For those of us who have served, either by one's own admission (volunteer) or drafted into duty, we had to go by the military rules or pay the severe consequences! We had very little choices if any at all. For those who were drafted, as in many cases, it destroyed their home life as to serve in our govt's war. Lets examine the truth behind GW Bush's service records and just how it works for the privilaged to wear the military uniform of America. For it is the privilaged, much like our Neocons, who always get special treatment. GW Bush's military record will display exactly just that.
http://www.glcq.com/
THE AWOL PROJECT
An Examination of the Bush Military Files
Albert Lloyd, The Media, And The 50 Point Big Lie, Part 1: The Big Lie, And The Media In 2000 The White House has been claiming that Bush “fulfilled his duty” based on a lie---that all Bush was required to do was get “50 points per retirement year.” Part 1 explains why this is a lie, and exposes the “mainstream” media’s reliance upon a politically corrupt and compromised former Texas Air National Guard official for its understanding of Bush’s requirements. Part 1 also examines the media reporting of the “big lie” during the 2000 campaign. Part 2 (not yet available) will look at how the media has relied upon the “big lie” during the 2004 campaign---despite efforts to provide them with the facts.
ARPC, & The 50 Point Big Lie A companion piece to the above article. Less than five months after Bush took over the White House, the Air Force created a web page with lies about Bush’s requirements. They went so far as to claim that prior to 1978, Air Force regulations never had a “fiscal year training requirement.” The AWOL Project has Air Force regulations proving that this is wrong---and not just a mistake. The Air Force backed up this “error” with obviously erroneous citations of the law of the United States of America And within hours of having their lie brought to their attention, the Air Force tried to hide the evidence…but The AWOL Project saved the evidence. As it turns out, the ARPC web site is controlled by its Public Affairs department, headed by Lt. Col. Thomas A. Deall. In 2000, Deall told the Boston Globe that ARPC had reviewed Bush’s records, and found that Bush had met “minimum drill requirements. When asked about the criteria used for making that statement, Deall lied about the requirements, and now refuses to answer any questions related to the ARPC “review” of Bush’s records.
Full Version: Examination of the Bush Military Files
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > U.S. Military Issues > U.S. Military Issues Archive
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1827
Media Should Probe Bigger Questions About Bush's Record
9/14/04
In the past week, a handful of stories have cast doubt on whether George W. Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations 30 years ago. Reports by the Associated Press (9/7/04), Boston Globe (9/8/04) and U.S. News & World Report (9/20/04) have all raised new questions about Bush's military service. Though each of these stories has been accompanied by significant official documentation, developments in the investigations by AP , U.S. News and the Boston Globe have been largely sidetracked by the fixation on questions about the authenticity of documents aired on CBS on September 8.
Weighing the credibility of evidence is an essential function of journalism. Experts have weighed in on both sides on the authenticity of CBS 's so-called Killian memos (New York Times , 9/14/04; Washington Post , 9/14/04); efforts to establish the origin of those documents should continue. However, news outlets that focus on this tangent of the National Guard story to the exclusion of the unchallenged new evidence that has recently emerged are neglecting another essential journalistic task: holding powerful people and politicians accountable.
In the wake of the stories scrutinizing Bush's stateside service during the Vietnam era, it's hard to imagine a better situation for the White House than to have the press corps ignore a range of evidence raising questions about Bush's fulfillment of his obligations while obsessing singularly on one set of documents from one story.
A review of some of the information uncovered in recent news reports:
-The September 7 Associated Press story, based on new records the White House had long maintained didn't exist, debunked a Bush assertion that he'd skipped his flight physical because the jet he was trained on was becoming obsolete. According to AP , Bush's unit continued to fly the same jets for two years after the missed physical.
-The September 8 Boston Globe expose concluded that Bush failed in his military obligations by missing months of duty in Alabama and in Boston. As the Globe revealed, Bush had signed contracts on two separate occasions swearing to meet minimum Guard requirements on penalty of being called up to active duty. According to the military experts consulted by the Globe , Bush's Guard attendance was so bad "his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974."
-U.S News & World Report (9/20/04) reviewed National Guard regulations and reported that the White House has been using "an inappropriate-- and less stringent-- Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty." The magazine noted that Bush committed to attend at least "44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year" when he signed up for the Guard, but that Bush's own records "show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period." The magazine explains that even by using the White House's preferred methodology for measuring Bush's service, he still fell short of those minimum requirements.
-An NBC Nightly News segment (9/9/04) played a clip of Bush being interviewed in 1988, acknowledging that favoritism sometimes played a part in getting into the National Guard. While he had said that he didn't think that happened in his case, he did voice his approval of the practice: "If you want to go in the National Guard, I guess sometimes people made calls. I don't see anything wrong with it." (He continued with a remark that could be taken as an insult to the men and women who did face combat during the war: ''They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we'd have done better in Vietnam.")
-Even CBS 's September 8 broadcasts , the subject of so much scrutiny, included important information beyond what is contained in the disputed memos. On the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II that night, CBS featured Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas legislature, describing how he used his political influence to help a young George W. Bush bypass a waiting list and secure a coveted position in the Guard. In addition, the CBS stories also featured an interview with Robert Strong, a former colleague of Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the purported author of the disputed documents. Strong described the pressure Bush's commander was working under: "He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, dealing with the son of an ambassador and a former congressman.... And I just saw him in an impossible situation. I felt very, very sorry because he was between a rock and a hard place."
Instead of asking the White House tough questions about the well-documented information contained in these reports, media have focused almost exclusively on the claims and counter-claims made about the Killian memos-- as if the discrepancies over Bush's service record stand or fall based on this one set of disputed documents. It's the equivalent of covering the sideshow and ignoring the center ring.
Media Should Probe Bigger Questions About Bush's Record
9/14/04
In the past week, a handful of stories have cast doubt on whether George W. Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations 30 years ago. Reports by the Associated Press (9/7/04), Boston Globe (9/8/04) and U.S. News & World Report (9/20/04) have all raised new questions about Bush's military service. Though each of these stories has been accompanied by significant official documentation, developments in the investigations by AP , U.S. News and the Boston Globe have been largely sidetracked by the fixation on questions about the authenticity of documents aired on CBS on September 8.
Weighing the credibility of evidence is an essential function of journalism. Experts have weighed in on both sides on the authenticity of CBS 's so-called Killian memos (New York Times , 9/14/04; Washington Post , 9/14/04); efforts to establish the origin of those documents should continue. However, news outlets that focus on this tangent of the National Guard story to the exclusion of the unchallenged new evidence that has recently emerged are neglecting another essential journalistic task: holding powerful people and politicians accountable.
In the wake of the stories scrutinizing Bush's stateside service during the Vietnam era, it's hard to imagine a better situation for the White House than to have the press corps ignore a range of evidence raising questions about Bush's fulfillment of his obligations while obsessing singularly on one set of documents from one story.
A review of some of the information uncovered in recent news reports:
-The September 7 Associated Press story, based on new records the White House had long maintained didn't exist, debunked a Bush assertion that he'd skipped his flight physical because the jet he was trained on was becoming obsolete. According to AP , Bush's unit continued to fly the same jets for two years after the missed physical.
-The September 8 Boston Globe expose concluded that Bush failed in his military obligations by missing months of duty in Alabama and in Boston. As the Globe revealed, Bush had signed contracts on two separate occasions swearing to meet minimum Guard requirements on penalty of being called up to active duty. According to the military experts consulted by the Globe , Bush's Guard attendance was so bad "his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974."
-U.S News & World Report (9/20/04) reviewed National Guard regulations and reported that the White House has been using "an inappropriate-- and less stringent-- Air Force standard in determining that he had fulfilled his duty." The magazine noted that Bush committed to attend at least "44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year" when he signed up for the Guard, but that Bush's own records "show that he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the 1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period." The magazine explains that even by using the White House's preferred methodology for measuring Bush's service, he still fell short of those minimum requirements.
-An NBC Nightly News segment (9/9/04) played a clip of Bush being interviewed in 1988, acknowledging that favoritism sometimes played a part in getting into the National Guard. While he had said that he didn't think that happened in his case, he did voice his approval of the practice: "If you want to go in the National Guard, I guess sometimes people made calls. I don't see anything wrong with it." (He continued with a remark that could be taken as an insult to the men and women who did face combat during the war: ''They probably should have called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we'd have done better in Vietnam.")
-Even CBS 's September 8 broadcasts , the subject of so much scrutiny, included important information beyond what is contained in the disputed memos. On the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II that night, CBS featured Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the Texas legislature, describing how he used his political influence to help a young George W. Bush bypass a waiting list and secure a coveted position in the Guard. In addition, the CBS stories also featured an interview with Robert Strong, a former colleague of Bush's commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the purported author of the disputed documents. Strong described the pressure Bush's commander was working under: "He was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, dealing with the son of an ambassador and a former congressman.... And I just saw him in an impossible situation. I felt very, very sorry because he was between a rock and a hard place."
Instead of asking the White House tough questions about the well-documented information contained in these reports, media have focused almost exclusively on the claims and counter-claims made about the Killian memos-- as if the discrepancies over Bush's service record stand or fall based on this one set of disputed documents. It's the equivalent of covering the sideshow and ignoring the center ring.
Hey ghost, got anything anybody over the age of twelve hasn't already heard about yet?
QUOTE(Marine @ Aug 11 2005, 05:16 PM)
Hey ghost, got anything anybody over the age of twelve hasn't already heard about yet?
Ya might give yourself a call
NOTE: THIS IS A WORKING DRAFT FOR COMMENT, AND IS PART OF THE AWOL PROJECT, A LARGE SERIES OF ARTICLES EXAMINING BUSH’S MILITARY RECORDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE FEDERAL STATUTES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGULATIONS, AND AIR FORCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF THAT ERA.
COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO awol@glcq.com.
(This is a “text only” version, without the embedded graphics that appear in the original. By clinking on the italicized links you will be able to see the graphics that were originally embedded at that point in the text.)
http://www.glcq.com/fraud_text.htm
FRAUD
The Secrets of Bush’s Payroll Records Revealed
SUMMARY
On February 10, 2004, the White House released George W Bush’s quarterly payroll summaries for his last year in the Texas Air National Guard, claiming that they proved that Bush had “fulfilled his duties” as a member of the US Armed Forces. However, An examination of these records within the context of laws and policies of that time reveals that at least half (and as much as two thirds) of the pay and “points” credited toward Bush’s mandatory monthly training were fraudulent. When one deducts these fraudulent points from Bush’s records, Bush does not achieve the minimum number of points under the White House’s own (erroneous) criteria.
It is likely that the White House is unaware of what the payroll records reveal, because the most damning information is buried in lines of “incomprehensible” data found at the bottom of the payroll reports. This article breaks that code, and shows that Bush repeatedly claimed credit and pay for performing “substitute training” for mandatory monthly drills with his unit that was well outside the time limits set for “substitute training.” And although he was required to get advance authorization for all training, the public record shows that Bush could not have received the necessary authorizations for “training” performed in Alabama .
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
UTAs AND SUBSTITUTE DUTY
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND BUSH’S CONTROL?
TIME LIMITS FOR SUBSTITUTE TRAINING
FRAUDULENT PAY AND CREDIT FOR “SUBSTITUTE TRAINING”
PAY DATES, AND FRAUD
PAY AND POINT FRAUD, AND THE WHITE HOUSE CRITERIA FOR “SATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION”
THE NON-EXISTENT PAPER TRAIL
THE QUESTION OF UNAUTHORIZED TRAINING
The “Substitute Training” for March UTAs
The “Substitute Training” for January and February UTAs
The Statements of Alabama Officials
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX 1: THE PURPOSE OF “UNIT TRAINING”, AND “SUBSTITUTE TRAINING”
APPENDIX 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAYROLL DATA
UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSACTION DATA LINES
UNDERSTANDING THE "TRANSACTION INFORMATION" SECTION
APPENDIX 3 THE PAPER TRAIL FOR NON-EXISTENT TRAINING
APPENDIX 4: THE APRIL MYSTERY
APPENDIX 5--ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PAYROLL RECORDS
COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO awol@glcq.com.
(This is a “text only” version, without the embedded graphics that appear in the original. By clinking on the italicized links you will be able to see the graphics that were originally embedded at that point in the text.)
http://www.glcq.com/fraud_text.htm
FRAUD
The Secrets of Bush’s Payroll Records Revealed
SUMMARY
On February 10, 2004, the White House released George W Bush’s quarterly payroll summaries for his last year in the Texas Air National Guard, claiming that they proved that Bush had “fulfilled his duties” as a member of the US Armed Forces. However, An examination of these records within the context of laws and policies of that time reveals that at least half (and as much as two thirds) of the pay and “points” credited toward Bush’s mandatory monthly training were fraudulent. When one deducts these fraudulent points from Bush’s records, Bush does not achieve the minimum number of points under the White House’s own (erroneous) criteria.
It is likely that the White House is unaware of what the payroll records reveal, because the most damning information is buried in lines of “incomprehensible” data found at the bottom of the payroll reports. This article breaks that code, and shows that Bush repeatedly claimed credit and pay for performing “substitute training” for mandatory monthly drills with his unit that was well outside the time limits set for “substitute training.” And although he was required to get advance authorization for all training, the public record shows that Bush could not have received the necessary authorizations for “training” performed in Alabama .
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
UTAs AND SUBSTITUTE DUTY
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND BUSH’S CONTROL?
TIME LIMITS FOR SUBSTITUTE TRAINING
FRAUDULENT PAY AND CREDIT FOR “SUBSTITUTE TRAINING”
PAY DATES, AND FRAUD
PAY AND POINT FRAUD, AND THE WHITE HOUSE CRITERIA FOR “SATISFACTORY PARTICIPATION”
THE NON-EXISTENT PAPER TRAIL
THE QUESTION OF UNAUTHORIZED TRAINING
The “Substitute Training” for March UTAs
The “Substitute Training” for January and February UTAs
The Statements of Alabama Officials
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX 1: THE PURPOSE OF “UNIT TRAINING”, AND “SUBSTITUTE TRAINING”
APPENDIX 2: UNDERSTANDING THE PAYROLL DATA
UNDERSTANDING THE TRANSACTION DATA LINES
UNDERSTANDING THE "TRANSACTION INFORMATION" SECTION
APPENDIX 3 THE PAPER TRAIL FOR NON-EXISTENT TRAINING
APPENDIX 4: THE APRIL MYSTERY
APPENDIX 5--ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PAYROLL RECORDS
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.