Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Attempting to put an end to the Bush/Kerry military records

Evidence came out which clearly, if indirectly, proved that John F. Kerry was dishonorably discharged from the US military. Briefly, Democrat president Jimmy Carter ordered a panel of officers to examine his discharge; this is only necessary for a veteran with a "less-than-honorable" discharge. On a side note, Kerry only released his military records after the 2004 election. Bush released his long before the election.

This quote from an undisclosed source suggests once again for me the real problems of the legitimacy of two party's squabbling over an issue where neither can possibly win on the basis neither candidate in the '04 elections had a clear cut stellar record. You see, it doesn't matter how awful we are on a subject. It doesn't matter the average person hearing both sides of the issue doesn't have any trust for either candidate. It only matters we focus on what the others doing. The two-party system has fallen, if not always, to a point where the party's don't even know their voters.

I fully admit these are sketchy schemes by the DNP to hide Kerry's record. Heck, the RNP was in the right for attacking Kerry's record after the DNP attacked Bush's record without considering their own candidates questionable past. But does any of this diffuse Bush's sketchy military record? No! By retaliating, the RNP brought themselves back up to a stalemate postion where both party's candidate has a sketchy record. This issue during the '04 election is a mute point. If this was not the case, then one would have clearly had an exemplary and proven record while the other a coward.

Tom Paine's investigation shows Bush's record was absent from 1972-73. This diatribe needs to be put to rest once and for all. Jeez...

The truth about Bush's military record
In his annual evaluation report, Bush's two supervising officers, Lieutenant Colonel William D. Harris Jr. and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, made it clear that Bush had "not been observed at" his Texas unit "during the period of report" -- the twelve month period from May 1972 through the end of April 1973.

In the comments section of this evaluation report Lieutenant Colonel Harris notes that Bush had "cleared this base on 15 May 1972, and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying role with the 187th Tac Recon Gp at Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama" (the Air National Guard Tactical Reconnaissance Group at Dannelly Air Force Base near Montgomery, Alabama).

This was incorrect. Bush didn't apply for duty at Dannelly Air Force Base until September 1972. From May until September he was in limbo, his temporary orders having been rejected. And when his orders to appear at Dannelly came through he still didn't appear. Although his instructions clearly directed Bush to report to Lieutenant Colonel William Turnipseed on the dates of "7-8 October 0730-1600, and 4-5 November 0730-1600," he never did. In interviews conducted with the Boston Globe earlier this year, both General Turnipseed and his former administration officer, Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Lott, said that Bush never put in an appearance.


In this official summary of Bush's military service, I found something that was not mentioned in Bush's records from the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Virginia. When Bush enlisted his commitment ran until May 26, 1974. This was the separation date shown on all documents as late as October 1973, when Bush was transferred to the inactive reserves at Denver, Colorado. But the date of final separation shown on the official summary from Denver, is November 21, 1974. The ARPC had tacked an extra six months on to Bush's commitment.

Bush may have finally "made-up" his missed days. But he did so not by attending drills -- in fact he never attended drills again after he enrolled at Harvard. Instead, he had his name added to the roster of a paper unit in Denver, Colorado, a paper unit where he had no responsibility to show up and do a job.

AWOL Bush has another take on not only Bush's record with side-by-side comparison of the two candidates, noting that nothing is mentioned of the 'Veterans against Kerry' movement.

No comments: