Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge


PDA






Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 6, 2004, 06:27 PM
More on W's Guard Service:

__________________________________________
With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...

Friday, Feb. 6, 2004 11:26 a.m. EST

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/6/113036.shtml

Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge

The ex-military man who first launched charges during the 2000 presidential campaign that President Bush had gone AWOL from the National Guard has recanted his story.

The account from Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, who told the Boston Globe four years ago that Bush never showed up for Guard drills with his Alabama unit, had become the centerpiece of Democratic attacks on the White House in recent days.

"Had [Bush] reported in, I would have had some recall, and I do not," Gen. Turnipseed told the Globe in May 2000. "I had been in Texas, done my flight training there. If we had had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would have remembered."

But on Wednesday Gen. Turnipseed reversed course, telling NBC News: "I don't know if [Bush] showed up, I don't know if he didn't. I don't remember how often I was even at the base."

Still, the same day the retired general had withdrawn the allegation, Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe was citing Turnipseed's earlier, erroneous account in a bid to keep AWOL charges against Bush afloat.

"The commander this week reiterated the entire time [Bush] was supposed to show up in the Alabama National Guard he wasn't there," McAuliffe told CNN's "Inside Politics" on Wednesday. "He said he made it up later, but you don't have that option. When you're supposed to serve our country, you're supposed to be there."

In fact, McAuliffe was wrong on the latter point as well, since Guard regulations expressly allow for make-up drills, according to no less an authority than Gen. Turnipseed himself.

In July 2000, the New York Times reported, "Colonel Turnipseed, who retired as a general, said in an interview that regulations allowed Guard members to miss duty as long as it was made up within the same quarter."

Asked if McAuliffe was prepared to apologize to the White House for misstating Gen. Turnipseed's position on the Bush AWOL allegation, a spokesman for the DNC told NewsMax: "I don't know. We'll get back to you."

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Thumper
February 6, 2004, 06:30 PM
I saw this earlier on the freep boards...I just can't believe the guy's name is Turnipseed.

:D

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 6, 2004, 06:34 PM
A good name for a character out of that Kubrick movie "Dr. Strangelove," Gen. Turnipseed meet Gen. Ripper, Gen. Ripper meet Gen. Turnipseed :D

HunterGatherer
February 6, 2004, 06:49 PM
Maj. T.J. "King" Kong: Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45 caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition; four days concentrated emergency rations; one drug issue containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature combination Russian phrase book and bible; one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold; nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics; three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings. Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff. Never listen to field grade officers. O-4 and below are the only ones that have it together. :D

yayarx7
February 7, 2004, 02:39 AM
This is just a non issue people.

I am a member of the Texas Air National Guard. If I needed or wanted to take a year of drills off, and they could spare me, it would happen. You just make up your days later. There is a fella in our unit who lives and works in China. He comes to Texas once a year and does a month or two of drill days in one stint. Common occurance. If they have to have me at drill and I do not show up, they send the SF's after me. Simple.

HunterGatherer
February 7, 2004, 03:06 AM
Yeah yayarx7, but you are just basing that on real life military experience. What makes you think that you are more of an authority than a gasbag like Mikey Moore hmmm?
;) :D

c_yeager
February 7, 2004, 04:15 AM
The fun part is that NONE of the papers that printed the AWOL charge in the first place are going to run this article. Accuracy/integrity has no place in todays media.

agricola
February 7, 2004, 06:54 AM
so has proof been found that Bush reported in?

HunterGatherer
February 7, 2004, 07:08 AM
so has proof been found that Bush reported in? More like no proof was ever found that he didn't report in. After serving all of his active service as a better than average fighter pilot as the pilots he served with have attested to, President Bush served his remaining time in a number of different National Guard details i.e. Alabama and Massachusetts.

Those of us with actual U.S. military service understand this. We saw similar situations all the time.

The funniest thing of all is that this chuckleheaded excuse for a General officer didn't seem to grasp that he would have been guilty of dereliction of his own duty had there actually been a soldier AWOL under his command that wasn't dealt with appropriately.

Michael Moore, media elitists, et al. have no idea what duty is in the first place, ergo they are unaware of the sort of negligence the General would have been admitting to had President Bush's absence been more than a figment of his imagination.

[/YAWN] :rolleyes:

Malone LaVeigh
February 7, 2004, 03:23 PM
Sounds like they got to the general to me.

HunterGatherer
February 7, 2004, 03:44 PM
Sounds like they got to the general to me.Sounds like someone with no clue as to the specifics regarding what constitutes a fulfilled committment in the National Guard to me.

Thumper
February 7, 2004, 08:02 PM
Dubya was Honorably Discharged...anybody with any military experience knows that this is all a bunch of hokum.

"They" got to the general, Malone? Are you kidding? :rolleyes:

org
February 7, 2004, 08:07 PM
Looks like the General's original comment was either taken out of context or "massaged" by someone with an agenda. Naaaaahhhh, we all know that'd never happen....

Delmar
February 7, 2004, 08:40 PM
A good name for a character out of that Kubrick movie "Dr. Strangelove," Gen. Turnipseed meet Gen. Ripper, Gen. Ripper meet Gen. Turnipseed

Luke, you're not going to let those commies in here and let them vomit all over us, are you?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 7, 2004, 10:22 PM
Luke, you're not going to let those commies in here and let them vomit all over us, are you?

It's not my decision. Oleg Volk owns this forum. He and the moderators decide whose participation is desired. At times it seems that their forebearance toward one poster is misplaced, albiet understandable from the standpoint of forebearance towards the mentally ill. Luckily, the ignore button always does the trick in dealing with that poster who seemingly can't rise above wallowing in childish taunts and insults, let alone offer an informed opinion on gun ownership.

Delmar
February 7, 2004, 11:12 PM
Seems to me this ought to be proven fairly quick. Locate the DA form 1 or whatever they call the morning report. It lists status for everyone assigned to the unit. SIDPERS would be another source.

Maybe we have a deal here-I won't accuse you of being AWOL if you don't bring up the fact that I accused the majority of Viet vets of being war criminals in front of Congress?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 7, 2004, 11:56 PM
Luke, you're not going to let those commies in here and let them vomit all over us, are you?

Oh wait a minute.... were you talkng about the movie?:D

Delmar
February 8, 2004, 12:07 AM
yep-have a copy and it is one of my favorites.

agricola
February 8, 2004, 06:26 AM
It's not my decision. Oleg Volk owns this forum. He and the moderators decide whose participation is desired. At times it seems that their forebearance toward one poster is misplaced, albiet understandable from the standpoint of forebearance towards the mentally ill. Luckily, the ignore button always does the trick in dealing with that poster who seemingly can't rise above wallowing in childish taunts and insults, let alone offer an informed opinion on gun ownership.

http://www.montana.edu/wwwkglt/fdimages/pot.jpg

http://www.singersoutdoors.co.uk/pages/images/kettle-with-filter.jpg

http://www.terrapintile.com/images/Glazes/black.jpg

Leatherneck
February 8, 2004, 11:37 AM
Thinking, thinking....................Ag, may I please buy a clue? :confused:

TC
TFL Survivor

cordex
February 8, 2004, 11:54 AM
*laugh* I like it, Ag.
I especially like that neither your pot, nor your kettle were black.

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 11:57 AM
I think ag was trying to say something about pots, kettles, and black.

*edit* Posted too late... :D

w4rma
February 8, 2004, 12:34 PM
NewsMax seems to be taking liberties with their headlines. It seems that the guy is just restating what he said earlier in a different way.

http://awolbush.ctyme.com/grounded-sm.gif (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/grounded.gif)

http://awolbush.ctyme.com/images/doc9_small.gif (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc9.gif)

http://awolbush.ctyme.com/images/doc12_small.gif (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc12.gif)

http://awolbush.ctyme.com/images/doc28_sm.gif (http://www.cis.net/~coldfeet/doc28.gif)

Did you witness GW Bush performing any National Guard Service between May 1972 and October 1973, in either Alabama or Texas? If so, you could be eligible for thousands of dollars in unclaimed reward money!! Here are the details of the Texas (http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=166) and Alabama (http://web.archive.org/web/20001205003400/http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/Oct2000/14-e414023b.html) rewards.
http://www.awolbush.com/

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 12:46 PM
Not too terribly familiar with military protocol, are ya there, w4rma?

Why am I not surprised?

Sean Smith
February 8, 2004, 12:54 PM
I don't think that paperwork means what w4rma thinks it means... ;)

FPrice
February 8, 2004, 01:03 PM
Way too many people who do not know what they are talking about trying to sound like they are military personnel experts.

One cannot be AWOL from Guard or Reserve Inactive Duty Training periods. One can only be AWOL from Active Duty. One may have unexcused absences from IADT but that is a far cry from being AWOL. I have seen no evidence that Lt. Bush was ordered to Active Duty during this time period and that he failed to report to such Active Duty.

I have seen a great many people not show up for IADT for many reasons ranging from good to bad to nonexistant. Civilian job issues tend to be one of the biggest sources of missed training.

If you don't like Bush, no big deal in my book. But trying to sound like you are a Military Personnel Officer when you are not is a sure sign of BS in progress to people who know what is what.

Disclaimer No. 1 - I did not know George Bush during this time period (and I don't now either) so I cannot state what he did or did not do during the time period in question.

Disclaimer No. 2 - I am not a Military Personnel Officer, nor do I play one on TV or the Internet. But I do deal with them and Military Personnel issues on virtually a daily basis.

edited to add:

Disclaimer No. 3 - Sometimes I can't spell worth a hill of beans.

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 01:03 PM
Hey w4rma...what does the phrase "Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report" mean in this context?

Come on...edumacate some of us actual Veterans.

For the life of me, I don't know how you're managing to fool some of the mods into thinking you're a legitimate gun enthusiast. Is Kerry still "ok with you" since your boy Dean has tanked?

LawDog
February 8, 2004, 01:42 PM
For the life of me, I don't know how you're managing to fool some of the mods into thinking you're a legitimate gun enthusiast.

*snort*

'Legitimate gun enthusiast' isn't a prerequisite to post at THR.

That being said, however, I would like to know how much time w4rma has spent in the United States military, either Active or Reserve Component.

LawDog

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 8, 2004, 01:54 PM
I think ag was trying to say something about pots, kettles, and black.

Or just trolling for attention as usual. :D

*snort*

'Legitimate gun enthusiast' isn't a prerequisite to post at THR.

:scrutiny:

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 02:00 PM
'Legitimate gun enthusiast' isn't a prerequisite to post at THR.

'Course not, Dog, but one's motives for hanging out on a gun board when one has no interest in, well, guns might be in question. You think?

Gotta admit, the Deaniac method of bombarding free sites has had some effect...

agricola
February 8, 2004, 02:20 PM
coolhand,

As it happens, i come here because its the successor site to TFL, on which I saw some threads that were plainly factually wrong about what is happening in the UK, and wished to correct these statements.

I remain here, contributing when necessary - like when a certain poster tried to claim that a) the Nazis were socialist, and b) that they had been "universally accepted as such by other socialists". Now I know, as did almost everyone else, that this view was false. However, I attempted to show that certain poster the error of his ways, and was rewarded with a tidal-wave of denial, rephrasing of what was said (so that no statement = "universal approval") and finally a challenge to find evidence. The evidence was found, and presented for all to see.

One would have hoped to see that certain poster at least admit that he may have been wrong, but I was sadly mistaken, as the poster seemed to have run off, firing reported-posts complaints off as he went, only to resurface like a dead whale on a beach a month later with a load of ad-hominem nonsense that he did seem to shun at one stage, but now obviously feels comfortable with.

Yet, there are enough good debates to outweigh the bad, so I remain, albeit less active than I have been in the past.

the rest,

w4rma gets a lot of abuse here, but he is only doing what the freepers have been doing for the last two years. Besides, he has more factual evidence to support his views than some here (see above, or any zedicus post), and the least you could do is to question as closely some of those of your own side, who expose what is a noble cause to unjustified attacks and derision because of their rants.

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 02:30 PM
Ag, for the record, I have no problem with you. I disagree with you on almost every issue, but you do have an interest in guns. You don't believe the commoners should have them and you've done your best to argue that position (in your country). Pro or anti, it's still a gun related position.

You also articulate your own arguments and thoughts, however wrongheaded ( :D ). You carefully weigh your postings and would never put up the irresponsible garbage that has been posted in this thread, mostly because it's so easily dismissed by anyone with any knowledge of the subject. As much as you would WANT to post some of it, your ego wouldn't let you be so easily dissproved.

In other words, you're not a copy/paste hack bouncing from site to site spreading vitriol. To put a finer point on it, you're not a troll.

You are still wrong, though.

;)

FPrice
February 8, 2004, 02:32 PM
"and the least you could do is to question as closely some of those of your own side, who expose what is a noble cause to unjustified attacks and derision because of their rants."

Do you consider lying about the current commander-in-chief's military record to be a [quote] noble cause [unquote]?

Just curious.

w4rma
February 8, 2004, 04:17 PM
I see the true believers (or "Bushbots" as they are called on FreeRepublic) have come out to attack the messenger, instead of debating the message.


1.3. When Unauthorized Absence Begins and Ends. An unauthorized absence starts when a member is absent from where he or she is ordered or otherwise required to be present. For an unauthorizedabsence of 24 consecutive hours or less, classify as “failure to go” instead of “Absence Without Leave”(AWOL). For an unauthorized absence of more than 24 hours and less than 30 days, classify as AWOL. An unauthorized absence ends when the absentee or deserter returns to military control.

1.5. Classify a member as a deserter who:
1.5.1. Has been AWOL for 30 consecutive days. If the absence lasts through 2400 on the 30th con-secutive day, change the absentee's status to deserter at 0001 on the 31st day (On the 10th day duringtimes of emergency or war declared by the President or Congress).
1.5.2. Is AWOL for any amount of time and meets any of these criteria:

1.5.2.4. Has action pending on a previous unauthorized absence that has not been completed.

1.5.2.8. Without authority, goes or remains absent from their unit, organization, or place of dutywith intent to remain away therefrom permanently.

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2911 (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36%2D2911/afi36%2D2911.pdf)

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 8, 2004, 04:26 PM
'Course not, Dog, but one's motives for hanging out on a gun board when one has no interest in, well, guns might be in question. You think?


That hit the nail right on the head. Especially when that person engages in constant personal attacks, snide childish insults, stalking people from thread to thread with baiting put downs and accusations of lying, etc...

As I said, this isn't my forum and overall the moderators seem to do a commendable job, but in certain cases there does appear to be a very pronounced double standard where some are permitted to engage in personal attacks that others are called on.

It's only an internet forum and I don't take it too seriously, but when you see posts here from people who have actual 2nd Amendment cases pending before the US Supreme Court and then see self-absorbed childishly insulting garbage from a person with absolutely no apparent interest in firearms ownership issues, it does make you wonder.

Of course there's always the ignore function.

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 04:28 PM
Please slowly reread Fprice's earlier post.

I was inactive reserve for two years...never reported once, nor was I required to.

This is a non-story, but some folks want to believe it so badly, they can't let it go.

There were many folks inactive in '72, ESPECIALLY Thud pilots; the plane was being phased out. There were none to fly.

I see you can cut and paste UCMJ material...that's neat. When was Bush charged with desertion or being AWOL? Pretty strong charges, especially from someone whose primary source of info is DU.

One more time, when did you serve?

c_yeager
February 8, 2004, 04:57 PM
As always the liberal left depends on the ignorance of their own constituency. I can see that their faith is not misplaced.

MountainPeak
February 8, 2004, 05:00 PM
The Democrats "appear" to have become military hawks after Clark declared and Kerry started winning. Seems to me, some of the same folks thought it unfair when others brought up Clinton's lack of service. Hypocrisy anyone???

agricola
February 8, 2004, 05:16 PM
coolhand,

didnt you just imply i was mentally ill?

Malone LaVeigh
February 8, 2004, 05:29 PM
Aw, shucks, I thought Luke was talking about me. I had a thoroughly pithy reply ready and everything.

Or is "troll" just anyone that doesn't fit his stereotype about gun owners?

WonderNine
February 8, 2004, 05:34 PM
I remain here, contributing when necessary - like when a certain poster tried to claim that a) the Nazis were socialist, and b) that they had been "universally accepted as such by other socialists". Now I know, as did almost everyone else, that this view was false.

If I was a socialist I sure wouldn't want to claim the National Socialist German Worker's party as one of my own either....

Or the Kmer Rouge for that matter or any like them.....

I just noticed that W4rma is another person who only posts in legal and political....how come the people that are way left only post in this section??? :confused:

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 05:34 PM
Aw, shucks, I thought Luke was talking about me.

And I'll bet you a shiny quarter w4rma thought Luke was talking about her. The left has demonstrably cornered the market on missplaced egotism today. For what it's worth, folks, pathological self-centeredness is considered to be a mental illness.

Fascinating. :D

greyhound
February 8, 2004, 06:54 PM
This is a non-story, but some folks want to believe it so badly, they can't let it go.

Exactly. My gut tells me that this is just not gonna play with the general public. It just sounds too political. Plus it came up, briefly, at the end of the 2000 campaign.

By the same token, the Republican are going to have to use discretion when they attack Kerry's anti-American activities after his decorated service.

My feeling is that after 9/11 the American people want to know what is going on NOW, or at least in the recent past, not what happened 30 years ago.

The legitimacy of being Commander in Chief and sending young men into harm's way is based on a lot more than what happened in Vietnam 30 years ago. I would bet that our troops support President Bush.

[/preemptive strike on](though I am sure there is some cut and paste nonsense that would show examples otherwise).[/preemptive strike off]

Malone LaVeigh
February 8, 2004, 07:49 PM
Thumper:

The least you could do is go back and read the posts before you start to question anyone else's mental balance. I'd say spouting off about something and putting your foot in your mouth is evidence of a condition a little less pardonable. If you do look back, you'll see W4 hadn't posted before Luke's remark. I had posted just a couple of posts above. Duh.

Thumper
February 8, 2004, 08:05 PM
Ahhh, Malone...I'll politely repost Luke's CIQ (comment in question) so you don't have to go back to look it up:

At times it seems that their forebearance toward one poster is misplaced, albiet understandable from the standpoint of forebearance towards the mentally ill.

I understand that the levels of reading comprehension have gone down in this country, however, what is your understanding of the phrase "at times" in this context?

Duh, indeed. :D

Stand_Watie
February 8, 2004, 09:02 PM
One more person who has actually served in the air guard here to put in .02

It's a non - issue. I won't claim that I think W's service was exemplary, because I don't know if it was or wasn't - but I do know that missing drills (even a whole bunch of them) is not only a completely different issue from being AWOL, but was common in the air guard as late as the early 90's (I can't speak for today). We had pilots in my unit who lived out of state, and would miss an entire year of drills or more and make them up all at one lick with their vacation time from work. There is nothing the least bit out of the ordinary about that, and if you have your commander's approval, or even the approval of the subordinate who is handling the paperwork it won't even cost you disciplinary action. If you are doing it without prior approval you aren't (or weren't in the unit I was in) even likely to have disciplinary action started against you without first receiving several 'nastygrams' from your unit telling you to report in with an excuse.

Bush's service may very well not add up to 'war hero' status, but based on what I've seen so far, the claim that it was 'awol' or 'deserter' status is unmitigated bull.

I served the last 18 months of my enlistment listed on the rolls as 'constructively present' serving my duty at a base 1200 miles from my unit.

FPrice
February 8, 2004, 10:38 PM
"I see the true believers (or "Bushbots" as they are called on FreeRepublic) have come out to attack the messenger, instead of debating the message"

Mods - Please forgive me if I get out of line.

w4rma - We are not attacking you, we are merely exposing you for what you are. You have show the ability to use words you do not understand, you have shown the ability to cut and paste information you do not understand, and you have shown the inability to apply properly this information to the subject at hand.

If you did know anything about Air Force regulations you would know that each one has an introductory paragraph that explains in part it's applicability, especially in regards to the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard. Here is where your inability to understand military status REALLY shines!

Please go back and read the introduction to AFI 36-2911 and explain to us the difference between AD and IADT and how the legal definition of AWOL applies here. Betcha can't.

The thing you cannot possibly fathom is how much those of us in the military are laughing at you right now. You are desperately trying to prove a point that does not exist. And the sad thing is you don't know it.

Mike Irwin
February 8, 2004, 11:28 PM
"That being said, however, I would like to know how much time w4rma has spent in the United States military, either Active or Reserve Component."

Oh, I bet about as much time as I've spent in the US military...

0.

Malone LaVeigh
February 8, 2004, 11:44 PM
I understand that the levels of reading comprehension have gone down in this country, however, what is your understanding of the phrase "at times" in this context? Grasping at straws, now, are we?

Since your comprehension is obviously so greater than mine, why don't you enlighten me as to what that has to do with who he was addressing. Remember, I was the poster who had just uttered a discouraging word against the chorus.

BTW, my intention in making the post in which I said I thought Luke's remarks were about me was an attempt at humor to disarm some of the tension. I thought I'd respond to his ad homenium attack with something other than a counter insult. Guess I was counting on a little more reading comprehension than was available.

Thumper
February 9, 2004, 12:03 AM
Wow, Malone, I know you're not that thick. Go reread and see if you can't figure all that out. I just found it funny that you all thought he was talking about you, personally.

Anyway, I don't want to dilute the point of the thread any further.

Back on topic: Don't you think it's interesting that two Air Guard members have weighed in to refute this silliness, and yet you still cling to the hope that the AWOL claims are true?

You still believe "they" got to the General, Malone?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
February 9, 2004, 02:36 AM
Malone LaVeigh:

I thought I'd respond to his ad homenium attack with something other than a counter insult. Guess I was counting on a little more reading comprehension than was available.

I don't believe I made any ad hominem attack. In fact I was objecting to another posters regular ad hominem attacks against me and others, and objecting in general to that persons conduct.

I was not directing my comments at you or W4rma.

Or is "troll" just anyone that doesn't fit his stereotype about gun owners

No, a troll in my estimation would be someone; who continues to harp on a thread that ended for everyone else weeks ago; who constantly throws out accustations of lying; who makes repeated snide baiting insults to try and keep an argument going; who does this while following others from thread to thread; all to satisfy a very childish need for attention. I almost feel sorry for anyone like that. It must genuinely suck to be them, living a "life" where something as trivial in reality as an internet forum has such apparent importance.

And where exactly have I stereotyped gun owners? To the best of my recollection we have gay, straight, male, female, young, old, white, black, asian, hispanic, rightwing, leftwing, etc. on THR.

HunterGatherer
February 9, 2004, 02:51 AM
That being said, however, I would like to know how much time w4rma has spent in the United States military, either Active or Reserve Component.Hang in there LawDog! I'm sure he'll post his DD214 any minute now. *chuckle* :pI don't think that paperwork means what w4rma thinks it means... ;) Sean, you are killin' me dude! :D

yayarx7
February 9, 2004, 02:59 AM
I would like to clear up a few things that seem to be misunderstood here about AFIs (Air Force Instructions). There is a large difference in reality and AFIs. Note that they used to be AFRs, for regulations, now they are simply instructions. In the AFI if I am to report in to drill at 0700 on the scheduled drill weekend, then at 0700:05 I am AWOL. In reality I am probably not even late enough for anyone to notice. In the AFIs if I feel a bit under the weather and call up my supervisor and say I am not going to be there for drill I am AWOL. In reality it is all good and they probably are happy I bothered to call. Note this only applies to Air Guard, the Army Guard sends out MPs to drag your butt to drill. In the AFIs you are charged when you do not bother to show up for drill, in reality you get a phone call and maybe a letter. Then maybe after a year or two they discharge you, dishonorably.

So the man took the year off. Get over it. Find something else. Find a girl on the side. Dig up his past drug use. Mention his spending. Toss in the Patriot Act. Just drop this one. It is not winnable.

:neener: Besides, I bet he kept all his medals. :neener:

agricola
February 9, 2004, 05:32 AM
ah,

So now we get to the nub of things.

Coolhand, its important to look back to that thread because it illustrates that something that is posted by yourself has a rather good chance of being wrong. I would also like to draw your attention to the ad hominem attack you believe I made:

so has proof been found that Bush reported in?

Which merited a response of:

It's not my decision. Oleg Volk owns this forum. He and the moderators decide whose participation is desired. At times it seems that their forebearance toward one poster is misplaced, albiet understandable from the standpoint of forebearance towards the mentally ill. Luckily, the ignore button always does the trick in dealing with that poster who seemingly can't rise above wallowing in childish taunts and insults, let alone offer an informed opinion on gun ownership.

Oh, and as it happens, I am not the one who pressed the "report post" button more than once, so I guess I can't care as much as some about winning or losing debates.

Jonesy9
February 9, 2004, 09:36 AM
Why did Bush lie about releasing his military records yesterday on Meet the Press? He refused to release them in 2000 but claimed yesterday he did.


MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely.

We did so in 2000, by the way.



So now we'll see if the press can follow up on this and hold him to it.


I have no problem with Bush pulling strings to dodge Vietnam, he's an elite and likely would have been hurt by his own troops for incompetence. He did what he needed to do to stay alive. I'm sure some one filled his spot and took up the slack.

the Newsmax article is garbage, I can't belive any one can take it seriously. LOL!


Bottom line, we still know that Bush got out of his commitment early but we don't know if he was AWOL for a year. We don't know why he skipped medical exams that got him banned from flying.

I've heard of other people who did not finish their committments but still got honorable discharges. I think Bush had the pull to get that done. Either way, the jury is still out on this issue.

GSB
February 9, 2004, 11:19 AM
I have no problem with Bush pulling strings to dodge Vietnam, he's an elite and likely would have been hurt by his own troops for incompetence.

I'm so glad that the disposition toward juvenile character assassination popularized by DemocraticUnderground has made way over to The "High" Road. :rolleyes:

Shooter 2.5
February 9, 2004, 11:37 AM
GSB,
I've noticed more Bush Bashing as the election is closer. At least Bush is proud that he served and honors the men and women in uniform His role as Commander in chief has saved countless lives. We were even concerned about the lives of the enemy. We liberated Afghanstan, Iraq and are disarming Libya. That's three for three.

The bottom line is the dems are still the party of the Jane Fonda's and Chicago Seven. Just because they're wearing suits these days doesn't mean a lot. they are not proud of our military. They are not proud the countries have a chance at freedom. Their solution would have been another bombed out aspirin factory.

Jonesy9
February 9, 2004, 11:39 AM
GSB- 2 facts and one opinion are not "juvenile charater assassination". I'm sorry that your first reaction to this post was to be dishonest with your spin, I guess the truth hurts.

Shooter 2.5
February 9, 2004, 11:52 AM
Americans in Vietnam had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam." Kerry testified, "We all did it."

Uh, wait one second there. Why on earth do we want a commander-in-chief who's an admitted war criminal???

FPrice
February 9, 2004, 04:17 PM
this thread to be closed soon. It has gone far beyond any reason for continued existance.

The anti-Bush people cannot let go of their twisting of the truth.

The pro-Bush people cannot cannot get their point across without being accused of character assassination (what is what the anti's are doing).

And the Mod that closes this thread is going to be accused of hiding the truth about Bush.

Kinda makes you glad to be a part of the whole election process, doesn't it.

HunterGatherer
February 9, 2004, 04:28 PM
The anti-Bush people cannot let go of their twisting of the truth.Credit where credit is due though. Ya gotta love that w4rma went to the trouble of posting paperwork that refutes his position. He'll always have a special place in my heart.
;) :D

Correia
February 9, 2004, 04:50 PM
"And the Mod that closes this thread is going to be accused of hiding the truth about Bush." -Fprice


Like I give a flying crap. :)

CLOSED!

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush Guard Commander Recants AWOL Charge" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!