On one of my deployments I had to take my medical records with me and take the physical at a deployment base because they couldn't schedule a flight surgeon at my home base.

Because of what I did in the back of the aircraft, if I couldn't fly the mission didn't fly and there would be several people with eagles and stars waiting for me when I got home by tramp steamer after being grounded.

It was made quite clear that the Air Force intended to create negative stripes if I didn't get a flight physical.

The media just refuses to look at the issue. They have military consultants who could explain it to them. They should get a hint from the fact that the people who have been pointing to this problem are veterans.

So, after disobeying a written order to get the physical, he "disappears" (he told everyone he went to work for a campaign in Alabama) and never returned. I believe that meets the UCMJ's definition of desertion. Then, magically, when the term of his contract expired, he received an Honorable Discharge certificate in the mail. No separation physical, no final evaluation report, no final paycheck, no closing of the records. Just a discharge.

How convenient to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth and the son of a powerful Congressman.

I like that line of attack that we're likely to see if it becomes an issue: “an aging colonel’s inability to recall one man out of thousands.”

Everyone we know who served usually remembers the people who were in their unit quite well.

Give the man some respect ... he made it to general before he retired, after all, and let’s also recall how three other guys in that same unit have offered money, so far unclaimed, to anyone who can prove Bush was in it and did his drills.

Also, let's remember that Bush checked the box on his Guard application specifically saying that he did not want to be deployed overseas, that discussions were underway already to take the F102A out of service at that time as indeed it was shortly thereafter (and why did the TAG decide that it was such a great idea to invest all that time and money training someone on a plane whose future was dubious?) when they suggest that there was a realistic chance he could have gone to Nam.

And, if this is such a non-issue, why did his campaign lean so hard on the Texas Air Guard to allow them to review and revise his records? Why did DoD suddenly take down the web page with all the separation program code numbers shortly after Dec. 12, 2000. We remember you, back on blogspot, going over all this a while back.

For me, this issue proves the emasculation of the SCLM more than any other. More than the "Texas school miracle" in Houston, more than the "youthful indiscretion" DWI in Maine. The facts have been there all along but no mainstream media type (the ones making 6 and 7 figures) dare ask about it. To go onto this issue now exposes their incompetence and/or lack of objectivity on this issue in 2000.
Remember then? One candidate was a son of priviledge who ENLISTED as a private into the US ARMY (against the advice/wishes of his Senator/Father). Why? To prevent the draft from calling up another young man in a Tennessee hometown where the Harvard grad no longer lived! This candidate was then deployed to VIETNAM, and although in a REMF job, went willingly to the battlefield. And, 35 years later, these facts were skillfully ignored by both sides as a sazzling political newcomer arrived on the scene by trashing the honorable service of a formwer POW. Churns my stomach to this day.
So yes, Americans, during this time of "war", it is imminently fair that we discuss the service (prior and present) of the candidates. But, no matter who the Dem nominee is, let's not forget those who served with honor.
SP

Thanks Jo, I always thought the Refusal to Obey a Direct Order aspect would be the easier to drive home, it doesn't require proving a negative, the evidence is right there. He was ordered to take a flight physical - he didn't.

A selection of .gif's of documents on the ever so slightly ironically titled Military Records of GWB can be found here: http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

And everyone should be linked to awolbush.com
http://awolbush.com/

The truth has been out there, hell half of the left web sites spell Bush 'aWol', but the debate question to Clark finally put the ball in play. (Tho to his credit Begala has been pushing this in a small way on Crossfire.)

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/grounded.gif

Check out paragraph six: "failure to accomplish". Pretty much sums up Bush's whole career.

I am a ten year veteran of the USN. I am not a lawyer. I am a veteran of several fairly minor brushes with the UCMJ(overslept).

Dumbya deserted. One part of article 85 of the UCMJ deals with desertion to avoid or shirk hazardous and/or important duty. There is no (watch my lips)no mention of length of absence or intent to stay absent.

Clearly, dumbya did not want to take that flight physical. Given that it was necessary to maintain his flight status, I would say it qualifies as "important duty". As he had previously disobyed a direct order, he could well have been put on active duty and sent to 'Nam. So it would appear that he avoided "hazardous duty" as well.

It should be incumbent on the presidunce to address these allegations and disprove them if such can be done. The state held up their end of the contract he willingly signed.

Bush deserted. If you think there is any wiggle room in that charge, I suggest that you review the public facts and the UCMJ article 85.

s.m. dupree
CTO USN '73-'83

Interesting post, Jo. While Dumbya did indeed disobey a direct order to perform his flight physical, I'm not completely surprised that he was never disciplined for the same.

Shortly after I was released from active duty (as a Navy JAG, for those of y'all who haven't made my acquaintance yet) I was consulted by a sailor (a non-drilling inactive reservist) who'd received a direct order to proceed to a physical examination. During a weekend flailex back in the mid-80's (where, as I recall every inactive reservist (including yours truly) was recalled to one day's active duty at her/his nearest Navy-MC Reserve Center--the USN wanted to prove that they could recall all those inactive reservists if they had to). While on his one day of active duty, he had to fill out a medical screening questionnaire, on which he indicated that a civilian doctor had (since his release from active duty) told him that he might have hypertension (high blood pressure). About two months after the flailex, he received written orders via the mail directing him to submit to a medical examination by a civilian doctor and forward the doctor's report to USNR HQ (or something like that). When he'd came to consult me, he'd received three such orders in the mail (including the first one), all of which he blew off.

Since, when he consulted me, he was about four weeks away from the date when he was eligible for complete discharge from the Reserves, I advised him to keep mum about his failure to obey the orders to get examined and submit a request for discharge from the Naval Reserve effective the date he became eligible for discharge. The discharge request was quite efficiently handled, and within another six weeks he held in his hands both a Certificate of Honorable Discharge and a letter from whoever was Deputy SECNAV for Personnel (or whatever was the appropriate Department of the Navy functionary) thanking him for six years of honorable service to our country. IIRC, nothing more was said about him getting a medical exam, though after he received the discharge certificate he could, of course, blow any such orders off with impunity.

So I can't get too incensed about Dumbya's failure to disobey orders; I helped a sailor do the same thing. But I am incensed that the SCLM didn't jump on Dumbya's failure to obey orders and his going AWOL, instead of allowing him to claim honorable service to his country.

More hearsay. Nothing more than slander. WHERE'S THE PROOF?

Len, good letter. But isn't there a great deal of difference between an inactive reservist who realistically never would be called to duty ducking a physical and an active commissioned officer reservist who effectively removed himself from flight duty by doing so?

And for the Magnificant one. Try reading paragraph 6 of the grounded.gif (document). He was ordered to take a physical, the result was a "failure to accomplish" and required subsequent removal from flying duty.

It would be interesting to know what happened to MAJ James R. Bath, the officer cited in para. 7 for the same infraction as Dumbya. My guess is that he either complied or got roasted.

LeftyUSNVet
LCDR MC USNR-R

He could simply release his military records. Wouldn't that answer these questions?

It seems to me that the point being over looked in the Bush AWOL debate is not whether he was absent for either seven or seveteen months of his obligated service. The fact is he simply didn't do what he took an oath to do and that is serve as an interceptor pilot with the Air National Guard. As a Naval Aviator who served from 1965 to 1971 on active duty incuding over a year in Viet Nam and on the carrier off the coast I view those who went into the National Guard during that period with some skepticism. Never the less service in the National Guard did play a valid place in the National Defense Policy. The unit in which Bush served was part of the Air Defense Command (ADC) whose duty was then as now to patrol the borders and intercept any hostile aircraft. The National Guard made up a significant portion of the ADC. Pilots in ADC stood alert duty and prowled the air as a barrier against airborne intrusion. That is what Bush promised to do. What he did after being admitted on the basis of political favors was to fly the T-33 a korean war vintage trainer for several months and the F-102 for about a year before he went to Alabama to campaign for Blount. Whether or not he skipped drill is to me secondary to the issue of failing to serve as the interceptor pilot the government spent so much money training him to do. When he went to Alabama it would have been no problem to return on weekends for his drill. For 3 years after leaving active duty I served as a pilot in a reserve A-4 squadron traveling over 200 miles for drill to our station in Memphis TN. Many of our pilots traveled from as far away as Boston, Minneapolis,Atlanta, Kansas City and St. Louis. It would been no problem for Bush the son of a milionaire to hop a plane for the quick trip back to Houston for his drill weekend. He chose not to do so. And when he did return whether or not he showed up for drill he clearly did not do what he promised to do and what got him out of Viet Nam service. I suppose he sat a round the airport and drank coffee while picking up a drill check but he chose not to perform the service for which he trained. And by the way, take this from one who's entitled to wear them, riding as a passenger aboard an air craft carrier dressed up like a pilot doesn't win you the right to wear the wings of gold.

Jim Price says, quite correctly, "The fact is he simply didn't do what he took an oath to do" and that is true, but it is equally true of his oath of office as president. He likes to refer to the "oath he took" when talking about how many evil doers he is willing to see slain to keep us poor cowaring folk "safe." But the fact is, the president's oath of office does not obligate him to see to our safety; rather it commits him to protect and defend the constituion - quite a different thing - and one that Bush can't pretend to have lived up to.

According to the constitution, any treaty, once approved by congress and signed by the president, is to be considered part of the supreme law of the land, i.e., the constitution. By invading Iraq, a country that had not attacked us, in defiance of the U.N.'s wishes, Bush violated the U.N. Charter - a solemn treaty that we are commited to respect - and thus violated his oath of office.

This is an impeachable offense.

I would like to make a post in this august forum as a person who served in the US Navy for 20 years.. I am a retired CPO and retired out in 1974 I spent 5 years of my life both on land and in the waters surrounding Viet Nam. As an enlisted man I took an oath upon enlisting and again upon re-enlisting as I continued in my Navy career. Upon my making Chief Petty Officer I was honored by taking another oath, this one not only to my country, but to my brothers the group of senior enlisted personnel in the US Navy. I was bound by those oaths to serve and obey those appointed over me, my country, and its leaders. I believed in these oaths and still do even though my country had lied to me many times about the reasons I was placed in harms way or inconvenienced, and even not paid for several months at a time. My honor said no matter what I gave my word that I will do what needs to be done to protect and serve those under me, along side of me and those above me.. Honor is just that, you are bound by your word, you cannot say "Hell, I am having a great time on this 72 and so what if I don't go back to duty for another day, what is it going to matter, the job will get done by someone, no biggie." The chain has been broken, you have taken someone with another job to do and place him in a position to have to do what you were supposed to have done and this very process happens adinfinitum throught your whole unit. We were all taught this from the lowly seaman recruit and the midshipman. Lt. GW Bush had to know these things, he couldn't have gotten thru knife and fork school without this knowledge. He, in my opinion did not, at the time, have the moral fibre to observe the gravity of the oath that he took, or due to his family station, felt that his place in the hierarchy of having a family that was very highly connected in government from ambassadors to a father that was a Senator meant that he was above that oath that he swore to.

I have this funny feeling that this man feels the entire world owes him its adulation, and in turn he owes no one anything..

I was never taken to mast, courtmartialed or even placed on extra duty let alone restriction. There were times when I wanted to quit, to say fuck it I've had it, but there was always that little voice inside that said Honor, Duty, Country... Something that told me that I couldn't let down my shipmates..

Bush had none of this, he disappeared for a period of almost 2 years. He did not report for duty when he was ordered to, and if this old chief hasn't lost his mind, after 30 days of being AWOL, you are automatically placed on the list of Deserters... A word to me that is lower than whale shit and that shipmates lies on the bottom of the deepest ocean... He may never be tried for desertion, but he sure as hell should be tried for deriliction of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer... He is no officer that I would ever want to serve in any capacity. And, as being the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, makes that position a mockery of everything that office stands for.

Just an old goat's 2 cents...

Thank all of you for having served, and you are my brothers in arms no matter the branch you served in.

Ken Jackson
CPO USN Ret.

Well said, Chief. Your days in the Goat Locker have served you well.

I like that line of attack that we're likely to see if it becomes an issue: “an aging colonel’s inability to recall one man out of thousands.”

That would hold water if Dubya were some junior enlisted man. However he was a fighter pilot and even on the largest airbases, there can't have been more than a couple dozen of those at given time. (Any Air Force vets out there who can confirm this?)

Thank you all for what you have given to this country. Thank you for giving us information from the inside regarding this matter. Thank you for keeping your oaths and reminding us that others should do the same. Blessings on you all.

Please keep in mind that Karl Rove will spin this issue into evanescence if he can, and that many people aren't even aware yet of Bush being a military deserter! Send the URL of this page to all your friends and acquaintances and ask them to pass it on!

As a Cold War veteran I saw the devastation brought to the military by the democrat emasculation of the Army, in particular the Infantry and specifically with Light Infantry Weapons.

At the end of the Eisenhower administration in 1960, modernization of the infantry rifleman’s basic tools, the M1 rifle, the Browning Automatic Rifle, and 1919 light machine gun was a goal in transition.

The .30 cal. M1 was effective off-hand out to 100 yards, sitting or kneeling out to 300 yards, prone out to 500 yards, and the sniper version was effective out to 800 yards. I qualified expert with the M1 at all these ranges. The Browning Automatic Rifle of the same caliber, firing identical ball M2 ammunition was also effective out to 500 yards though qualification on a known distance range and competition was usually limited out to 400 yards. I was also expert with the BAR and instructed. The tripod mounted LMG was effective out to 1200 yards

The basic 7.62 caliber M14 without change lever, issued as a replacement for the M1, was only effective out to 400 yards and the 20 round box magazine was difficult to seat if any sand or dirt was present on the receiver or magazine lip. However, the round still had penetrating power. The M14 with change lever, issued to replace the BAR, was totally ineffective at any range in excess of 250 yards. In 1960, I participated at Camp A P Hill Virginia in a series of field tests and exercises substituting belt-fed, bipod-leg equipped 1919 LMGs for BARs as squad automatic weapons. The exercises were conclusive and devastating to the user. Carrying a heavy belt-fed machine gun that could only be fired accurately from the prone position in thick, vine-infested cover was ridiculous. We went back to the BAR with relief and the knowledge that the Army would rectify the problem. Alas, we were wrong.

Years of experience and development of the finest Infantry weapons in history were thrown away by democrats for the expediency of “cost effectiveness”. Never did these paragons of liberal thinking give a thought to the devastating consequences on the user.

Cost effective weapons imposed by the Kennedy administration’s pursuit of the M14 resulted in the heavy and awkward belt fed M60 7.62 caliber light machine gun being forced on the rifle squad as the squad automatic weapon. The Johnson administration’s later decision to adopt the criminally inefficient .22 caliber M16 was the ultimate result of the inability to deal with the reality of infantry combat.

The M16 with change lever is effective on single shot out to 300 yards. The round will not penetrate heavy cover or standard automotive windshield glass. On full auto, the M16 is good for providing a beaten zone in final defensive fires. Hence the adoption of the M60 as the squad automatic weapon until the late 1980's.

If an Infantry Rifleman is deprived of the ability to reach out and kill his adversary at a greater range, the chance of becoming a casualty is greatly enhanced.
Cost conscious democrats never were held accountable for that failure.

Now, President Bush is being asked to defend his honorable service flying an obsolescent F102A as part of the ADC. The hypocrisy of the democrat party knows no bounds.

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams