Missing flight physicals tantamount to missing duty!!! NEW STORY

[digno dave]

More info surfaces on Bush's National Guard issue.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_probe/

[Wickerman]

1. good stuff

"Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.

"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said."



I like this article and discussion, though maybe more for GD vanilla. Someone else can make that judgement.

[spooky3]

2. thanks, but I couldn't get the link to work.

[jbfam4]

3. Good article

Thanks for posting

[KoKo]

4. ".....possible that Bush's superiors considered him a liability?" Quote:

"Weaver, after looking over Bush's light duty load between May 1972 and May 1973, said he doubted that Bush would have been proficient enough to return to the F-102 cockpit. "I would not have let him near the airplane," Weaver said. If there was evidence that Bush's interest in the Guard had waned, Weaver said, then it would have been acceptable for Bush's commanders to "cut their losses" and grant him an early release rather than retain a guard pilot who could no longer fly.

McGinnis said he, too, thought it possible that Bush's superiors considered him a liability, so they decided "to get him off the books, make his father happy, and hope no one would notice."

But McGinnis said there should have been an investigation and a report. "If it didn't happen, that shows how far they were willing to stretch the rules to accommodate" then-Lieutenant Bush."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. Americans need to "cut their losses"

and cut W loose.