General Articles: Bush

Phyllis Gardner writes: "Here is some information from the Daily Mislead about Bush's military record. I have another detailed document that outlines the facts in more detail. Basically, that document detailed how Bush entered the air national guard with a score of 25, the lowest possible score for admission, jumping over several hundred people on the wait list because of his family connections. He did learn to pilot fighter planes, but never qualified for flight in Viet Nam due to lack of flying hours. He made a request mid-service to go to Arkansas for a political campaign, a request that was denied, but he nevertheless went. There are no records to show that he reported for duty during that period, either in Arkansas or Texas. When he returned to Texas, there were also gaps in attendance, and then he was inexplicably given an "honorable discharge" six months early for reasons that are sealed. This discharge was given by the same General and family friend who had initially hopscotched Bush over the hundreds on the wait list. The document noted that the training to pilot F15 (or whatever the fighter planes are) is an extremely expensive endeavor, requiring $1 million or more investment per individual, so early discharge is essentially unthinkable, particularly in a time when the Viet Nam War was creating high demand. There were speculations that substance abuse on Bush's part was involved (this was before Bush went dry) and that he was eased out, but all that remains speculation until the records are unsealed. Bush has consistently and firmly refused to unseal the records. Here is the article from the Daily Mislead:


Bush claims of released military records are false: On Meet the Press yesterday, President Bush claimed he has already released all records of his whereabouts during the Vietnam War. However, this does not appear to be the case. Bush is being scrutinized for his failure to provide evidence of his service during a year when he should have been in the National Guard. Yesterday, Bush specifically claimed that "we did [release all the records] in 2000" to prove his case. But as the Washington Post reported, "no such information has been released." Bush reiterated claims that he reported for duty, but "records have never been produced to document that Bush was there." Furthermore, during the 2000 election, Bush's campaign spokesman "acknowledged that he knows of no witnesses who can attest to Bush's attendance" between late 1972 and September 1973. When questions were asked in 2000 about the issue, "Bush refused to be interviewed on the topic." That same year, Senators Bob Kerrey (D-NE) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) - both distinguished war heroes - "called on Bush to release his full military record to resolve doubts" about his record, but they were rebuffed.

Almost three years later, those same calls continue to go unheeded. As reported by the Washington Post, Bush last week "did not release new information to clear up questions about a one-year gap in the public record of Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War." Today the Post reports that payroll records and Bush's annual "point summary" from the time should definitively prove whether Bush did show up for duty, but "neither has been released so far" by Bush. Additionally, a 2000 FOIA request for Bush's military records withheld certain documents. (http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1316953&l=17347 http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1316953&l=17348 )

While Bush falsely claimed to have released all records and now says he will cooperate with inquiries, he has simultaneously dispatched aides to attack those demanding answers. Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said "To suggest...that the military should 'answer questions' about President Bush's honorable discharge is an outrage."

RH: To ask questions is not an outrage. I have received messages from Dwight Peterson and others on the ease with which military records are lost. This does not jibe with what Miles Seeley said.

The military service of President Bush has suddenly become a hot topic. I am waiting for the dust to settle. General Sullivan writes; " I can vouch for the fact that Bush flew F-102 Delta Daggers, not F-15s, which didn't fly till after the Vietnam War. The F-102 was in Vietnam during my first tour in '65. It flew up and down the runway every morning at Danang giving the Hawk missile batteries tracking practice and never fired a shot or engaged the enemy. The F-102 was a 1950s fighter and was designed as an interceptor to engage Soviet bombers. It carried no air to ground ordnance, so was useless for Vietnam missions. The North Vietnamese fighters never flew to South Vietnam and rarely strayed more than a 100 to 150 miles from their bases around Hanoi as they were very short ranged. Going back on my second tour in '68-'69, the F-102s were long gone and, as with most fighter aircraft that are no longer "front line", were given to the Air National Guard and the Reserves. After graduation from Flight School you are assigned an aircraft to fly based on the needs of the service and your class standing in Flight School. Bush must have been in the upper third in Flight School or he would have ended up in transports or helos as those communities have two pilots in every aircraft, and, once the fighter slots are filled, everybody else goes to transports or helos.

When Bush was in a flight status, i believe only while in the Texas Air National Guard, he'd have gone to Vietnam if his unit was called up, but with F-102s, no chance. I believe the Alabama Air Guard was a non flying, staff tour and his records could have been kept there but he conducted his drills somewhere in close proximity to his grad school. This is done all the time as new pilots out of flight school fill up the Air Guard units to get the needed flight experience and the more senior pilots are moved to non flying, staff jobs or they request to go to a non flying tour for personal reasons like grad school, which the services encourage. I don't know what the active duty requirement was for Air Guard pilots when they completed Flight School, but it was probably 3 to 4 years during those years. Today, in the Marine Corps, it's an 8 years commitment after Flight School and they're thinking of going to 10 years. I now costs around $2 million to send a Naval Aviator through the jet strike fighter syllabus, including learning how to land on an aircraft carrier. I think it only hurts the Kerry effort to be trying to dig up something on Bush this petty, irrelevant and meaningless . All these questions were out there four years ago. He served and he served honorably. Kerry is going to have the real problems with a post 9/11 electorate that's fighting a war on terrorism by trying to minimize the aid and comfort he gave to the North Vietnamese through his anti war stance after he had served so valiantly in Vietnam".

Phyllis Gardner calls our attention to this: http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/remindus.swf
Daryl DeBell reports on http://www.kaicurry.com/gwbush/remindus.swf
ªI heard the voice of Bush repeating his charges in re' Iraq, many times, and claiming documentation, followed by the Star Spangled Banner and considerable artillery and gun fire and repeated statements "Bring em on". This is just a further example of Bush's puffing out his chest, talking tough and being provocative. Unfortunately this appeals to much of middle America, while a thrice wounded man, awarded the Silver Star for bravery (or possible gallantry in action) can be smeared and practically accused of treason because he saw first-hand the costs of war and opposed it, probably on emotional grounds. I do not blame Bush for using family friends to get into the National Guard ahead of 500 other applicants, (with guaranteed US duty) or be given an honorable discharge in spite of having been absent from duty for a long period (again something his CO could overlook). Why should anyone be blamed for not wanting to risk his life? I do however blame him for the deepest hypocrisy, and cannot respect him".

RH: In this battle of charges and counter charges, I want a careful presentation of the facts, and this film did not provide them.