![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
I plan to vote against Bush and I'd like to know the truth, assuming these pay records contain it.
Bush saying "they can't prove I didn't show up" isn't as convincing as solid evidence that he did, which so far has not been forthcoming.
is entiltled to the medal?? Josh I wasn't talking about you but other Bush bashers in general! Do I need to name names?? hehehe
But like KP said if your not there ypu don't get paid!
My DIL is in the Navy Reserves and if she doesn't go or reschedule to make it up there is no pay! So that is one proof for Bush right there.
Glenda
From what I've heard about Kerry's military service, yes, he was entitled to the medals he received. Even his Republican opponents concede that.
you are insisting on guilty until innocense is proven Josh.
The accuser has the obligation of proof and Bush and the records have shown the accusation false.
responsibilities.
He had to attend meetings and be recorded as present to receive service credit. He received enough credits to ask for and receive an early release to attend an educational institution.
In the Active Services one is "on duty" 24/7 and if one "misses" a formation of failst to show up for duty one is AWOL or has Missed Movement. The Guard/Reserves doesn't work that way.
In the Guard/Reserves one has to attend a certain number of meetings to receive service credit and pay. One can skip meetings (it is nice to let others know you won't be there but not mandatory except for certain summer camps) as long as they later make them up. The only time missed meetings becomes a factor is when the term of service expires if one doesn't have enough credits.
Bush had more than enough service credits to obtain the early release and honorable discharge and ALL available records clearly support that plain and simple fact.
One person says, 'I didn't see him', another says 'I did'. On what basis do you choose? On what basis do you throw out records? On the basis of your own bias which, apparently, is not shaken by the evidence.
Well, even if is opposite our policy regarding criminal convictions, even civil cases, you and I both know it's pretty standard in the court of public opinion that a politician accused is guilty till proven innocent.
In fact, most of any fame accused are generally regarded as guilty by a lot of the public until proven otherwise, and even then many figure they just got off.
Shrug, not ideal, but normal, and even more so in national elections.
roger
Hi, Ed.
First of all, there's a 7-month gap between meetings even in the pay records. And there are notations on some of them that his superiors couldn't rate his performance because they were unable to observe him. Is it possible a friend signed in for him?
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Guess what, Dave, I've got one of those notations in my records. To rate someone on an OER, the rating official must have directly observed that indvidual for a minimum time. One of my pilots got transfered a couple of months after I hit that crew, and he didn't observe me long enough to rate me.
he would have been paid. Right? If there is a 7 month period of no meetings, then they were approved absences and were made up. Why? He was credited with enough attendance points, are there are no AWOL reports in the system.
Where are you seeing anything about notations? I haven't seen that in news reports.
While anything is possible it is highly unlikely as signatures are checked against the ID card.
Regarding the unrated periods, that is nothing to get alarmed about as it is pretty common. In order to rate someone or to be rated by someone the two have to have been in a close working relationship for a certain period of time (varies by service). Like J, I have several unrated periods in my service record ranging from one month to one that is an 8 month unrated period due to a clerical error in assigning me a rater. This was when I was initially assigned in charge of the Ft. Knox Marksmanship Detachment because at the same time I was assigned responsibility for the unit passed from BMAC to G3 and the G3 "assumed" I would be rated by the CG. In reality the G3 CSM was the actual responsible rater and although I interfaced with him on a weekly basis he could not rate me until he had been assigned as a rater which did not happen until shortly before my annual rating was due. It certainly doesn't indicate in any way that one is AWOL simply because of non-rated time.
I am surprised you don't understand this or have a better concept of it because my understanding is that it works much the same in Academia.
The concept to grasp is that he did have enough credits to request the early release for further studies AND his rapid build up of credits towards the latter part of his service indicates that someone in the MILPO reviewed his record to let him know how many meetings he had to make up. (MILPO being the Military Personnel Office.)
'The records show Bush received 56 points for service, six more than required, in each of the two years in question -- May 1972 through May 1974, and that he was paid for service on specific dates. There were no pay records for the third quarter of 1972, and he earned no service points for that period.'
He was there on specific dates, and there were sufficient dates to meet his service requirement. If the records don't show Alabama, that doesn't mean he was remiss in his duty. It could just mean that the records are not complete. It was already stated that they didn't know these records existed. Why? As I recall, there was a fire in a records storage location in St. Louis which destroyed many of these. In addition, later in the 70s, as I recall, my records were sent to me and I was told that I should retain them. I have no clue where those records are, and something similar may have happened to Bush.
It's certainly possible, and in that case we may never have concrete proof that he was there. Guess you'll just have to take his word for it.
...don't you find it just an eensy bit odd that NOBODY who served in Alabama during the period he was assigned there can recall ever seeing him there? Surely he must have spoken to SOMEONE who would remember him. He is the President of the United States after all.
It does indeed say two people claim to remember him. Perhaps those two people ought to come forward since nobody seems to know about them.
I got a chuckle out of this paragraph (emphasis mine):
Despite their anger at Sen. Kerry for his actions as an ally of Jane Fonda after the war, some Vietnam veterans agree. One, a Marine who received the Navy Cross for heroism in Vietnam but who opposed the war in Iraq put it this way in an e-mail to me. "The real question is who is more dangerous for the well-being of the country, Kerry or the people around Bush ? none of whom, as you will recall, came out from under the bed while we were getting shot at.... I think you're going to see a lot of people who would never have supported Kerry under other circumstances deciding to do so in the coming months."
What was it Cheney said? Oh yeah, that he had "other priorities."
However I will give Bush credit where it is due:
The implication that President Bush lacked courage because he joined the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War misses an important point. Although he did not see combat, piloting a high-performance aircraft is an inherently dangerous undertaking, from start to finish. Flying a jet fighter when someone is not shooting at you is only marginally less dangerous than when someone is shooting at you. It is not for the faint of heart.
That it ain't. You couldn't get me into one of those planes for anything, even as a passenger, never mind flying one.
then who does.
'the Associated Press quoted two friends who worked with Bush in the Blount campaign as saying they recall him attending Air National Guard drills in Alabama
it sounds like you aren't convinced by pay records, or the testimony of two people who knew Bush in Alabama. I might almost think that you don't want to believe Bush no matter what the facts are.
The reporters were trying desparately to keep the issue alive.
Bottom line (and I have said this since 2000)
George W. Bush got an honorable discharge. That is good enough for me. (I have 2 of them)
If he got an honorable discharge, then he fulfilled his complete obligation and had no disciplinary items in his record.
I have no doubt that he missed some meetings in 72. However, he completed enough duty time that he had no problem getting his early release. If there had been time to make up, it would have had to have been made up before the separation was processed.
For more:
http://nationalreview.com/owens/owens200402090833.asp
George Magazine reported in October of 2000: 'It's time to set the record straight.... Bush may have received favorable treatment to get into the Guard, served irregularly after the spring of 1972 and got an expedited discharge, but he did accumulate the days of service required of him for his ultimate honorable discharge.'
Bo
....so I can only go by what I read for now.
The long-standing allegation is that he got that honorable discharge because he had connections (his father), not on the merits.
From what I can see, the release of the pay records doesn't put this to bed.
Does age make an allegation more credible?
It could only come from someone who has no knowledge of the military and a large political axe to grind.
By and large, this entire kerfluffle is based on propounding to the public incidents with the worst possible connotation laid on them and hoping that those who have no military knowledge will beleive the worst.
Yes, getting a guard slot in a hurry could be done with political connections. And they were probably exercised for young George. But no amount of political pull can circumvent the discharge regulations. The requirements for an honorable discharge are firm. The recipient must meet all of them or the best that can be done is a General Discharge. There are several levels of General Discharge: Under honorable conditions, For the good of the service, Medical, etc. Below that are Bad Conduct Discharge and Dishonorable Discharges.
It is possible that extreme political pressure can change the level of a General, but the Honorable requirements must always be met.
The release of pay records was what was requested, so the President complied. They do show EXACTLY the amount of time he put in and in general the times of that service. Also released were the point records showing how the points required for the honorable discharge were computed.
The reason this will not die is as I said before. Partisan political games based on innuendo.
Bo
is have a commercial featuring on the one hand President Bush explaining how he was released from the National Guard nine months early "because I was going to attend Harvard Business School." On the other hand they should have the woman who was originally charged with being AWOL when a Colorado judge threatened to take her child away if she returned to Iraq after a brief R&R visit (Woman initially declared AWOL won't have to return to Iraq; the army eventually did the right thing, but only because of the adverse publicity from their initial threat to try her for desertion). The caption: "Guess which one had a Congressman for a Daddy?"
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
is have a commercial showing Kerry cavorting with Jane Fonda and throwing away his 'medals'. Maybe, they could add some scenes of trooper bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu under the watch of 'I changed my mind and went to Oxford' Clinton.