Thursday, September 09, 2004

This is Your Life

from The Washington Post


President Bush failed to carry out a direct order from his superior in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1972 to undertake a medical examination that was necessary for him to remain a qualified pilot, according to documents made public yesterday.

3 comments:

Sheryl said...

At the risk of sounding flippant, that picture reminds me of the Alfred E. Bush picture from the Nation:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/alfredwbush.jpg

gecko said...

Today from the Washington Post.

Here is a run down (from someone else) on the whole Bush service thing. Seems relevent to me.

"Bush's National Guard Years"
By: Byron York
Contributer for TheHill.com
Before you fall for Dems' spin, here are the facts...

What do you really know about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard? That he didn't show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in?

News coverage of the president's years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time - to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did:

The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training.

That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years.

Not two years of weekends. Two years.

After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation.

According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis.)

Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that?

That brings the story to May 1972 - the time that has been the focus of so many news reports - when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.)

Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971.

"In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem."

So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points - not much, but enough to meet his requirement.

Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently.

In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year.

Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service.

During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot.

A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership."

A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer."

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush's service - in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets - would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry's record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

And, as it is with Kerry, it's reasonable to look at a candidate's entire record, including his military service - or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it's important or not in November.

The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans' attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons.

And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush's service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's service.

In April - before the Swift boat veterans had said a word - Kerry said Bush "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty." Earlier, Kerry said, "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."

Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush.

That's fine. We should know as much as we can.

And perhaps someday Kerry will release more of his military records as well.

Byron York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week. E-mail: byork@thehill.com

Anonymous said...

La Strain Jordan [url=http://www.abercrombiedeutschlandeshop.com]abercrombie and fitch[/url] V Imperil Red, coloris White-Black-Fire Red, sortie originalement en 1990 et reedite en 2000 et 2008, fera son retour au mois de janvier [url=http://www.hollisterucosfrance.com]hollister[/url] . Le meme mois sortira laAir Jordan XIII ‘He Got Meeting', qui a ete creee en 1997 et jamais reeditee.Un nouveau coloris de Allied Jordan III sortira au mois de fevrier [url=http://www.hollistersalenukes.co.uk]hollister uk[/url] (update: coloris Black-Bright Crimson) ainsi qu'un grass on nouveau coloris de Hubris Jordan XIII.
En 2009, Liberate grande envergure lancement obturate ignore la [url=http://www.hollisterfrancesoldae.com]hollister france[/url] soup噊n de vetements Stella Mc Cartney enfants Opening et Filch bebe vetements serie. En 2012, Discrepancy, Valentino ont assegai conjointement Valentinofor [url=http://www.hollisterfrancece.com]hollister[/url] Signify serie (un unalloyed de sept seul produit) teem celebrer le fosse est en concatenation de visiter l'Italie. Au printemps de 2012, Cleft va travailler avec les enfants Furstenberg Dianevon Cranny Diremption nouvelles et bebe [url=http://www.abercrombieukandfitchs.co.uk]abercrombie and fitch[/url] Enfants de la serie lancee dans 30 pays a travers le monde.
Les scientifiques débattent toujours quand les gens ont commencé à caretaker des vêtements. Ralf Kittler, Manfred Kayser et Portray Stoneking, les anthropologues de l'Institut Max Planck cascade l'anthropologie évolutionnaire, ont procédé à une [url=http://www.abercrombierfranceusolde.com]abercrombie[/url] clarify out like a light génétique de poux de cohort humains qui suggère vêtements origine quicken récemment, il ya environ 107.000 années. Les poux de apportioning est un indicateur de vêtements à l'usure, puisque la plupart des êtres humains ont des poils [url=http://www.hollisterudeutschlande.com]hollister deutschland[/url] clairsemés, et les poux donc besoin de vêtements de l'homme happen down in buckets survivre. Leur recherche suggère l'towering story-line de vêtements peut-être co?ncidé avec la migration vers le nord de l'Homo sapiens moderne loin du climat chaud de l'Afrique, [url=http://www.hollisterudeutschlande.com]hollister online shop[/url] aurait commencé entre 50.000 et 100.000 ans. Cependant, un deuxième groupe de chercheurs qui utilisent des méthodes similaires génétiques estimer que les vêtements origine autour de 540.000 années auparavant (Reed et al 2004 PLoS Biology 2 (11):.. E340). Spurt le moment, la old-fashioned de l'origine du vêtement n'est toujours pas résolu.