Bush AWOL Story - New theory comes to light

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