Bush AWOL documents fake?

A 1968 document from the president's military file
This reminds me of Bush's photograph in uniform wearing medals to which he was not entitled and did not earn. Such an ego! ---BBB

Unwitting Drudge indicts Bush
A 1968 document from the president's military file, posted on the Internet, merely reminds us of how far short he fell in fulfilling his service commitments.
By Eric Boehlert
Sept. 14, 2004 |

Attempting to bolster President Bush as he continues to stonewall questions about his Texas Air National Guard service, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a 1968 document from Bush's military personnel file Monday afternoon that purports to buttress a long-ago claim by Bush that he served not only in the Texas Air National Guard but in the Air Force as well. Although this "exclusive" Drudge posting is a trivial sidebar to the larger story of Bush's absence from two years of military service, the document itself -- presumably provided to Drudge by a Republican operative -- turns out to be an incriminating piece of evidence against Bush's case.

The Air Force claim arose in 1978, when Bush ran unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives from west Texas. During the campaign he produced literature in which he said he had served in the Air Force as well as the Texas Air National Guard. Pressed by the Associated Press in 1999 about the claim, Bush's spokeswoman, handler and biographer, Karen Hughes, insisted the assertion was accurate. Her explanation: As part of his 1968 training to become a Guard pilot, Bush served 120 days of active duty; therefore he served in the Air Force.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I will note here that The Swiftboat Vets have not had to retract or restate a single of their claims,

That they choose not to retract things that factcheck.org, as well as others, have proven to be falsehoods/untruths/lies (pick your language) is not something you should be holding up to the light, timber.

Personally, I'm still waiting to hear that Mr. Thurlow has returned his own citation.

0 Replies

Re: A 1968 document from the president's military file

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

This reminds me of Bush's photograph in uniform wearing medals to which he was not entitled and did not earn. Such an ego! ---BBB

Unwitting Drudge indicts Bush
A 1968 document from the president's military file, posted on the Internet, merely reminds us of how far short he fell in fulfilling his service commitments.
By Eric Boehlert
Sept. 14, 2004 |

Attempting to bolster President Bush as he continues to stonewall questions about his Texas Air National Guard service, Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted a 1968 document from Bush's military personnel file Monday afternoon that purports to buttress a long-ago claim by Bush that he served not only in the Texas Air National Guard but in the Air Force as well. Although this "exclusive" Drudge posting is a trivial sidebar to the larger story of Bush's absence from two years of military service, the document itself -- presumably provided to Drudge by a Republican operative -- turns out to be an incriminating piece of evidence against Bush's case.

The Air Force claim arose in 1978, when Bush ran unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives from west Texas. During the campaign he produced literature in which he said he had served in the Air Force as well as the Texas Air National Guard. Pressed by the Associated Press in 1999 about the claim, Bush's spokeswoman, handler and biographer, Karen Hughes, insisted the assertion was accurate. Her explanation: As part of his 1968 training to become a Guard pilot, Bush served 120 days of active duty; therefore he served in the Air Force.

apparently you missed this thread... http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=906314#906314

Either that or perhaps you ignored it on purpose because it doesn't fit in with you particular brand of hate? Whichever it is, this has been lain to rest and you are wrong.

Wait, I'll do it for you because I wouldn't want you to confront a differing opinion...

Rolling Eyes

scroll

0 Replies

well, I was told by a reliable source (my grandfather) that the Grand Canyon was a WPA project and that it's really just chickenwire and paper mache but it put 100,000's of men and women back to work effectively ending the great american depression. My grandfather was an honest man so I believed him. Bty, the great american depression did end so we have proof of my grandfathers story. Neither the Bush family nor the Kerry family participated in the WPA so I can only assume they were against ending the great american depression. I had a minor depression once. It was on the left front fender of my '48 Packard but Eisenhower was president then and he didn't support the WPA either cause he was a republican.
Liberals=against depression
Conservatives=cause depressions
Anarchists have dents.

0 Replies

That was the Hoover dam, not the grand canyon.

0 Replies

Dys

Dys, this is one of your best!

BBB Laughing

0 Replies

Lets just go do a little FactCheckin'

Quote:

FactCheck: Democratic Group's Ad Revives "AWOL" Allegation Against Bush

"Texans for Truth" group features another Alabama Guardsman who doesn't recall seeing Bush in 1972.

September 8, 2004
Modified: September 10, 2004

Summary

An ad unveiled Sept. 8 by the Democratic-leaning group "Texans for Truth" features a former officer in the Alabama Air National Guard saying neither he nor his friends saw George W. Bush at their unit in 1972, when Bush was temporarily assigned there.

The TV spot adds little to what was already known. Bush's pay records -- released nearly seven months earlier -- reflect a six-month gap in paid attendance during a time when he was working on an Alabama Senate campaign ...

... As might be imagined, the sponsoring organization is partisan. "Texans for Truth" describes itself as an offshoot of an Austin-based group called "DriveDemocracy.org," which in turn says it was "initially funded through a generous start-up grant from MoveOn.org," a liberal group dedicated to defeating Bush. Texans for Truth spokesman Glenn W. Smith is described by the Austin American-Statesman as a "long-time Democratic operative" and "Moveon.org's man in Austin." He ran Democrat Tony Sanchez's 2002 campaign for governor in the state ...

Quote:

FactCheck: New Evidence Supports Bush Military Service (Mostly)

Summary

With Democrats openly accusing President Bush of being "AWOL" from his Air National Guard service during the 1970's, the White House released personnel and payroll records showing Bush was paid and credited for service during the period in question. And despite a six-month gap in service while working on a Senate campaign in Alabama, Air Force Reserve records show Bush was credited with enough points to meet his requirements for that year -- barely ...

Quote:

FactCheck: Bush A Military "Deserter?" Calm Down, Michael
Clark backer Michael Moore calls President Bush a "deserter" for missing Air National Guard drills 31 years ago. Puh-lease!

Summary

This one has been around since Bush's campaign against Al Gore, when a Boston Globe story appeared saying the newspaper could find no record of Bush attending required Air National Guard drills for a full year in 1972-73. Bush says he missed some weekend drills during the period in question, but attended others and later attended extra drills to make up for those he missed. Several news organizations looked into the matter and reached mixed conclusions.

Websites devoted to criticizing Bush have kept the matter under discussion on the Internet ever since. It surfaced again when Michael Moore, the populist author and movie and TV producer, called Bush a "deserter" at a rally supporting retired Gen. Wesley Clark in New Hampshire. Clark then said during a debate that "I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this."

The fact is Bush was honorably discharged without ever being officially accused of desertion or being away without official leave ...

That, per FactCheck, anyway, pretty much exposes as purely partisan and puts to rest the ridiculous AWOL allegations.

Meanwhile, nowhere, despite a few mentions and discussions of apparent, if disputed, contradictions or inconsistencies, does FactCheck "debunk" any SBVT allegations.

0 Replies

Not only that but he accumulated over three times the points required, even his last two years earned 56 when 50 was the requirement.

May 1968 to May 1969 253 points
May 1969 to May 1970 340 points
May 1970 to May 1971 137 points
May 1971 to May 1972 112 points
May 1972 to May 1973 56 points
May 1973 to May 1974 56 points

0 Replies

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/102533.jpg

0 Replies

I think you know that is plainly untrue, Timber:

http://www.factcheck.org/MiscReports.aspx?docid=243

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Not only that but he accumulated over three times the points required, even his last two years earned 56 when 50 was the requirement.

May 1968 to May 1969 253 points
May 1969 to May 1970 340 points
May 1970 to May 1971 137 points
May 1971 to May 1972 112 points
May 1972 to May 1973 56 points
May 1973 to May 1974 56 points

I don't want to beat this dead horse, and I personally don't care about Bush's guard service, but I believe the 'points' issue is up for debate. There are those who say that the points you list were points earned toward retirement and not on the same yearly standard as points required to fulfill the obligation. There are others who say that it was the Guard's fiscal year that should be used.

0 Replies

Isn't Rather supposed to get fired today, or suspended? CBS is planning a news conference.

If it weren't for the bloggers, the whole country would've been sold this crap.

0 Replies

Timber, did you happen to extend your fact checking to the swifties?

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Timber, did you happen to extend your fact checking to the swifties?

Yes, I think it would be nice to see what was said about the SBV's. Fair is fair, after all.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Isn't Rather supposed to get fired today, or suspended? CBS is planning a news conference.

If it weren't for the bloggers, the whole country would've been sold this crap.

They are now saying 5pm.

0 Replies

This one seems to sum it up.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=231

I won't paste any of it since that would be changing the subject of the thread. Just thought it should be out there.

0 Replies

This scandal is going to reach deep into the Democratic Party. The release of the Democrat's "Operation Fortunate Son" sure looks like it was timed to be released with the CBS/Dan Rather 60 Minutes story.

What's going to happen if it is discovered that this points right at a Democratic National Commitee conspiracy?

Every journalist wants to be the hero who uncovers the next Watergate, which is why the media is going nuts. They also sense that there is something pretty fishy going on......

0 Replies

No, LW, the article merely points to an apparent discrepancy, not to a proven contradiction. FactCheck neither supports nor refutes Kerry's critics or supporters re the SBVT allegations. On the other hand, FactCheck unambiguously refutes, at least per their articles, the Bush/Awol crowd.

0 Replies

There's going to be an investigation.

It is surmised that CBS as in on perpetrating fraud. This may be interesting. I never witnesed what happens to a media outlet, involved in using the airwaves for propaganda...et al...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6004644/

Sorry it's not clickable. I wrote in the Quick Reply before remembering there's no URL addition gizmo down here...

I smell Carville and/or Begala. But, I'm sure they wouldn't get their OWN manicured hands on this. Some poor sot is about to go to Federal prison--and somebody at CBS is going to be on the Chain Gang...

Anyway, this happened almost simultaneous with the merging of Clinton's gang into Kerry's camp...

The worst crooks in politics.

I'm pissed that it didn't have a big place on MSNBC's front page. The media is trying to minimize the story.

0 Replies

cbs introduces the sources who came forward with the ang and killian documents at the press conference. documents are proven to be legit.

i am not saying that this is what will happen. but, i am curious what the the response of the republican members of our discussion here will be if it does happen.

i don't bring this up in a confrontational tone, btw.

0 Replies

Bush AWOL documents fake?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know