Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

[Laura Bush murdered her boy friend]

by James Ridgeway
A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:

Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of drug
use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
<snip>

The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The bureau's
chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not to
discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php

-----------------------------------------

So bush was grounded cause he was a mental and the coverup continues.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:

> by James Ridgeway
> A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>
> Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
> no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
> a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
> rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> delivery systems.

....and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
released), clearly and unequivocally.

Since it is not, it's hogwash.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:

>by James Ridgeway
>A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
>March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:

"Mondo Washington"??? Sounds like well-respected establishment
media....
>
>Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
>no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
>Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
>Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
>a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
>rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
>emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
>delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
>were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of drug
>use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
><snip>

Lemme see, first this is "little known Human Reliability Regulations"
and then "The regulations affected thousands of pilots..." Seems like
those thousands might jeopardize the little known aspect.

Then, can we consider that the period in question had the Alabama
Guard tranistioning from the F-84 to the RF-4C, a reconnaisance
platform which, although it had a nuclear capability--the wiring was
installed to the centerline and one wing station,--was never used by
the USAF or Guard in that capacity.

HRP (the Human Reliability Program) was common knowledge to all
personnel on active duty. Record of removal from HRP would be clear
and prominent in the medical records of anyone effected.
>
>The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
>regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
>Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
>Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
>Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story.

Excuse me, "a Bush pick from Texas"? Would that be Lt. Gen. Daniel
James? The son of General Chappie James, Tuskegee airman and noted
wing-man of Robin Olds in the building of the 8th TFW "Wolf-Pack"?
Doesn't sound like some sort of "Bush pick" to cover an issue or repay
a political debt to me.

>The bureau's
>chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not to
>discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
>said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
>last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.

Duh, does it seem controversial that the "historian" wouldn't be
speaking to the press? It is standard procedure in all military
headquarters that only certain senior office holders have "release
authority" for official statements and documents. In any large
bureaucracy you can't have every individual speaking officially or
signing documents that establish policy. Nothing unusual there either.

Seems to me that as fewer and fewer Americans have any experience in
the service of their country's military that it becomes increasingly
possible to mislead, misrepresent and confuse issues with innuendo and
misinformation.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Republican Double Standard]

Chad Irby > wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
>
>> by James Ridgeway
>> A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
>> March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>>
>> Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
>> no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
>> Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
>> Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
>> a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
>> rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
>> emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
>> delivery systems.
>
> ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> released), clearly and unequivocally.
>
Not all his records were released.

> Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>
Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
someone in the government to do him any favors.


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George W. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, somebody
confessed the following:

> Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
>a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
>rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
>emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
>delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
>were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of drug
>use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.

Easy retort...if your unit doesn't have a mission requiring the use of
nuclear weapons, you don't play the HRP (later called PRP) game.
Fighter squadrons that were/are strictly conventional weapons units
don't bother with HRP...training units don't bother with HRP/PRP.

So...no nuclear mission in the TX ANG, no HRP in the TX ANG. This
really is a non-starter.

Juvat

[-- Ole --]

Don't mistake hallucinations offered up by Bush -n- Chainy, as reality.

--

----------------
Cheers .....Todd

-addicted to fresh home roasted Costa Rican Tarrazu
- in Spruce Grove - Alberta - Canada

Electric technology is directly related to our central nervous system, so it
is ridiculous to talk of "what the public wants" played over its nerves.
Once we have surrendered our senses and nervous systems to the private
manipulation of those who would try to benefit from taking a lease on our
eyes and ears and nerves, we don't really have any rights left. -Marshall
McLuhan -




"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
>
> > by James Ridgeway
> > A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> > March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> >
> > Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
> > no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> > Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> > Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
> > a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
> > rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> > emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> > delivery systems.
>
> ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> released), clearly and unequivocally.
>
> Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>
> --
> cirby at cfl.rr.com
>
> Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
> Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Republican Double Standard > wrote:

> Chad Irby > wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> >
> > ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> > released), clearly and unequivocally.
> >
> Not all his records were released.

His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
next to impossible to erase.

> > Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>
> Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
> someone in the government to do him any favors.

Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
that would get you some prison time.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Republican Double Standard]

Chad Irby > wrote in
. com:

> In article >,
> Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby > wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
>> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> >
>> > ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
>> > been released), clearly and unequivocally.
>> >
>> Not all his records were released.
>
> His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
> next to impossible to erase.
>
According to the story out of Seattle, the two washington guardsmen did
not have any mention of failed HRP in their discharge papers - and they
both received honorable discharges just like George WMD Bush did.

>> > Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>>
>> Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
>> someone in the government to do him any favors.
>
> Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
> that would get you some prison time.
>
Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they do?


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[BUFDRVR]

>...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
>released), clearly and unequivocally.
>
>Since it is not, it's hogwash.

Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP comitment?

I think the storys hogwash from that agle.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[David Hartung]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> >
> >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>
> Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
comitment?
>
> I think the storys hogwash from that agle.

The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear tipped missile (AIM 27, I
believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked with this weapon, then the
President would have had to be on PRP. Personally, I believe that AIM 27s
had long since been withdrawn from service.

[Filthy Rich Billionaire John F*ING Kerry]

Even the liberal media has gotten bored with the Demmirats AWOL lies and
dropped it. Now the Liberal media whores are trying to prop up the lying
Scumbag Clarke & his sham book. That will fizzle out soon too just like
Paul O'Neials book did a few months back.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:

> by James Ridgeway
> A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>
> Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
> no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
> a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
> rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
> were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of drug
> use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
> <snip>
>
> The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
> regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
> Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
> Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
> Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The bureau's
> chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not to
> discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
> said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
> last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php


No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior pilots
(Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.

As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Republican Double Standard > wrote:

> Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they do?

About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
assassinating US Congressmen did.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Buzzer]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:

>by James Ridgeway
>A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
>March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401040
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402242

Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
guard back then...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> <> wrote:
>
> >by James Ridgeway
> >A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> >March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>
>
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401040
>
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402242
>
> Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
> guard back then...

The story is a lie, the Texas ANG was conventional weapons only.

[Kevin Brooks]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > >
> > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> >
> > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
> comitment?
> >
> > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
>
> The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear tipped missile (AIM 27, I
> believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked with this weapon, then
the
> President would have had to be on PRP. Personally, I believe that AIM 27s
> had long since been withdrawn from service.

AIM-26A. The conventionally armed AIM-26B was manufactured by the Swedes as
the Rb-27, which is where you might have gotten the 27 from. From what I
have read, the last nuclear versions left operational service in 1971. Given
that Bush's unit was transitioning to an aircrew training role at the time,
it would have been highly unlikely for them to have had any nuclear rounds.

Brooks

>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Hartung" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> > > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > >
> > > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > >
> > > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
> > comitment?
> > >
> > > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> >
> > The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear tipped missile (AIM 27,
I
> > believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked with this weapon, then
the
> > President would have had to be on PRP. Personally, I believe that AIM
27s
> > had long since been withdrawn from service.
>
> AIM-26A. The conventionally armed AIM-26B was manufactured by the Swedes
as
> the Rb-27, which is where you might have gotten the 27 from. From what I
> have read, the last nuclear versions left operational service in 1971.
Given
> that Bush's unit was transitioning to an aircrew training role at the
time,
> it would have been highly unlikely for them to have had any nuclear
rounds.

The ANG didn't get to store nukes even if they were nuke qualified. To get
to nuke qualified required a considerable amount of additional effort,
including a security clearance required to even be on the flightline.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
>
> > by James Ridgeway
> > A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> > March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> >
> > Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
> > no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> > Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> > Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
> > a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
> > rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> > emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> > delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
> > were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of drug
> > use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
> > <snip>
> >
> > The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
> > regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
> > Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
> > Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
> > Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The bureau's
> > chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not to
> > discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
> > said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
> > last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.
> >
> > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php
>
>
> No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
> RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior pilots
> (Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
> only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.
>
> As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
> The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.

Actually, he was only performing split training assemblies with them (or
more accurately, "equivalent training"); his request to transfer to another
unit had been turned down. His own unit had just become an operational
conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102 and
F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and given
the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one can
understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
services of then 1LT Bush.

Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog hunt--this
was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today. Maybe we
will next hear where the esteemed Mr. Clark now recollects the *truth*
behind Bush's service record (well, that is as soon as Clark can determine
exactly what he wants *that* particular "truth" to look like, based upon his
evident skills at fabrication).

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> <> wrote:
>
> >by James Ridgeway
> >A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> >March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>
>
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401040
>
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402242
>
> Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
> guard back then...

Non-starter. How could they use PRP against him when (a) the only nuclear
round the F-102 could carry was phased out of service during the
*preceeding* year, and (b) his unit was by then a *training* unit no longer
tasked with alert duty? I'll side with Ed on this one--another example of
desperate journalists who are clueles about the military trying to
manufacture something.

Brooks

>

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Orval
Fairbairn confessed the following:

>No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
>RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior pilots
>(Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
>only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.

The pedant in me must point out, GWB did not "transfer" from the TX
ANG to the AL ANG. He merely got permission to drill in AL while
retaining his TX ANG affiliation for reporting purposes. He would have
ZERO chance of flying the RF-4 regardless of rank.

The most likely scenario was that GWB put in a little (we're talking
VERY little) "VFR face time," but literally didn't do anything but
walk around unsupervised, drink coffee, have mock dog-fights with his
right hand shooting the watch on his left wrist while telling, "There
I was..." stories.

Having said that, you are correct that a guy with very little
obligation left would NOT normally check out in the next airplane,
doing so adds another two or three years to your service obligation.

>As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
>The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.

Back then the B (as in Basic) course for Fighter/Attack/Recce pilots
was six months. The Tx (Transition) course for guys coming from
similar missions would run approximately three months...that's if you
attended RTU fulltime (back then that would have been with the 363d
TRW at Shaw AFB). Local checkouts, part-time would take longer.

But the proper conclusion is not that the AL ANG didn't want to use
their resources (RTU slots) on GWB, but rather GWB had ZERO reason to
expect/anticipate flying the RF-4. It's not applicable in his case.

Juvat

[Tempest]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby > wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
> > @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >
> > >
> > > ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> > > released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > >
> > Not all his records were released.
>
> His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
> next to impossible to erase.
>
> > > Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> >
> > Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
> > someone in the government to do him any favors.
>
> Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
> that would get you some prison time.

Let's be real here.

During Reagan/Bush Sr. we had Iran/Contra.

How many people went to prison over that?

It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
from any branch of the government.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[David Windhorst]

Buzzer wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
><> wrote:
>
>
>
>>by James Ridgeway
>>A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
>>March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>>
>>
>
>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401040
>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402242
>
>Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
>guard back then...
>
>
>
According to the second article:

"The air-to-air missiles in the jets were intended to destroy Soviet
bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles in midair before they
could strike the continental United States."

Whatever the truth here, I find it difficult to believe they'd discharge
ANYBODY who could shoot down an ICBM...

[Tempest]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>
> > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they do?
>
> About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> assassinating US Congressmen did.

Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.

Try again.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they
do?
> >
> > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > assassinating US Congressmen did.
>
> Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.

But Kerry wasn't even in the City and then he wasn't at the meeting ...

> Try again.

I'll bet Kerry lied a third time and you are bluffing.

[Tempest]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> >
> > > by James Ridgeway
> > > A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> > > March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> > >
> > > Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
> > > no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> > > Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> > > Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from being
> > > a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These were
> > > rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> > > emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> > > delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
> > > were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of drug
> > > use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
> > > regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
> > > Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
> > > Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
> > > Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The bureau's
> > > chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not to
> > > discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
> > > said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
> > > last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.
> > >
> > > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php
> >
> >
> > No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
> > RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior pilots
> > (Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
> > only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.
> >
> > As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
> > The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.
>
> Actually, he was only performing split training assemblies with them (or
> more accurately, "equivalent training"); his request to transfer to another
> unit had been turned down. His own unit had just become an operational
> conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102 and
> F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and given
> the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one can
> understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
> services of then 1LT Bush.
>
> Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog hunt--this
> was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.

Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.

Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
through it.

> Maybe we
> will next hear where the esteemed Mr. Clark now recollects the *truth*
> behind Bush's service record (well, that is as soon as Clark can determine
> exactly what he wants *that* particular "truth" to look like, based upon his
> evident skills at fabrication).

What fabrication? Please provide proof.

You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
collaborated, right?

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Robey Price wrote:
>
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Orval
> Fairbairn confessed the following:
>
> >No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
> >RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior pilots
> >(Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
> >only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.
>
> The pedant in me must point out, GWB did not "transfer" from the TX
> ANG to the AL ANG. He merely got permission to drill in AL while
> retaining his TX ANG affiliation for reporting purposes.

He didn't get permission.

His request was denied.

He left TX anyway.

> He would have
> ZERO chance of flying the RF-4 regardless of rank.
>
> The most likely scenario was that GWB put in a little (we're talking
> VERY little) "VFR face time," but literally didn't do anything but
> walk around unsupervised, drink coffee, have mock dog-fights with his
> right hand shooting the watch on his left wrist while telling, "There
> I was..." stories.
>
> Having said that, you are correct that a guy with very little
> obligation left would NOT normally check out in the next airplane,
> doing so adds another two or three years to your service obligation.
>
> >As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
> >The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.
>
> Back then the B (as in Basic) course for Fighter/Attack/Recce pilots
> was six months. The Tx (Transition) course for guys coming from
> similar missions would run approximately three months...that's if you
> attended RTU fulltime (back then that would have been with the 363d
> TRW at Shaw AFB). Local checkouts, part-time would take longer.
>
> But the proper conclusion is not that the AL ANG didn't want to use
> their resources (RTU slots) on GWB, but rather GWB had ZERO reason to
> expect/anticipate flying the RF-4. It's not applicable in his case.
>
> Juvat

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Buzzer]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:05:28 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >by James Ridgeway
>> >A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
>> >March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>>
>>
>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401040
>>
>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402242
>>
>> Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
>> guard back then...
>
>The story is a lie, the Texas ANG was conventional weapons only.

"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
Guard units in the 1970s."

Another lie?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Tempest > wrote:

> Let's be real here.

If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
four years back.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Tempest > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they do?
> >
> > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > assassinating US Congressmen did.
>
> Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.

....and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy to
kill members of the US Government.

> Try again.

Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Robey Price]

>Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>
>>[snip] His own unit had just become an operational
>> conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102 and
>> F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and given
>> the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one can
>> understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
>> services of then 1LT Bush.

Mr Brooks is making a gross error in suggesting that any ANG unit
would bypass one of its "favorite sons" and bring on some unknown
entity, Elmo Bowlogrits leaving active duty. The ANG doesn't work that
way, once you're in...you're IN, no swinging dick active duty guy is
taking your slot, unless you **** up and give them a reason to boot
your ass out.

Yeh the boys at Ellington were making a mission change from Air
Defense to RTU...but the minimum number of hours to qualify for an IP
slot were recommendations in some Commands (ANG) and hard and fast in
others. Hell if he could use political influence to jump ahead of guys
on the waiting list to get in the unit, he could have stayed...he
wasn't forced out by some active duty pogue.

Plus...my employer in 1972, hired just over 40 pilots, in 1973 approx
60 guys, in 1974 less than 20. So there just were not a large number
of guys leaving active duty...meaning not a lot of active duty guys
competing for precious few ANG slots.

It would have been no problem for 1Lt Bush (army types use 1LT, CPT,
MAJ while the Air Force types use 1Lt, Capt, Maj) to raise his hand
and say, "I, GWB wanna fly jets! Just like I said I did when I
interviewed for the slot in 1968," and he pink little body would have
been in IPUG (Instructor Pilot Upgrade).

He just didn't want to fly, going out of state and doing the bare
minimum is proof of that. Flying was not a priority nor a passion for
GWB, he tried it and didn't like it, so he quit. Nobody can dispute
that.

I have co-workers that tell stories of their ANG or Reserve time back
in the good ole days (the 1970s)...when units would use their T-29 to
go pick up guys out of state and bring them in for UTA weekends or
FTPs. Not all units, but some units.

>> Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog hunt--this
>> was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.

To which Tempest responded:

>Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.
>
>Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
>through it.

GWB loyalists don't see it as an integrity issue. He served the
minimum, and by golly if the minimums weren't good enough, lower the
minimums!

[Brooks waxed sarcastic WRT to Mr Clake...with an E and Tempest
challenged him]

>What fabrication? Please provide proof.
>
>You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
>collaborated, right?

Tempest, sincerely...save your bandwidth.

Please don't confuse him with the facts...his mind is made up. That's
really the scary part, some folks are unwilling to entertain ANY doubt
even after no WMD, no al-Qaeda to Iraq connection, no Saddam is an
imminent threat proof. While the swing voters ponder, if Rove & Co
were less than honest on those three things why believe them now.

There was a former NSC guy (now living in MN) on local TV in St Paul
tonight (they showed a pic of him and GWB in the Oval Office and two
letters of commendation from Rice and Rumsfeld). This gentleman pretty
much backed Clarke's assertion that Iraq was the primary target
immediately after 9-11.

Here's a great place to stay informed
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm

Juvat

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Buzzer
confessed the following:

>"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
>declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
>case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
>Guard units in the 1970s."
>
>Another lie?

Nah, an over-statement of fact. Yeah the HRP applied to all ANG units
[if they had a nuclear mission]. If you specify particular units you
give away some intel (like who has nukes or who doesn't). Same thing
with later PRP, if your unit had a nuclear mission then you were
screened, but if you only did conventional you were not on PRP, but
PRP applied to the ENTIRE USAF. There is no lie.

Juvat

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
message
> >
...
> > > In article >,
> > > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> > >
> > > > by James Ridgeway
> > > > A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> > > > March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> > > >
> > > > Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which
almost
> > > > no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> > > > Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> > > > Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from
being
> > > > a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These
were
> > > > rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> > > > emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> > > > delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
> > > > were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of
drug
> > > > use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
> > > > regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
> > > > Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
> > > > Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
> > > > Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The
bureau's
> > > > chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not
to
> > > > discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
> > > > said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
> > > > last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php
> > >
> > >
> > > No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
> > > RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior
pilots
> > > (Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
> > > only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.
> > >
> > > As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
> > > The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.
> >
> > Actually, he was only performing split training assemblies with them (or
> > more accurately, "equivalent training"); his request to transfer to
another
> > unit had been turned down. His own unit had just become an operational
> > conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102
and
> > F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and
given
> > the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one
can
> > understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
> > services of then 1LT Bush.
> >
> > Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog
hunt--this
> > was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.
>
> Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.
>
> Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
> through it.

No, it does not, as it is based upon faulty analysis. PRP would only apply
to nuclear armed units--Bush's unit would not have qualified by 1972 (the
AIM-26A had left the inventory, and his unit was transitioning to a training
role). Them's the facts. You don't like it because they do not play neatly
into your twisted little anti-Bush scenario, and that is just too bad.

>
> > Maybe we
> > will next hear where the esteemed Mr. Clark now recollects the *truth*
> > behind Bush's service record (well, that is as soon as Clark can
determine
> > exactly what he wants *that* particular "truth" to look like, based upon
his
> > evident skills at fabrication).
>
> What fabrication? Please provide proof.

One presumes you possess the modicum of intelligence required to do a web
search; the transcripts of Mr. Clark's background brief (where he offered
views directly contradicting his statements yesterday) given in August 2002
are available at various sites. Likewise, the unredacted portion of the
e-mail that Rice provided contradicting his claims is available. You can
find them if you want to. Why should I bother to provide them to you, as you
won't bother to read what they had to say anyway?

>
> You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> collaborated, right?

Nope. Mr. Clark's own statements vary depending upon when he said it, who he
said it to, and whether or not his utterance was delivered before or after
he missed getting that job he wanted in DHS. Mr. Lehman was dead on target
when he said Clark has a credibility problem. One minute the guy is claiming
he had the guts to stand by his convictions, offer his opinions no matter
how impolitic they were, and tender his resignation, etc.; the next he
whines that his background comments were skewed to be favorable to the Bush
administration because that was just the position he was in. Phooey.

Brooks

*plonk*

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 01:37:59 GMT,
Tempest attempted to say .....

>
>
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they do?
> >
> > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > assassinating US Congressmen did.
>
> Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.

Which was kinda hard to do if he wasn't at that meeting like he keeps
claiming....

>
> Try again.

Feel free to..


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
BUFDRVR attempted to say .....

> >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> >
> >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>
> Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP comitment?
>
> I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
>

They may have had the old Genie rockets ?

IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
confessed the following:

>He didn't get permission.

OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
his points.

>His request was denied.

But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
72 while in AL.

>He left TX anyway.

True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
humor in this...or not]

Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...

>> The most likely scenario was that GWB put in a little (we're talking
>> VERY little) "VFR face time," but literally didn't do anything but
>> walk around unsupervised, drink coffee, have mock dog-fights with his
>> right hand shooting the watch on his left wrist while telling, "There
>> I was..." stories.

Juvat

[Kevin Brooks]

"Robey Price" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip] His own unit had just become an operational
> >> conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102
and
> >> F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and
given
> >> the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one
can
> >> understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
> >> services of then 1LT Bush.
>
> Mr Brooks is making a gross error in suggesting that any ANG unit
> would bypass one of its "favorite sons" and bring on some unknown
> entity, Elmo Bowlogrits leaving active duty.

Mr. Brooks did not say that. What he/I said was that the unit would not
really *care* if he remained with them or not, as they had the pick of the
litter to get more experienced pilots during that timeframe. Mr. Brooks has
also served in the Guard, and knows full well that the focus on retention is
completely dependent upon unit strength and availability of qualified fills;
when the strength is low, and fills are hard to come by, Guardsmen have to
about be legally dead before their units will release them before their
complete term of service is expired--transfers to other units are even then
hard to get. OTOH, as was the case during this period, when strength is good
and fills are readily available (especially junior officer fills who have
*more* flight experience, and likely combat experience to boot), the
attitude is much more laissez faire. Seen it under both circumstances. Then,
compounding the situation, you have a junior LT who is checked out in a
dying airplane (the Deuce was on its way to the boneyard), in a unit that is
transitioning to a training role. You do the math.

The ANG doesn't work that
> way, once you're in...you're IN, no swinging dick active duty guy is
> taking your slot, unless you **** up and give them a reason to boot
> your ass out.

Or unless you'd just as soon *be* out, given the unit's good strength and
availability of fills.

>
> Yeh the boys at Ellington were making a mission change from Air
> Defense to RTU...but the minimum number of hours to qualify for an IP
> slot were recommendations in some Commands (ANG) and hard and fast in
> others. Hell if he could use political influence to jump ahead of guys
> on the waiting list to get in the unit, he could have stayed...he
> wasn't forced out by some active duty pogue.

Nobody is saying he wanted to stay in. But not wanting to remain in,
fulfilling your obligated service and being released with an Honorable
Discharge is a far cry from constituting dishonorable service.

Brooks

<snip further whining>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
> BUFDRVR attempted to say .....
>
> > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > >
> > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> >
> > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
comitment?
> >
> > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> >
>
> They may have had the old Genie rockets ?
>
> IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.

Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101; purely
a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.

Brooks
>
>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[John R Weiss]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...

> HRP (the Human Reliability Program) was common knowledge to all
> personnel on active duty. Record of removal from HRP would be clear
> and prominent in the medical records of anyone effected.

Was it anything like the PRP -- Personnel Reliability Program?

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "John R
Weiss" confessed the following:


>Was it anything like the PRP -- Personnel Reliability Program?

Yes sir...same deal.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Buzzer > wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:05:28 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Buzzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >by James Ridgeway
> >> >A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> >> >March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> >>
> >>
> >http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=20043140104
> >0
> >>
> >http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=20043140224
> >2
> >>
> >> Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
> >> guard back then...
> >
> >The story is a lie, the Texas ANG was conventional weapons only.
>
> "A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
> declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
> case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
> Guard units in the 1970s."
>
> Another lie?

Another misinterpretation.

The HRP regulations were enforced for nuclear-capable aircraft, as the
next paragraph shows:

"'They were to be rigorously imposed,' Andersen said. 'If the
responsible officers saw violations as set forth in the regulations, it
would be required of them to remove the suspected officer from access to
nuclear-capable weapons and equipment.'²

No nukes, no HRP.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, I confessed
the following:

>There was a former NSC guy (now living in MN) on local TV in St Paul
>tonight (they showed a pic of him and GWB in the Oval Office and two
>letters of commendation from Rice and Rumsfeld). This gentleman pretty
>much backed Clarke's assertion that Iraq was the primary target
>immediately after 9-11.

Allow me to correct myself. I just watched the 10pm news and the guy's
name is Tom Maertens (pronounced Martins) who was NSC Director of
Non-Nuclear Proliferation under Clinton and Bush. The retirement
letters of commendation are signed by Rice and Bush (not Rumsfeld, my
bad... d'oh).

Calls himself a political independent, but is flat out disgusted by
the current administration. He mentioned a Rove memo from 2002 sent to
GOP folks running for elected office (around the country) reminding
them to "run on the war." I hope they do.

Maertens thinks that Richard Clarke "hit a nerve," with GWB.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/4684189.html

Juvat

[Josh Halpern]

Robey Price wrote:

>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
>confessed the following:
>
>
>
>>He didn't get permission.
>>
>>
>
>OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
>some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
>points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
>his points.
>
>
>
>>His request was denied.
>>
>>
>
>But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
>72 while in AL.
>
>
>
>>He left TX anyway.
>>
>>
>
>True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
>of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
>prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
>humor in this...or not]
>
>Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...
>

This is one of the points that passes belief. I knew a lot of NG people
at that time who simply travelled back to wherever to drill. Sometimes
across most of the country.

josh halpern

[Tempest]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Tempest > wrote:
>
> > Let's be real here.
>
> If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
> four years back.

You wish, and it's not.

There's a lot of vets who would like to know just where was Bush.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Tempest > wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they do?
> > >
> > > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > > assassinating US Congressmen did.
> >
> > Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.
>
> ...and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy to
> kill members of the US Government.

I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
opportunity.

What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?

> > Try again.
>
> Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.

Under what obligation was Kerry to report it?

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Robey Price wrote:
>
> >Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip] His own unit had just become an operational
> >> conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102 and
> >> F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and given
> >> the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one can
> >> understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
> >> services of then 1LT Bush.
>
> Mr Brooks is making a gross error in suggesting that any ANG unit
> would bypass one of its "favorite sons" and bring on some unknown
> entity, Elmo Bowlogrits leaving active duty. The ANG doesn't work that
> way, once you're in...you're IN, no swinging dick active duty guy is
> taking your slot, unless you **** up and give them a reason to boot
> your ass out.
>
> Yeh the boys at Ellington were making a mission change from Air
> Defense to RTU...but the minimum number of hours to qualify for an IP
> slot were recommendations in some Commands (ANG) and hard and fast in
> others. Hell if he could use political influence to jump ahead of guys
> on the waiting list to get in the unit, he could have stayed...he
> wasn't forced out by some active duty pogue.
>
> Plus...my employer in 1972, hired just over 40 pilots, in 1973 approx
> 60 guys, in 1974 less than 20. So there just were not a large number
> of guys leaving active duty...meaning not a lot of active duty guys
> competing for precious few ANG slots.
>
> It would have been no problem for 1Lt Bush (army types use 1LT, CPT,
> MAJ while the Air Force types use 1Lt, Capt, Maj) to raise his hand
> and say, "I, GWB wanna fly jets! Just like I said I did when I
> interviewed for the slot in 1968," and he pink little body would have
> been in IPUG (Instructor Pilot Upgrade).
>
> He just didn't want to fly, going out of state and doing the bare
> minimum is proof of that. Flying was not a priority nor a passion for
> GWB, he tried it and didn't like it, so he quit. Nobody can dispute
> that.
>
> I have co-workers that tell stories of their ANG or Reserve time back
> in the good ole days (the 1970s)...when units would use their T-29 to
> go pick up guys out of state and bring them in for UTA weekends or
> FTPs. Not all units, but some units.
>
> >> Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog hunt--this
> >> was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.
>
> To which Tempest responded:
>
> >Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.
> >
> >Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
> >through it.
>
> GWB loyalists don't see it as an integrity issue. He served the
> minimum, and by golly if the minimums weren't good enough, lower the
> minimums!
>
> [Brooks waxed sarcastic WRT to Mr Clake...with an E and Tempest
> challenged him]
>
> >What fabrication? Please provide proof.
> >
> >You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> >collaborated, right?
>
> Tempest, sincerely...save your bandwidth.

Noted.

> Please don't confuse him with the facts...his mind is made up. That's
> really the scary part, some folks are unwilling to entertain ANY doubt
> even after no WMD, no al-Qaeda to Iraq connection, no Saddam is an
> imminent threat proof. While the swing voters ponder, if Rove & Co
> were less than honest on those three things why believe them now.
>
> There was a former NSC guy (now living in MN) on local TV in St Paul
> tonight (they showed a pic of him and GWB in the Oval Office and two
> letters of commendation from Rice and Rumsfeld). This gentleman pretty
> much backed Clarke's assertion that Iraq was the primary target
> immediately after 9-11.

Paul O'Neill, former Bush Treasury Secretary, was present in a meeting
just after Bush was inaugurated in January 2001 when Bush came into a
meeting and said, "**** Saddam, we're taking him out."

O'Neill told of the event in his book.

Also, CBS found two other Pentagon officials who collaborated Clarke's
story.
When told of the sources, Hadley stuttered and stumbled to cover up his
shock.

> Here's a great place to stay informed
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/index.htm

Thanks for the link.

> Juvat

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Tempest" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > >
> > > "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in
> message
> > >
> ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Laura Bush murdered her boy friend <> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > by James Ridgeway
> > > > > A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> > > > > March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which
> almost
> > > > > no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
> > > > > Guard. According to an investigation by the Spokane, Washington,
> > > > > Spokesman-Review, Bush may have been involuntarily removed from
> being
> > > > > a pilot due to little-known Human Reliability Regulations. These
> were
> > > > > rules to screen out military personnel for mental, physical, and
> > > > > emotional fitness before letting them handle nuclear weapons and
> > > > > delivery systems. The regulations affected thousands of pilots and
> > > > > were used to suspend two Washington State pilots on suspicion of
> drug
> > > > > use, although in the end both men received honorable discharges.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > The government's reaction to questions about the human reliability
> > > > > regs merits attention. The White House gave no comment to a
> > > > > Spokesman-Review reporter, referring questions to the Defense
> > > > > Department. The National Guard Bureau, now run by a Bush pick from
> > > > > Texas, said it was under orders not to discuss the story. The
> bureau's
> > > > > chief historian also told the Spokane paper he was under orders not
> to
> > > > > discuss the topic. The freedom of information officer at the bureau
> > > > > said her people stopped taking requests on Bush's military service
> > > > > last month and now refer all questions regarding it to the Pentagon.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0412/mondo2.php
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No -- it is a much simpler answer. Since AL ANG was transitioning from
> > > > RF-84Fs to RF-4s, they would, naturally, place their most senior
> pilots
> > > > (Capt's, Maj's, Lt col's, etc) ahead of a lowly short timer Lt (he had
> > > > only a short remaining duty obligation) transferring in from Texas.
> > > >
> > > > As I understand it, the RF-4 checkout program was several months long.
> > > > The AL ANG simply didn't want to use their resources on him.
> > >
> > > Actually, he was only performing split training assemblies with them (or
> > > more accurately, "equivalent training"); his request to transfer to
> another
> > > unit had been turned down. His own unit had just become an operational
> > > conversion/training unit (first for the F-102, then for both the F-102
> and
> > > F-101, and then for the F-101 exclusively for a number of years), and
> given
> > > the number of higher-hour pilots then leaving the active component, one
> can
> > > understand why they were not chomping at the bit to retain the flying
> > > services of then 1LT Bush.
> > >
> > > Kind of funny that some folks are still trying to make that dog
> hunt--this
> > > was a non-issue four years ago, and it remains a non-issue today.
> >
> > Maybe to you, but to the swing voters it has legs.
> >
> > Bush is making his integrity an issue, and this blows a hole right
> > through it.
>
> No, it does not, as it is based upon faulty analysis. PRP would only apply
> to nuclear armed units--Bush's unit would not have qualified by 1972 (the
> AIM-26A had left the inventory, and his unit was transitioning to a training
> role). Them's the facts. You don't like it because they do not play neatly
> into your twisted little anti-Bush scenario, and that is just too bad.

What the **** are you talking about?

Just what does that nonsense have to do with Bush leaving his unit
without permission and going AWOL?

> > > Maybe we
> > > will next hear where the esteemed Mr. Clark now recollects the *truth*
> > > behind Bush's service record (well, that is as soon as Clark can
> determine
> > > exactly what he wants *that* particular "truth" to look like, based upon
> his
> > > evident skills at fabrication).
> >
> > What fabrication? Please provide proof.
>
> One presumes you possess the modicum of intelligence required to do a web
> search; the transcripts of Mr. Clark's background brief (where he offered
> views directly contradicting his statements yesterday) given in August 2002
> are available at various sites. Likewise, the unredacted portion of the
> e-mail that Rice provided contradicting his claims is available. You can
> find them if you want to. Why should I bother to provide them to you, as you
> won't bother to read what they had to say anyway?

I read them, and you are lying.

If you believe Rice, you're as stupid as you seem.

> > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > collaborated, right?
>
> Nope.

Yup.

But since it doesn't correspond with your fabricated belief, you won't
acknowledge it.

> Mr. Clark's own statements vary depending upon when he said it, who he
> said it to, and whether or not his utterance was delivered before or after
> he missed getting that job he wanted in DHS.

Clarke explained himself.

And from my own experiences in Washington, he is absolutely correct.

You don't give negative news if it's not asked for.

> Mr. Lehman was dead on target when he said Clark has a credibility problem.

Then why did Lehman fall silent and look embarrassed after Clarke
explained himself?

You didn't watch the hearings, did you?

> One minute the guy is claiming
> he had the guts to stand by his convictions, offer his opinions no matter
> how impolitic they were, and tender his resignation, etc.; the next he
> whines that his background comments were skewed to be favorable to the Bush
> administration because that was just the position he was in. Phooey.

Which is SOP when you work in Washington.

Not that you'd know anything about that.

> Brooks
>
> *plonk*

The last act of a lying coward.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Robey Price wrote:
>
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
> confessed the following:
>
> >He didn't get permission.
>
> OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
> some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
> points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
> his points.

He received "permission" after the fact.

The document is posted at www.awolbush.com, it's dated after he was told
to reappear in Texas.

> >His request was denied.
>
> But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
> 72 while in AL.

See above.

> >He left TX anyway.
>
> True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
> of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
> prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
> humor in this...or not]

Not my intention.

> Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...
>
> >> The most likely scenario was that GWB put in a little (we're talking
> >> VERY little) "VFR face time," but literally didn't do anything but
> >> walk around unsupervised, drink coffee, have mock dog-fights with his
> >> right hand shooting the watch on his left wrist while telling, "There
> >> I was..." stories.
>
> Juvat

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Submariner]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
> Robey Price wrote:
> >
> > After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
> > confessed the following:
> >
> > >He didn't get permission.
> >
> > OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
> > some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
> > points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
> > his points.
>
> He received "permission" after the fact.
>
> The document is posted at www.awolbush.com, it's dated after he was told
> to reappear in Texas.
>
> > >His request was denied.
> >
> > But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
> > 72 while in AL.
>
> See above.
>
> > >He left TX anyway.
> >
> > True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
> > of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
> > prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
> > humor in this...or not]
>
> Not my intention.
>
> > Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...
> >
> > >> The most likely scenario was that GWB put in a little (we're talking
> > >> VERY little) "VFR face time," but literally didn't do anything but
> > >> walk around unsupervised, drink coffee, have mock dog-fights with his
> > >> right hand shooting the watch on his left wrist while telling, "There
> > >> I was..." stories.
> >
> > Juvat
>
> --
> "The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
> the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
> - Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

This particular angle on the AWOL business makes the most sense to me.

It follows the "too stupid to be..." theme that Dubya has lived by.

Can't you just picture a definitive biography of GWB, with the chapters titled
as following?


Too stupid to be a preppy

Too stupid to be an Eli

Too stupid to be an ANG pilot

Too stupid to be an oil company exec

Too stupid to be a ...

....

...

...

...

Too stupid to be president.

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Josh
Halpern confessed the following:


>This is one of the points that passes belief. I knew a lot of NG people
>at that time who simply travelled back to wherever to drill. Sometimes
>across most of the country.

Oh yeah, folks do it all the time. GWB simply didn't want to fly.

Juvat

[Robey Price]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
confessed the following:

>He received "permission" after the fact.
>
>The document is posted at www.awolbush.com, it's dated after he was told
>to reappear in Texas.

Been there, done that...got the PDFs. Please don't mistake my posts as
defending the current occupant of the oval office. I'm not.

>> True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
>> of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
>> prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
>> humor in this...or not]
>
>Not my intention.

Dang...and I was hoping you'd see the humor WRT fleeing a drug bust.

Juvat

[Tempest]

Robey Price wrote:
>
> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
> confessed the following:
>
> >He received "permission" after the fact.
> >
> >The document is posted at www.awolbush.com, it's dated after he was told
> >to reappear in Texas.
>
> Been there, done that...got the PDFs. Please don't mistake my posts as
> defending the current occupant of the oval office. I'm not.

I don't, I'm just hoping to fill in some blanks.

> >> True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
> >> of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
> >> prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
> >> humor in this...or not]
> >
> >Not my intention.
>
> Dang...and I was hoping you'd see the humor WRT fleeing a drug bust.

I caught it, but didn't comment on it. Got a chuckle out of it though.

He could have also been running from a DUI arrest.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Grantland]

Tempest > wrote:
-
>
>> Brooks
>>
>> *plonk*
>
>The last act of a lying coward.
>
A lying coward with his mouth full of Bu$hcock. A little penis of a
liar.

Grantland

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 04:12:02 GMT, "John R Weiss"
> wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote...
>
>> HRP (the Human Reliability Program) was common knowledge to all
>> personnel on active duty. Record of removal from HRP would be clear
>> and prominent in the medical records of anyone effected.
>
>Was it anything like the PRP -- Personnel Reliability Program?

Or as we used to joke, Possibly Radiated Personnel. Those grass
covered igloos at Dyess were quite amusing, especially when they moved
anything and the lights they turned on to do it were clearly visible a
for a few miles through town, not really much of a secrecy factor. :)

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote:

>Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
>no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
>Guard.

Surely you jest. Everyone knows that he was abducted by a black
helicopter from Mexico!

There's a mystery only if you want to see one.
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm

I am fascinated by the trolls on this newsgroup. It seems that all the
really nutty stuff is anti-Bush. What does that say about the present
Democratic candidate? (The same one who moans about the "Republican
attack machine".)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[David Hartung]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...

> You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> collaborated, right?

I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
his other actions and writings.

[tscottme]

Q: "Mr. President can you offer any proof that it wasn't your clone that
served in the Air National Guard?"

--

Scott
--------
Hamas' "spiritual leader" Sheikh Ahmad Yassin ... has been sent to his
eternal reward. I hope he brought air conditioning. -- Ariel Natan Pasko

[Republican Double Standard]

Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
@twister.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article >,
> Tempest > wrote:
>
>> Let's be real here.
>
> If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
> four years back.
>

Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
drug test all "ancient history"?

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Matt Wiser]

"David Hartung" > wrote:
>
>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>> >...and if he had, it would be in his records
>(which have already been
>> >released), clearly and unequivocally.
>> >
>> >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
>>
>> Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense
>Command, have a SIOP
>comitment?
>>
>> I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
>
>The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear
>tipped missile (AIM 27, I
>believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked
>with this weapon, then the
>President would have had to be on PRP. Personally,
>I believe that AIM 27s
>had long since been withdrawn from service.
>
>
The weapon was the AIM-26A Falcon. Not sure if the ANG ever had that weapon,
but they did have the AIR-2A Genie.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Tarver Engineering]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:05:28 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Buzzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >by James Ridgeway
> >> >A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
> >> >March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
> >>
> >>
>
>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401
040
> >>
>
>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402
242
> >>
> >> Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
> >> guard back then...
> >
> >The story is a lie, the Texas ANG was conventional weapons only.
>
> "A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
> declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
> case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
> Guard units in the 1970s."
>
> Another lie?

Probably. Otherwise there would be a name.

[Tammy]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message >...
> "Tempest" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > collaborated, right?
>
> I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
> his other actions and writings.

So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that the
GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released positive
information to the press and saved the negative information until
after he left the White House.

There are three things to keep in mind.

1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
poster child for anti-GOP views.

2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
(amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
position.

Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.

3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
bit of the details.

[zepp]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 06:43:32 -0600, "tscottme" >
wrote:

>Q: "Mr. President can you offer any proof that it wasn't your clone that
>served in the Air National Guard?"

The original served in the Guard. What we have now is the clone.

They used a 1978 Xerox machine to duplicate him.

-
``If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined,'' Scalia wrote in response to the Sierra Club's request that he disqualify himself.

America's future never looked bleaker.

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > Tempest > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's be real here.
> >
> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
> > four years back.
> >
>
> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> importance

Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap (i.e, the
"Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.

> but Bush AWOL

Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); there is a
fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.

> Desertion

Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); FYI, there
is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.

> HRP failure

Even worse; pure speculation based upon faulty reasoning (his unit no longer
had a nuclear role by 1972).

> failure to show up for a drug test

Eh? Drug-testing was not a regular feature in the military in 1972; one
source indicates it did not come into use on a random basis until 1980
(http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/policy.html ), when the indications were an
astounding 27% of service personnel were using, at least periodically,
illegal narcotics (a Google will find you at least one source that claims an
even higher use rate at that time). It appears that some drug testing was
initiated around 1974. Only one source that I have seen, besides the
unaccredited source for the Spokane newspaper's account, stated that it
started in April, 1972--but then again the author of that account was
calling himself a "retired 1LT Mission Pilot" and was posting his article in
"Democrat.com" or some such less-than-unbiased site, again without
accreditation of the claim.

> all "ancient history"?

You are being quite generous-- since when do unsubstantiated claims, a
highly questionable/unsupported-by-acceredited-evidence "fact", and pure
baseless speculation equal "history", be it ancient or not?

Brooks

[zepp]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:

>
>"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
>
>> You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
>> collaborated, right?
>
>I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
>his other actions and writings.

Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
he looks.
>

-
``If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined,'' Scalia wrote in response to the Sierra Club's request that he disqualify himself.

America's future never looked bleaker.

Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
>> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Tempest > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Let's be real here.
>> >
>> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
>> > about four years back.
>> >
>>
>> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
>> importance
>
> Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
> (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
>
>> but Bush AWOL
>
> Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); there
> is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
>

Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.


>> Desertion
>
> Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); FYI,
> there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
>

Substantiated and no evidence ever offered to refute:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

[signed]
"William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
"Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"

Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
this base."]

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
to an Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.


>> HRP failure
>
> Even worse; pure speculation based upon faulty reasoning (his unit no
> longer had a nuclear role by 1972).
>

As explained, any flight officer was subject to HRP.

>> failure to show up for a drug test
>
> Eh? Drug-testing was not a regular feature in the military in 1972;

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/reich-r.html

"The Air Force initiated a new drug-testing program, coincidentally, in
April of 1972."


http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2000/6/17/220615

"New guidelines implemented in 1972 required that officers like Bush be
asked, "Do you now or have you ever used or experimented with any drug,
other than prescribed by a physician (to include LSD, marijuana, hashish,
narcotics or other dangerous drugs as determined by the attorney-general of
the United States)?"

"Bush was also supposed to take a physical that included a urine drug test
within a month of his July birthday. But in May 1972, he took a leave of
absence from the Guard to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a
friend of George Bush Sr., then a Texas congressman."

Now, you aren't going to argue with NewsMax, are you?

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
> "David Hartung" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > > collaborated, right?
> >
> > I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
> > his other actions and writings.
>
> So far there have been no outright discrepancies.

There have been outright dicrepancies in Clarke's own words.

Clarke is selling books to weak minded liberals and I can't really blame him
for cashing in.

[Tempest]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message >...
> "Tempest" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > collaborated, right?
>
> I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
> his other actions and writings.

Which have been thoroughly explained, and completely ignored by the rightards.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> >> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Let's be real here.
> >> >
> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
> >> > about four years back.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> importance
> >
> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
> > (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
> >
> >> but Bush AWOL
> >
> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); there
> > is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> >
>
> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.

Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I presume
your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"? Face it, there has been no
solid case made that he did not perform the service he was obligated to
perform--lots of "could have's", "maybe's", and "it appears", all from folks
with an axe to grind, but nothing substantial. Which is why this is a
non-issue for the voters.

>
>
> >> Desertion
> >
> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); FYI,
> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> >
>
> Substantiated and no evidence ever offered to refute:
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
>
> "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
> report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
> Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
> performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
> recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
>
> [signed]
> "William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
> "Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"
>
> Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
> this base."]
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
>
> "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
>
> "TAG Texas
>
> "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
> returned.
>
> "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
> Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
> n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
> Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
> to an Air Reserve Squadron."
>
> signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
>
> 9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
> to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
> of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
> Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
> denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.

Zzzz...oh, you had a point? No? Just more less-than-convincing speculation?
Yes, I can spin it another way--at least one former memeber of the ALANG has
come forward and stated he remembers Bush attending equivalent training (ET)
during that time period. Had a 1LT who did that with our unit (he was out of
PA); good guy (we ended up accepting an interstate transfer of him into our
unit later)--we sent the supporting documents back to his unit--where they
were "misplaced". His subsequent close-out OER from his old PA unit
indicated he had been AWOL; took the intervention of O-5/6 level folks to
get that one cleared up. That was just about six or seven years ago--and you
find the lack of records in a *thirty* year old case hard to swallow? One
can only guess that you have no experience with military recordkeeping (or
lack thereof). The fact is he got his HD.

Now, I am guessing you are going to be much more antagonistic to the
application of "could have", "maybe", etc., to your little buddy JFKII.
Let's see... he "could have" pulled some quick ones to get those PH's for
non-lost-duty "wounds" so he could get his butt out of Vietnam early (real
early), "maybe" he pulled some strings to get his early release from active
duty, and "maybe" he did none of his *own* reserve committment (he did have
one, you may recall--where is the documentation showing he preformed *any*
reserve duty, even the obligatory annual appearance/update of files?)...
Hey, he's guilty until proven innocent, right? Good for the goose, good for
the gander?

>
>
> >> HRP failure
> >
> > Even worse; pure speculation based upon faulty reasoning (his unit no
> > longer had a nuclear role by 1972).
> >
>
> As explained, any flight officer was subject to HRP.

As another poster has already noted, you missed a part of that--applied to
nuclear armed units.

>
> >> failure to show up for a drug test
> >
> > Eh? Drug-testing was not a regular feature in the military in 1972;
>
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/reich-r.html
>
> "The Air Force initiated a new drug-testing program, coincidentally, in
> April of 1972."

LOL! Like *Reich* would know? You'll have to come up with a better source.

>
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2000/6/17/220615
>
> "New guidelines implemented in 1972 required that officers like Bush be
> asked, "Do you now or have you ever used or experimented with any drug,
> other than prescribed by a physician (to include LSD, marijuana, hashish,
> narcotics or other dangerous drugs as determined by the attorney-general
of
> the United States)?"
>
> "Bush was also supposed to take a physical that included a urine drug test
> within a month of his July birthday. But in May 1972, he took a leave of
> absence from the Guard to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a
> friend of George Bush Sr., then a Texas congressman."
>
> Now, you aren't going to argue with NewsMax, are you?

Yeah. Source for the date when drug testing became a standard feature? I
went through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the
initiation of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another
alluded to 1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug testing
results in the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?

Brooks

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
>> > message . 1.4...
>> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
>> >> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Tempest > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Let's be real here.
>> >> >
>> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
>> >> > about four years back.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
>> >> importance
>> >
>> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
>> > (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
>> >
>> >> but Bush AWOL
>> >
>> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
>> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
>
> Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
> presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?

Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Tempest > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Tempest > wrote:
> >
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > > > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they
> > > > > do?
> > > >
> > > > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > > > assassinating US Congressmen did.
> > >
> > > Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.
> >
> > ...and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy to
> > kill members of the US Government.
>
> I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
> opportunity.
>
> What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?

Actually, yes, if you thought it was a credible threat.

If you knew "hundreds" of people like that, you need a new set of
friends.

> > > Try again.
> >
> > Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.
>
> Under what obligation was Kerry to report it?

Well, besides the obvious *moral* one, the obligation of any citizen who
knows of someone planning on murdering someone. If they had succeeded,
he would have been an accessory before the fact.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Submariner" > wrote:

> It follows the "too stupid to be..." theme that Dubya has lived by.
> Can't you just picture a definitive biography of GWB, with the chapters titled
> as following?
> Too stupid to be a preppy
> Too stupid to be an Eli
> Too stupid to be an ANG pilot
> Too stupid to be an oil company exec
> Too stupid to be a ...
> Too stupid to be president.

But, somehow, this "stupid" man is running a massive, deeply complicated
conspiracy to take over the world, according to the same folks.

On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent eight
years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the "dumb" Bush
is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Cub Driver > wrote:

> I am fascinated by the trolls on this newsgroup. It seems that all the
> really nutty stuff is anti-Bush. What does that say about the present
> Democratic candidate? (The same one who moans about the "Republican
> attack machine".)

The problem is that all of the worst stuff about Kerry is the stuff he's
actually saying and doing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Republican Double Standard > wrote:

> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
> drug test all "ancient history"?

Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry story,
but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush story.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Tammy) wrote:


> So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that the
> GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released positive
> information to the press and saved the negative information until
> after he left the White House.
>
> There are three things to keep in mind.
>
> 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
> poster child for anti-GOP views.

He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current administration
after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being effectively
demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a dedicated paper
pusher. That's reason enough.

> 2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
> (amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
> anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
> he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
> coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
> position.

They gave other people that responsibility, and as soon as they got rid
of him, put someone else into the job.

> Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
> that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.

No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
during the worst terror attacks in history.

> 3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
> Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
> matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
> office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
> bit of the details.

....with some creative writing.

That contradicts other reports.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :

> >
> > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
> > presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
>
> Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
> personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
> documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.

Take it to court and quit babling, lun.

[Republican Double Standard]

Chad Irby > wrote in
om:

> In article >,
> Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>
>> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
>> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
>> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
>
> Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> story.
>

Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's presence
at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately, Bush's transfer to
Dannelly was rejected.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> Tempest > wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > Tempest > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own
foreign
> > > > > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did
they
> > > > > > do?
> > > > >
> > > > > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > > > > assassinating US Congressmen did.
> > > >
> > > > Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.
> > >
> > > ...and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy
to
> > > kill members of the US Government.
> >
> > I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
> > opportunity.
> >
> > What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?
>
> Actually, yes, if you thought it was a credible threat.
>
> If you knew "hundreds" of people like that, you need a new set of
> friends.
>
> > > > Try again.
> > >
> > > Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.
> >
> > Under what obligation was Kerry to report it?
>
> Well, besides the obvious *moral* one, the obligation of any citizen who
> knows of someone planning on murdering someone. If they had succeeded,
> he would have been an accessory before the fact.

In California it would be conspiracy, good for 20 years.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> om:
>
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
> >
> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> > story.
> >
>
> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's presence
> at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately, Bush's transfer
to
> Dannelly was rejected.

The ANG would have folded on apeal, as all aviation is politics.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> >> >> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Let's be real here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
> >> >> > about four years back.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> >> importance
> >> >
> >> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
> >> > (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
> >> >
> >> >> but Bush AWOL
> >> >
> >> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
> >> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
> >
> > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
> > presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
>
> Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
> personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
> documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.

Any of them. The progress report from the CO you refer to is nullified by
his performance of ET, much of which is documented (amazingly enough,
giventhe intervening thirty year period). That transfer request you keep
trotting out is a big ol' red herring--meaningless. He has never claimed to
have received the transfer, and the reason he instead went the ET route is
because he was not approved for the transfer. There is NOTHING there for him
to be convicted *of*, by any courts martial board.

Interestingly enough, you snipped away Robert Reich's alleged "proof" that
the drug testing program kicked off in April 1972 this time--what's wrong,
you found out there is no reputable supporting evidence for that claim and
now just wish that particular topic went away? As I said before: "I went
through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the initiation
of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another alluded to
1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug testing results in
the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?" Apparently you can't.

And you must have missed:

"Now, I am guessing you are going to be much more antagonistic to the
application of "could have", "maybe", etc., to your little buddy JFKII.
Let's see... he "could have" pulled some quick ones to get those PH's for
non-lost-duty "wounds" so he could get his butt out of Vietnam early (real
early), "maybe" he pulled some strings to get his early release from active
duty, and "maybe" he did none of his *own* reserve committment (he did have
one, you may recall--where is the documentation showing he preformed *any*
reserve duty, even the obligatory annual appearance/update of files?)...
Hey, he's guilty until proven innocent, right? Good for the goose, good for
the gander?"

It sucks when your own rules are used against your man, huh?

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> om:
>
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
> >
> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> > story.
> >
>
> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's presence
> at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately, Bush's transfer
to
> Dannelly was rejected.

Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET with a
unit at that location. That dental record *does* prove he was in a duty
status at the time; when coupled with the subsequent statement from the
retired contractor who recalls eating lunch with him during other drill
periods at the same location, relegates the "he never showed up" mantra to
the garbage heap.

Brooks

>
> --
> "We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
> in."
> - George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[.impervious]

In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: In article >,
: (Tammy) wrote:
:
:
:: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
:: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
:: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
:: until after he left the White House.
::
:: There are three things to keep in mind.
::
:: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
:: poster child for anti-GOP views.
:
: He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
: administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
: effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
: dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.

he resigned because nobody would listen.

:: 2. In attempting to discredit him, the White House and VP Dick Cheney
:: (amoung others) says that their anti-terrorism coordinator and top
:: anti-terrorism expert did not know what he was talking about because
:: he was kept out of the loop because the position of anti-terrorism
:: coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" position to a "deputy"
:: position.
:
: They gave other people that responsibility, and as soon as they got
: rid of him, put someone else into the job.

"they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
who had the job, for the same reason.

:: Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
:: that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.
:
: No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
: understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
: during the worst terror attacks in history.

you moron... even the Bush Administration will tell you that they are
following Clarke's plan (minus Iraq) to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat
nearly to the letter - the one he wrote during the Clinton
Administration.

:: 3. There is pretty much nothing new in Richard Clark's reports.
:: Everything that he states has been reported in the press already and
:: matches claims by other Bush administration officials who have left
:: office (and some who are still there). At most, Clark just fills in a
:: bit of the details.
:
: ...with some creative writing.
:
: That contradicts other reports.


--
in other news, Bush has called Kerry a liar on public television. also,
Don King said Kerry had funny hair, and Jay Leno said Kerry had a big
chin.

[.impervious]

In om,
Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

: In article >,
: "Submariner" > wrote:
:
:: It follows the "too stupid to be..." theme that Dubya has lived by.
:: Can't you just picture a definitive biography of GWB, with the
:: chapters titled as following?
:: Too stupid to be a preppy
:: Too stupid to be an Eli
:: Too stupid to be an ANG pilot
:: Too stupid to be an oil company exec
:: Too stupid to be a ...
:: Too stupid to be president.
:
: But, somehow, this "stupid" man is running a massive, deeply
: complicated conspiracy to take over the world, according to the same
: folks.

no, there is no massive, deeply complicated conspiracy - but what there
is is not being coordinated by Bush. Karl Rove calls the shots.

: On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
: eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
: "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...

you call strategic bombing, doubling the overall counterterrorism
budget, and tripling the counterterrorism budget specifically for the
FBI not doing anything? how about coming up with the original plan for
a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush scoffed at until 9/11?
how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
original WTC attack in '93, even though Clinton had only been in office
for *38 days* when it happened?

there was no "fixing" the terror problem. but had he listened to those
in the know, 9/11 may not have happened. and after it DID happen, we
spent about 3 minutes in Afghanistan, where we knew some of the culprits
to be, and moved on to Iraq, which had exactly zip to do with the
attack. our fearless leader at one point called Osama a "non-priority,"
a quote that he'll never be able to run from.

--
in other news, Bush has called Kerry a liar on public television. also,
Don King said Kerry had funny hair, and Jay Leno said Kerry had a big
chin.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
>> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
>> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
>> >
>> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
>> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
>> > story.
>> >
>>
>> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
>> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
>> Bush's transfer
> to
>> Dannelly was rejected.
>
> Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET with

What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
"transfering" without orders?

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message .4...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
>> > message . 1.4...
>> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote
>> >> > in message
>> >> > . 1.4...
>> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> >> >> news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958 @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In article >,
>> >> >> > Tempest > wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Let's be real here.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have
>> >> >> > died about four years back.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
>> >> >> critical importance
>> >> >
>> >> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be
>> >> > horsecrap (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a
>> >> > documented fact.
>> >> >
>> >> >> but Bush AWOL
>> >> >
>> >> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
>> >> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated
>> >> > claim.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
>> >
>> > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation;
>> > I presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
>>
>> Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request
>> from personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these
>> official documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a
>> closed case.
>
> Any of them. The progress report from the CO you refer to is nullified
> by his performance of ET, much of which is documented (amazingly
> enough, giventhe intervening thirty year period). That transfer
> request you keep trotting out is a big ol' red herring--meaningless.
> He has never claimed to have received the transfer, and the reason he
> instead went the ET route is because he was not approved for the
> transfer. There is NOTHING there for him to be convicted *of*, by any
> courts martial board.
>
I personally know of several national guardsmen who were convicted of
being AWOL or desertion during the vietnam era. They should hire you as
their lawyer. Who knew that you could just walk away from your duty, not
be seen by anyone except a dentist for 12 months, and then claim it was
"ET" and all is well.

For an active duty guardsman to go on reserve duty, they need to have it
approved by personel headquarters. Bush's request was denied on the basis
of his having active duty days remaining. But hey - you just say "it's a
red herring" and it's all good. I mean, why would anyone need the
approval of their superiors before bailing their duty for a year? At
least some people have tried to argue that he eventually did get transfer
approval - although there is no documentation for it. You're the first
I've heard claim that active duty guardsmen can just disapprear without
approval and it's all good.


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 05:07:09 GMT,
Josh Halpern attempted to say .....

>
>
> Robey Price wrote:
>
> >After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Tempest
> >confessed the following:
> >
> >
> >
> >>He didn't get permission.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >OK...busted, I should have posted he had "permission" since apparently
> >some of his points were acquired in AL. I mean he does have some
> >points for Oct and Nov 1972, and Rufus G Martin, Maj TX ANG signed off
> >his points.
> >
> >
> >
> >>His request was denied.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >But somehow he was able to get credit for drill periods in Oct and Nov
> >72 while in AL.
> >
> >
> >
> >>He left TX anyway.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >True, but don't make it sound like he had to stay within the borders
> >of TX. That statement sounds like he was fighting extradition to flee
> >prosecution for some drug bust...[some will find the irony and or
> >humor in this...or not]
> >
> >Please re-read this paragragh I wrote...
> >
>
> This is one of the points that passes belief. I knew a lot of NG people
> at that time who simply travelled back to wherever to drill. Sometimes
> across most of the country.
>

And I also know of some who perform drill in the state they live in.
And one who performed drill and annual training outside the US.


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:59:07 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
> > BUFDRVR attempted to say .....
> >
> > > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already been
> > > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > >
> > > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > >
> > > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
> comitment?
> > >
> > > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> > >
> >
> > They may have had the old Genie rockets ?
> >
> > IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.
>
> Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101; purely
> a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.
>


I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
> >> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
> >> >
> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> >> > story.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
> >> Bush's transfer
> > to
> >> Dannelly was rejected.
> >
> > Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET with
>
> What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
> duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
> "transfering" without orders?

GW was court martialled?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
".impervious" > wrote:

> In om,
> Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>
> : He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
> : administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
> : effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happen to a
> : dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.
>
> he resigned because nobody would listen.

....after eight years of nobody in the Clinton administration listening,
apparently. He also claimed that Condoleeza Rice didn't seem to know
who al-Qaeda was, but public comments by Clarke *and* Rice before 2004
show quite nicely that he was full of it.

> : They gave other people that responsibility, and as soon as they got
> : rid of him, put someone else into the job.
>
> "they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned...

When you're a lifeling bureaucrat, and you get demoted, it's shorthand
for "you're fired."

> and so did the NEXT guy who had the job, for the same reason.

That he couldn't do the job, either.

> :: Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
> :: that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.
> :
> : No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
> : understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
> : during the worst terror attacks in history.
>
> you moron... even the Bush Administration will tell you that they are
> following Clarke's plan (minus Iraq) to eliminate the al-Qaeda threat
> nearly to the letter - the one he wrote during the Clinton
> Administration.

Funny, that's not what they're saying, and they actually have Clarke to
prove it (from his own comments before he wrote the book). *Public*
comments.

There's another funny thing. Clarke says he's been a Republican, except
that for the last several years, he's been giving thousands of dollars
per *year* to Democratic politicians, and none to Republicans.

Another of those "says one thing, actually did the opposite" things from
Clarke...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message .4...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote
> >> >> > in message
> >> >> > . 1.4...
> >> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958 @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Let's be real here.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have
> >> >> >> > died about four years back.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
> >> >> >> critical importance
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be
> >> >> > horsecrap (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a
> >> >> > documented fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> but Bush AWOL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
> >> >> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated
> >> >> > claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
> >> >
> >> > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation;
> >> > I presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
> >>
> >> Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request
> >> from personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these
> >> official documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a
> >> closed case.
> >
> > Any of them. The progress report from the CO you refer to is nullified
> > by his performance of ET, much of which is documented (amazingly
> > enough, giventhe intervening thirty year period). That transfer
> > request you keep trotting out is a big ol' red herring--meaningless.
> > He has never claimed to have received the transfer, and the reason he
> > instead went the ET route is because he was not approved for the
> > transfer. There is NOTHING there for him to be convicted *of*, by any
> > courts martial board.
> >
> I personally know of several national guardsmen who were convicted of
> being AWOL

Where is the transcript of GW's military court proceding.

[Tempest]

zepp > wrote in message >...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tempest" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >> You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> >> collaborated, right?
> >
> >I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some of
> >his other actions and writings.
>
> Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
> he looks.

It's worked for him so far.

Too bad it's shot his credibility all to hell.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
".impervious" > wrote:

> In om,
> Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:

> : On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
> : eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
> : "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...
>
> you call strategic bombing,

Blowing up empty training camps and an aspirin factory... with pretty
much zero results.

> doubling the overall counterterrorism budget,

....for domestic terrorism and "cyberterrorism"...

> and tripling the counterterrorism budget specifically for the
> FBI not doing anything?

....in an attempt to catch domestic terrorists like McVey... not to
mention Clarke's myopic focus on cyberterrorism for a few years.

> how about coming up with the original plan for
> a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush scoffed at until 9/11?

How about it? A "plan" that was never implemented is just a piece of
paper. Much like the rest of the Clinton "efforts."

> how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
> original WTC attack in '93, even though Clinton had only been in office
> for *38 days* when it happened?

Since the FBI did that, with the help of an idiot terrorist who went and
tried to get his deposit back from the rental truck company...

....and then did *nothing* else. They didn't catch the people who
financed it, and let one of the plotters get away. To Iraq, of course
(whatever happened to "Iraq has no ties to al-Qaeda?").

> there was no "fixing" the terror problem.

Not the way the Clinton/Clarke folks went about it.

> but had he listened to those in the know, 9/11 may not have happened.
> and after it DID happen, we spent about 3 minutes in Afghanistan,
> where we knew some of the culprits to be,

Hey - isn't that the place Clinton fired a bunch of cruise missiles at,
and didn't accomplish anything? The place where we had at least two
different chances to kill Osama bin Laden, but Clinton and Clarke
decided not to?

The place where we went in and removed the Taliban, which was directly
supporting al-Qaeda, *after* Clinton left office? The place we've been
in for a couple of years now (not "three minutes")?

> and moved on to Iraq, which had exactly zip to do with the
> attack.

Other than sheltering al-Qaeda terrorists who took part in the *first*
WTC attack. And other nice folks, too (like Abbas, who died in custody
recently after being captured in Iraq, where he'd been living i comfort
for years).

> our fearless leader at one point called Osama a "non-priority,"
> a quote that he'll never be able to run from.

Funny... I can't find that quote. Maybe you're confusing Bush with
Clinton again?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
om...
> zepp > wrote in message
>...
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Tempest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >> You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > >> collaborated, right?
> > >
> > >I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
> > >his other actions and writings.
> >
> > Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
> > he looks.
>
> It's worked for him so far.
>
> Too bad it's shot his credibility all to hell.

And now for a current event Frist is about to burn Clarke for perjury.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:59:07 -0500,
> Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
> > > BUFDRVR attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
been
> > > > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > > >
> > > > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > > >
> > > > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
> > comitment?
> > > >
> > > > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They may have had the old Genie rockets ?
> > >
> > > IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.
> >
> > Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101;
purely
> > a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.
> >
>
>
> I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?

Nope. They carried the AIM 4 and AIM 26 model Falcons, but no Genies. Genie
was carried by (IIRC) F-89, F-101, and F-106; ISTR hearing that some F-4's
were also wired to carry them, but never did operationally as the other's
did. The Deuce's nuclear round was the AIM 26A, which was completely retired
from service by 1972.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
> variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Buzzer]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:35:45 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Yeah. Source for the date when drug testing became a standard feature? I
>went through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the
>initiation of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another
>alluded to 1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug testing
>results in the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?

Who needs drug testing to find out Bush was using?
"When pressed by the national media during the 2000 presidential
campaign, Bush said he quit drinking in 1986 and hadn't used any
illegal drugs since 1974."

I remember drug testing coming in stages. I don't remember anything
about drug testing around 1972 and then I was out of the mainstream AF
until around 1976. At first it was first term enlisted. Then something
like enlisted under age 30. Then everyone which might have been the
1980 date. Only thing I remember real good is the one troop around
1977 was getting hit with "random" drug testing every month for quite
some time. He took it in stride and everyone had a good laugh over his
every month "random" testing.

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on 26 Mar 2004 14:34:54 GMT,
Republican Double Standard attempted to say
......

> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > Tempest > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's be real here.
> >
> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
> > four years back.
> >
>
> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
> drug test all "ancient history"?

Turn that around....

--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Jeff Crowell]

Tempest wrote:
> > > > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > > > collaborated, right?

ROFL. Great word choice.


Jeff

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message .4...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote
> >> >> > in message
> >> >> > . 1.4...
> >> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> >> >> news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958 @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Let's be real here.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have
> >> >> >> > died about four years back.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
> >> >> >> critical importance
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be
> >> >> > horsecrap (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a
> >> >> > documented fact.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> but Bush AWOL
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
> >> >> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated
> >> >> > claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
> >> >
> >> > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation;
> >> > I presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
> >>
> >> Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request
> >> from personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these
> >> official documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a
> >> closed case.
> >
> > Any of them. The progress report from the CO you refer to is nullified
> > by his performance of ET, much of which is documented (amazingly
> > enough, giventhe intervening thirty year period). That transfer
> > request you keep trotting out is a big ol' red herring--meaningless.
> > He has never claimed to have received the transfer, and the reason he
> > instead went the ET route is because he was not approved for the
> > transfer. There is NOTHING there for him to be convicted *of*, by any
> > courts martial board.
> >
> I personally know of several national guardsmen who were convicted of
> being AWOL or desertion during the vietnam era. They should hire you as
> their lawyer. Who knew that you could just walk away from your duty, not
> be seen by anyone except a dentist for 12 months, and then claim it was
> "ET" and all is well.

Idiot. He would not have been able to see that dentist if he was not in a
duty status. Add to that the eyewitness account of the gent who came forward
a couple of months back, *and* the fact that he received an Honorable
Discharge, and you can put that little puppy to rest. You "personally" know,
huh? Something tells me that your "personal" knowledge of things military,
much less the Guard, is a bit on the short side.

>
> For an active duty guardsman to go on reserve duty, they need to have it
> approved by personel headquarters.

What in tarnation are you talking about, "active duty Guardsman"? You think
he was a Title X FTM member? You are making it ever more clear every time
you open your trap that you don't KNOW anything about the Guard.

Bush's request was denied on the basis
> of his having active duty days remaining.

"Active duty days remaining"? You are wandering further and further away
from reality here. I *think* I know what you are TRYING to get at with this
angle, but you are doing such a marvelous job of massacring the actual
situation, thus again proving you don't understand the situation, that I am
going to let you flounder on in your ignorance. But you are danged committed
to hold Bush guilty--in spite of your own OBVIOUS lack of understanding of
what you are accusing him of? LOL!

But hey - you just say "it's a
> red herring" and it's all good.

Look up "equivalent training"--if you know so many Guardsmen, as you have
claimed, you should be able to get the definition rather quickly. For extra
credit, come back and tell us the difference between ET and split assembly
training. God spare us from folks like you who are so inherently ignorant of
what you are trying to condemn the man for allegedly having done, or not
done...

I mean, why would anyone need the
> approval of their superiors before bailing their duty for a year?

You mean, like that guy who ET'd with our HQ for months, and then found
himself getting an OER that indicated he had been AWOL because (a) his
readiness NCO screwed the pooch in processing the paperwork we sent them,
and (b) the commander one level up never KNEW the guy was ET'ing? H'mmm...

At
> least some people have tried to argue that he eventually did get transfer
> approval - although there is no documentation for it. You're the first
> I've heard claim that active duty guardsmen can just disapprear without
> approval and it's all good.

Idiot (again). Performing ET is not "disappearing". The failure of a
squadron commander (or battalion commander for us ground type pukes) to know
how each and every one of his officers had performed such ET is not unknown,
as the case of that guy I mentioned above points out.

I love it when guys like you climb on your high horse and set forth to
pillory someone over something for which you have no grasp whatsover. You
need to go back to those "several" Guardsmen and get a bit of basic
education before you come out swinging--keep you from falling on your ass
quite as much.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jeff Crowell" > wrote in message
...
> Tempest wrote:
> > > > > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > > > > collaborated, right?
>
> ROFL. Great word choice.

And now Frist is moving to unseal Clarke's sworn Congressional testamony
that is in conflict with Clarke's sworn 9-11 committee testamony. Clarke is
toast.

Will Clarke's collaborators in the Kerry campaign go down too?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
> >> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
> >> >
> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> >> > story.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
> >> Bush's transfer
> > to
> >> Dannelly was rejected.
> >
> > Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET with
>
> What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
> duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
> "transfering" without orders?

Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in order to
perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping? Geeze.

Brooks

[Tank Fixer]

In article >,
on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 15:10:12 -0500,
Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....

>
> "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > In article >,
> > on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:59:07 -0500,
> > Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
> >
> > >
> > > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > > k.net...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
> > > > BUFDRVR attempted to say .....
> > > >
> > > > > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
> been
> > > > > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
> > > comitment?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > They may have had the old Genie rockets ?
> > > >
> > > > IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.
> > >
> > > Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101;
> purely
> > > a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?
>
> Nope. They carried the AIM 4 and AIM 26 model Falcons, but no Genies. Genie
> was carried by (IIRC) F-89, F-101, and F-106; ISTR hearing that some F-4's
> were also wired to carry them, but never did operationally as the other's
> did. The Deuce's nuclear round was the AIM 26A, which was completely retired
> from service by 1972.

Thanks,



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[BUFDRVR]

>: On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
>: eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
>: "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...
>
>you call strategic bombing

Uhh...can you name the "strategic" target Clinton ordered struck?

>how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
>original WTC attack in '93

Crediting Clinton for that is like crediting Bush for the capture of Eric
Rudolph.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
>from any branch of the government.
>

Another "vast right wing conspiracy" huh?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
>> > message . 1.4...
>> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> >> om:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
>> >> >> critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
>> >> >> failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
>> >> >> history"?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
>> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
>> >> > Bush story.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
>> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
>> >> Bush's transfer
>> > to
>> >> Dannelly was rejected.
>> >
>> > Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET
>> > with
>>
>> What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
>> duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
>> "transfering" without orders?
>
> Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in
> order to perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping?
> Geeze.
>
Who gave him permission to do so? Or are you claiming that you don't need
permission? What does "ET" stand for? My understanding was that Bush
transfered (without permission) for "civilian occupation" - IOW the
campaign in Alabama. Either way, you still need permission. BUsh had no
permission. If he did, produce the document. I produced a document
clearly stating that his transfer to air reserve was denied.


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tempest]

Chad Irby > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> ".impervious" > wrote:
>
> > In om,
> > Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>
> > : On the other hand, the "smart" people like Clinton and Gore spent
> > : eight years *not* doing anything about the terror problem, yet the
> > : "dumb" Bush is supposed to have fixed it in eight months...
> >
> > you call strategic bombing,

> Blowing up empty training camps and an aspirin factory... with pretty
> much zero results.

I guess you forgot about the VX traces the CIA found at the site.

> > doubling the overall counterterrorism budget,
>
> ...for domestic terrorism and "cyberterrorism"...

So you admit Clinton did something about domestic terrorism.

That's big of you to admit.

> > and tripling the counterterrorism budget specifically for the
> > FBI not doing anything?
>
> ...in an attempt to catch domestic terrorists like McVey... not to
> mention Clarke's myopic focus on cyberterrorism for a few years.

Wrong.

Clinton specifically talked about al-Qaeda.

> > how about coming up with the original plan for
> > a Department of Homeland Security, which Bush scoffed at until 9/11?
>
> How about it? A "plan" that was never implemented is just a piece of
> paper. Much like the rest of the Clinton "efforts."

A plan which was up to the REPUBLICAN controlled Congress to act on.

They didn't.

> > how about capturing, trying, and convicting those responsible for the
> > original WTC attack in '93, even though Clinton had only been in office
> > for *38 days* when it happened?
>
> Since the FBI did that, with the help of an idiot terrorist who went and
> tried to get his deposit back from the rental truck company...

So Clinton doesn't get credit for capturing the 1993 WTC bombers, but
Bush gets credit for capturing the 2000 USS Cole bombers?

You rightards are way beyond hope.

> ...and then did *nothing* else. They didn't catch the people who
> financed it, and let one of the plotters get away. To Iraq, of course
> (whatever happened to "Iraq has no ties to al-Qaeda?").

I suppose you have a cite for this, right?

Didn't think so.

> > there was no "fixing" the terror problem.
>
> Not the way the Clinton/Clarke folks went about it.

Then why did Rumsfeld and Cheney praise Clinton for his actions?

Answer that, dumbass.

> > but had he listened to those in the know, 9/11 may not have happened.
> > and after it DID happen, we spent about 3 minutes in Afghanistan,
> > where we knew some of the culprits to be,
>
> Hey - isn't that the place Clinton fired a bunch of cruise missiles at,
> and didn't accomplish anything?

Really?

According to intelligence services worldwide, Clinton prevented the
planning of terrorist attacks with his strikes.

> The place where we had at least two
> different chances to kill Osama bin Laden, but Clinton and Clarke
> decided not to?

For logical reasons.

Like not wanting to kill innocent civilians, and not trusting the
intelligence from foreign sources.

> The place where we went in and removed the Taliban, which was directly
> supporting al-Qaeda, *after* Clinton left office? The place we've been
> in for a couple of years now (not "three minutes")?

You mean where the Taliban are back in business, and getting stronger
through the sale of opium?

The Taliban own Afghanistan, except in Kabal.

> > and moved on to Iraq, which had exactly zip to do with the
> > attack.
>
> Other than sheltering al-Qaeda terrorists who took part in the *first*
> WTC attack.

Lie.

> And other nice folks, too (like Abbas, who died in custody
> recently after being captured in Iraq, where he'd been living i comfort
> for years).

US intelligence believe Saddam didn't know about him being in the
country.

Bush's intelligence.

> > our fearless leader at one point called Osama a "non-priority,"
> > a quote that he'll never be able to run from.
>
> Funny... I can't find that quote. Maybe you're confusing Bush with
> Clinton again?

Naturally you can't find the quote, you're a dumbass.

And a lying dumbass at that.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our
number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
-- 2001-09-13 GW Bush

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
-- 2002-03-13 GW Bush

[David Hartung]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> om:
>
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
> >
> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> > story.
> >
>
> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's presence
> at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately, Bush's transfer
to
> Dannelly was rejected.

Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you have?

[David Hartung]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:4064440a$1@bg2....
>
> "David Hartung" > wrote:
> >
> >"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >...and if he had, it would be in his records
> >(which have already been
> >> >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> >> >
> >> >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> >>
> >> Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense
> >Command, have a SIOP
> >comitment?
> >>
> >> I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> >
> >The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear
> >tipped missile (AIM 27, I
> >believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked
> >with this weapon, then the
> >President would have had to be on PRP. Personally,
> >I believe that AIM 27s
> >had long since been withdrawn from service.
> >
> >
> The weapon was the AIM-26A Falcon. Not sure if the ANG ever had that
weapon,
> but they did have the AIR-2A Genie.

Yeah I know, the last model of the F89 that my Dad flew was the "J" and to
my knowledge, it's only weapon was the Genie.

[David Hartung]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
om...
> zepp > wrote in message
>...
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:08 GMT, "David Hartung"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Tempest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >> You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > >> collaborated, right?
> > >
> > >I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
> > >his other actions and writings.
> >
> > Dave's going to cling desperately to GOP skirts, no matter how foolish
> > he looks.
>
> It's worked for him so far.
>
> Too bad it's shot his credibility all to hell.

The nice thing about knowing what I believe, and about trying to deal in
truth, is that your opinion of my credibility means nothing.

[David Hartung]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
om...
> "David Hartung" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > > collaborated, right?
> >
> > I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
of
> > his other actions and writings.
>
> Which have been thoroughly explained, and completely ignored by the
rightards.

Have they? I am aware that Clarke has attempted to explain away his stories,
but as I recall, some of his previous statements are in direct contradiction
to his book. Either he was lying then, or he is lying now. Please explain.

[David Hartung]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> In California it would be conspiracy, good for 20 years.

IOW, out in 6 months, right?

[David Hartung]

"Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
k.net...
> In article >,
> on Thu, 25 Mar 2004 22:59:07 -0500,
> Kevin Brooks attempted to say .....
>
> >
> > "Tank Fixer" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > > In article >,
> > > on 25 Mar 2004 22:16:30 GMT,
> > > BUFDRVR attempted to say .....
> > >
> > > > >...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
been
> > > > >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > > >
> > > > >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > > >
> > > > Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense Command, have a SIOP
> > comitment?
> > > >
> > > > I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They may have had the old Genie rockets ?
> > >
> > > IIRC the F-101's here "may" have had them at one point.
> >
> > Nah, his unit was never active as an interceptor unit with the F-101;
purely
> > a training role. Its last alert duties were performed in the Deuce.
> >
>
>
> I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?

Not to my knowledge, perhaps you are thinking of the 106?

[Leslie Swartz]

And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?

I'm interested from a purely clinical point of view- you know, like trying
to determine exactly what "Bush tried to steal the election" means in terms
of a psychosis.

Steve Swartz



"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >
> > > Chad Irby > wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
> > > @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
been
> > > > released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > >
> > > Not all his records were released.
> >
> > His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
> > next to impossible to erase.
> >
> > > > Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > >
> > > Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
> > > someone in the government to do him any favors.
> >
> > Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
> > that would get you some prison time.
>
> Let's be real here.
>
> During Reagan/Bush Sr. we had Iran/Contra.
>
> How many people went to prison over that?
>
> It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
> from any branch of the government.
>
> --
> "The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
> the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
> - Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Leslie Swartz]

Dear Anonymous Smear Liar:

Because one issue refers to Reality; the other, Fantasy.

Steve Swartz


"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> > In article >,
> > Tempest > wrote:
> >
> >> Let's be real here.
> >
> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died about
> > four years back.
> >
>
> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
> drug test all "ancient history"?
>
> --
> "We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
> in."
> - George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Leslie Swartz]

Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:

Please seek help.

Soon.

I don't want to bear the burden when your psychosis gets expensive.

(p.s. regardless of what your philosophy professor said, not all "random
stream of consciousness" word strings are equally meaningful)

Steve Swartz

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> >> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Let's be real here.
> >> >
> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
> >> > about four years back.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> importance
> >
> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
> > (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
> >
> >> but Bush AWOL
> >
> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); there
> > is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> >
>
> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
>
>
> >> Desertion
> >
> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it); FYI,
> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> >
>
> Substantiated and no evidence ever offered to refute:
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
>
> "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
> report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
> Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
> performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
> recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
>
> [signed]
> "William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
> "Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"
>
> Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
> this base."]
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
>
> "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
>
> "TAG Texas
>
> "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
> returned.
>
> "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
> Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
> n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
> Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
> to an Air Reserve Squadron."
>
> signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
>
> 9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
> to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
> of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
> Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
> denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.
>
>
> >> HRP failure
> >
> > Even worse; pure speculation based upon faulty reasoning (his unit no
> > longer had a nuclear role by 1972).
> >
>
> As explained, any flight officer was subject to HRP.
>
> >> failure to show up for a drug test
> >
> > Eh? Drug-testing was not a regular feature in the military in 1972;
>
> http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/reich-r.html
>
> "The Air Force initiated a new drug-testing program, coincidentally, in
> April of 1972."
>
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2000/6/17/220615
>
> "New guidelines implemented in 1972 required that officers like Bush be
> asked, "Do you now or have you ever used or experimented with any drug,
> other than prescribed by a physician (to include LSD, marijuana, hashish,
> narcotics or other dangerous drugs as determined by the attorney-general
of
> the United States)?"
>
> "Bush was also supposed to take a physical that included a urine drug test
> within a month of his July birthday. But in May 1972, he took a leave of
> absence from the Guard to work on the Senate campaign of Winton Blount, a
> friend of George Bush Sr., then a Texas congressman."
>
> Now, you aren't going to argue with NewsMax, are you?
>
> --
> "We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
> them in."
> - George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Leslie Swartz]

Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:

Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.

Steve Swartz


"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> >> >> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Let's be real here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
> >> >> > about four years back.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> >> importance
> >> >
> >> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
> >> > (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
> >> >
> >> >> but Bush AWOL
> >> >
> >> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
> >> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
> >
> > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
> > presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
>
> Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
> personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
> documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.
>
> --
> "We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
> them in."
> - George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> >> om:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
> >> >> >> critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
> >> >> >> failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
> >> >> >> history"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> >> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
> >> >> > Bush story.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
> >> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
> >> >> Bush's transfer
> >> > to
> >> >> Dannelly was rejected.
> >> >
> >> > Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET
> >> > with
> >>
> >> What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
> >> duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
> >> "transfering" without orders?
> >
> > Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in
> > order to perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping?
> > Geeze.
> >
> Who gave him permission to do so?

Depends upon how the unit commander wants to run it. Not unheard of for one
of the FTM personnel to handle it on a routine basis. Should the commander
know the status of each of his subordinate officers in that regard? Yeah,
within reason. Does he always? No.

> Or are you claiming that you don't need
> permission?

Nope. My guy had permission--he was still counted as "AWOL" by his home
unit. In the end the time it took to get his OER corrected proved critical,
as he was passed over for promotion in part because he had no recent OER.
You folks who think the military is some kind of perfect operating
organization don't have a clue as to how screwed up the record keeping, not
to mention keeping track of the specific wherabouts of each and every one of
a slew of JO's under your command who are floating around between formal
schools, split assemblies, and ET can get.

> What does "ET" stand for?

What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out you
have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend the
normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either with the
home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at all.
Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and recordation of
ET is also not uncommon.

My understanding was that Bush
> transfered (without permission) for "civilian occupation"

Your understanding is wrong. He did indeed request a transfer, and it was
ultimately denied. Which is why he instead performed ET with that ALANG
unit. No special favors required--very common in the Guard.

- IOW the
> campaign in Alabama. Either way, you still need permission. BUsh had no
> permission.

Says you, with nothing to support that accusation. Either way, he ended up
performing enough duty days to be credited for good time through this
period. We know he performed training with the ALANG, based upon both the
dental record and the statement of the former unit member who recalled him
being there. Now, who in his chain of command was authorized to grant him
permission to perform ET? Did that individual inform the squadron and group
commander of that authorization? We do not know the answers to either
question, but experience indicates that the latter can be a "no". In the
absence of any reputable, definite proof otherwise, then the fact that he
ended up performing enough duty days to be credited with good time and to
get his honorable discharge weighs in his favor.

If he did, produce the document. I produced a document
> clearly stating that his transfer to air reserve was denied.

Geeze, would you finally drop that stupid transfer argument? It is a
non-starter, for gosh sakes, Mr. "What's ET". As to documentation at this
point in time, over thirty years later--you have GOT to be joking. You think
the military has the capacity to store every scrap of paper, including all
of those equivalent training performance certificates, that is generated for
every servicemember for an infinite time period? Get freakin' real. The
admin minions scrub personnel records on about a yearly basis *while you are
still serving* and dump out the "no longer required" junk (if you are lucky,
it gets returned to you).

Now, using this same "if there is no paperwork remaining thirty years later,
then he is obviously guilty" argument you have so laborously constructed,
tell us again how you are gonna *prove* that JFKII performed *his own*
reserve duty? He was released from active duty early, and he himself has
claimed he then spent time in the USNR (while spouting off recycled BS from
the Winter Soldier Investigation and calling his fellow servicemembers war
criminals, no less)--so where is the documentation that he successfully
completed that duty? Huh?

Brooks

[Tempest]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Tempest > wrote:
>
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > Tempest > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Please. 20 years ago a bunch of criminals set up their own foreign
> > > > > > policy group outside the government and how much jail time did they
> > > > > > do?
> > > > >
> > > > > About the same amount of time a bunch of criminals who discussed
> > > > > assassinating US Congressmen did.
> > > >
> > > > Kerry voted against it and promptly left the group.
> > >
> > > ...and didn't tell any law enforcement officers about the conspiracy to
> > > kill members of the US Government.
> >
> > I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
> > opportunity.
> >
> > What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?
>
> Actually, yes, if you thought it was a credible threat.
>
> If you knew "hundreds" of people like that, you need a new set of
> friends.

Those hundreds of people were not my friends.

They were Pentagon employees, all the way up the chain.

> > > > Try again.
> > >
> > > Don't have to, you admitted that he knew about it.
> >
> > Under what obligation was Kerry to report it?
>
> Well, besides the obvious *moral* one, the obligation of any citizen who
> knows of someone planning on murdering someone. If they had succeeded,
> he would have been an accessory before the fact.

It's quite possible, and most likely probable, that it was not a serious
threat.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>
> > Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> > importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up for a
> > drug test all "ancient history"?
>
> Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry story,
> but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush story.

What documents disprove the Bush story?

There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.

Official government documents.

www.awolbush.com

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Republican Double Standard wrote:
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> >> om:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
> >> >> >> critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
> >> >> >> failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
> >> >> >> history"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> >> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
> >> >> > Bush story.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
> >> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
> >> >> Bush's transfer
> >> > to
> >> >> Dannelly was rejected.
> >> >
> >> > Meaningless. He did not require a transfer in order to perform ET
> >> > with
> >>
> >> What? He didn't need a transfer order in order to transfer his active
> >> duty? Then why did other guardsmen get court martialled for
> >> "transfering" without orders?
> >
> > Are you dumber than a stump, or what? What about the clause, "...in
> > order to perform ET" is it that you are having a problem grasping?
> > Geeze.
> >
> Who gave him permission to do so? Or are you claiming that you don't need
> permission? What does "ET" stand for? My understanding was that Bush
> transfered (without permission) for "civilian occupation" - IOW the
> campaign in Alabama. Either way, you still need permission. BUsh had no
> permission. If he did, produce the document. I produced a document
> clearly stating that his transfer to air reserve was denied.

You're wasting your time.

The rightards are so blinded by ideology, they refuse to belief even the
most glaring of facts.

There'll be mass rightard suicides when Kerry wins in November.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Kevin Brooks]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> news:4064440a$1@bg2....
> >
> > "David Hartung" > wrote:
> > >
> > >"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> >...and if he had, it would be in his records
> > >(which have already been
> > >> >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > >> >
> > >> >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > >>
> > >> Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense
> > >Command, have a SIOP
> > >comitment?
> > >>
> > >> I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> > >
> > >The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear
> > >tipped missile (AIM 27, I
> > >believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked
> > >with this weapon, then the
> > >President would have had to be on PRP. Personally,
> > >I believe that AIM 27s
> > >had long since been withdrawn from service.
> > >
> > >
> > The weapon was the AIM-26A Falcon. Not sure if the ANG ever had that
> weapon,
> > but they did have the AIR-2A Genie.
>
> Yeah I know, the last model of the F89 that my Dad flew was the "J" and to
> my knowledge, it's only weapon was the Genie.

I believe if you check into it, you will find the later Scorpions also had
the capability of carrying and firing the AIM-4 Falcons; earlier models
carried 2.75 inch FFAR's.

Brooks
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > In California it would be conspiracy, good for 20 years.
>
> IOW, out in 6 months, right?

Only if there is a shortage of space for drunk drivers. :)

[Buzzer]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:35:45 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>Yeah. Source for the date when drug testing became a standard feature? I
>went through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the
>initiation of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another
>alluded to 1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug testing
>results in the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?

http://navydrugscreeninglabsandiego.med.navy.mil/homepage.nsf/NDSL,%20SD%20Command%20History.pdf

"COMMAND HISTORY FOR THE NAVY DRUG SCREENING LABORATORY SAN DIEGO, CA"

"...The United States Navy responded in 1971 by standing up drug
testing laboratories in various Naval Hospitals across the country to
test for drugs of abuse..."

"...In the early stages of the program, NDSL, SD received specimens
from Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy commands in southern
California as well as Navy ships deployed in the Command In Chief,
Pacific (CINCPAC) Area of Responsibility (AOR) and military
installations in Hawaii and the Philippines..."

http://www.stuttgart.army.mil/Services/ADCO/Content.htm
"Public Law 92-129 (28 SEP 1971): TITLE V - Identification and
Treatment of Drug and Alcohol Dependent Persons in the Armed Forces.
Sec. 501."

[Tarver Engineering]

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tempest" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "David Hartung" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > You are aware that most everything Clarke has said has been
> > > > collaborated, right?
> > >
> > > I am aware that there are discrepancies between Clarke's book and some
> of
> > > his other actions and writings.
> >
> > Which have been thoroughly explained, and completely ignored by the
> rightards.
>
> Have they? I am aware that Clarke has attempted to explain away his
stories,
> but as I recall, some of his previous statements are in direct
contradiction
> to his book. Either he was lying then, or he is lying now. Please explain.

Frist is about to unseal some Senate testimony clarke made in direct
contradiction of his 9-11 committee testimony. Can you say, "perjury"?

[Tempest]

Leslie Swartz wrote:
>
> And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?

A criminal act.

> I'm interested from a purely clinical point of view- you know, like trying
> to determine exactly what "Bush tried to steal the election" means in terms
> of a psychosis.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
> "Tempest" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > In article >,
> > > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chad Irby > wrote in news:vSF8c.340179$Po1.38448
> > > > @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ...and if he had, it would be in his records (which have already
> been
> > > > > released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > > >
> > > > Not all his records were released.
> > >
> > > His discharge papers were. A failed HRP would be right in there, and
> > > next to impossible to erase.
> > >
> > > > > Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > > >
> > > > Right. I mean, after all, someone like George W. Bush could never get
> > > > someone in the government to do him any favors.
> > >
> > > Not at that level. Tampering with HRP documents is the sort of thing
> > > that would get you some prison time.
> >
> > Let's be real here.
> >
> > During Reagan/Bush Sr. we had Iran/Contra.
> >
> > How many people went to prison over that?
> >
> > It's a simple matter to have someone doctor, or remove, documentation
> > from any branch of the government.
> >
> > --
> > "The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
> > the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
> > - Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Leslie Swartz wrote:
>
> Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:
>
> Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.
>
> Steve Swartz

Who the **** are you Steve or Leslie?

Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.

A very poor one at that.

> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
> .4...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > >
> > > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > > message . 1.4...
> > >> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > >> > message . 1.4...
> > >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in news:AOM8c.344123$Po1.263958
> > >> >> @twister.tampabay.rr.com:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > In article >,
> > >> >> > Tempest > wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >> Let's be real here.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > If we were being "real," this whole silly story would have died
> > >> >> > about four years back.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> > >> >> importance
> > >> >
> > >> > Becuase his statement, based upon what was proven to be horsecrap
> > >> > (i.e, the "Winter Soldier Investigation") is a documented fact.
> > >> >
> > >> >> but Bush AWOL
> > >> >
> > >> > Unsubstantiated (despite repeated efforts by many to prove it);
> > >> > there is a fifference between a fact and an unsubstantiated claim.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Actually, the refutations are unsubstantiated.
> > >
> > > Thank goodness you are not responsible for justice in this nation; I
> > > presume your approach is "guilty until proven innocent"?
> >
> > Signed progress report from his CO and a denial of transfer request from
> > personel headquarters. Nothing offered in refutation of these official
> > documents. Find me a court in this nation where that's not a closed case.
> >
> > --
> > "We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
> > them in."
> > - George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Tempest > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Tempest > wrote:
> >
> > > I heard hundreds of people wanting to kill Clinton, with the means and
> > > opportunity.
> > >
> > > What was I supposed to do, call the law every time I heard about it?
> >
> > Actually, yes, if you thought it was a credible threat.
> >
> > If you knew "hundreds" of people like that, you need a new set of
> > friends.
>
> Those hundreds of people were not my friends.
>
> They were Pentagon employees, all the way up the chain.

So... now you're imagining hundreds of Pentagon employees, conspiring to
kill someone. You say you "heard" them conspiring to kill Clinton, yet
didn't report it to anyone (the Secret Service would have been
fascinated).

Or, on the other hand, you're just insane.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
> Leslie Swartz wrote:
> >
> > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
>
> A criminal act.

What is Clarke's perjury?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
> Leslie Swartz wrote:
> >
> > Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:
> >
> > Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.
> >
> > Steve Swartz
>
> Who the **** are you Steve or Leslie?
>
> Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.

You have the nerve pest troll.

[qwerty]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tempest" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > >
> > > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
> >
> > A criminal act.
>
> What is Clarke's perjury?

Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week or
the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice,
Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
testimony!

Indeed, considering the consequences there's no way Clarke will be charged
with perjury.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
Tempest > wrote:

> What documents disprove the Bush story?
>
> There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.
>
> Official government documents.
>
> www.awolbush.com

Funny... anyone who knows anything about how USAF paperwork is worded
and used will see that he served his time, and didn't get into any
trouble. The site authors seem to have trouble wit hteh phrase
"inactive reserves" and the concept of "exigencies of service."

The authors of that site did a lot of backflips to try and pretend that
he did something wrong, but it's not in the documents at that site.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Tempest]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...

> > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
> > >
> > > A criminal act.

> What is Clarke's perjury?

I knew it was going to happen.

Clinton's Penis has been replaced by Clarke's Perjury.

Just once I'd like to see a rightard stick to the subject of a thread.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[David Hartung]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Hartung" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
> > news:4064440a$1@bg2....
> > >
> > > "David Hartung" > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> >...and if he had, it would be in his records
> > > >(which have already been
> > > >> >released), clearly and unequivocally.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Since it is not, it's hogwash.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why would an ANG unit, in the old Air Defense
> > > >Command, have a SIOP
> > > >comitment?
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the storys hogwash from that agle.
> > > >
> > > >The Deuce had the capability to carry a nuclear
> > > >tipped missile (AIM 27, I
> > > >believe), and if President Bush's Unit was tasked
> > > >with this weapon, then the
> > > >President would have had to be on PRP. Personally,
> > > >I believe that AIM 27s
> > > >had long since been withdrawn from service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > The weapon was the AIM-26A Falcon. Not sure if the ANG ever had that
> > weapon,
> > > but they did have the AIR-2A Genie.
> >
> > Yeah I know, the last model of the F89 that my Dad flew was the "J" and
to
> > my knowledge, it's only weapon was the Genie.
>
> I believe if you check into it, you will find the later Scorpions also had
> the capability of carrying and firing the AIM-4 Falcons; earlier models
> carried 2.75 inch FFAR's.

According to this link, the "J" carried both the AIM 4 and the AIR 2A.

http://www.pimaair.org/Acftdatapics/nor_f89.htm

[Miles Long]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
> <> wrote:
>
>
>>Here's a new twist to the George W. Bush AWOL mystery, in which almost
>>no one remembers him fulfilling his duties with the Alabama National
>>Guard.
>
>
> Surely you jest. Everyone knows that he was abducted by a black
> helicopter from Mexico!
>
> There's a mystery only if you want to see one.
> www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
>
> I am fascinated by the trolls on this newsgroup. It seems that all the
> really nutty stuff is anti-Bush. What does that say about the present
> Democratic candidate? (The same one who moans about the "Republican
> attack machine".)
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (requires authentication)
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

CD:

1. Didn't you notice the name of the newsgroup?
2. Of the 51,282 posts on my news server, the majority (72%) attempt to
deride Dean, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton (Bill & Hillary) and Gore; some
even attempting to blame them for everything from mopery & dopery on the
high seas to blame for killing Cock Robin.

That's a lot of work from those who are convinced GW's going to win the
November election (how's that go? Me doth thinkest thou protestith too
much?). Please, either do the math, read the content or quit lying,
whichever is easier.

Miles "That's the Best" Long

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > A criminal act.
>
> > What is Clarke's perjury?
>
> I knew it was going to happen.

If you knew what was going to happen you would quit posting, pest.

> Clinton's Penis has been replaced by Clarke's Perjury.

Clinton's penis could not make Chelsea, so Webb Hubble had to pinch hit.

[BUFDRVR]

>Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.

pot-kettle

>A very poor one at that.

You would know....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:35:45 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >Yeah. Source for the date when drug testing became a standard feature? I
> >went through pages and pages on Google trying to find a date for the
> >initiation of military drug testing--one source indicated 1980, another
> >alluded to 1974. Nothing else more concrete. No statistics for drug
testing
> >results in the military until 1979. Odd, huh? Can you do better?
>
>
http://navydrugscreeninglabsandiego.med.navy.mil/homepage.nsf/NDSL,%20SD%20Command%20History.pdf
>
> "COMMAND HISTORY FOR THE NAVY DRUG SCREENING LABORATORY SAN DIEGO, CA"
>
> "...The United States Navy responded in 1971 by standing up drug
> testing laboratories in various Naval Hospitals across the country to
> test for drugs of abuse..."
>
> "...In the early stages of the program, NDSL, SD received specimens
> from Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy commands in southern
> California as well as Navy ships deployed in the Command In Chief,
> Pacific (CINCPAC) Area of Responsibility (AOR) and military
> installations in Hawaii and the Philippines..."

None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature, to
include being used in the ANG.

Brooks

>
> http://www.stuttgart.army.mil/Services/ADCO/Content.htm
> "Public Law 92-129 (28 SEP 1971): TITLE V - Identification and
> Treatment of Drug and Alcohol Dependent Persons in the Armed Forces.
> Sec. 501."

[Kevin Brooks]

"qwerty" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
> > >
> > > A criminal act.
> >
> > What is Clarke's perjury?
>
> Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week
or
> the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
Rice,
> Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
> testimony!

They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his statements
under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the commission,
under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Brooks

>
> Indeed, considering the consequences there's no way Clarke will be charged
> with perjury.
>
>

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Kevin Brooks" > writes:
>>
>> I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?
>
> Nope. They carried the AIM 4 and AIM 26 model Falcons, but no Genies. Genie
> was carried by (IIRC) F-89, F-101, and F-106; ISTR hearing that some F-4's
> were also wired to carry them, but never did operationally as the other's
> did. The Deuce's nuclear round was the AIM 26A, which was completely retired
> from service by 1972.

There are some who claim that the F-4 was capable of carrying the
Genie - that's really not the case. There are one or 2 photographs of
an F-4 carrying a "Genie-Shaped" object under one of the inboard wing
pylons, it's not actually a Genie, but an air-launched sounding rocket
based on the Genie's rocket motor. There's a big difference between
being able to fire off an a rather dumb rocket. (You only need the
firing signal) and firing a real AIR-2. The airplane systems have to
be able to acquire the target, compute the firing solution, both for
the launch airplane's position and vector, and the fuze timer settings
in the Genie, and be able to direct the airplane, or teh pilot, to the
proper firing point. There were some efforts to explore the use of
the Genie on other interceptors - The English Electric Lighting could
have ended up carrying two of them, and the F-104A was considered at
one point. (The F-104 system required this big pantograph rack on the
belly station - given the size of th AIR-2, there are some questions
about who was launching who, in that case.


--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Kevin Brooks" > writes:
> >>
> >> I thought the F102's were wired for Geine also ?
> >
> > Nope. They carried the AIM 4 and AIM 26 model Falcons, but no Genies.
Genie
> > was carried by (IIRC) F-89, F-101, and F-106; ISTR hearing that some
F-4's
> > were also wired to carry them, but never did operationally as the
other's
> > did. The Deuce's nuclear round was the AIM 26A, which was completely
retired
> > from service by 1972.
>
> There are some who claim that the F-4 was capable of carrying the
> Genie - that's really not the case.

OK. I stand corrected on the F-4 ever having such a capability.

Brooks

There are one or 2 photographs of
> an F-4 carrying a "Genie-Shaped" object under one of the inboard wing
> pylons, it's not actually a Genie, but an air-launched sounding rocket
> based on the Genie's rocket motor. There's a big difference between
> being able to fire off an a rather dumb rocket. (You only need the
> firing signal) and firing a real AIR-2. The airplane systems have to
> be able to acquire the target, compute the firing solution, both for
> the launch airplane's position and vector, and the fuze timer settings
> in the Genie, and be able to direct the airplane, or teh pilot, to the
> proper firing point. There were some efforts to explore the use of
> the Genie on other interceptors - The English Electric Lighting could
> have ended up carrying two of them, and the F-104A was considered at
> one point. (The F-104 system required this big pantograph rack on the
> belly station - given the size of th AIR-2, there are some questions
> about who was launching who, in that case.


>
>
> --
> Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature, to
>include being used in the ANG.

Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
dramatically in 1972.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature,
to
> >include being used in the ANG.
>
> Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
> searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
> bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
> dramatically in 1972.

The early tests were easily passed by drinkers. Only non-drinkers ever
failed.

[Tempest]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "qwerty" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > A criminal act.
> > >
> > > What is Clarke's perjury?
> >
> > Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next week
> or
> > the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
> Rice,
> > Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
> > testimony!
>
> They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his statements
> under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the commission,
> under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.

Bring it on.

If Clarke felt there was a problem, he'd be all over the media with
clarifications.

Oh wait, isn't Rice doing that now?

I guess Bush has a problem.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tempest" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > "qwerty" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Tempest" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And you think "Iran/Contra" was what, exactly?
> > > > >
> > > > > A criminal act.
> > > >
> > > > What is Clarke's perjury?
> > >
> > > Cool! Bring on the perjury charges and the trial. Let's start next
week
> > or
> > > the summer at the latest! I can't wait to see Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney,
> > Rice,
> > > Powell, etc. testifying UNDER OATH in a court of Law concerning his
> > > testimony!
> >
> > They would not have to. Simply bringing the transcripts of his
statements
> > under oath in 2002 into evidence, versus his statements to the
commission,
> > under oath, will be enough to hang the clown.
>
> Bring it on.
>
> If Clarke felt there was a problem, he'd be all over the media with
> clarifications.

Clarke is selling books.

> Oh wait, isn't Rice doing that now?

Rice is an intellegent and articulate woman. Why do you hate strong women?

> I guess Bush has a problem.

Bush had a problem.

Now Clarke will be an embarrassment to the Kerry campaign.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

> What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
> definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out
> you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
> bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend
> the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either
> with the home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at
> all. Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and
> recordation of ET is also not uncommon.
>
Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not* equivalent:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military Service
Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6 n (4),
AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready
Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an
Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/court.martial/index.html

Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"
--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

"David Hartung" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
>> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
>> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
>> >
>> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
>> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
>> > story.
>> >
>>
>> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
>> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
>> Bush's transfer
> to
>> Dannelly was rejected.
>
> Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you have?
>
>
>

I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not allowed to
discuss this."

I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
either way, but what's your experience?

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in
:

> Dear Anonymous Smear Liar:
>
> Because one issue refers to Reality; the other, Fantasy.
>
> Steve Swartz
>
And you can prove both assertions? Or do you subscribe to the Condoleeza
Rice version of telling the truth?


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in
:

> Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:
>
> Please seek help.
>
No substantive refutations. Just name calling and ad hominems. Well, you
hit the plonk file faster than most.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

Tempest > wrote in
:

> Leslie Swartz wrote:
>>
>> Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:
>>
>> Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.
>>
>> Steve Swartz
>
> Who the **** are you Steve or Leslie?
>
> Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.
>
> A very poor one at that.
>
I read 4 posts by Steleslie. They all said exactly the same thing. No
ability to engage in any form of discussion. Just name calling and ad
hominems. And top-posted to boot. Rapid fire plonk file fodder.


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them
in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

Chad Irby > wrote in
om:

> In article >,
> Tempest > wrote:
>
>> What documents disprove the Bush story?
>>
>> There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.
>>
>> Official government documents.
>>
>> www.awolbush.com
>
> Funny... anyone who knows anything about how USAF paperwork is worded
> and used will see that he served his time, and didn't get into any
> trouble. The site authors seem to have trouble wit hteh phrase
> "inactive reserves" and the concept of "exigencies of service."
>
> The authors of that site did a lot of backflips to try and pretend
> that he did something wrong, but it's not in the documents at that
> site.
>

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

[signed]
"William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
"Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"

Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
this base."]

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
to an Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.


--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tempest]

Republican Double Standard wrote:
>
> Tempest > wrote in
> :
>
> > Leslie Swartz wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:
> >>
> >> Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.
> >>
> >> Steve Swartz
> >
> > Who the **** are you Steve or Leslie?
> >
> > Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.
> >
> > A very poor one at that.

> I read 4 posts by Steleslie. They all said exactly the same thing. No
> ability to engage in any form of discussion. Just name calling and ad
> hominems. And top-posted to boot. Rapid fire plonk file fodder.

Only took two posts before I dumped her/him/it into the bit bucket.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Republican Double Standard]

Tempest > wrote in news:4065DBC0.E628B458
@hotmail.com:

>
>
> Republican Double Standard wrote:
>>
>> Tempest > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Leslie Swartz wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Dear Anonymous Smear Poster:
>> >>
>> >> Give Terry M. and the boys my best- see you in November.
>> >>
>> >> Steve Swartz
>> >
>> > Who the **** are you Steve or Leslie?
>> >
>> > Whichever it is, you're no more than a troll.
>> >
>> > A very poor one at that.
>
>> I read 4 posts by Steleslie. They all said exactly the same thing. No
>> ability to engage in any form of discussion. Just name calling and ad
>> hominems. And top-posted to boot. Rapid fire plonk file fodder.
>
> Only took two posts before I dumped her/him/it into the bit bucket.
>

Well you know - I like to cut everyone a little slack. Even Blind Bill
Bonde hasn't hit the plonk file yet.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> om:

> >
> > The authors of that site did a lot of backflips to try and pretend
> > that he did something wrong, but it's not in the documents at that
> > site.
> >
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
>
> "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
> report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
> Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
> performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
> recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

How do you suppose your zero knowledge of the military stacks up to Chad's
long association with the militar, sock troll? Do Democrats suppose that
comming to the military newsgrups and insulting the military they will
garner votes for November?

The pest troll just keeps getting stupider and stupider.

[David Hartung]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "David Hartung" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> om:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of critical
> >> >> importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP failure/failure to show up
> >> >> for a drug test all "ancient history"?
> >> >
> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the Bush
> >> > story.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
> >> Bush's transfer
> > to
> >> Dannelly was rejected.
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you have?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not allowed to
> discuss this."
>
> I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
> either way, but what's your experience?

My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who has
not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to tell a
Guardsman how the Guard works.

[Republican Double Standard]

"David Hartung" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> "David Hartung" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
>> > message . 1.4...
>> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> >> om:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
>> >> >> critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
>> >> >> failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
>> >> >> history"?
>> >> >
>> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
>> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
>> >> > Bush story.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
>> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
>> >> Bush's transfer
>> > to
>> >> Dannelly was rejected.
>> >
>> > Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you
>> > have?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not
>> allowed to discuss this."
>>
>> I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
>> either way, but what's your experience?
>
> My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who
> has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to
> tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.
>
What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?

Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that tells
gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied virology
(BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but feels like he's
in a position to tell people who have studied virology how viriuses
work? And let's not forget your grand theory of HIV epidemiology. Are
you an epidemiologist? Do you live in Florida? Have you voted there? You
certainly have had a lot to say about how voting works in Florida over
the past few years.

You don't have to serve in the guard to be able to read a transfer
request denial from personel headquarters. Or are there hidden messages
in it that you only learn how to decifer after you've served?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

[signed]
"William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
"Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"

Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
this base."]

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
to an Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 02:43:47 GMT, Buzzer > wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:05:28 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:39:58 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>> >by James Ridgeway
>>> >A New Theory for Bush's Low, Low Profile in the Alabama Guard
>>> >March 24 - 30, 2004 Mondo Washington this week:
>>>
>>>
>>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=200431401040
>>>
>>http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitdate=200431402242
>>>
>>> Fairly interesting reading about Bush and what was going on in the
>>> guard back then...
>>
>>The story is a lie, the Texas ANG was conventional weapons only.
>
>"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
>declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
>case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
>Guard units in the 1970s."
>
>Another lie?

You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?

Hint: It goes way beyond "human reliability rules".

Al Minyard

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "David Hartung" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> > message . 1.4...
> >> "David Hartung" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> >> > message . 1.4...
> >> >> Chad Irby > wrote in
> >> >> om:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Republican Double Standard > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Why is that Kerry's statements to congress in 1971 are of
> >> >> >> critical importance, but Bush AWOL/Desertion/HRP
> >> >> >> failure/failure to show up for a drug test all "ancient
> >> >> >> history"?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Because there are documents and witnesses to *support* the Kerry
> >> >> > story, but all of the documents and witnesses *disprove* the
> >> >> > Bush story.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, in fairness, there is a dentist who can corroborate Bush's
> >> >> presence at Danelly at least one day in that year. Unfortunately,
> >> >> Bush's transfer
> >> > to
> >> >> Dannelly was rejected.
> >> >
> >> > Just out of curiosity, what military or Guard experience do you
> >> > have?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I can see it now: "You were never in the guard so you are not
> >> allowed to discuss this."
> >>
> >> I was in the VA for several years. Does that count? Not that I care
> >> either way, but what's your experience?
> >
> > My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who
> > has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to
> > tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.
> >
> What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?
>
> Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
> these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that tells
> gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied virology
> (BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but feels like he's
> in a position to tell people who have studied virology how viriuses
> work?

Are you a bug chaser, Republican Double Standard troll?

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:24:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature,
>to
>> >include being used in the ANG.
>>
>> Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
>> searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
>> bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
>> dramatically in 1972.
>
>The early tests were easily passed by drinkers. Only non-drinkers ever
>failed.

Personal experience?<G>

It is strange nothinig is said about testing for drunks at the lab
site. Maybe it was an easier test and done locally.
Now that I have thought of it alcohol testing for everyone in 80 might
be the reason a SMS decided to bail at 22 years around that time. Only
guy I ever knew that had a beer keg in his refrigerator with a valve
on the door. I always figured if he was straight enough to attend the
commanders daily briefing I sure as heck wasn't going to say
anything...

"The drug panel had changed by the fall of 1981 to PCP, morphine,
amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, and cannabinoid (THC)."

This is the one that amazes me. I thought they were testing for THC
long before this. Might be the reason though when they brought the
dogs through a squadron barracks at K.I. Sawyer on a weekend it almost
wiped out the squadron. At least that was the word that spread quickly
around base on Monday. Or maybe it was just a rumor designed to cause
a mass flush off to get rid of the evidence in other barracks.

[Buzzer]

On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:16 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>>"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
>>declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
>>case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
>>Guard units in the 1970s."
>>
>>Another lie?
>
>You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?

I only spent about ten years under HRP for some reason at various
times from 1963 to 1982.

>Hint: It goes way beyond "human reliability rules".

Not really. It isn't that complicated. What does seem to be
complicated is for people to realize back in the paranoid days of the
Cold War there were basically two ways of operating - war mode and
training mode. In war mode people might be operating out of their main
job (AFSC in the AF) as an augmentee. Aircraft might even deploy or
recover at other bases. Just because something wasn't done at the
normal everyday base doesn't mean it might not be done at the base
deployed to or recovered at. Actually I am surprised HRP wasn't a
requirement for certain guard personnel before 1972. Or to meet the
requirements at least in case they might deploy to another base where
they might carry a nuclear weapon. Lot of mights and ifs, but...

[David Hartung]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "David Hartung" > wrote in
> :

> > My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one who
> > has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position to
> > tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.
> >
> What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?
>
> Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
> these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that tells
> gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied virology
> (BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but feels like he's
> in a position to tell people who have studied virology how viriuses
> work? And let's not forget your grand theory of HIV epidemiology. Are
> you an epidemiologist? Do you live in Florida? Have you voted there? You
> certainly have had a lot to say about how voting works in Florida over
> the past few years.
>
> You don't have to serve in the guard to be able to read a transfer
> request denial from personel headquarters. Or are there hidden messages
> in it that you only learn how to decifer after you've served?

It is obvious that you will reject anything which counters your preconceived
opinion, but the simple fact is, one who is in the Guard is much more
qualified to speak to the operation of the Guard than one who has not. I
never served. I do not pretend to know everything about how the Guard works,
except that it was occasionally necessary for My Dad to miss drills, this
was no problem, he would make them up later. The concept of equivalent
training is not one which I am familiar with, but it does stand to reason
that there would be provisions for Guardsmen to do such, after all, they all
had civilian jobs.

One more point, there has been at least one individual who served with
George Bush in the Texas Guard, and according to this individual, Bush did
nothing wrong. My suggestion to you fools who keep beating this dead horse
would be to get a life.

[David Hartung]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:16 -0600, Alan Minyard
> > wrote:
>
> >>"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
> >>declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
> >>case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
> >>Guard units in the 1970s."
> >>
> >>Another lie?
> >
> >You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?
>
> I only spent about ten years under HRP for some reason at various
> times from 1963 to 1982.

Then you are aware that HRP certification was not necessary unless you were
in a job which put you in close proximity of specific weapon types, and it
is not known if President Bush's unit was tasked with these weapons.

[David Hartung]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...

> This is the one that amazes me. I thought they were testing for THC
> long before this. Might be the reason though when they brought the
> dogs through a squadron barracks at K.I. Sawyer on a weekend it almost
> wiped out the squadron. At least that was the word that spread quickly
> around base on Monday. Or maybe it was just a rumor designed to cause
> a mass flush off to get rid of the evidence in other barracks.

You should have seen the mess when Anderson had a base wide drug bust in
1977, if MMS had lost one more #3 man we would have fallen below EWO
minimums. It was not a happy time!

[Kevin Brooks]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >None of which answers the question of when it became a standard feature,
to
> >include being used in the ANG.
>
> Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
> searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
> bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
> dramatically in 1972.

What other articles? All anyone has posted is repeated references to "April
1972", and then they provide a "source" like...Robert Reich??! Or that bozo
who claims he is a "1Lt Mission Pilot, retired"?! pardon me, but neither
seem to have much going for them in terms of being a reliable source for
when widespread drug testing began in the military in general, and in
particular in the ANG.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> :
>
> > What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
> > definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out
> > you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
> > bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend
> > the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either
> > with the home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at
> > all. Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and
> > recordation of ET is also not uncommon.
> >
> Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not* equivalent:

You *are* dumber than a fencepost. For the last time, his performance of ET
is a separate issue from his denied transfer.

Another dingbat without a clue, trying to construct a conspiracy from things
he has no understanding of. Figures.

Brooks

>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
>
> "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
>
> "TAG Texas
>
> "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
> returned.
>
> "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military Service
> Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6 n (4),
> AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready
> Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an
> Air Reserve Squadron."
>
> signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
>
> BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/court.martial/index.html
>
> Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"

[Kevin Brooks]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> om:
>
> > In article >,
> > Tempest > wrote:
> >
> >> What documents disprove the Bush story?
> >>
> >> There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.
> >>
> >> Official government documents.
> >>
> >> www.awolbush.com
> >
> > Funny... anyone who knows anything about how USAF paperwork is worded
> > and used will see that he served his time, and didn't get into any
> > trouble. The site authors seem to have trouble wit hteh phrase
> > "inactive reserves" and the concept of "exigencies of service."
> >
> > The authors of that site did a lot of backflips to try and pretend
> > that he did something wrong, but it's not in the documents at that
> > site.
> >
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
>
> "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
> report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
> Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
> performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
> recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
>
> [signed]
> "William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
> "Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"
>
> Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
> this base."]
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
>
> "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
>
> "TAG Texas
>
> "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
> returned.
>
> "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
> Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
> n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
> Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
> to an Air Reserve Squadron."
>
> signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
>
> 9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
> to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
> of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
> Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
> denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.

You have provided these meaningless cites about five times now--nobody is
buying into them being the foundation of this great conspiracy theory you
are trying to construct. You have repeatedly demonstrated you have
absolutely no understanding of the military in general, or the Guard in
particular; when presented with snippets of how those organizations do
operate, you snip it away and continue merrily on with your shrill ranting.
So... begone with you, and with your tireless machinations towards the goal
of conspiracy construction. Find a fencepost that is willing to listen to
you and try to learn something from it--should be a nearly equal battle in
terms of the wit level.

*plonk*

Brooks

[Grantland]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>*plonk*
>
>Brooks

Plonk everyone, asshole. Nya nya nya I can't heeeeaaarr you! Tosser.

Grantland
>
>

[Buzzer]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 03:16:48 GMT, "David Hartung"
> wrote:

>
>"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:03:16 -0600, Alan Minyard
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>"A second previously unreleased document obtained by the newspaper, a
>> >>declassified Air Force Inspector General's report on the Washington
>> >>case, states that human reliability rules applied to all Air National
>> >>Guard units in the 1970s."
>> >>
>> >>Another lie?
>> >
>> >You really have no idea what the PRP programs are about, do you?
>>
>> I only spent about ten years under HRP for some reason at various
>> times from 1963 to 1982.
>
>Then you are aware that HRP certification was not necessary unless you were
>in a job which put you in close proximity of specific weapon types, and it
>is not known if President Bush's unit was tasked with these weapons.

Well I am aware you seem to have left out my last paragraph.

It might have been some policy thought up by a 2lt behind a desk
somewhere in a secret location to have some members of the National
Guard pre-qualified for HRP. Just in case of a national emergency
where they might come in contact with certain weapons. Even though the
base they were presently at did not have those weapons. And even
though said weapons might have been locked away and forgotten by that
time according to sources on the internet.

[Tempest]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was all
> > > definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to find out
> > > you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off the hook a
> > > bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who can't attend
> > > the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be performed either
> > > with the home unit or another unit (as in this case). Not uncommon at
> > > all. Unfortunately, in my experience, screwing up the tracking and
> > > recordation of ET is also not uncommon.
> > >
> > Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not* equivalent:
>
> You *are* dumber than a fencepost. For the last time, his performance of ET
> is a separate issue from his denied transfer.
>
> Another dingbat without a clue, trying to construct a conspiracy from things
> he has no understanding of. Figures.

Another ad homimen attack, the sure sign you don't know what you're
talking about.

You've been given cites to back up everyone's position, and yet you've
failed to provide one.

Now who are we to believe?

Hint, it's not you.

> > http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
> >
> > "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
> >
> > "TAG Texas
> >
> > "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
> > returned.
> >
> > "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military Service
> > Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6 n (4),
> > AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific Ready
> > Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment to an
> > Air Reserve Squadron."
> >
> > signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
> >
> > BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/court.martial/index.html
> >
> > Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
> . 1.4...
> > Chad Irby > wrote in
> > om:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Tempest > wrote:
> > >
> > >> What documents disprove the Bush story?
> > >>
> > >> There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.
> > >>
> > >> Official government documents.
> > >>
> > >> www.awolbush.com
> > >
> > > Funny... anyone who knows anything about how USAF paperwork is worded
> > > and used will see that he served his time, and didn't get into any
> > > trouble. The site authors seem to have trouble wit hteh phrase
> > > "inactive reserves" and the concept of "exigencies of service."
> > >
> > > The authors of that site did a lot of backflips to try and pretend
> > > that he did something wrong, but it's not in the documents at that
> > > site.
> > >
> >
> > http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
> >
> > "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
> > report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
> > Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
> > performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
> > recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
> >
> > [signed]
> > "William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
> > "Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"
> >
> > Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
> > this base."]
> >
> > http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
> >
> > "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
> >
> > "TAG Texas
> >
> > "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
> > returned.
> >
> > "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
> > Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
> > n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
> > Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
> > to an Air Reserve Squadron."
> >
> > signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
> >
> > 9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
> > to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
> > of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
> > Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
> > denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.
>
> You have provided these meaningless cites about five times now--nobody is
> buying into them being the foundation of this great conspiracy theory you
> are trying to construct. You have repeatedly demonstrated you have
> absolutely no understanding of the military in general, or the Guard in
> particular; when presented with snippets of how those organizations do
> operate, you snip it away and continue merrily on with your shrill ranting.
> So... begone with you, and with your tireless machinations towards the goal
> of conspiracy construction. Find a fencepost that is willing to listen to
> you and try to learn something from it--should be a nearly equal battle in
> terms of the wit level.
>
> *plonk*

The last act of a coward.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[BUFDRVR]

>to have some members of the National
>Guard pre-qualified for HRP.

???? If HRP was like PRP, either you're on it or you're not. I'm not sure what
an HRP "pre-qualification" would look like? What responsibilities would you
have? Would you be able to see a physician besides a USAF Flight Surgeon? How
about going to a magic show and getting hypnotized?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Republican Double Standard]

"David Hartung" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> "David Hartung" > wrote in
>> :
>
>> > My experience is 11 years in the USAF, but it seems to me that one
>> > who has not served in any branch of the military, is in no position
>> > to tell a Guardsman how the Guard works.
>> >
>> What do I win for accurately predicting your pathetic weasle?
>>
>> Are you gay? Are you a virologist? You've pontificated quite a bit on
>> these two subjects you know. Are you someone who is not gay that
>> tells gays how they feel and act? Are you someone who has not studied
>> virology (BTW, I am a microbiologist which includes virology) but
>> feels like he's in a position to tell people who have studied
>> virology how viriuses work? And let's not forget your grand theory of
>> HIV epidemiology. Are you an epidemiologist? Do you live in Florida?
>> Have you voted there? You certainly have had a lot to say about how
>> voting works in Florida over the past few years.
>>
>> You don't have to serve in the guard to be able to read a transfer
>> request denial from personel headquarters. Or are there hidden
>> messages in it that you only learn how to decifer after you've
>> served?
>
> It is obvious that you will reject anything which counters your
> preconceived opinion, but the simple fact is, one who is in the Guard

How could you possibly know? You have not offered anything that counters
my notions - preconceived or otherwise. All I know is that every actual
document I've seen clearly shows he asked for a transfer, it was denied,
but he still didn't show up at Ellington for a year. He did show up one
day at Dannelly to have his teeth examined. Other than that, there are
only generalizations about whether he was paid (which proves nothing
other than he was paid) and his discharge (which proves nothing because
the two Washington guardsmen who failed their HRP were both honorably
discharged).

> is much more qualified to speak to the operation of the Guard than one
> who has not.

This is ludicrous. It's like saying a school child is more qualified to
tell you how a school district functions than a superintendant who
didn't attend that particular school district.

> I never served. I do not pretend to know everything about
> how the Guard works, except that it was occasionally necessary for My
> Dad to miss drills, this was no problem, he would make them up later.
> The concept of equivalent training is not one which I am familiar
> with, but it does stand to reason that there would be provisions for
> Guardsmen to do such, after all, they all had civilian jobs.
>
My dad was in the Army. I suspect that if he had asked for a transfer
from Fort Bragg to another base and had had that request denied but
still failed to show up at Fort Bragg for 12 months, he would have been
court martialled. But then, his daddy wasn't a congressman.

> One more point, there has been at least one individual who served with
> George Bush in the Texas Guard, and according to this individual, Bush
> did nothing wrong. My suggestion to you fools who keep beating this
> dead horse would be to get a life.
>
This one individual you mention served with Bush in Texas from 70-71.
Why would you think his statements have any bearing on Bush's service
from 72-73?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif

"Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 TAC
recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."

[signed]
"William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
"Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"

Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush "cleared
this base."]

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif

"Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt

"TAG Texas

"1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
returned.

"2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph 30-6
n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a specific
Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for assignment
to an Air Reserve Squadron."

signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.

9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to return
to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is desertion
of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull strings (if your
Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's transfer request was
denied and he still failed to return to his post for nearly a year.




--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > What? You have been hammering the guy because you THOUGHT this was
>> > all definitely tied to his denied transfer request, and come to
>> > find out you have no earthly idea what ET is? OK, I'll let you off
>> > the hook a bit--equivalent training. Performed by a Guardsman who
>> > can't attend the normally scheduled drills with his unit; may be
>> > performed either with the home unit or another unit (as in this
>> > case). Not uncommon at all. Unfortunately, in my experience,
>> > screwing up the tracking and recordation of ET is also not
>> > uncommon.
>> >
>> Bush transfer request denial specifically said it was *not*
>> equivalent:
>
> You *are* dumber than a fencepost. For the last time, his performance
> of ET is a separate issue from his denied transfer.
>
Then produce documentation.

> Another dingbat without a clue, trying to construct a conspiracy from
> things he has no understanding of. Figures.
>
Another name-calling rightard who hasn't got a shred of evidence to
support his argument and figures that if he yells enough and calls people
enough names they will miraculously forget about actual evidence that
refutes his argument.

> Brooks
>
I will give you credit for at least not snipping the lines below. But you
still ignored them. And you chose to call me names instead of producing
the slightest shred of evidence to refute them. It's the corollary to
Godwin's law. The first party to call names loses the argument.

>>
>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
>>
>> "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
>>
>> "TAG Texas
>>
>> "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
>> returned.
>>
>> "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
>> Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph
>> 30-6 n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a
>> specific Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for
>> assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
>>
>> signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
>>
>> BUt hey - maybe you should call this guy:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/27/court.martial/index.html
>>
>> Maybe you can tell him all about "ET"
>
>
>



--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Republican Double Standard]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in
:

>
> "Republican Double Standard" > wrote in
> message . 1.4...
>> Chad Irby > wrote in
>> om:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Tempest > wrote:
>> >
>> >> What documents disprove the Bush story?
>> >>
>> >> There's a lot of documents that prove Bush went AWOL.
>> >>
>> >> Official government documents.
>> >>
>> >> www.awolbush.com
>> >
>> > Funny... anyone who knows anything about how USAF paperwork is
>> > worded and used will see that he served his time, and didn't get
>> > into any trouble. The site authors seem to have trouble wit hteh
>> > phrase "inactive reserves" and the concept of "exigencies of
>> > service."
>> >
>> > The authors of that site did a lot of backflips to try and pretend
>> > that he did something wrong, but it's not in the documents at that
>> > site.
>> >
>>
>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc9.gif
>>
>> "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of
>> report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to
>> Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been
>> performing equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187
>> TAC recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama."
>>
>> [signed]
>> "William D. Harris, Jr. Lt Col. Pilot, Flt Intcp"
>> "Jerry D. Killian, Lt. Col. Squadron Commander"
>>
>> Both signatures dated 2 May 1973 [50 weeks after the date Bush
>> "cleared this base."]
>>
>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc5.gif
>>
>> "Application for Reserve Assignment, Bush, George W, 1sr Lt
>>
>> "TAG Texas
>>
>> "1. Application for Reserve Assignment for First Lieutenant Bush is
>> returned.
>>
>> "2. A review of his Master Personel Record shows he has a Military
>> Service Obligation until 26 May 1974. Under provisions of paragraph
>> 30-6 n (4), AFM 35-3, an obligated Reservist can be assigned to a
>> specific Ready Reserve position only. Therefore, he is ineligible for
>> assignment to an Air Reserve Squadron."
>>
>> signed by The Director of Personnel Resources on 24 May 1972.
>>
>> 9 days *after* Bush "cleared" his prior posting. Bush failed to
>> return to his post in Texas for another 47 weeks after that. That is
>> desertion of duty. You cannot spin it any other way. You can pull
>> strings (if your Poppy) but you cannot change the fact that Bush's
>> transfer request was denied and he still failed to return to his post
>> for nearly a year.
>
> You have provided these meaningless cites about five times now-

Why are they "meaningless"? Because you can't refute them? Why can't you
produce cites of your own? Why don't you grow up, admit you don't know
what you're talking about and confess that you've been lying? It's the
only way you'll salvage even a shred of your long-lost dignity.

--
"We gave Hussein a chance to allow inspectors in, and he wouldn't let
them in."
- George WMD. Bush, lying on July 14, 2003.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:24:30 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Buzzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:54:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >None of which answers the question of when it became a standard
feature,
> >to
> >> >include being used in the ANG.
> >>
> >> Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
> >> searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
> >> bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
> >> dramatically in 1972.
> >
> >The early tests were easily passed by drinkers. Only non-drinkers ever
> >failed.
>
> Personal experience?<G>

The tests were taken by a large population. In my 30 years of being subject
to drug testing I have never been tested.

> It is strange nothinig is said about testing for drunks at the lab
> site. Maybe it was an easier test and done locally.

In 1972 the USAF provided kegs for the troops. Even in the late 80s there
was usually a keg at the end of a FOD walk on Edwards.

> Now that I have thought of it alcohol testing for everyone in 80 might
> be the reason a SMS decided to bail at 22 years around that time. Only
> guy I ever knew that had a beer keg in his refrigerator with a valve
> on the door. I always figured if he was straight enough to attend the
> commanders daily briefing I sure as heck wasn't going to say
> anything...
>
> "The drug panel had changed by the fall of 1981 to PCP, morphine,
> amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, and cannabinoid (THC)."
>
> This is the one that amazes me. I thought they were testing for THC
> long before this. Might be the reason though when they brought the
> dogs through a squadron barracks at K.I. Sawyer on a weekend it almost
> wiped out the squadron. At least that was the word that spread quickly
> around base on Monday. Or maybe it was just a rumor designed to cause
> a mass flush off to get rid of the evidence in other barracks.

The THC test was readily masked by alcohol. These days pot shows up for 30
days in the US DOT test requirement, while cocaine only shows for three
days. If you are a locomotive operator or a pilot and want to get high
these day US DOT has created an incintive to use the hard stuff.

[Buzzer]

On 28 Mar 2004 12:19:58 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>to have some members of the National
>>Guard pre-qualified for HRP.
>
>???? If HRP was like PRP, either you're on it or you're not. I'm not sure what
>an HRP "pre-qualification" would look like? What responsibilities would you
>have? Would you be able to see a physician besides a USAF Flight Surgeon?

HRP/PRP pre-qual would be just like you are in it.

>How about going to a magic show and getting hypnotized?

Not really sure in the 60s or early 70s. I don't remember hypnotism
coming up in the HRP/PRP program until the late 70s. Around the time
the civilian stop smoking and weight loss programs that used hypnotism
started appearing...

[Tarver Engineering]

"Republican Double Standard" > wrote in message
.4...

Climb back in your hole idiot and leave the military newsgroups.

[Buzzer]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:26:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>> >> Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
>> >> searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
>> >> bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
>> >> dramatically in 1972.
>> >
>> >The early tests were easily passed by drinkers. Only non-drinkers ever
>> >failed.
>>
>> Personal experience?<G>
>
>The tests were taken by a large population. In my 30 years of being subject
>to drug testing I have never been tested.

Not even for a job application?

>> It is strange nothinig is said about testing for drunks at the lab
>> site. Maybe it was an easier test and done locally.
>
>In 1972 the USAF provided kegs for the troops. Even in the late 80s there
>was usually a keg at the end of a FOD walk on Edwards.

USAF never provided a keg at any of the nine or so bases I was at from
63 to 82. I think it was after a couple B-52s made an around the world
flight at K.I. they brought a frig into maintenance debriefing with
beer for the returning crews. Sure as heck the enlisted debriefers
weren't allowed to sit there drinking beer with them. An EWO might
stop by with a couple cases of beer for the ECM shop after an ORI, but
it was pretty strict it was for off duty only. Even the major drinkers
like SSgt and above would wait at least 10 seconds after shift change.
Squadron or shop parties everyone chip in for a keg maybe. Really not
sure if they would buy a keg out of the coffee and donut shop money or
not. I remember AAFES started bitching about all the little squadron
coffee shop operations going on so they started a satellite operation
in the maintenance building..

Really a surprise they were still providing kegs in the late 80s.
Thought they had started the crackdown on drinking years before that.
I thought by that time membership in the clubs was falling and they
started merging the on base clubs and turning them into more of a
family atmosphere.

>The THC test was readily masked by alcohol. These days pot shows up for 30
>days in the US DOT test requirement, while cocaine only shows for three
>days. If you are a locomotive operator or a pilot and want to get high
>these day US DOT has created an incintive to use the hard stuff.

Doesn't cocaine show up in hair samples much longer than that? Maybe
have no notice haircuts?<G>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Buzzer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 07:26:54 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> Seems to prove all the other articles that can easily be found by
> >> >> searching google that give regs, dates and such aren't a bunch of
> >> >> bull. The labs were in place by 1971 and testing increased
> >> >> dramatically in 1972.
> >> >
> >> >The early tests were easily passed by drinkers. Only non-drinkers
ever
> >> >failed.
> >>
> >> Personal experience?<G>
> >
> >The tests were taken by a large population. In my 30 years of being
subject
> >to drug testing I have never been tested.
>
> Not even for a job application?

Not even when I worked as a systems engineer at Everett.

> >> It is strange nothinig is said about testing for drunks at the lab
> >> site. Maybe it was an easier test and done locally.
> >
> >In 1972 the USAF provided kegs for the troops. Even in the late 80s
there
> >was usually a keg at the end of a FOD walk on Edwards.
>
> USAF never provided a keg at any of the nine or so bases I was at from
> 63 to 82.

That is really sad for you. We had one crew chief at Edwards that had to
quit his job when he could not come to work drunk anymore. He had been one
of the best on the flightline for a decade, but he was worthless sober.

> I think it was after a couple B-52s made an around the world
> flight at K.I. they brought a frig into maintenance debriefing with
> beer for the returning crews. Sure as heck the enlisted debriefers
> weren't allowed to sit there drinking beer with them. An EWO might
> stop by with a couple cases of beer for the ECM shop after an ORI, but
> it was pretty strict it was for off duty only. Even the major drinkers
> like SSgt and above would wait at least 10 seconds after shift change.
> Squadron or shop parties everyone chip in for a keg maybe. Really not
> sure if they would buy a keg out of the coffee and donut shop money or
> not. I remember AAFES started bitching about all the little squadron
> coffee shop operations going on so they started a satellite operation
> in the maintenance building..
>
> Really a surprise they were still providing kegs in the late 80s.
> Thought they had started the crackdown on drinking years before that.
> I thought by that time membership in the clubs was falling and they
> started merging the on base clubs and turning them into more of a
> family atmosphere.

In the early 80's there were multiple barbaques with kegs every Friday at
2:00. By 1987 there was only beer for FOD walks and no more kegs in the
hangar. I believe they shut down AMPEX's wet bars around 1984.

> >The THC test was readily masked by alcohol. These days pot shows up for
30
> >days in the US DOT test requirement, while cocaine only shows for three
> >days. If you are a locomotive operator or a pilot and want to get high
> >these day US DOT has created an incintive to use the hard stuff.
>
> Doesn't cocaine show up in hair samples much longer than that? Maybe
> have no notice haircuts?<G>

As long as the hair is there.

[Buzzer]

On 28 Mar 2004 15:15:40 GMT, Republican Double Standard
> wrote:

>He did show up one
>day at Dannelly to have his teeth examined.

That was Jan. 6, 1973?

How about his shot records under polio it has a date of 73APR.
No base given though. If this date isn't in his guard pay records
maybe he is owed training time and back pay for 73APR?

At most bases I have been at the dental clinic and the hospital were
in separate buildings. You had to go to the hospital to get shots.
I could see Bush missing his physical because he got lost on base and
couldn't find the hospital, but he could find the dental clinic. Now
the shot records prove he could also find his way to the hospital!

[BUFDRVR]

>which proves nothing because
>the two Washington guardsmen who failed their HRP were both honorably
>discharged

You are a clueless SOB aren't you? Removal from PRP (modern day equivelent of
HRP) is non-punitive. You may be removed (temporary or permanent) from PRP due
to illegal activity (drugs, DUI or generally any crime), but being removed in
and of itself doesn't constitute illegal behavior. We had a guy in my missile
squadron permenantly decertified for having a tremendous credit problem. It
bordered on illegality, but he was never charged. Bottom line, he was removed
from PRP, cross trained into communications (I think?) and was never worse the
wear for it. You need to get a clue before you open your mouth, you're looking
pretty foolish.

>This is ludicrous. It's like saying a school child is more qualified to
>tell you how a school district functions than a superintendant who
>didn't attend that particular school district.

In your case, you are not nearly as knowledgeable as a school superintendant.
Keeping with your anology, I'd say you're a person who once read about school.

>My dad was in the Army. I suspect that if he had asked for a transfer
>from Fort Bragg to another base and had had that request denied but
>still failed to show up at Fort Bragg for 12 months, he would have been
>court martialled. But then, his daddy wasn't a congressman.

Your knowledge about how active duty works (although far from complicated)
seems complete, but you need to stick to that aspect since you've no idea how
the guard or reserves work. Don't feel bad. neither do I, the BUFF reserve guys
I've played golf with confuse the hell out of me. Had a guy activated after
9-11, do a stint over Afghanistan, return to CONUS and then finish his
activiation teaching ROTC at Colorado State Univ. Guard & reserve guys can do
some interesting stuff.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>HRP/PRP pre-qual would be just like you are in it.

This is extremely difficult for traditional reservists and guardsman. PRP means
you can only be seen by an Air Force Flight Surgeon or, in the case of
emergency, seen as soon as possible following care from a non USAF Flight
Surgeon. Most traditional reservist and guardsmen do not live around USAF bases
and are not seen by *any* military physians let alone USAF Flight Surgeons.
Then there is the monitoring aspect of PRP. According to the program, you are
to be monitored by your commander as well as by your peers. How is your
commander to know if you have been under any unusual stress that should
preclude you from working around nuclear weapons if he only sees you one
weekend a month? The answer is, he can't. I'm not sure how these guard units
operated in the 60's and 70's, but today very few (if any) non-active duty
personnel are PRP certified. The B-52 Reserve Squadron has no nuclear mission
simply because of the PRP issue and this includes their ART guys.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >HRP/PRP pre-qual would be just like you are in it.
>
> This is extremely difficult for traditional reservists and guardsman. PRP
means
> you can only be seen by an Air Force Flight Surgeon or, in the case of
> emergency, seen as soon as possible following care from a non USAF Flight
> Surgeon. Most traditional reservist and guardsmen do not live around USAF
bases
> and are not seen by *any* military physians let alone USAF Flight
Surgeons.
> Then there is the monitoring aspect of PRP. According to the program, you
are
> to be monitored by your commander as well as by your peers. How is your
> commander to know if you have been under any unusual stress that should
> preclude you from working around nuclear weapons if he only sees you one
> weekend a month? The answer is, he can't. I'm not sure how these guard
units
> operated in the 60's and 70's, but today very few (if any) non-active duty
> personnel are PRP certified. The B-52 Reserve Squadron has no nuclear
mission
> simply because of the PRP issue and this includes their ART guys.

There are no nuclear capable Guard/Reserve units any longer (OK, the F-16's
and F/A-18's in the reserve components still are "nuclear capable", I
imagine, but not so tasked), so your assessment that PRP no longer applies
to the Guard is probably correct; AFAIK, the last such nuclear capable (and
tasked) units would likely have been maybe some of the corps-level artillery
outfits equipped with 155mm and 8 inch guns back in the days before the
1990-92 retirement of the Army's tactical nuclear rounds. But you bring up
an interesting question, as there 8were* nuclear armed Guard units around
not all that long ago--ANG F-101/106 interceptor units armed with AIR-2
Genie, and ARNG Nike Hercules units. The PRP program had to be handled
differently for those units, I'd think; knew a lot of guys who served in the
latter, and never heard of any overly taxing PRP requirements.

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tammy]

".impervious" > wrote in message >...
> In om,
> Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>
> : In article >,
> : (Tammy) wrote:
> :
> :
> :: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
> :: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
> :: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
> :: until after he left the White House.
> ::
> :: There are three things to keep in mind.
> ::
> :: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
> :: poster child for anti-GOP views.
> :
> : He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
> : administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
> : effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
> : dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.
>

He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
not to quit.
>
> "they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
> who had the job, for the same reason.
>
> :: Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
> :: that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.
> :
> : No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
> : understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
> : during the worst terror attacks in history.
>

They didn't just get rid of him, they downgraded the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator. According to testimony by White House
witnesses (those put in front of the panel by the White House) and
public statements from Cheney, Rice, and others, the position of
anti-terrorism coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" (i.e.
high priority) position to "Deputy" (medium priority) position. Unless
you are going to claim that downgrading the priority from high to
medium is not a lowering the priority, or claim that Cheney and Rice
are lying, you have to take the position that Bush deemphasised (lower
the priority of) efforts to fight terrorism. Or you could take my
grandmother's attitude and say that the proof is in the pudding.

Or, I guess, you could be a GOP and accuse me of being a moron and a
lefty. That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
brought us 9/11.

Bush has claimed that 9/11 is an example of the "successes" of his
administration. He has also made fun of 9/11 and the search for WMD.
His failed policies have brought us unemployment, war, death, and
fiscal ruin. It is my position that anyone who supports Bush is a
traitor. You cannot be both a patriot and support the destruction of
this country.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
> ".impervious" > wrote in message
>...
> > In om,
> > Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
> >
> > : In article >,
> > : (Tammy) wrote:
> > :
> > :
> > :: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
> > :: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
> > :: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
> > :: until after he left the White House.
> > ::
> > :: There are three things to keep in mind.
> > ::
> > :: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
> > :: poster child for anti-GOP views.
> > :
> > : He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
> > : administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
> > : effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
> > : dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.
> >
>
> He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
> not to quit.

Clarke had already been fired by the State Department in 1992 for lieing.
It is not surprising that GW demoted Clarke repeatedly and then put him out
at 30 years.

[zepp]

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:52:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Tammy" > wrote in message
om...
>> ".impervious" > wrote in message
>...
>> > In om,
>> > Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
>> >
>> > : In article >,
>> > : (Tammy) wrote:
>> > :
>> > :
>> > :: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
>> > :: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
>> > :: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
>> > :: until after he left the White House.
>> > ::
>> > :: There are three things to keep in mind.
>> > ::
>> > :: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
>> > :: poster child for anti-GOP views.
>> > :
>> > : He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
>> > : administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
>> > : effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
>> > : dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.
>> >
>>
>> He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
>> not to quit.
>
>Clarke had already been fired by the State Department in 1992 for lieing.
>It is not surprising that GW demoted Clarke repeatedly and then put him out
>at 30 years.

More pure unalderated bull**** from the desperate trash right, I see.
>

*******************

"Reports that say something hasn't happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known
knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know
there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there
are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
-- Donald Rumsfeld, making things clear

To subscribe to Zepp's News http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zepps_News/join
For essays ONLY, /join
For my fiction, http://www.finestplanet.com/~zepp/

[BUFDRVR]

>knew a lot of guys who served in the
>latter, and never heard of any overly taxing PRP requirements.
>

Like I said, I'm not sure how they did it years ago, what I do know is the
challenge in maintaining PRP certified Guard or Reservists (traditional) must
now be considered too complicated...at least that's what the BUFF reserve guys
have told me....


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
>brought us 9/11.

9/11 was planned and put in motion long before Bush was innaugurated. It's a
complete joke to claim Bush "brought us 9/11". If you could put away your
partisan politics crap, you'd see both administrations (Clinton & Bush) dropped
the ball. However, I don't expect you to think about this rationally, you've
proven incapable.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Tempest]

Tammy wrote:
>
> ".impervious" > wrote in message >...
> > In om,
> > Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
> >
> > : In article >,
> > : (Tammy) wrote:
> > :
> > :
> > :: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
> > :: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
> > :: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
> > :: until after he left the White House.
> > ::
> > :: There are three things to keep in mind.
> > ::
> > :: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
> > :: poster child for anti-GOP views.
> > :
> > : He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
> > : administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
> > : effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
> > : dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.
> >
>
> He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
> not to quit.
> >
> > "they" didn't "get rid" of him, he resigned... and so did the NEXT guy
> > who had the job, for the same reason.
> >
> > :: Huh? They try to prove that Bush took terrorism seriously by stating
> > :: that Bush deemphasised efforts to fight terrorism.
> > :
> > : No, they took it seriously by getting rid of someone who wouldn't
> > : understand the size of the problem, and who was directly in charge
> > : during the worst terror attacks in history.
> >
>
> They didn't just get rid of him, they downgraded the position of
> anti-terrorism coordinator. According to testimony by White House
> witnesses (those put in front of the panel by the White House) and
> public statements from Cheney, Rice, and others, the position of
> anti-terrorism coordinator was downgraded from a "Principle" (i.e.
> high priority) position to "Deputy" (medium priority) position. Unless
> you are going to claim that downgrading the priority from high to
> medium is not a lowering the priority, or claim that Cheney and Rice
> are lying, you have to take the position that Bush deemphasised (lower
> the priority of) efforts to fight terrorism. Or you could take my
> grandmother's attitude and say that the proof is in the pudding.
>
> Or, I guess, you could be a GOP and accuse me of being a moron and a
> lefty. That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
> brought us 9/11.
>
> Bush has claimed that 9/11 is an example of the "successes" of his
> administration. He has also made fun of 9/11 and the search for WMD.
> His failed policies have brought us unemployment, war, death, and
> fiscal ruin. It is my position that anyone who supports Bush is a
> traitor. You cannot be both a patriot and support the destruction of
> this country.

Very well said, Tammy.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Tempest]

zepp wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 11:52:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tammy" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> ".impervious" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> > In om,
> >> > Chad Irby attempted to impart some wisdom, instead sputtering:
> >> >
> >> > : In article >,
> >> > : (Tammy) wrote:
> >> > :
> >> > :
> >> > :: So far there have been no outright discrepancies. The closest that
> >> > :: the GOPs could get is that as an aide to Bush, he only released
> >> > :: positive information to the press and saved the negative information
> >> > :: until after he left the White House.
> >> > ::
> >> > :: There are three things to keep in mind.
> >> > ::
> >> > :: 1. He was a Reagan appointee, and served 4 presidents. Not exactly a
> >> > :: poster child for anti-GOP views.
> >> > :
> >> > : He was a long-term bureaucrat who quit during the current
> >> > : administration after being denied the promotion he wanted (and being
> >> > : effectively demoted). The worst thing in the world to happene to a
> >> > : dedicated paper pusher. That's reason enough.
> >> >
> >>
> >> He quit in disgust. The Bush administration is on record of asking him
> >> not to quit.
> >
> >Clarke had already been fired by the State Department in 1992 for lieing.
> >It is not surprising that GW demoted Clarke repeatedly and then put him out
> >at 30 years.
>
> More pure unalderated bull**** from the desperate trash right, I see.

I guess someone should start a lies told by reTarv list.

--
"The tyranny of a prince is not so dangerous to the public welfare as
the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
- Baron de Montesquieu, 1748

[Kevin Brooks]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
> >brought us 9/11.
>
> 9/11 was planned and put in motion long before Bush was innaugurated. It's
a
> complete joke to claim Bush "brought us 9/11". If you could put away your
> partisan politics crap, you'd see both administrations (Clinton & Bush)
dropped
> the ball. However, I don't expect you to think about this rationally,
you've
> proven incapable.

Not to mention the fact that "the man who brought us 9/11" was from neither
administration, but instead is running around trying to avoid capture by US
and/or Pakistani forces...

Brooks

>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[Grantland]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote:

>
>"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
>> >That way you don't have to explain why you support the man who
>> >brought us 9/11.
>>
>> 9/11 was planned and put in motion long before Bush was innaugurated. It's
>a
>> complete joke to claim Bush "brought us 9/11". If you could put away your
>> partisan politics crap, you'd see both administrations (Clinton & Bush)
>dropped
>> the ball. However, I don't expect you to think about this rationally,
>you've
>> proven incapable.
>
>Not to mention the fact that "the man who brought us 9/11" was from neither
>administration, but instead is running around trying to avoid capture by US
>and/or Pakistani forces...
>
>Brooks

Ja, he's got all those billions from the foreward Derivatives
transactions to tide him over.. And Oswald shot one bullet, and Rghuby
vos ein patriot and the Liberty vos ein aggzident and..

Disgust at slave gullibility. "Have another cheeseburger Harv, you
fat, worthless goi"

Grantland