January 31, 2004


Go see a Hobbit today!

No, not Lord of the Rings ... Bolo Boffin a hobbit with big things to say. Interesting reading on religion, politics and recently on how to add up Fearless Leader's National Guard Points. Great stuff...now go! (But please come back ... we'll get lonely without you)

posted by Jo Fish on 01.31.04 at 08:36 AM





Comments:

You are most kind, dear Democratic Veteran. Your bottle of Old Winyards is being hand-delivered as I type...

posted by: boloboffin on 01.31.04 at 03:05 PM [permalink]



Really interesting webpage, with several fascinating links. As for the Deserter-in-Chief's service record, two more nails in the coffin.

Plus, as an added bonus,a link to some some neat-o, superkeen colorized photos of Russia, before it was Bolshevized.

posted by: Lurch on 01.31.04 at 03:19 PM [permalink]



I don't accept Bolo's explanation of events.

1. He gives far more credence to the torn document than it deserves.

2. The addition on the torn document is incorrect. The "15 grat" is nowhere documented.

3. Bush's commanders deny that they saw him in this period.

I urge you to read Walter Robinson's assessment of the document.

If he felt it was suspect, so should we.

posted by: js on 01.31.04 at 07:21 PM [permalink]



The above is the URL for Robinson article.

posted by: js on 01.31.04 at 07:24 PM [permalink]



Also see the following link: http://www.awolbush.com/documents/doc10.gif

The last document, which summarizes service, shows 22 days active duty training after May 71 and as of May 72-- and no further training.

As for the torn document, the comment I got from author Martin Heldt was "Where do these people think Bush did his guard duty?
It's a Texas document so it doesn't record Alabama points." The LSCHPY notation is for the 111th squadron.

posted by: js on 01.31.04 at 09:21 PM [permalink]



The fifteen gratuitious points are, I understand, given to Guardsmen in good standing.

And I do understand that there are reasons to discount the 72-73 document. I hope I've shown that even if the document is accepted, a very unflattering picture of Bush emerges. He's got no documented service for the first two quarters of the year, he blew off his piloting license and his annual physical, and only under duress did he get his act together in a fashion and fulfill his obligations.

My big question is on what "inactive duty" entails. What is that? How do you rack up those points? I assume you have to show up somewhere to get those points...yet no official in Houston or Alabama can verify this service, whatever it is. Is there any Guard vet that can enlighten me on this?

posted by: boloboffin on 01.31.04 at 10:18 PM [permalink]



Bolo Boffin says, "The fifteen gratuitious points are, I understand, given to Guardsmen in good standing."

That's not correct, according to people who know. And note that these appear nowhere else on the record.

The simplest explanation for the torn document is that it's a forgery-- and a deniable forgery at that, since nowhere does Bush's name appear.

There is a massive, almost 4-year long discussion of this issue at Salon.

As for inactive duty, it's defined in the federal code. See subsection 3 of title 10 www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12602.html

which links to the following in title 2, 502: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12602.html

See also www.fas.org/man/dod-101/usaf/docs/Force-Mix-Guide.htm

Basically, figure that there will be beer (at least, in an earlier age).

posted by: js on 01.31.04 at 11:26 PM [permalink]



http://arpc.afrc.af.mil/PointsCredit/maxpoints.htm

According to this page, members who maintain active Reserve status are annually awarded 15 "membership" points, which is about as gratuitous as it gets. If Bush managed to maintain his active status (God only knows how in 72-73), then he was due the points, documented or not.

Thanks for making me relook this, though, because you sent me back to the webpage where I got the interpretation of the TD codes:

http://arpc.afrc.af.mil/PointsCredit/howtoread526.htm

There, the Type Duty codes list 1 as active duty, and 2 as "special tour". This isn't inactive duty as defined by the military, because those codes are 7 for paid inactive and 8 for unpaid inactive duty. Bush's SPE records everything before the late April kickstart to his Guard career as 2.

So unless the codes have changed (which they might have, I don't know) these points aren't inactive points at all. They're active points, according to the information I've been finding.

So what's "special tour"? Is it as simple as doing two shifts in a row? Two drills a day? That would explain getting two points per day. All of which begs the question - where was Bush doing this special tour duty?

I don't claim to have all the answers. Gleaning what we can from these documents answers some questions, and raises more.

Drink what you want, what do I care?

posted by: boloboffin on 02.01.04 at 02:13 AM [permalink]



Thanks for the research, Bolo.

I still believe that as of '72, the grat points didn't exist. Again, they aren't listed on the record anywhere else. And I suspect the codes have been changed, since inactive duty is normal in a Guardsman's career and there are no 7s visible. I think "2" has to be regarded as inactive duty or the equivalent.

But no matter. There are also problems even if we accept your interpretation. Like for example the fact that Bush was suspended from flying in September 72.

People who are far more familiar with the issues than I have reviewed this stuff for 4 years and concluded that the torn document is bogus. I would recommend visiting Salon's Tabletalk; ask for Sarge. There's an expert with decades of experience deploying, and processing the military's most valuable asset: paper.

posted by: js on 02.01.04 at 11:55 AM [permalink]



BTW, I am unable to use your comments section, Bolo. Many tries, many failures.

posted by: js on 02.01.04 at 12:07 PM [permalink]



I'm sorry you can't use the comments at my blog, js. I don't know why. Discussing the issues here is fine.

I'm making my way through the Salon discussion (AWOL III) right now. 8200 posts is a lot to get through, though. I'll do a thousand a day and get caught up soon. That Katz fellow can be a numbskull, can't he? He must feel awful that the issue never died and is actually getting traction again.

posted by: boloboffin on 02.01.04 at 12:41 PM [permalink]



Yes, Katz was an annoyance, Bolo. But the scrollbar is an effective anti-Katz device, and helps to skim over chatter by many posters who have no information to add but want to provide encouragement, humor or whatever.

I'm glad you've found Tabletalk as a resource. A lot of very talented people have joined in this discussion of analyzing Bush's records over a period of four years. They not only discussed, but did serious research. I left the discussion a long time ago, but try to monitor events and help every so often.

I think Sarge, possibly under a different screen name, commented on the gratuitous points in this thread. It has been long enough ago that I can't be sure that my memory or that discussion is accurate. So, you may find support for your thesis, or not.

At any rate, buried amid much clutter in that three-year long thread is a lot of valuable and interesting information.

posted by: js on 02.01.04 at 03:15 PM [permalink]



I had a real block around poker lyrics for songs I was writing, online casino in particular. And one thing internet casino that really helped to lift casino castinosin me out of that self-damning poker chip phase was to go into the casino gambling studio with Phil and make roulette

posted by: casino on 04.12.04 at 09:40 PM [permalink]



You can get the superscript on Word to match the CBS doc by increasing the point size of the superscripted data. Try raising it to 16pt and see what happens.

posted by: Vern on 09.11.04 at 10:24 AM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?



















usdemvet -at- hotmail.com
or
usndemvet -at- usdemvet.com (coming soon)






All the original material © 2002-2003 Jo Fish
steal what you want, all I ask is an attribution of some sort
Thanks