Posted 15 March 2006
George W. Bush - AWOL from Supporting our Troops
Between tax cuts for the rich, war profits for Halliburton, or support for our troops - which does the Bush Administration choose, time and time again?
obtained through FOIA by Martin Heldt.
Here are the documents as dumped on the White House Press corps Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend. Think they're hiding something? Where is his flight log? Records from the Flight Inquiry Board? Any paperwork at all from Alabama? Any DD-24 forms to the local draft board certifying active status in 1972 or 1973? (Is there a dog loose somewhere with a curious taste for military records microfiche? Is that dog's name Albert Lloyd?)
HERE is a site that lays out the meticulous proof Bush was considered a deserter by the Air Force.
"ARPC then designated Bush as AWOL and a “non-locatee” (i.e. a deserter) who had failed to satisfactorily participate in TXANG, and certified him for immediate induction through his local draft board. Once the Houston draft board got wind of the situation, strings were pulled; and documents were generated which directly contradict Air Force policy, and which were inconsistent with the rest of the records released by the White House."
Nice Bush's suspension from flying, as released to Marty Heldt, Walter Robinson and others in 2000.
Bush's suspension from flying, as released to USA Today (see p. 10) in 2004.
Why did someone feel a need to black out the name of Major James R. Bath in the second release of documents?
"TAFMS" and "TAFCS" - those are awards or citations? Or are they incomplete records of total days served? Why are they in box 24?
And while we're on the topic of awards and medals, consider this (sent in by a reader):
"I also did a google search on the Texas Faithful Service Medal and found a couple of bio's which confirmed that medal was awarded back in that era for "honorable" service to officers, and apparently enlisteds. Based on the criteria "shall be awarded" there would have been nothing to keep the TANG from awarding Lt. Dubya (G. W. BUSH) that medal, if his eligibility period was not interrupted. It is similar to the active duty Good Conduct Medal. Keep your nose clean for the eligibility period, and you get the award.I also found it interesting that Lt. Dubya was not recommended for any of the other TANG awards, when his fitness reports (evaluations) were all "glowing" and said he was one of the top officers and pilots in the TANG. His appointment was political, his acceptance for pilot training (with no prior experience or officer training), was political, and he was the "poster boy" for the TANG. All his superiors loved him, and they liked to have their pictures taken with him. Why no awards??? Did he screw up, and they just wanted to get him out of the TANG as fast as possible, with no fanfare, to keep Poppy B (G.W.'S OLD MAN) happy??
There is no way he walked away from flight status without some type of investigation (unless the TANG outfit was complicit in helping him hide something he and Poppy didn't want to get into the public domain)... But, they would have had to answer to higher authority, who would want an answer on why he did not take his flight physical and drug test (which he probably had to take). Those records would have to be in Denver or St. Louis."
Did Bush get the Texas Faithful Service Medal, or not? Why not? When, precisely, did Bush or his unit receive the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award he displays so proudly in this photo?? Is Bush wearing a ribbon to which he is not entitled?? Has anyone except for Bush's henchment seen the entire microfiche record? Why not?
Here are some other sources:
Lurking behind the murk of "memogate" is this stark truth: through his entire political career, Bush has been lying about his military non-service. He said he met his commitments, but he didn't. He said he had no preferential treatment, but he did.
There is now ample and new proof of this, as documented in recent, important reports by the Boston Globe, US News, CNN and others. An excellent, lucid summary of these reports is here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200409150002.
An excellent summary of these issues also appears in today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/20/politics/campaign/20bama.html. A more detailed and very clear review just appeared here: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index.html.
These reports clearly show (even putting the Killian memos completely aside) that Bush used pull to get into TANG, he used pull to extricate himself when TANG was no longer useful to him, and he shirked his duty in between. What's much worse is that he's been consistently lying about all this.
The original machinations, failures and embarrassments are old, but the campaign of cover-up is continuous, immediate and relevant. How then can we trust him to lead us in war? Yet instead of scrutinizing Bush's credibility, we're fretting about Dan Rather, as if the latter, not the former, is in a position to do irreparable harm to our nation and our world.
Rather is under pressure, rightly, to take responsibility if he has promulgated misinformation. Surely the president must be held to this same standard, at minimum.
Bush is praying for the murk of "memogate" to persist indefinitely, like smog over LA in a thermal inversion. That's why he recently said "there are a lot of questions about the documents and they need to be answered." And with spectacular, but increasingly routine, audacity, he repeated one of his big lies: he said "I met my requirements." (NH Union Leader, 9/18/04, http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44164)
Forgive me for switching metaphors: this is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. There is now a forest of reasons to understand that Bush has consistently lied about his TANG years. Yet we now have our nose pressed up against one particular tree, and we're obsessively examining the microscopic structure of its bark. It's time to step back from this tree, from this murk. It's time to put aside the Killian memos and consider the expanding body of other evidence and analysis which conveys the same message embodied in those memos: Bush has deceived us, and is still deceiving us.
Bush's surrogates are now fully mobilized to use "memogate" to further obscure the truth. With astonishing chutzpah, in recent days the right-wing chorus (in particular a series of hosts and guests on Fox) is flatly asserting that absent the Killian memos, Bush is off the hook. (This is thoroughly documented here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200409170001.)
They apparently hope all the other rapidly mounting evidence about Bush's non-service in TANG (and his long trail of deceptions on the subject) will magically dematerialize in a confounding haze of typographical arcana.
Aside from this mendacious exploitation of "memogate," another major lie is the Honorable Discharge Defense. Bush repeats like a mantra: "I was honorably discharged" (NH Union Leader, ibid), as if this constitutes proof he met his commitments. Nonsense. The best analysis I've seen proving this point is here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200409080010. Various grievous miscreants (e.g., John Allan Muhammad, Lee Harvey Oswald) have been granted an honorable discharge. Despite the misleading name, it does not constitute proof of honorable and complete service. In Bush's case, it's sufficiently obvious that he received his discharge because of family connections, and despite the fact that he failed to meet his commitments.
A months-long investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the conclusion that Bush's personal behavior was causing alarm among his superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing. His failure to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his subsequent suspension from flying status.
This central issue, whether Bush did or did not complete his duty--and if not, why--has in recent days been obscured by a raging sideshow: a debate over the accuracy of documents aired on CBS's 60 Minutes. Last week CBS News reported on newly unearthed memos purportedly prepared by Bush's now-deceased commanding officer. In those documents, the officer, Lieut. Col. Jerry Killian, appeared to be establishing for the record events occurring at the time Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in May 1972. Among these: that Bush had failed to meet unspecified Guard standards and refused a direct order to take a physical exam, and that pressure was being applied on Killian and his superiors to whitewash whatever troubling circumstances Bush was in.
Questions have been raised about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.
Cure for war fever? Draft those
over 50
Joel
McNally, The Journal Times, Racine WI 7/8/04
- "Think about this for a minute: He left college, and he volunteered three different ways. First he volunteered for military service. Then he volunteered to serve in Vietnam. And then he volunteered for some of the most dangerous, hazardous duty you could possibly have in Vietnam. As a result, he was wounded multiple times. He won a whole series of medals while he was there. And now—this is an amazing thing—a vice president of the United States who avoided service four, five, six times—I've lost count—[and] a president of the United States who can't account for a year of his national guard service are attacking John Kerry for the medals he won in Vietnam? You have got to be kidding me."
That's John Edwards talking about John Kerry at a Florida Democratic Party fund-raiser three weeks ago. This is why Kerry had to pick Edwards: Kerry sounds so much more attractive when Edwards is doing the talking.
"It seems a little curious because the president made a pretty forceful presentation that he had nothing to hide," said AP General Counsel Dave Tomlin, when asked for his reaction to what the AP considers government stonewalling. "But we are not surprised."
Tomlin told E&P the lawsuit is needed to get access to a portion of Bush's record that may offer more information than the paper files previously released. "The paper file may not be everything," he said. "It has been there a long while, it could conceivably be tampered with."
Because the microfilm record has been in storage and "it can't be altered, that access to the microfilm would settle the matter," Tomlin added.
When asked why a lawsuit was needed, he said, "the administrative efforts we've made just aren't getting traction."
Is this truly a shrewd political strategy when George W. Bush has been bobbing and weaving more than Muhammad Ali when it comes to answering questions about his own zephyrlike service in the Texas/Alabama Air National Guard while Kerry was literally picking shrapnel out of his keister?
The White House had successfully managed to divert attention away from the fact that Bush regarded his National Guard years with all the dedication to duty of Maynard G. Krebs perusing the help wanted ads, only to begin going after Kerry, who actually has film footage of himself walking around the jungle in fatigues armed with his assault rifle.
Sure, perhaps there is some minute, marginal political benefit to take Kerry to task for his activities protesting the war in Vietnam after he returned from his service.
But when your guy spent more time during the Vietnam era sitting on a bar stool than in the cockpit of a National Guard plane he pulled strings to get into in the first place, where is the political upside in going negative against a bona fide war hero?"
Bath is the American representative of two Saudi Arabian businessmen--one of them Osama bin Laden's older brother--and his position has brought him millions in deals involving banks and airports.
In the mid-seventies Bath introduced Salem bin Laden and his partner Khalib bin Mahfouz to George H.W. Bush and a litany of business associations between the Bushes and the Saudis followed, a relationship that still raises eyebrows to this day.
Oops. Released, the records back up the tale of a young Yale graduate who volunteered for the Navy and served with distinction. His three Purple Hearts and Bronze and Silver stars are all legit and the record is replete with reports from superiors praising Kerry's leadership, effectiveness and bravery.
This is an awkward moment for the Bush re-election campaign, which the polls otherwise have going well for him.
For all his flight-suit swagger, Bush, to avoid Vietnam, used his family's political influence to cut line and get into the Air National Guard when others were being denied and then, in the later years of his service, either did or didn't go AWOL -- the record is unclear -- but pretty plainly dogged it.
Stuck with such an unflattering comparison, what could the Bush campaign do to redeem its man? Smear, of course. It's a Bush habit."
Some military researchers and a former Texas Guard lieutenant colonel believe the stringent regulations -- known as the Human Reliability Program -- may have been invoked to stop Bush from flying Texas Air National Guard jets in 1972....
Isham said there is a ‘‘good likelihood” HRP regulations were either applied or about to be applied against Bush and that is why he stopped flying on April 16, 1972.
...
At the National Guard Bureau, now headed by a Bush appointee from Texas, officials last week said they were under orders not to answer questions.
The bureau's chief historian said he couldn't discuss questions about Bush's military service on orders from the Pentagon.
‘‘If it has to do with George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Vietnam War, I can't talk with you,” said Charles Gross, chief historian for the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C.
Rose Bird, Freedom of Information Act officer for the bureau, said her office stopped taking records requests on Bush's military service in mid-February and is directing all inquiries to the Pentagon. She would not provide a reason.
Air Force and Texas Air National Guard officials did not respond to written questions about the issue.
James Hogan, a records coordinator at the Pentagon, said senior Defense Department officials had directed the National Guard Bureau not to respond to questions about Bush's military records.
Now that GW Bush is President, isn't it time he released his military records? How will the biographers cover up this missing year?
We'll post some of your comments
to the site in the near future...of course, all comments submitted
become the property of awolbush.com! [Who
Served?]
[What
about Cheney?]
[Key
Documents] [Sample
Letters] [Write
Your Local Paper] [History] Links:
Martin Heldt's Site BartCop.com Buzzflash Bushwatch.com
BushWatch's
AWOL pages
GregPalast.com GWBush.com American
Politics Journal Talion.com
Bushisms MikeHersh.com Rehnquist the ballot bully
Failure Is Impossible Bush and Cheney
Suck Rackjite.com
Anti-Bush
Link Crusader ToppleBush.com Buckfush.com
StopBushin04.com
FreedomHaters.com
Red
State Nation Blues
Veterans
Against Bush
Who
is stealing Marc's Signs? CrisisPapers.org PhonyFighterPilot.com
Texas
Guard Veterans for Truth The
Execution of Private Slovik Swift
Boat Liars Texans
for Truth Bushism.net
AWOL
on the economy too?