning military and ask for a copy of their DD 214 when we ask for their references.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. And if a freeper says "Viet Nam is history"
remind him that character stays with a person. The Chimp's non-service, after being given the TANG position over the heads of hundreds of others, is just another example of how he has taken advantage of his family's power to get what he wants. Goes right along with his sterling grades at Yale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. "Is that a Sorry Record?"
YES. And I challenge anyone who looks at the *dimwit's past adventures and show us ANYTHING that is NOT a "SORRY RECORD."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. The DD-214 Won't Show A Thing
The DD-214 will only show an AWOL if he was charged with an AWOL. He was not charged so it will not show the days lost - that is how it was described in those days, maybe now too. The crime here is not only that he didn't serve when he was required to, its that he was able to get away with it.

Look, I got my pay records a couple of years ago. They don't provide a summary, nothing like that. What they give you is your pay stubs, the ones you had to sign for. I have no idea what that crap was that was being waived around at the news conference. It surely wasn't pay records though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Torgo4 Donating Member (208 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. Or...Why Was 6 Months Tacked On To His 6 Year Term???
Days are only added to an enlistment contract if the person was AWOL and those days must be made up.

Bush's original enlistment/service contract was for 6 Years, starting May 24, 1968. (to May 24, 1974)

His FINAL discharge was November 21, 1974. Addition of 178 days.

How'se come????? :wtf:


The St Louis National Personnel Records center has confirmed that Bush had approximately six months tacked onto his military obligation:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Hmmmm. aboiut the "tampering".. re: Bartlett
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
11. I just keep thinking about those NG in Iraq
with the sign in the front of their truck that said, "ONE WEEKEND A MONTH MY ASS".

W might have done 9 days in over a year, well under the required amount of time and he claims he did his duty? While he sends 1000's of NG to Iraq for a year at a time, then home for a couple of months and then back again? @!?$$**?/@
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
13. What exactly was released? Has anyone posted the actual docs?
I see articles about the press conference but no docs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Athletic Grrl Donating Member (551 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. Stephanie,
it did appear that everyone at the PC today got a copy of whatever it was that the little toady McClellend was waving around. I imagine they'll be online shortly.

Now let's see if they do in fact provide the "more legible copies" they promised. *crickets*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lebkuchen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-10-04 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
17. The way I see Chimpy's AWOL days, his piss would have had the street value
of about $6,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC